OlveraMerrick430

出典: くみこみックス

Scientific folks have always enjoyed the very thought of artificial intelligence--of a piece of equipment being able to think and act on its own. It's really a popular theme for novels and films too. And who folks wouldn't like to own an individual robot to anticipate our needs and take care of them? I even remember a production from your local planetarium about computers worldwide that networked and synergized their data. At the conclusion of the assembly this networked laptop or computer commanded, "Let there be light!" plus a new universe was created.

Artificial intelligence has as many definitions as people defining it. For a few it is simply a matter of a machine being able to analyze data then take a suitable action. But I think for most, it indicates that the machine can certainly think, can learn, can make, will come track of original ideas--that it could become a person and stay indistinguishable from a human being in the actions and thoughts.

virtual synthesis - If artificial intelligence is only a machine or perhaps a system acting on its own, then the lawn sprinkler system which has a moisture meter to know whether it has rained or not will be artificial intelligence. When it has rained, the sprinklers will not seriously before the sensor gets dry. But this system may be designed to act this way, and the only reason it won't act like that is when it malfunctions. By no means is the fact that intelligent. The device is not thinking in any way. It is doing what it may be developed to do and contains no other choice.

I maintain the very popular concept of artificial intelligence--that a piece of equipment or system can think, decide, and create--is impossible.

First, a concept of intelligence which i think many people would trust: Intelligence may be the capability to learn; to have experiences that teach what works and what doesn't. Then to take that learning and do something worthwhile by using it.

volumetric visualization - To truly learn something, a piece of equipment would need emotions. Individuals need emotions to find out too, and also since we've them there isn't any end as to the we are able to learn or what we should can perform with our knowledge. Higher animals likewise have emotions and so are in a position to learn. The less intelligent an organism is, the greater instinctual it really is, meaning it can things since it doesn't have a choice--because it is less intelligent. Lower organisms like bacteria do not have emotions in any way, so far as we know, and they act a lot more like machines which have been programmed than like living organisms. They don't really work as if they have an option. They only do what their genetic programming means they are do.

Machines do not have emotions and are incapable of getting them to. A person can program a machine to act as if it's got emotions, but obviously it doesn't genuinely have them. A piece of equipment could be developed to search the net, view tv and listen to radio broadcasting, read magazines and books, and listen to people speak. It can amass huge amounts of data and it can analyze those data and act. But only because it continues to be developed to act. It has a lot of data nevertheless it doesn't worry about them. It couldn't care less if all those data sat on its hard disk drive and zilch ever became of them. It couldn't care less if someone came along and erased those data. It wouldn't shame a week because all that work had come to naught. So any machine or system that have to be designed to act as it doesn't worry about acting otherwise, even thought it could be and do amazing things, isn't any more intelligent when compared to a lawn watering having a moisture meter to indicate whether or not the sprinklers should run or otherwise. And even though all the "knowledge" on the planet can be stored on computers, and computers may be networked together to maximize their power, which will never produce a God who is able to develop a new universe.

We people learn as a result of emotions. We want things. We need things. Individuals have just one instinct: self-preservation. We learn things to keep ourselves alive and comfortable. We quite often learn because of embarrassment or disappointment. We obtain pumped up about things and wish to know everything on them. We have spoken with 5-year-old children who knew much more about dinosaurs than I am going to ever know or want to know.

I saw a Nova program on PBS about separating conjoined twins. Among the twins stood a tracheotomy, and so didn't have voice. But she quickly learned to pull her sister's hair so that her sister did the crying both for of them. She also, later, learned to pay her throat with her hand in order that breath passed through her vocal cords. Each time she vocalized this way she smiled, pleased about her ability to learn something and act intelligently.

virtual synthesis - Individuals are authentically intelligent since they can and do learn a new challenge by themselves, after which learn how to put their knowledge to utilize to preserve themselves, then to aid others, then to try to increase the risk for whole human experience in the world better. There is certainly a place among us for machines that will analyze data and behave as they've been programmed, but that's the extent of these worth.

Companies, parents, and governments should value people because they're people. Machines will never replace people. Treating people as extensions of technology will not result in success. Letting people use their intelligence and technology to accomplish amazing things will cause outrageous success.

It's very good to become thinking, creating, choosing, feeling, remembering, self-actualizing, improving person. Nothing pleases me more than that I am a person.