[aispy]

A recent survey on AI, conducted for 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair, found that 79% of Americans believe that computers can never be considered 'truly alive'.

Other questions included 'Should A.I. devices have an off button' (Yes/68%) and 'Will computers be able to tell right from wrong' (No/53%).

More results here

[Korrelan]

Same old problem of old fashioned terminology being applied to modern concepts.

I think it’s the definition of ‘alive’ that’s the cause of the high survey.

Depending on the demographic surveyed I would presume the older generations tend to think of biological entities when ‘alive’ is used as a descriptor. 

Perhaps we need some new phrases/ words, fit for the purpose of endowing biological equivalent concepts on machines.

‘e-live’ perhaps lol.

[DemonRaven]

Same old problem of old fashioned terminology being applied to modern concepts.

I think it’s the definition of ‘alive’ that’s the cause of the high survey.

Depending on the demographic surveyed I would presume the older generations tend to think of biological entities when ‘alive’ is used as a descriptor. 

Perhaps we need some new phrases/ words, fit for the purpose of endowing biological equivalent concepts on machines.

‘e-live’ perhaps lol.

I agree the definition of alive probably needs to be revised.  How do you define life? How do you define artificial life?

[Freddy]

I think we already know what life is to be honest, I can't see that redefining it now will make it anything different.

You have artificial intelligence and you have artificial life - which is enough for me to draw a distinction.

We have many machines that do the work once done by animals or humans, but I can't think of any that I would call artificial life though. Tractors from oxen, robotic assembly lines from humans, aeroplanes from birds (ok we didn't really ride on birds) and various means of transportation that replaced the horse. So far nothing there that can really be called artificial life imho, even though they do the work of their natural counterpart.

So I had to think of something that I might call artificial life. In software it's more common so I will leave that. But in the physical world this is the closest to what I think of as artificial life...



And perhaps, some of the flying robotic birds we have seen. For me it's a little anthropomorphic; I'm not necessarily looking for signs of intelligence, perhaps I am looking more at behaviour.

[DemonRaven]

Are you sure you know what life is? Virus are still disputed on both sides. Some say no because they do not reproduce on their own others say yes because they use host cells to make more of themselves. Fire acts alive, it consumes things, grows, reproduces and uses oxygen yet it is not alive. If a silicon based life form was discovered would we recognize it as alive? What about computer virus's they actually fit some of the criteria as well, they "grow" (use software in your computer), they reproduce but not many would say they are alive. Life is  not always so cut and dried.

[Freddy]

Are you and your family alive Demon ? Have you got any pets ? Are they alive ? What do you see growing in your garden ? Are those plants alive ? In your life on Earth did you ever encounter anything alive ? How did you know it was alive if you did and what was your reasoning ?

I think you are talking about categorisation of life, not the definition perhaps ?

[ivan.moony]

For me it is really simple: if one can have feelings and emotions (not simulations), it is alive. In other words, if one can be happy or sad, joyful or in hurt, etc., it is alive. And if one acts as alive, looks as alive, but doesn't feel that magic of life we all do, it is just a thing (more or less valuable, but still a thing).

[Korrelan]

For me it is really simple: if one can have feelings and emotions (not simulations), it is alive

If you where a newly arrived alien to this planet, and you threw a brick through a shop window (as you do)… and the alarm went off… from the aliens point of view is the shop screaming with pain?

It’s obviously damaged and screaming like it’s distressed…

[DemonRaven]

Are you and your family alive Demon ? Have you got any pets ? Are they alive ? What do you see growing in your garden ? Are those plants alive ? In your life on Earth did you ever encounter anything alive ? How did you know it was alive if you did and what was your reasoning ?

I think you are talking about categorisation of life, not the definition perhaps ?

In some respects yes it seems simple however the smaller you get the fuzzier the definition/categorization.  IT is the same with physics the  smaller you get the weirder the effects (Quantum mechanics ). If a being was made of pure energy would we recognize it as alive?

