If A.I. became what scientists believe and dream of, and if a machine ever became self-aware, wouldn't it be an Intellegent Intety and cease to be Artificial? So while scientists strive towards A.I., are they not limiting themselves? Just a thought. Gregg ------------------ Happy Coding, Gregg Bolinger
By "artificial" may be what they mean is that it does not occur in nature, but is man-made, (not God's creation if i may say so ). For a simile - 'cotton' is a fabric made out of cotton available in nature but 'polyester' is a man-made (artificial?) fibre. So even if a machine became self-aware, its intelligence would have to introduced into it "artificially", it is not born with intelligence like humans. am i on the right track or way off....
There is no right track or wrong track. This is all just opinions. But as far as defining Artificial, I agree. And since you brought it up, isn't EVERYTHING "made by God". By your definition that a machine is man made, so are our children. Two people get together to create a child. I think a better definition may be something "organic" vs "inorganic"?? ------------------ Happy Coding, Gregg Bolinger
It's just a definition. If we (humans) later realize that we were systematically manufactured by an advanced specie of aliens, then we would be "artificial" too, despite being composed of organic material.
That's not necessarily true. Certain breeds of dogs are "systmatically manufactured" as are many horse and cattle breeds to produce a more advanced breed. And they are not considered Artificial. It can't be "just a definition". I believe that the term itself is the essance of what scientists strive for. Is Life just a definition? Is Intellegents just a definition? The definition may be wrong, and maybe that is the first step. Maybe A.I. needs to be redefined to catch up to the times?
Maybe too, we are looking at the definition the wrong way. Instead of saying that the holder of the intellegents is artificial, it's the intellegents that is artificial. And when we look at it that way, then we need to define Intellegents that is not artificial. What makes humans an Intellegent Species? Answer those questions, and then ask yourself, if a machine could harness the same qualaties, regardless of the way it obtained them, would it not cease to be Artificial?
------------------ Happy Coding, Gregg Bolinger
posted 18 years ago
i think, gregg, u r right - the holder is not artificial, but the intelligence is. i also agree that oragnic is a better definition, but i don't think children are man-made, they are still a wonder of nature.... they would be man-made if they could be manufactured without the use of any human inputs; like a machine is made, without the use of any human inputs.
posted 18 years ago
Excuse me, er..., can someone just clear up the air here, I mean could someone summarise for me the thoughts of arguments here....
-Surfing the JavaRanch in a sunny garden with a cold drink and laptop can't be beat. by Frank Carver(sheriff)
Power corrupts. Absolute power xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is kinda neat.