Artificial intelligence

In 1996, I decided to express myself using my parents' turntable. They were not at home; i was sixteen years old. I actually wanted to focus on White Album on vinyl. I had a version of it on tape, but I was craving real knowledge. At the time, I believed I was more often associated with The White Album than my parents. I always loved the Beatles when I was younger, probably because digging something “harvesting” is a feature of equally emotional exercise that involves reading and dreaming.

Thinking of things outside of their normal context is scientifically common, but good. But what is the will - especially the type of youth who have been involved in my ever-changing revolt, the borrowed desire of the media of the past generation - exactly? How can you love something without knowing its context? Can a more flexible AI decide to develop a quest for something that has never been seen before: chocolate, us, or the Beatles, or ... become a living thing? What if, as I struggled to use my parent's power to focus on the White Album, to support the pigs in what I was too young to remember, someone who had not seen for a long time wished to impart his knowledge to a person brain and body? We’ve seen the wrong Mr. Data try to fix this in comparison to Star Trek: The next Generation. He wanted to be kind - not jealous, but more sophisticated than Pinocchio - so the whole Starship Enterprise team was impressed with the idea. After all, none of the Star Trek participants thought of helping Data realize its purpose. well-established once you believe: no one has proposed to grow a clone-style body within the concept of his machine. With all the crazy stories told in Star Trek, moving the stuffed material of the physical body (and then watching the trembling) can be a missed opportunity to think about.

We are just made flesh.

The modern Battlestar Galactica applies this concept to meditation. Cylon's "leader", Brother Cavil, repeatedly complained to one of his creators about his ability to imitate the intelligence system. He concludes: “I don't need to be human! I'd love to get gamma rays, I'd love to listen to x-rays, I'd love to smell something dark! does anyone see the futility of what I am? i can't even articulate this thing! ”Here, the artificial intelligence is limited by the human organs provided by its creator. In Terry Bisson's article "Made in the Flesh" (first published in OMNI in 1990) the sophisticated technology that discusses the folly of life on Earth, sees us as "just talking flesh." Light thinking seems like AI will be disgusting and glorified by our carnal ways. But where did that tendency come from? What if, as teenagers grabbed a phonograph, they thought that natural life was cool and retro? when I ask Sebastian Benthall, of UC Berkeley's School of data, this question - if he thinks modern AI tends to be emotional - tells me that somehow, the emotional response from the programs has already happened, we haven't called that yet. “Why does your GPS make mistakes? Why do search engines lead you to certain categories and not others? If this were one person, we would call these things discriminatory, or emotional. But that is because we see ourselves as a cohesive people, where in fact there are many biological systems that work together, but sometimes, they are independent. AI does not see itself that way. ”

The physical body is an old technology.

To think that intelligent machines that want to transmit to the body of life should be considered can share our feelings with old technology. In AI, the physical body is simply a harvest technology.

Ray Kurzweil, author and forerunner of Technical Singularity - a time of observation in which AI will reside within the human mind - asserted that in the future, "machines will be seen with vision," and "spiritual experience." Taking Asimov, it seems he believes that intelligent machines will have ethical principles similar to their programs or creators. If this were true, and that we would spread Kurzweil's law of "Law of Accelerating Returns" and continue on the path of highly transformed, boring robots, a certain number of their "spiritual experiences" would include the idea of ​​"going to the native," throwing away in a living body?

The Benthallans raced my memory that "the brain is not a hard drive. Details are stored separately there." Other backup technologies should be used; Put another way: to think that intelligent machines that want to transmit to living bodies think that they will share our feelings with the old technology of the body, in fact, that is the ultimate technology of the past. with our full interest in the features of the harvest.Dr. Erin Falconer, a neurologist and director of medical affairs at Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, tells me that Oxytocin, especially a neurochemical neurophemical, "can be linked to nostalgia."

There may also be a genetic basis.

"Could it have been created in the wrong way?" Drs. Falconer says, “In theory, yes. And if you show your robot / person something harvested, or old, and then regenerate oxytocin systems, yes, you will create a desire. ”I see, not just from Drs. Falconer, but also in Benthall, that these ideas are complemented by l