On 22 Nov 2014
Republicans Admit Benghazi Fake "Scandal",
All this really means is that they are letting it go because they believe they have other dishonest attacks against the President that they believe will get better traction than this.
Or it means that polling done by Fox news or maybe the Heritage Foundation indicated that these particular lies aren't working as well (with the right wing idiots) as they would like, and they need to find some better lies, or who knows, maybe even legitimate fact and logic based criticisms of the administration.
Do you think the right wing entertainment complex is going to apologize to Obama ?
Hahahahahahahahahahah,...ohhh yeah,...right. On 22 Nov 2014
The singularity is fast approaching,
The Professor says
true AI is possible
Artificial intelligence is not real intelligence by definition.
Yeah, I didn't define that well, and didn't really want to.
I've never taken a course in AI, but am interested in it, and read about it years ago. I had a computer science teacher who said it was probably impossible (but I think he was referring to a high metaphysical bar). It has been controversial exactly how intelligent, that is how close to human like intelligence computers can get. Reasoning, perception of surroundings, perception of time, the ability to learn and plan and the ability to seem like "a being" and possibly even some form of self awareness. These have all been considered possibilities.
So I don't know when when exactly AI will be considered to be achieved. Obviously there are systems that people call AI all the time(now), because of their very narrowly defined ability to adapt or to learn. That's sort of a low bar (IMO). Sometimes the term AI it is used in dishonest ways.
I guess what I meant by "true AI" is competencies approaching those of an actual being. That is, abilities to learn ,take on a lot of responsibilities and to monitor itself, plan, with heuristics for problem solving and making relatively complex decisions so well, that they might one day be granted the ability to make a wide range of decisions.
This leads to the danger of eventually being given too much high level decision making power without the need to check each of these decisions with humans, or humans ultimately somehow failing in their oversight.
Heraclitusstudent said earlier that computers can't have an ego. I don't think we know that at all. Of course they can't in the Freudian sense of the word. But in the pop psychology sense of the word ego, meaning ones view, relationship with and expression of self, I don't feel at all sure of that and I don't think anyone knows.
My personal opinion and intuition about this is that machine based "beings" are possible. And at some point the difference between intelligence and psuedo or synthetic intelligence becomes a moot point.
Heraclitusstudent may disagree, but if youor he are going to state as a fact that a machine can't have a self, or a personality or an ego, I take this as an opinion, unless you can show me something resembling a proof.
"Artificial intelligence is not real intelligence by definition"
You're being too literal about the word artificial. I think that often the word artificial as it is applied to AI, simply means man made, and that for some, true AI would mean abilities that are approaching real intelligence, and maybe even reaching real intelligence.