[guest39538]

At a guess, about 99% of the general population have AI compared to the 1% who have real intelligence and are self aware.
The AI section of the world being clueless and following anything they are told .

Naivety  a programmed condition .

[Kryptid]

Human brains are not artificially-constructed, so it's not artificial intelligence by definition.

[guest39538]

Human brains are not artificially-constructed, so it's not artificial intelligence by definition.

Correct a human brain is formed rather than constructed. However the information that is contained in the brain is a mental construction, a programming from birth.  If it were not for this programming, i.e education, all humans would be no more than savage wild animals.
So how is this ''programming'' , any different to artificial intelligence?   

[Kryptid]

Correct a human brain is formed rather than constructed. However the information that is contained in the brain is a mental construction, a programming from birth.  If it were not for this programming, i.e education, all humans would be no more than savage wild animals.
So how is this ''programming'' , any different to artificial intelligence?   

You have to actually create the computer (and all of the baseline programming that requires) for an artificial intelligence. You don't do that with a human brain. It contains a large amount of information (in the form of instinct) before it starts learning anything. Nothing about that is artificial.

[guest39538]

Correct a human brain is formed rather than constructed. However the information that is contained in the brain is a mental construction, a programming from birth.  If it were not for this programming, i.e education, all humans would be no more than savage wild animals.
So how is this ''programming'' , any different to artificial intelligence?   

You have to actually create the computer (and all of the baseline programming that requires) for an artificial intelligence. You don't do that with a human brain. It contains a large amount of information (in the form of instinct) before it starts learning anything. Nothing about that is artificial.

But perhaps another species in our universe has been around much longer than us.  They tried to create the conventional way but failed .  So came up with a biological version of AI?

DNA sequencing.

[Kryptid]

But perhaps another species in our universe has been around much longer than us.  They tried to create the conventional way but failed .  So came up with a biological version of AI?

DNA sequencing.

Even if they did, it wouldn't be relevant to us.

[guest39538]

But perhaps another species in our universe has been around much longer than us.  They tried to create the conventional way but failed .  So came up with a biological version of AI?

DNA sequencing.

Even if they did, it wouldn't be relevant to us.

Depends if you believe in evolution or not, quite clearly a man cannot exist without a women existing first and a women cannot give birth to herself unless she is artificially inseminated. So quite clearly women were created and men are the creations of women.   
There was never an Adam, it started with just eve. Genetically engineered to re-populate a planet, maybe.

[Kryptid]

Depends if you believe in evolution or not, quite clearly a man cannot exist without a women existing first and a women cannot give birth to herself unless she is artificially inseminated. So quite clearly women were created and men are the creations of women.   
There was never an Adam, it started with just eve. Genetically engineered to re-populate a planet, maybe.

So there goes another thing we can add to the list of "Things the Thebox does not understand": evolution.

[guest39538]

Depends if you believe in evolution or not, quite clearly a man cannot exist without a women existing first and a women cannot give birth to herself unless she is artificially inseminated. So quite clearly women were created and men are the creations of women.   
There was never an Adam, it started with just eve. Genetically engineered to re-populate a planet, maybe.

So there goes another thing we can add to the list of "Things the Thebox does not understand": evolution.

Oh I understand apes to man etc, things evolving into something else.  However is it compulsory I accept this ?
Why would my version be any less real than your version?

[Kryptid]

Oh I understand apes to man etc, things evolving into something else.

I'm not sure you do, not if you think that evolution can't explain the existence of women.

However is it compulsory I accept this ?

It isn't. Quite a few people don't.

Why would my version be any less real than your version?

Evolution doesn't belong to me, so it doesn't make sense to call it "my version". The difference would be evidence.

I would also like to point out that if we were artificially-created by some alien intelligence, then that would contradict the introduction post of this thread where you claim that only 99% of us are artificially-intelligent. If we were created, then 100% of us would be artificial.

[guest39538]

intelligent. If we were created, then 100% of us would be artificial.

What about the artificial intelligence ones that wake up and become self aware of their own origin? 

That is natural intelligence. Not artificial.

[Bored chemist]

So there goes another thing we can add to the list of "Things the Thebox does not understand": evolution.

It may be easier to  document the complement of that list.

[Kryptid]

What about the artificial intelligence ones that wake up and become self aware of their own origin? 

That is natural intelligence. Not artificial.

You don't seem to know what "natural" and "artificial" mean.

[guest39538]

What about the artificial intelligence ones that wake up and become self aware of their own origin? 

That is natural intelligence. Not artificial.

You don't seem to know what "natural" and "artificial" mean.

Yes I do, you don't seem to understand something artificial could develop into something natural.  It simple terms, artificial programmed intelligence can be naturally reprogrammed.

[Kryptid]

Yes I do, you don't seem to understand something artificial could develop into something natural. It simple terms, artificial programmed intelligence can be naturally reprogrammed.

That wouldn't make it any less artificial. The terms "artificial" and "natural" have to do with something's origins. For a learning AI, it could learn all it wanted to from the natural world but it would still be an artificial construct because the AI was created by humans.

[guest39538]

Yes I do, you don't seem to understand something artificial could develop into something natural. It simple terms, artificial programmed intelligence can be naturally reprogrammed.

That wouldn't make it any less artificial. The terms "artificial" and "natural" have to do with something's origins. For a learning AI, it could learn all it wanted to from the natural world but it would still be an artificial construct because the AI was created by humans.

By AI created by humans is so the past, what if an advanced AI is us?  An AI that became conscious and self aware?  How would you know you were not?

[Kryptid]

By AI created by humans is so the past, what if an advanced AI is us?  An AI that became conscious and self aware?  How would you know you were not?

How would I know wasn't what? Artificial? Philosophically, I can't know that I'm not artificial. Rationally-speaking, however, I can certainly say there's no compelling evidence for it.

[guest39538]

By AI created by humans is so the past, what if an advanced AI is us?  An AI that became conscious and self aware?  How would you know you were not?

How would I know wasn't what? Artificial? Philosophically, I can't know that I'm not artificial. Rationally-speaking, however, I can certainly say there's no compelling evidence for it.

There's no compelling evidence that it isn't either.  I think I would prefer artificial than pond life, at least means we have a creator and a purpose .

[Kryptid]

There's no compelling evidence that it isn't either.

That's shifting the burden of proof. It's akin to believing in the existence of fairies because there isn't compelling evidence that they don't exist. You can justify any belief you want to with that kind of reasoning.

I think I would prefer artificial than pond life, at least means we have a creator and a purpose .

That's the argument from consequences fallacy and also a false dichotomy.

[guest39538]

There's no compelling evidence that it isn't either.

That's shifting the burden of proof. It's akin to believing in the existence of fairies because there isn't compelling evidence that they don't exist. You can justify any belief you want to with that kind of reasoning.

I think I would prefer artificial than pond life, at least means we have a creator and a purpose .

That's the argument from consequences fallacy and also a false dichotomy.

What do you mean fairies aren't real? 

There is no evidence they exist or don't exist.  My point being never rule out something unless you know it is absolute impossible.   In an alternative reality there might be fairies for all we know.  The thought of a fairy being a past experience observed.  Who is to say it isn't ?

It is bit like saying there is no God, prove there isn't or prove there is ?  Both a seemingly impossible task, however I found the answer by using my logic to get one answer.

AI can't give an answer to a paradox, natural intelligence can.