View Single Post
Old September 12 2012, 02:10 PM   #61
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Mars wrote: View Post
newtype_alpha wrote: View Post

That is an almost childlike simplification of the entire process. And you are maybe unaware that in the many ways that "intelligence" actually manifest, machines have been more intelligent than humans for almost twenty years now. You are, in fact, conflating "intelligence" with the capacity for creative output, which are not at all the same thing.

When you peel the onion of human decision in the development of technology, the next layer down from creative output is goal-setting and prioritizing, another thing that machines do exceptionally poorly by their very nature. This means that even if we develop AIs that are creative enough to design space ships without human input, they still have to be TOLD to design space ships by humans who set the priorities for what kind of space ship is going to be designed. Humans spend less and less of their energy DOING things and resort to simply DECIDING things and making the machines do all the work.

Consequently, that is an eventual death sentence for industrial society, and ultimately for the machines themselves. Because a machine, by its very definition, is a tool, something wielded by others to do a job. If there is no one to wield it, the machine has no reason to exist and shuts down until someone tells it what to do.
Unless you ask a machine to simulate a human.
Machines can already do that, with varying degrees of fidelity. In the process of which they nevertheless remain machines.

The thing about computers is that they can model reality
... but only to the extent that they UNDERSTAND reality. The fundamental concept in any simulation is "GIGO", meaning "Garbage in, garbage out." In other words, the simulation is only as accurate as the variables being fed into it.
Well we just make sure its not garbage in, that is all. The human brain is only a finite object, if we simulate enough of it, we reproduce a human personality.

There is a practical upper limit to how accurately any theoretical machine could simulate a human being. But even leaving that aside, even if you could somehow scan a human being down to the subatomic level and feed every bit of that data into a computer, you then run into quantum indeterminacy whereby the computer cannot be entirely certain of the quantum states of that human's nervous system without ALTERING those states in the process. In other words, 100% fidelity is not physically achievable. Practically speaking, even 70% is probably a bit much.
You don't need subatomic precision to simulate a human being, you need only cellular precision, if we move an atom out of place in your body, you are still you. Much of the random molecular movements is not really information, those can be simulated statistically through the gas laws for instance. A cellular model of the human brain is a lot less complicated than a molecular or subatomic one where electrons all have to be tracked in their orbital shells, that is definite overkill. The errors in the approximations you make cancel each other out if the simulation is sufficiently precise. One can for instance predict the weather without simulating the path of every molecule and atom in our atmosphere, there are statistical means of tracking air masses and weather fronts. The human brain can be simulated in similar detail.

Now imagine a computer in the form of a humanoid robot simulating a human being, and whenever the human in the simulation moves a leg, the robot moves a leg, when the human moves an arm the robot moves and arm, when the human looks around, the robot looks with its cameras and what the robot sees is relayed back to the human in the simulation and thus the sim human sees, feels, tastes, smells, and hears what the robot hears and is effectively the robot. What we have here is an android.
No, what you have there is TELEPRESENCE, which is just an extremely immersive form of teleoperation, which has been around since at least the 1960s. A teleoperated machine is still a machine, even if you choose to call it an android; when you remove the human from the simulation, it ceases to function altogether.
Telepresence is when an actual real human being operates a robot by remote control, if that robot is simulating a human being internally, then its not real telepresence as its not remotely operated but internally operated.
Mars is offline   Reply With Quote