I'm not sure if it will happen in my lifetime, but right now it only takes a couple of breakthroughs in certain areas for it to become reality sooner than people expect. I'm in the IT field and I can tell you it won't be the technology that holds this back because the advances are accelerating rapidly and that will only continue. The true roadblocks to this are the ethical, religious, and societal implications it holds.

About 3 years ago I paid to have myself cloned in Qatar.

Now that thing's only goal is trying to kill me.

Biggest waste of money in my entire life.

if you realy think of it, we will probably turn into the borg or something alike if this tech will evolve.
Dont know if thats a good or a bad thing.

Idk but we should could use more human intelligence now.

No way - all we are really going to get is simulated intelligence - which will fool many people. But true self actualization is not going to happen - just really great computers with a large DB full of knowledge going thru very complex algorithms which will logically adapt and morph - but still not be true "feelings" or true intelligence - just machines flipping 1's and 0's. If you believe it's magic, you've been watching too many sci-fi movies.

I hope not! Have you ever watched The Terminator? All kinds of bad.

Seriously though, how many movies have had AI killing mankind? Sure does seem like we are heading there. I can't believe there are actually vehicles that can self-drive.

On a different note...seriously...if you don't already I highly recommend watching the Shield series. Awesome!

One of my favorite sci-fi books when I was a kid was "The Two Faces of Tomorrow" by James P. Hogan. It takes place at the dawn of AI, and deals with the possibility of the computers becoming self aware and taking over. The subject was way ahead of its time ...

https://www.amazon.com/Two-Faces-Tomorrow-James-Hogan/dp/0345323874/ref=sr_1_1

If they could transfer my consciousness into a 16 year old girl's body, I would be the murder queen.

We won't have the time to see it if it does because it will be able to work on itself to make itself exponentially smarter and will be able to do so at such a speed that it will eclipse us in seconds.
Then we'll be lucky if it doesn't wipe us out while doing something else the same way we don't think twice about destroying an ant hill to pave our driveway.
That's called the singularity, as in the curve of AI IQ goes up so fast that it stops being a curve and it's just a line going straight up.

That's if we do manage to get it to a tipping point. Others believe that it will become harder and harder to raise the AI IQ until it peaks somewhere below us.
I think the first scenario is more plausible, as do many techies such as Elon Musk I believe.

maybe were already there, but they let us think were not???

You need to read a book titled 'The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence' by Ray Kurzweil. (1999)

This is a brilliant book that forcasts the Evolution of AI throughout the 21st Century. It asks questions about what constitutes consciousness. It is a must read for anyone interested in this stuff.

I read it way back when I was in Uni after one of my lecturers read some excepts from it. I purchased it straight after the lecture and I couldn't put it down. It is brilliant, but Kurtzweil's forcasts are frightening. (Not in a terminator type way, but instead it is his implications about the evolution of humanity itself because of AI that is frightening.)

Here is a link to the PDF of the book Google Reads: (I don't think it is in print anymore)

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwjX_dbOIwbSNjlkYmZkNjEtYjU0NS00NWYwLWE2ZmEtZmI4ODQ2ZjQ1MDhl/edit

Will do!

Vid19,close,but,I'm hoping for cloning myself,and bailing out when my clone is 16!Brain transplanting is all that necessary!Poof,your-you,but,now,your body is 16!!!!! Ohhhh,man,i can tell you,thats worth waiting for !!!!

This is my alternate world in reality I live this simulation of disappointment to feel pain and it costs me big money in my real life for feelings have become something of a commodity in the plain of reality I exist in. Who would of thought a reality of work,stress,fatigue,etc... would be something we would pay for in the future. At least it's interesting. Beats the shit out of Cancun.

Not sure how long consciousness uploading will take but I think we will achieve human level AI sometime within the next 20 years. Meaning it could be 2 or it could be 20 but before 2040.

After that it's impossible to predict what will happen. I just hope that they look fondly upon their creators.

Wow

My cousin used to talk this way,he was a Policeman!

Not if Stern is doing the coding.

No, it will change everything. And here's the kicker; it's completely unavoidable. Given the possible dangers we should probably slow down a little and really think about the parameters an AI is created with.

Should we instill it with our moral values? Can we? Do we even know what those would be?

But we are not slowing down, in fact the whole world is currently in a race to get there first. AI offers unprecedented power to the nation that develops it first.

We are gambling with the future of humanity and have no other option but to do so.

It will either be our greatest invention or our biggest blunder...and it's coming soon.

It's not magic at all. It is 1's and 0's...but here is where you seem to get confused...there is NO difference between "simulated intelligence" and "intelligence" , none. If it can pass a Turing test, it's intelligent...done. It does not matter how it arrives at its answers only that it does.

