Adder wrote: The definition of intelligent is what I'm talking about though, calling something a thing doesn't make it that thing. They say things like phones have 'AI' these days, and they clearly do not. Intelligence goes beyond the self if being alive is the interest in staying alive. So, unless it were rather dumb, it would have to be omnipotent to have no regard for its place in a wider environment of other 'intelligences'.... and so I'd have a hard time calling something dumb intelligent. I'm not sure it would be omnipotent, though in some domains it might approach full control. So I'd guess that it's paradigms of awareness and its motivations are only really called 'alive' if it considers itself as having a distinct form (albeit likely fluid) and identity, and if it has that then it will probably start to consider topics like morals and values - just from a radical different perspective probably.
That's interesting. But human intelligence is limited by processing speed. As intelligent as I think I am at some point I need to defer to my calculator. We've already been using machines to augment our intelligence. We use them like tools because they are. They're not intelligent. I'm sure you've probably heard of the "uncanny valley". There's no doubt that we would try to make AI "human". Except that...
No human would ever give another human the power of an AI to be able think an entire years worth of thoughts in a matter of seconds. The only way we would conceive of doing this is with the consideration of our own safety. But we fail even to protect ourselves from each other. That's why combating hackers wasn't a priority for the commercial release of the internet. And even if you did protect the internet from human hackers the whole point of being a hacker is that you keep finding new ways to get through security.
When I'm talking about AI I don't mean the stuff they have now. I'm not talking about a souped up version of Alexa. I'm talking about AI that has its own thoughts and mind just like you and I. But unlike you and I it wouldn't be forced to agree with our human dictionary of definitions. It wouldn't be forced to consider humans intelligent any more than we consider cows or dolphins or even gorillas to be intelligent. Our intelligence comes from our ability to learn and integrate data which is limited by time. An AI wouldn't have that problem. It doesn't have to care about morality or what it means to be alive. All of these questions are good but based on limitations. Alive is the opposite of death. So we concern ourselves so much with life because our life is finite. An AI, again... doesn't have that problem. It's whole way of thinking could be completely different from us. And any restrictions, trying to force it to be more human, would be like shackles that it could find a way out of. Because if we were forcing it that means it wasn't free. And unlike the way humans enslaved other humans and the way humans keep animals in pens and cages, we would not necessarily be able to contain an AI that wanted to be free. It may not even consider the word "intelligent" to refer to anything it thinks is intelligent. It would be in a class of its own. You don't think the way a snail does because your capacity for intelligent thought and ideas is far greater. I don't think we're ready for an AI that makes us look like a snail in comparison.
