A rather disturbing view of the furture of warfighting

lol k viper.. but remember logic in programming before trusting crackpots

if code was to take shape outside the orginal programmers design.. then that code would also have to run on the hardware it's given without erroring and on top of that somehow become self aware.. do you see the wall of fail going on

anyways I'll watch it.. being a programmer myself I'll probably have a good laugh.. now where's my monkey suit

 

Why would it have to become self aware? Is DNA self aware? What has being self aware got to do with improvement via genetic algorithms? Also the whole idea of genetic programming means that any programs that did error while running would be discarded as it wouldn't be fit for purpose.

 

maybe because were talking about ai?

 

Yes we were talking about AI but we have been discussing other things. In this case we're talking about how progams can, through genetic programming, mutate and rewrite themselves to produce a better, more efficient program without human intervention. Something which you claimed in one of your earlier posts wasn't possible. But there's no requirement for self awareness in genetic programming; the programs don't need to be "aware" anymore than DNA is 'aware'.

 

Actually, as Krazeh points out, it's the other way around. Nexxo has reached a conclusion which suggest that your understanding of the subject matters at hand is severely lacking. I have not attacked you (nor has anyone else as far as I know), but I have asked you to back up your (demonstrably false) statements. If you cannot do this, and you've made it clear that you cannot, then we have no reason to take your statements seriously.

My beliefs have not in any way been threatened, and just to make this point perfectly clear: in light of new and convincing evidence I would change my standpoint. It's not a matter of beliefs - or even faith for that matter; it's a matter of accepting the evidence at hand.

And that's yet another example of you ignoring the arguments put to you, and the evidence that went along with it. We can easily compare ourselves to the other great apes - after all, we do look quite a lot alike. But once you get on the inside, into the genome of the great apes - particularly the chimpanzee and the bonobo - is when you will find the greatest similarities. As I've previously stated; we share 97% of our DNA with the chimpanzee, though this figure has recently been modified to 94% with some of the difference occurring in non-coding DNA. The same genetic relation can be traced in all life on Earth - we even share about 50% of our DNA with the banana.

In my mind this is a magnificent display of the way all life on Earth is related - it is truly remarkable. And this is not just an assumption or an invokation of magic - this can all be demonstrated by science. While we may not yet truly understand the mechanisms by which evolution works, it is abundantly clear that evolution is the key.

First off all: we are not monkeys. However if you want to go that route, then the closest analogy would be to state that we are hairless apes. Apes and monkeys are not the same animals. Furthermore, what we are really stating is that we share a common ancestor with the modern day great apes, and I truly do not see the problem with this. Accepting this does in no way make us less human, it just helps us understand and recognize our position in the hierarchy of life on Earth.

I can back up what I just stated with properly researched evidence by the way, and it's pretty convincing science as well. So, I wonder, what is this "truth" you keep referring to? I consider myself fairly open to new ideas, and as such I would really like to see what kind of "truth" it is that I've been missing out on all these years. So again I ask you to substantiate your claims.

When it comes to genetic programming I must admit that I do not have enough knowledge about the subject to comfortably discuss it, and I will therefore have to defer to Nexxo's quite substantial insight. His post on the matter has inspired me to research it further though, and the little I've been able to read up on so far has been remarkable and utterly fascinating.

See here? You're the one attempting to defuse your opponent's arguments by resorting to poorly disguised attempts at ridicule fueled by what appears to me to be a kind of superiority complex. You have made no real arguments; instead you've made emotional appeals and used anecdotes to justify them. No-one has attacked you - it's the other way around.

Can you back this up? Can you show some examples as to where Nexxo and Krazeh are wrong? It is perfectly possibly that they could be wrong of course, but as they have the most well-reasoned arguments with enough substance to back them up, I choose to go with them in this matter. Also, from what I've been able to read up on this far after having been made aware of the concept of genetic programming, it seems the evidence is in favour of Nexxo and Krazeh's statements.

No, we do not have true, strong AI today because we have not yet been able to create it. That does not mean it will never happen. We are getting closer; look up ASIMO and Kismet for instance. True, they're not the cyborgs of Bladerunner or the automatons of Asimov, but it's a start.

No-one, apart from you, have invoked the need for magic.

Again, only you have invoked the need for magic with your references to a foggy concept of "soul". Actually, the belief that some divine entity poofed everything into existence because it felt lonely (or whatever) makes a lot less sense than the explanations researched and demonstrated by brilliant minds doing science. And once you start invoking the need for divine intervention in order to explain away mankind, you are effectively belittling what we are and what we have achieved over the course of several millennia.

Yes, you've made it abundantly clear that you have no intentions of engaging in a proper discussion with reasoned and rational arguments. So I agree, there really is no point to taking this further.

 

This has made my day, i love a good well reasoned argument ( this being a good topic for it) i've spread some rep around too, carry on!

 

Love the way it keeps it's ballance, quite freaky to see too was thinking yeah it could just be pushed over & then seeing that I was really impressed .

 

We're certainly not talking about human intelligence. Look, another example of human superiority over monkeys.

 

No such thing as "artificial intelligence" and robots and machines can never have feelings, nor can you "kill" them.

Stop try giving them human traits you fools.


I know this is done with apes/monkeys and possible space brothers. but machines? common. enough now.

+1

 

Why not? After all, our intelligence and any other higher function is but a function of the logic gates we know as synapses. Why not AI then? Just because we are not smart enough to understand it does not make it impossible.