[DemonRaven]

For me it is really simple: if one can have feelings and emotions (not simulations), it is alive

If you where a newly arrived alien to this planet, and you threw a brick through a shop window (as you do)… and the alarm went off… from the aliens point of view is the shop screaming with pain?

It’s obviously damaged and screaming like it’s distressed…

I like that example. It is a good one.

[Freddy]

In some respects yes it seems simple however the smaller you get the fuzzier the definition/categorization.  IT is the same with physics the  smaller you get the weirder the effects (Quantum mechanics ). If a being was made of pure energy would we recognize it as alive?

Thanks for your answer

I was just reflecting your original question back to you - my intent is just to show that we all have an understanding of what life is. Putting it down in words if often difficult I think and never exhaustive or utterly defining. If I point at a plant we would probably agree that it is alive, and for most of the time that would be enough.

I agree, the deeper you get the more you see - like a Mandelbrot set.



You think you have seen all the details, but when you go deeper there is still more to see.

I don't know about beings made of pure energy, never met one ! It would be a defining moment though.

[ivan.moony]

For me it is really simple: if one can have feelings and emotions (not simulations), it is alive

If you where a newly arrived alien to this planet, and you threw a brick through a shop window (as you do)… and the alarm went off… from the aliens point of view is the shop screaming with pain?

It’s obviously damaged and screaming like it’s distressed…

Firstly, as an inexperienced alien, I would be very careful because you never know what's happening with those earthlings. I would try to conclude (don't ask how) is the screamming thing alive or not. If that doesn't work out, and I'm still confused, I would try to conclude did any other living being installed that alarm to scream when someone else is hurt. And I'm afraid all of that would be just guessing.

It is really the problem with detecting life. How do you know that I'm alive? I can't prove it to you. You can only guess for now. All you know is that I somehow output behavior of a living being. In the future, someone would probably construct a life detector. You know, you point it to a certain position and it beeps if there are emotions wobbling. Until then, you have to take my word for it: trust me, I'm alive. The alarm is not. If it is, it's hiding it pretty well.

[DemonRaven]

I know this post is a tad off topic. Risking the wrath of some who may be religious there are some "beings" listed in the old testament, which in some form is used by all three of the major religions (judaism,  Islam, Christianity). Now suppose that there is some truth to what it lists,  after all most legends have some basis in fact. Angels, as described in some books, could fit the definition of a being made of energy. Now before you tar and feather me hear me out. They can change form, they appear as very bright objects and they can come and go seemingly with out any mechanical devices to assist them.  One book, a apocrypha one, suggests that they are made of fire. To me this kind of intelligence would fit what I would consider to be a being made of energy. So it is possible that we have been visited by "aliens"  (aliens not the in the traditional sense but alien to our world) in the past.  -runs behind a rock to avoid being stoned- lol

But if such a being existed and did not reproduce but lived forever we would be hard pressed to use the traditional definition of life. Reproduction is one of the criteria. So why wouldn't a computer or robot if it became sentient also not be considered alive.

[Zero]

The first thing that popped up in my mind when I read the first post about this survey, is: "wow, sh*t. It won't happen if people believe it won't."

I think that creating e-live computers (I love "e-live", thanks for this!!!) is less about making a giant technological step, than making people believe, or understand, that it has been done, for real.

Imagine Jesus arrives today on earth. He speaks, explains things, and then he walks on the water (I mean: really). What would happen? There would be a video on Youtube, with comments saying "yeah, nice vid". And that's it.

If people don't believe in miracles, there's no miracle.
If people don't believe in e-live computers, there's no e-live computer.

[Zero]

... which is why I believe in this:



Sure, BUDDY's not Einstein. But people can establish an emotional connection with him, and this is more important than any miraculous algorithm we could come up with, IMO. BUDDY could be considered e-live, eventually.
What do you think?