28

To answer this question, first we need to know why developing conscious AI is hard. The main reason is that there is no mathematically or otherwise rigorous definition of consciousness. Sure you have an idea of consciousness as you experience it and we can talk about philosophical zombies but it isn’t a tangible concept that can be broken down and worked ...


14

I'm going to assume that by free will, you mean something like the philosophical concept of libertarian free will, which is defended by philosophers like Robert Kane. In Libertarian Free Will, individuals have some capability to make choices about their actions. The classic way to argue this is by assuming some kind of spirit-stuff (e.g. a soul) that exists ...


14

This is one of the most important issues in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. The most famous philosophical argument that attempts to address this issue is the Chinese Room argument published by the philosopher John Searle in 1980. The argument is quite simple. Suppose that you are inside a room and you need to communicate (in a written form) ...


11

No-one knows. Why: because it's not possible to formally determine even whether your fellow human beings are actually conscious (they may instead be what is philosophically termed a 'Zombie'). No test known to modern physics suffices to decide. Hence it's possible that you are the only sentient being, and everyone else is a robot. Consequently, we cannot ...


9

The article Children Beating Up Robot Inspires New Escape Maneuver System is based on two research papers about an experiment in a Japanese mall that led to unsupervised children attacking robots. The research paper you're interested in is Escaping from Children’s Abuse of Social Robots. In that research paper, researchers were able to program the robots to ...


7

What is consciousness? There are some real challenges in setting up consciousness as a goal, because we don't have that much scientific understanding yet of how the brain does it or what balance there needs to be between long-term memory, short-term memory, the implicit work of interpretation, the contrasting conscious modes of automatic processing and ...


7

I suggest you look at all the ways we have tried to stop people from abusing OTHER PEOPLE. There is no ethical grey area here - everyone is clear that this is wrong. And yet people are murdered, raped, and assaulted in their millions every day. When we solve this problem with regard to human victims, the resulting solution will most likely work just fine ...


5

I think this is one of the best AGI related questions I've see in this forum. I will skip all thematic about "what is an AGI", "simulation game", ... These topics have been discussed during decades and nowadays they are, in my opinion, a dead end. Thus, I can only answer with my personal experience: It is a basic theorem in computing that any number of ...


5

It may be helpful to think of consciousness, like intelligence, as a spectrum. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, under the section "Creature Consciousness" (2.1) defines sentience as: Sentience. It may be conscious in the generic sense of simply being a sentient creature, one capable of sensing and responding to its world (Armstrong 1981). ...


5

This is a great question, elements of which I have also been pondering on, though we are very far from being able to actually wrestle with it algorithmically. This question raises all kinds of metaphysical questions (Kant himself showed that pure reason is not sufficient for all questions, but I'm going to avoid that rabbit hole and focus on the mechanics ...


5

Do genetic algorithm and neural networks really think? Genetic algorithms and neural networks are vastly different concepts. Both of them do not think. I'm aware of those AI programmes which can play games and neural networks which can identify pictures. But are they really thinking Depends on how you define "thinking", but I say "no". Do they think ...


5

I recently came across a neat definition of understanding in Roger Schank's Dynamic Memory: Basically, you store everything you experience in your memory, but you need to index it in order to be able to use it for processing. Obviously, all experiences are slightly different, eg going to a restaurant is broadly the same, but the details vary. So you need to ...


4

Yes, it applies. If a statement cannot be derived in a finite number of steps, then it doesn't matter if the person trying to prove it is a human or a computer. The mathematician has one advantage over a standard theorem proving algorithm: the mathematician can "step out of the system" (as Douglas Hofstadter called in Gödel, Escher, Bach), and start ...


4

No. The experience of seeing is by definition non-causal. Anything non-causal cannot be a requirement of a physical process; a qualia cannot afford a robot the ability to do something it otherwise could not. Maybe. Although a qualia is not required for a given AI task, that is not to say that any sufficiently advanced AI does not entail qualia. It could ...