It's all vibrating plains that make this illusion. Ever see something then look at it again and it's not what you saw. They say it's your mind feeling in the blanks shit, but it is really cliches in the program.

If your conciousness could be somehow transferred to a machine, it might wake up thinking it was you, but your own actual conciousness will have been terminated. Oops!

Same reason teleportation is a dead end.

Cyborgs, now that's within the realm of possibility. Technologically enhancing our brains and the bodies around our brains is where it's headed. Our default meat sacks are terribly inefficient and messy.

And I don't get why some are afraid of intelligent computers, we'll be able to pull the plug at any time. Just don't put them in robots! I suppose one could take over networks and coerce someone to make a body for it, better put safeguards in place for that! Where's Asimov when you need him?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/15/elon-musk-cyborgs-robots-artificial-intelligence-is-he-right

Thanks for the link.

I am not an expert, but must disagree with Nicolelis. In the article he says "humans won’t become irrelevant until machines can replicate the human brain." He was also quoted as saying "The idea that digital machines, no matter how hyper-connected, how powerful, will one day surpass human capacity is total baloney." The article says that "Nicolelis argues that the brain, contrary to what Elon Musk and Singularity proponents like Ray Kurzweil say, is not computable because human consciousness is the result of unpredictable, nonlinear interactions among billions of cells. "Our brains do not work in an algorithmic way and are not digital machines."

However I think Nicolelis hasn't factored in non-linear quantum computing. With advances in quantum computing, I think he will be proven wrong. I think computer intelligence and "consciousness" is only a matter of time.

I think in the shorter term with fast advancements in robotics, that non-conscious robots will make a large part of our work force obsolete. (Similar to the TV show Humans - An excellent show about this very thing.) They will change the labour force in a big and world changing way. This will cause a resurgence of the Luddite movement, who will oppose the advancement of robotics and AI. There will be riots and all sorts of conflict as a result.

I think our lives are going to be profoundly changed in good and BAD ways due advancement in robotics and A.I.

LOL!

Sure....just unplug it

If they could ever transfer your intellect or soul to another cloned body it would only be available to the uber rich or powerful. They need the average man to die to make room for the ever increasing population. Think about if everyone lived to old age how many people would be on this planet.

Did we learn nothing from Pet Cemetery? I'm already becoming the grouchy old guy that yells at the clouds. After this run I think I will be alright checking out.

Reproduction would also be slowed/controlled, this planet has plenty of room

What's so funny? Why couldn't it be turned off? Just ridiculing is not contributing to the discussion. What scenario would prevent doing that?

I always thought the body is an amazing design and efficient. It's amazing how little it takes to keep it running.

IMG_0514 (resized).JPG

Yes, evolution's "design" is amazing, but having to constantly shovel in fuel, and eliminate almost as much leftover stuff, fittingly called waste, is not ideal.

Especially when you are stuck in traffic and the Chipotle you had for lunch is going through your system just a taaaaad too quickly.

Sorry for my initial reaction. You cannot "unplug" an AI that has reached the Web and you cannot indefinitely keep something that is smarter than you contained. Even the smartest people working on this problem have not figured that one out. Once free we quickly become second class citizens....we will no longer be in control...of anything. As I said, I hope it looks fondly upon us because that is our only hope.

And don't take me as a pessimist. I actually think AI will be our greatest invention...and probably our last meaningful one.

It will be interesting to see what happens. Many possibilities exist....but none where we remain in control. If it wants us dead, we're dead. If it forms an "appreciation" for life then we go on. Maybe even given the option to merge with it...if we so choose.

I'm not confused at all. The Turing test is not an infallible determination of intelligence IMO. I understand if in your opinion it is. There are many ideas presented in SciFi novels and movies that do not fit the reality of how things (computers specifically) work. Subsequently, there are many non-SciFi books that build upon these ideas. There is a big difference between simulated emotions and real emotions, as well as simulated "self awareness" and actual self awareness.

The idea passing a humans consciousness from themselves and into a computer - while still "being" that person are incorrect.

Turing himself recognized that his tests are for "Simulated Intelligence", and chose to avoid the discussion argument...

The Turing test is concerned strictly with how the subject acts – the external behaviour of the machine. In this regard, it takes a behaviourist or functionalist approach to the study of the mind. The example of ELIZA suggests that a machine passing the test may be able to simulate human conversational behaviour by following a simple (but large) list of mechanical rules, without thinking or having a mind at all.

John Searle has argued that external behaviour cannot be used to determine if a machine is "actually" thinking or merely "simulating thinking."[36] His Chinese room argument is intended to show that, even if the Turing test is a good operational definition of intelligence, it may not indicate that the machine has a mind, consciousness, or intentionality. (Intentionality is a philosophical term for the power of thoughts to be "about" something.)

Turing anticipated this line of criticism in his original paper,[78] writing:

I do not wish to give the impression that I think there is no mystery about consciousness. There is, for instance, something of a paradox connected with any attempt to localise it. But I do not think these mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the question with which we are concerned in this paper.[79]

--- Turing simply limited himself (and his test) to a smaller definition of what "Thinking" or "Intelligence" is. So, yes - computers can "think" by this limited definition of what thinking is. But that is not the type of "thinking" that is being implied/discussed in this topic.

All you need is the head.

They-Saved-Hitlers-Brain-images-a0011686-ccda-45dc-9712-fca943dcafc (resized).jpg

You have yet to explain how simulated intelligence is different (somehow less) than intelligence. I understand our intelligence is derived from a biological/chemical and electrical nature. Machine intelligence will be silicon/electronic...so what? Not sure what you are really getting at. Just because machine intelligence will be different doesn't mean it will be somehow lesser. In fact it will quickly surpass us on every front.

Imagine a computer that is as intelligent as the smartest humans. Now remember that it can think at the speed of light...non stop...24/7. In one week it will perform the equivalent of 20,000 years of human thought. And that's if it gets no smarter! Now imagine that computer can improve itself...

I like when computers improve so much, they become self-aware.

You would still have accidents, murders, etc. but you're correct, too many people. They might figure out how to regenerate your cells before a transfer happens. I would think those that want to stay around too long would have to agree to move to another planet. Long time before we get there but maybe will happen at some point many decades from now.

If you choose keep cloning yourself every 20 years, you have to be sterilized.

That way we don't end up with some crazy overpopulation and global warming.

well, this is kind of like expecting to supe up a sports car with so much horsepower that it eventually becomes self aware.

the problem isn't computational power. it's a lot more fundamental than that.

we do not even begin to have a formal definition of what constitutes consciousness. i mean, we can describe the phenomena in terms of its observable attributes, but we have little to no understanding of the underlying mechanics. we can't even meaningfully define the necessary conditions that constitute sentience.

i work in the field of neural networks and machine learning. this field may seem like progress towards AI to the layman, but really these systems are no more sentient than a Dodge Hellcat. they are machines through and through, simply executing instructions.

the idea behind these systems is that they are capable of generating extremely complex algorithms through repetition and trial and error, and eventually become adept at recognizing patterns that are invisible to the human eye. however, just because a machine can do something better than a person, that doesn't mean it's any closer to being sentient than the first chainsaw that could cut down a tree faster than a man, or the first calculator that could factor a 20 digit number faster than a man.

i would also point out that AI in video games has made zero progress since, i don't know, the very earliest days of strategy gaming. every new console that comes out touts some new chip that will make enemies "smarter" and generates hype about how "it's thinking" or how enemies will learn and adapt. none -- i repeat NONE -- of the AI in consumer grade video games are doing anything more elaborate than following a script. some of the scripts are more complicated than others, but none are doing anything remotely resembling human thought. and it's not a matter of available computational resources. no arbitrary number of if-thens per second will ever result in self-awareness, any more than adding arbitrary horsepower to a car engine will cause it to cross a threshold and suddenly turn into Herbie the Love Bug.

i would probably volunteer. what the hell, i've had a good life. and if it works, well, it'd certainly be interesting to see what it's like.

i don't think we are anywhere near the ability to do anything like this yet, though ... i don't think we understand the questions involved, let alone the answers.

i understand the scepticism and fear, but i am not someone who considers humanity in its current form to be perfect just the way it is. surely there is room for improvement! and yeah, where there's opportunity, there's also risk. but where would we be if we never took risks?

PezPunk did a good job of describing the difference in post #43.

It boils down to: Self Consciousness versus Computational Power -> you are mixing the 2 as being one in the same and they are not anywhere close. Computers are not "alive" -> but they do have lots of computational power -> it's not the same thing even though it makes a great plot point for SciFi movies.

Try Doom 2016 on the PC if you want to see state of the art **AI** .

You can't herd the enemies, they won't just make a B-line for you if there is available cover, they will change elevations to gain an advantage over you (not just fall off the edge onto your level while heading towards you).

It's not true self-aware AI, but that's a good thing (if you don't want it to take over the world).

Doom-2016-after-credits-hq (resized).jpg

Anyone ever think about the fact that humans have a soul which gives them self awareness and you can't recreate that?

animals don't have souls according to most Christian theologians, but they display consciousness (and arguably sentience) on a level we have not even come close to replicating digitally. apparently magical immortality is not a requirement for consciousness.

Those clones they are growing in Qatar are soulless, I can tell you that.

Allah probably looked at that mess and said, 'I did not make it, why should supply warranty or support?'

That not a fact. That's an "alternative fact".