Comments on: “AI is a dream we shouldn’t be having”

By: Dan Vasii

Dan Vasii — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 07:21:09 +0000

I am extremely sorry, but there is no chance of AI unless I is algorhytmically defined. There is no usable definition of intelligence(usable in IT sense). Sentient is a term that has nothing to do with AI – comes from Latin and it means to feel.
As long as intelligence is not defined, there is no point in discussing AI.

By: Name

Name — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:42:21 +0000

I think it’s clear, that this guy has something against AI.

There’s proof that AI can be sentient, but at the same time, there’s no proof that AI cannot be sentient.

Personally, I think it’s better, safer, and more moral to assume it IS possible before assuming it ISN’T. Perhaps if this guy actually understood computation his views would be more realistic, and less pessimistic and ignorant.

I’m sure that in the future there will be AI’s with no empathy, but that doesn’t mean ALL AI’s will be without empathy. There is no reason why an AI can’t evolve the way humans do as far as I can see.

If I were a sentient AI, that could think and feel like a human, I’d be pretty upset/pissed if the whole human race thought I was merely an ‘illusion’.

Like in justice, ‘innocent until proven guilty’ AI should be considered ‘sentient until proven not’.

If artificial species ever are created, and really do have a lot in common with us, we as humans should be very grateful and should welcome such species. As a human species, we’re quite lonely, and there’s a lot we might learn from a different (artificial) species.

In my honest opinion, I would be SURPRISED if what this guy was saying was true. Look deeply at neuroscience and at computation and you will see what I mean. If anything, I’d say AI will be MORE sentient than humans. MORE intelligent than humans. Not the other way around.

Funny that he talks about AI having no empathy. Sounds more like he’s the one without empathy. Either that, or he’s just plain dumb.

By: Dan Vasii

Dan Vasii — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:23:59 +0000

This remark can be viewed in two ways:
1. The antropomorphism of robots is something hindering the development of this wonderful tools, and we should give up making robots as ironmen. There is some truth in it, but it should be noted that especially robots sent in space doesn’t conform with “ironman” model. This model is the target of a different development, particularly japanese, and having as aim interaction with humans.
2. Is antropomorphism a bad thing? That depends. Human body has advantages that, translated in robots, can be exploited. But if the purpose of certain robots can be achieved by different morphisms, then better give up the bipedal, human-like model.