But despite all of that, or perhaps because of it, here’s the big picture of what intelligence has done for us:



And it's done that with very few caring about that end.

Intelligence hasn't done that. Intelligence can barely account for 25% of student achievement.

K My initial point was that digital computers, by their very definition, operate, at the most basic level using purely Boolean logic. Only ones and zeroes. Incomplete data makes no sense on any level. Outputs depend on inputs and outputs are either defined or termed illegal or invalid.

The difference between data and noise or data and a square wave with a 50 percent duty cycle is that data contains information us humans can decode.

The "Boolean logic" is not how ai works. That's like reducing human thinking to mere chemical reactions. It is a huge misnomer.

Stop saying what I was going to say before I get around to saying it.

It is kind of like no one but us have ever heard of entropy.

Also, your number is too high

Understanding has nothing to do with awareness. A baby is aware. An adult is aware. They are aware of different things, but that doesn't increase whether they are aware or not. You are, again (and I realize that I am just repeating myself) confusing knowing **** with consciousness. A mouse is more conscious than your computer even though it has absolutely no ****ing way of learning how to do matrix calculus.

Consciousness has to do with how things feel, and absolutely ****ing nothing ****ing else other than having an experience of how something ****ing feels.

Again, higher level consciousness means a very specific thing, and it is not related at all to what you think it means.

Yeah dad i am the naive here.

Aware about a lot of things is very different than just aware. Of course out of the DNA factory we are aware of some basic things (without even having a name for them) but without civilization and interactions that awareness is crappy limited to trivially not even recognized as such aside from instinctive reactions to stimuli.

Unless somehow you think that the baby is aware it is hungry and it is consciously crying to get fed on day one because it recognizes that this is the game to play and not just a discomfort feeling that is fuzzy. It will of course learn the basic rules of the game in the first few days to get fed nicely but it still wont understand a bit about what is happening until a little later. So yes its awareness is emergent and evolving.

Give me a break with this eternal attitude of misunderstanding of my core positions here in just about everything.


I never disputed that consciousness at some basic level is starting with birth and even before. I never claimed a baby has no consciousness. It definitely doesnt have self consciousness though and it is not aware about almost everything of that world.

So yes our f*cking thoughts emerge later and not at day 1 damn it. WTF am i talking about here all this time but the kind of awareness that relates to thinking and recognition of the game played and the role of self in it?

At any given moment in time you can only be conciously aware of a single thought. In the next moment, another thought, and so on, consecutively.

An adult may have more thoughts to choose from than a baby and the adult may even move from thought to thought quicker than a baby. This is not the same as an adult being able to be aware of two thoughts simultaneously. This is what you're suggesting Masque, at least as it seems to me.

Concious attention is directed at one thing or thought at a time. You may be referring to subconcious attention. An adult cannot be more conciously aware than a baby, since neither can be conciously aware of multiple thoughts simultaneously.

A thought about a complicated topic is a millions of thoughts together creating a new emergent idea. A baby has no access to such complexity yet. This is why it is emergent. Somewhere along the line the miracle of critical mass happens.

One thought = millions of thoughts?

Seriously man?

A series of thoughts about a complicated concept is a series of thoughts. Not one thought.

Yes when you make a connection for the first time with a complicated process you have used at the same times all the thoughts that converged to get you there. It doesnt work serially, sometimes its many things together that happen and the thought itself requires millions of previous connections.

When someone says triple pendulum i am thinking all kinds of chaotic nonlinear Euler Lagrange equations at the same time i am hearing the words and all their chaotic glory and near lifelike behavior.

So double or triple pendumum forms a lot more than 1 thought because i have higher awareness by having lived long enough to know more than a baby. A baby that hears double pendulum doesnt even know what double is. So it has limited awareness.


To see an example of emerging behavior see this video and tell me the machine isnt suddenly behaving as if it has a life of its own.




One pendulum gives you something boring quickly. Now tell me how boring is the above or the one below!




Keep rising up the complexity ladder and eventually i will make believers of all here regarding what the universe is all about and why machines getting there and higher is inevitable;

Now you're having a conversation with yourself. I see.

Think quantum machines. Doing many things simultaneously. Or kind of versions of the same thing.

The machines are gonna get high!? Better drug test them for their own good or else their high thoughts may lead them to avoiding alcohol.

I never said anything about how AI works. I spoke about how machines work.
I spoke briefly about computers and how their hardware works. You are speaking of algorithms, and software and of higher levels of abstraction, but don't say I can't reduce it to Boolean logic, because I can and I will, if you like.

I'll even convert this message from ASCII to binary and explain how Boolean logic is in operation by you reading it, if you like, including but not limited to, its creation, transmission and your receiving and decoding of this digital data.

Higher level languages are reduced to assembly and futher reduced to machine code, which ever way you slice it. And that involves the greatest AI algorithms that were ever written.

You missed my point entirely. This level of reductionism would lead to us describing the human brain as a mere collection of molecules making the conversation about what's intelligent pointless. But, we don't do that, because it makes sense to talk about things like neurons. AI has a parallel to that, the perceptron, which can be thought-of as a mathematical neuron if you like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptron

These perceptrons are layered and fire into each other simulating a "neural net". If you're going to reduce things to components, it would make more sense to reduce modern AI into these neural nets, just as if you'd describe human intelligence, you'd describe the components of the brain, namely the neuron.

When all you do is reduce things to parts for the sake of reducing things to parts, there's nothing about how the parts interact or the way things work.

No. I didn't miss any point. Neural nets and AI algorithms aren't too difficult to understand.

That's the easy question here, and thus not what's interesting or why I posted the point I made.

Want to know what artificial intelligence is all about then click on: What is artificial intelligence

Is it me pretending to know what I'm talking about?

Or is that superficial intelligence?
I always get them confused.

GPT-3

Trying to keep up with the humanoid robots



Edit: watch that bird-like in the end!