4

I think we still have a long way to go before any progress is made on artificial consciousness. However, researchers are taking inspiration from traits of human consciousness. One relevant paper is Machine Theory of Mind by DeepMind. They show that their model can (at least to some extent) represent the desires, beliefs, and intentions of agents that it ...


3

AI is "deterministic" in the sense that it follows exactly the algorithm. "Deterministic" means different things to a data scientist/programmer, but let's not go into details here. There is no "freewill" in AI, it's all about mathematics and algorithms. Don't watch too many scientific movies!


3

There are two main subjects you need to look at to understand the problem: The Turing Test The Turing test, developed by Alan Turing in 1950, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. wiki See also: Turing Test (Stanford Philosophical Dictionary) There is a linguistic ...


3

Current limitations in our knowledge mean that the question is not directly answerable: There is no scientific consensus on what consciousness is. Therefore any device designed to "be conscious" is necessarily going to be built on the premise of unsupported, maybe fringe, theory. There is no robust measure of consciousness. If any AI system was built in ...


3

I think the most important thing is that it has to have time simulated in some way. Think self aware chatbot. Then to be "self aware" the environment could be data that is fed in through time that can be distinguished as being "self" and "other". By that I suppose I mean "self" is the part it influences directly and "other" is the part that is influenced ...


3

Although I’m not sure how an act of freewill could even be described (let alone replicated), Well, one popular definition goes like this: [Free will is] the freedom to act according to one's motives without arbitrary hindrance from other individuals or institutions Source - Wikipedia entry on Compatibilism Note that this definition is perfectly ...


3

TL;DR Ignore the hype, current systems (in 2018) are very far removed from human-like "thinking", despite interesting and useful results. State-of-the-art for "thinking and behaving like a creature in general" has not reached the sophistication level of insects, even though we have example narrow AIs that can beat the world's best at intellectual games. ...


3

The question in this video is Are you real? What does this question really mean? Is the guy asking whether the apparent female (I don't know if she is a cyborg or not because I did not yet watch the TV series) is a human? So, is "real" a synonym for "human"? If that's the case, then the first implication (in the form of a question) of ...


2

Theoretically, there shouldn't be a problem copying either of the artificial brains in any state. Difficulty in measuring a state doesn't seem to really be a problem until you get down to the quantum level, where the means of measurement affect the state. The configuration of the artificial brains, including pathway structures and states, should be ...


2

As far as the definition you've provided: actually experiencing sensory input as opposed to just putting a bunch of data through an inanimate machine. Both computers and humans experience sensory input. You could hook a computer up to a human eyeball and have it run the same filtering routines that the human brain does (the removal of bluriness while you ...


2

Let's use a simple test based on common sense: how often do you see a human being solve problems requiring the use of reason when they're unconscious? Yes, you can find instances of geniuses like Ramanujan solving complex problem during or after a dream state, but those involve partial consciousness. You don't see guys like Einstein coming up with the theory ...


2

After he lays out his argument, he deals with some counterarguments. The following looks like the weakest one to me: We can use the same analogy also against those who, finding a formula their first machine cannot produce as being true, concede that that machine is indeed inadequate, but thereupon seek to construct a second, more adequate, machine, in ...


2

General AI can absolutely exist in a 2D world, just that a generalized AI (defined here as "consistent strength across a set of problems") in this context would still be quite distinct from an Artificial General Intelligence, defined as "an algorithm that can perform any intellectual task that a human can." Even there, the definition of AGI is fuzzy, ...


2

In addition to Jaden's excellent answer "no one is trying to actually make a “conscious” AI because we don’t know what that word means yet" I'd like to add that the word "yet" there is highly optimistic. It's highly problematic and likely impossible to distinguish between a conscious being and a being that behaves exactly as if it was conscious. ...


2

By the cognitive science / psychology literature, we don't have a theory of consciousness, or a measure of sentience. By its very nature, "things" like those can only be understood with respect to ones own subjective experience (as in you can only understand consciousness by comparing it to your own conscious experience). So no, even if we have a device ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible