I think it would have 0 implications (to you).

What method would you use to determine this AI had free will? You don't even believe apes have the same free will that you do. Hell, you can't even say I have the same free will that you do.

I know I'm late to the party, but you haven't quite shown that humans have free will by your definition (not that you've necessarily been asked yet, but still, could you do it now?). You only know the computer is random because you can read the code. But from the outside, there's no evidence that the computer has less free will than the person who programmed it.

bout to go all in repeatedly with my five spot. jib, will ship it back it i double.

rigged imo

Poker Stars $0.05/$0.10 No Limit Hold'em - 5 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

Hero (BB): $5.00
UTG: $19.95
CO: $10.55
BTN: $11.00
SB: $5.00

Pre Flop: ($0.15) Hero is BB with J 8
UTG raises to $0.40, CO raises to $1.80, 2 folds, Hero raises to $5 all in, 1 fold, CO calls $3.20

Flop: ($10.45) 7 A 3 (2 players - 1 is all in)

Turn: ($10.45) 3 (2 players - 1 is all in)

River: ($10.45) 4 (2 players - 1 is all in)

Final Pot: $10.45
Hero shows J 8 (a pair of Threes)
CO shows Q Q (two pair, Queens and Threes)
CO wins $9.95
(Rake: $0.50)

You just didn't have enough faith.

lol, that sucks. And you actually got a pretty good hand to shove with considering that it was random.

oh well, easy come, easy go.

So jib, can you give us an example of what it would take for AI to have free will, iyo? It seems if whats been described doesnt fit the bill then nothing will.

to expand a bit...currently we have no way proving if we do or do not have the free will you claim we do. once a decision has been made, whether by us or a machine, we have no means of determining if, in fact, a different choice could have been made. do you agree? its in your best interest in keeping your view together to assume no machine could have free will like we do, so even if a machine has the appearance of free will, you will reject it as a preset range of options to choose from given to it by its creator. which, in itself isnt outlandish at all. But.... why, then, do you assume the opposite for us? forgive my wording on sum of this if you feel it misrepresents your view. feel free to correct me or ask for clarification if needed.

If my post itt are really illogical why don't you point out the errors in them? Quote something I said in this thread and reply to it saying, "this is illogical because....." then make a case.

I find what you wrote laughable because instead of doing the above, you just bash belief in the Bible and call that good. I think I mentioned one thing that has to do with the bible and it wasn't an argument I was presenting. It was a refutation to an argument an atheist made . Somebody who claims to be as smart and educated as you can certainly do better.

expanding further: say i see a car coming right at me and i think its goin to hit me. i have several options to choose from to avoid the car. i can run away, roll away, skip away, crawl away, etc. i cannot, however, fly away. i have a set range of options to chose from. would you agree? if god created us, then he gave me these options. how is that any different compared with the chess computer? i weigh my options based on past experiences, and i make a calculated decision to do what i feel is best for the current situation at hand.

It would take a mechanism that was intentional (non-random) and could choose otherwise. I don't know how you would go about making this, but that does not mean that it cannot be done.

How would you recognize it?

EDIT: just want to make sure that your belief can actually be falsified and you aren't setting yourself up to be not even wrong.

The concept of free will has never really seemed coherent to me. Is intentional behaviour uncaused if free will is true? Or rather, is what initially causes our actions (muscles, etc) caused by an exercise of our free will but that exercise of free will itself is uncaused?

It is illogical because no atheist thinks that life cannot be intelligently designed. I think that it is in principle possible to create a human from just the correct elements, or create the elements themselves and then create the human given enough energy. I do not think that this is actually how humans got here for tons of reasons and seemingly independent pieces of evidence.


You don't really have any right to be offended since your actual views arr not really any better than my joke post.

I agree with the bolded. I cannot prove that in another possible world you could have chosen differently. I never said that I could prove that.

As far as it being in my "best interest", I do disagree. I don't need my belief. My belief is a product evidence presented to me. The fact that you cannot provide a valid scenario of a computer holding free will is not my fault. I have said it is possible but that it has not been done. I have had the same definition the entire time for free will, which I have felt is clear.

not concerned with how to make it, as our house said, how would you identify us? could you please comment a bit on my car post itt? wondering how you look at the chess computer and us (set range of options) differently.

There are chess engines out there that will adjust it's own game to how you play in real time! It's to provide the player a tough but not getting-your-ass-kicked game called "friend" mode. The software gauges your talent and adjusts it's own abilities based on what it perceives your talent to be.... in real time!

As stated before, Deep Blue and probably even more recent programs will take in all games played with player X. The program just needs to know that it is playing player x and it will look into past games played and grant past situations some weight and consideration when making a move.

Yes, I would agree.

The difference is that given the same set of variables you have the ability to choose otherwise. In the set of possible worlds you could choose to crawl, you could chose to walk, etc. The computer on the other hand could not. Given the exact same variables the computer must choose the option that it chose and it incapable of choosing differently (apart from a random decision)

What you are describing is just a very sophisticated algorithm. The issue is not complexity, you seem to be confusing it with that.

The question is whether or not a computer has the ability given the exact same variables to choose otherwise.

You, as a human, do not operate on sophisticated algorithms?

Yes it does... please see all other posts I made about it. What are you not seeing?

Not deterministically, no.

I am not seeing where you have pointed to an example of how the computer could have done otherwise. You just keep talking about how it takes a bunch of things into consideration.

computers have a creator that gave them a set choice of options to choose from.

humans have a creator that gave them a set choice of options to choose from.

the fact that you can label the computers set of choices an "algorithm" doesn't change this basic concept.

i'll add that i think we're at an impasse, because you are just going to say that the computer couldn't have chosen any different, and we could have. how you arrive it this conclusion is beyond me though.

Running from the point where a large piano is about to land from 2 stories high is not a complicated set of algorithms based on a few goals?

It will indeed consider numerous moves but not always make the same exact move given the same exact scenario.

I've provided you reasons why the computer would not always make the "Knight to Queen 9" move... "given the exact same scenario." Here they are again:

Reasons why:

1. Chess program has previous matches with player A, B, C. The program takes into account each opponents style or tendency and may opt to make a different move for each opponent. Say player A has a better endgame then player B. That could influence the move the computer would make in the same exact scenario when playing player A and B.
2. Chess program can assess your own abilities and adjust its own ability to make the game more challenging for its opponent. The goal of winning the game is given less weight than that of having a more simplistic game. The chess program can create this scenario for the player. Again, an exact scenario could come up and the computer would not always make the same move because its own moves are based on its opponents abilities.
3. Quiescence search as defined before. This itself can and will lead to different moves though it is less common.

I will repost your quote that has lead to all that is stated above:

Jib's algorithms don't have an option which allows him to admit that he's wrong.