View Poll Results: What do you think?
- Voters
- 28. You may not vote on this poll
-
March 23rd, 2002, 09:34 PM
#1
Cosmos Games - Teams
Here's your chance to vote for the points brought up by both teams in The Cosmos Games.
Do you think that computers will one day be able to show human emotions?
Remember, you're voting for the points brought up, not for your actual point of view...
-
March 24th, 2002, 07:55 AM
#2
Hello??? Anyone there??? If so...VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For voting, refer to this thread: http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=222387
Greg
\"Do you know what people are most afraid of?
What they don\'t understand.
When we don\'t understand, we turn to our assumptions.\"
-- William Forrester
-
March 24th, 2002, 10:48 PM
#3
I voted but I don't see why the rest of the 50+
people that's viewed this thread hasn't.
Come on ppl VOTE!.. 
Remote_Access_
-
March 24th, 2002, 10:56 PM
#4
NO...
I'm fairly certain that no matter how advanced the algorithm is, human-made technology will never have the capacity to understand, much less use, emotions...
Just think...a system is only as strong as its weakest component...sigh...no matter how much I generate ideas both accepting or opposed to the thought, nothing comes up as viable...
Ouroboros
"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."
-Occam's Razor
-
March 24th, 2002, 11:02 PM
#5
I should clarify that last post a bit...
Imagine a close relative to you dies...some people have empathy for you (oh, that's sad...i'm sorry) and they really mean it, but on the other hand, some people think (what the hell do I care?) and they really mean it...there is no 'standard' that a processing unit could use to verify its results, as it's all subjective...
Just a thought, and I'm still thinking...while watching 'AI'...Stanley Kubrick was a genius
Ouroboros
"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."
-Occam's Razor
-
March 24th, 2002, 11:52 PM
#6
Just a thought, and I'm still thinking...while watching 'AI'...Stanley Kubrick was a genius
Umm. I thought AI was done by Speilberg? Or are you referring to Space Odyssey: 2001 as well and the critter of HAL?
-
March 25th, 2002, 12:43 AM
#7
Even though I believe I did a magnificent job (no autographs)
defending the YES point of view, I remain convinced that
No, computers, being created by humans, cannot attain
to the same level as their creator, by simple logic.
congratulations to all the debators. Everyone did
a great job!
BTW, this message was brought to you by
MOZILLA, running on RED HAT LINUX
I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.
-
March 25th, 2002, 02:24 AM
#8
I voted YES,
I would just like to enlighten all of you to this idea. 2,000 years ago we knew that the earth was flat. 1,500 years ago we knew that we were at the center of the galaxy and that things revolved around us. 150 years ago we knew that humans could not fly. 100 years ago we knew that libraries were the best source for information. 50 years ago we knew that computers took up a whole room. 25 years ago we knew nothing of the internet. 5 minutes ago you knew that AI in computers could not be. Imagine what you will know tomorrow.
-
March 25th, 2002, 02:26 AM
#9
-
March 25th, 2002, 06:20 AM
#10
I voted for the YES team, because that's what I believe in. I believe that some other members of the NO team gave a very convincing debate.
Originally posted here by The3ntropy
I voted YES,
I would just like to enlighten all of you to this idea. 2,000 years ago we knew that the earth was flat. 1,500 years ago we knew that we were at the center of the galaxy and that things revolved around us. 150 years ago we knew that humans could not fly. 100 years ago we knew that libraries were the best source for information. 50 years ago we knew that computers took up a whole room. 25 years ago we knew nothing of the internet. 5 minutes ago you knew that AI in computers could not be. Imagine what you will know tomorrow.
Actually, you have your time reversed. The idea that the sun orbited the earth was an older idea than the earth being square (which was really only a fad for those in higher social circles anyways). Also, if you look at 'we' you'll have to define that a little, because many many cultures recognized that we orbited the sun (Ancient Egypt, The Mayans, Japanese, etc), and that the earth was a sphere.
Until you hit that '25 years ago' mark, you're speaking not of things we created, but things we discovered. Flight was a discovery, not an invention. Computers were an invention, not a discovery. Artificial Intelligence will be an invention, not a discovery.
Personally, I don't believe that while computers are binary based that we'll be able to properly create Artificial Intelligence. The reason being that when a computer gets something, it's entirely a YES or a NO answer, there is no in between in a binary system. Take a Base 3 system, you have YES, MAYBE, and NO. With Base 5, you expand that to YES, MAYBE YES, MAYBE, MAYBE NO, NO, and it goes up. I think that Humans operate on Base 127 or something like that. To a computer, Maybe is not an acceptable answer, it's either yes or No, and until we move off of a binary system for processing data, I'm of the opinion that we'll have very limited AIs.
Chris Shepherd
The Nelson-Shepherd cutoff: The point at which you realise someone is an idiot while trying to help them.
\"Well as far as the spelling, I speak fluently both your native languages. Do you even can try spell mine ?\" -- Failed Insult
Is your whole family retarded, or did they just catch it from you?
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Reply With Quote
