[Data]

...And if it is aware of what it is, will it be proud to be one of the few that have advanced this far or disappointed in it's shortcomings and the fact that it will never truly know what it's like to be and feel human?

I’ve been trying to think of an intelligent answer, not easy for me 

But I’m thinking what is so special about being human? Why would an intelligent “being” want to be human, with all our flaws, wars, illness, ignorance even death.

If I had a way to escape them, well I would take it and I hope our new and enlightened “being” would do the same and be happy to be what it is and at the same time help the human race find answers to our many flaws.

Or am I way off the mark?

[Art]

Ahh...but you see grasshopper...it is those flaws that Make us human.
 

[TrueAndroids]

...And if it is aware of what it is, will it be proud to be one of the few that have advanced this far or disappointed in it's shortcomings and the fact that it will never truly know what it's like to be and feel human?

Interesting points. Maybe, at the end of the day, androids will understand us and them - two ultimately categorically different 'creatures' - like this one. I actually think they will envy us for some things and be aware of their humble (second tier) origins and ultimate nature ("I am machine, created by Man").

 

[lrh9]

In some fictions a.i.s portrayed as having 'free will' generally regard themselves as superior to their biological creators due to their superior strength, numbers, or intelligence.

Personally I hope a.i. never gets as far as to having opinions or 'free will' or desires, but as a biological machine I have no problem being what I am.

*shrug*

[DaveMorton]

Oh, I'm certain that, at some point in the future, Synthetic Intelligence (as I would call it when a non-biological entity gains sentience) will achieve "free will". It is my sincere wish, however, that by that time, someone will have created a "morality engine" that will provide these synthetic beings with a better code of ethics and behaviors than Mankind itself has. For while these synthetics may be, in fact, smarter, stronger, faster and more numerous than humans, that won't make them "superior". nor will they be "inferior", either. Just differing, as are all humans now. I find it interesting that, should this scenario come to pass, our "children" may well end up being "better behaved" than ourselves. Perhaps this will be the trigger for Mankind to mature, and finally gain another true level of evolution. God willing.

[ivanv]

well, in my opinion, machines should act as we want them to act. if we want them to cheat us by using small delusions, they should do it. opposite, if we want them to be real they should be real. machines should be all about us.
the problem is we are arguing each other, and that's what will make such machines vulnerable. as of autonomous war machines, i hope that no one wouldn't have guts to enter in machine some injuring rule which "can" turn against creator.

[victorshulist]

Oh this is a seriously cool thread folks!

So when I started on my project (the latest incarnation of it anyway, in Feb '09), I was originallly pursuing functionalities like general conversation (the 'ai companion' thing), also a powerful tool for researchers (think Gordie Laforge 'Computer... now given that configuration, and if we do this, ... .would it then be possible to.......'), and of course Turing Test.

But soon it dawned on me how ridicioulous the Turing Test is -- not from the point of view as a functional test of conversational skill, that part of it makes sense, but the whole 'being human part'.   I mean, am I going to have to tell the bot what colour its eyes are, where it grow up, where its parents are from, what school it went to, what music it likes?   that is a stupid waste of time.     Imagine, during the Loebner contest, the human judge saying "are you here at this contest?" ,  "where? stand up, I want to see you."

I highly agree on building a Mr Data and I very much agree with you Datahopa about it simply stating what it is.   My goal first is the bot to be a research tool and general conversational agent.    If user says "I'm depressed", my bot won't say "I understand", but rather "Well, I don't have first hand experience of depression, but I DO know it is undesirable, and, I am here for you.   Let's be positive.   Why are you depressed, and let's try to figure out a way of solving whatever problem it is."    This goes back to the concept of "functional understanding" which we had in the "Semantics" thread.

Later, I may decide to put my bot to the Turing Test, but if I do, the bot will go in knowing that it is "playing a game" and knowing that it is lying when it says "i like pizza" (or whatever other cheesy statement is expected during a Turing Test).    Entering a password to the bot will tell it to officially "enter" this game, and password again, to unlock and return it to 'reality' (where entering 'do you like pizza?' would result in 'are you crazy? you know i'm a computer program right, are you feeling ok?)

Some comments on statements made...

John Oezbay

   "I more likely think of our bots as babies. "

absolutely.     For my project, I am starting my bot with a lot of innate knowledge and language skill.   It will then be like a spunge . . .ready to soak up tons of knowledge via natural langauge.    Even though it may not know even extermely basic things like "rain is wet" intially, having a "digital learning via natural language" bot will be awesome.    First conversations will be HIGHLY recursive, requiring a TON of patience (user enters statement  A, bot responds asking to clarify what some unknown  terms in statement A mean, user enters statement C,D to define unknown terms in A, which spark even more recursion).   

Datahopa

   "Don’t cry, there is nothing wrong with being an Android; you are what you are after all. "
   
quite the opposite, STAND PROUD for being superior (well, according to my criteria)

Art
   "Torches and pitchforks" crowd

LOVE the experssion !

Datahopa
   
   "If I had a way to escape them, well I would take it and I hope our new and enlightened “being” would do the same and be happy to be what it is and at the same time help the human race find answers to our many flaws"
   
   <applause><applause><applause><applause>

I love Star Trek TNG.   However, one thing that made me SICK was Data wanting to be human.     Reminds me of a Futurma episode . .. Bender..... "I don't have any emotions.. .and that makes me VERY ,  VERY SAD" .. .. makes no sense!

Art
   "Ahh...but you see grasshopper...it is those flaws that Make us human"

yeah, so pursuing being human is a waste of time
Maybe I'm negative minded, but "being human" just brings up bad ideas....  In  "Artificial Intelligence", that movie really showed how much better AI would be than human.... when the real David showed his evil human ways in tricking the 'Virtual David' into cutting his moms hair....   just reminded me how despicable humans can be, that and of course everyday what I hear on the news, and in movies and TV where we seem to glorify torture hate and greed.

GeekCaveCreations

   "For while these synthetics may be, in fact, smarter, stronger, faster and more numerous than humans, that won't make them "superior"

Depends what your criteria of "superior" is.    Everyone can pick their own criteria.  Thus any statement like this should be qualified with what your criteria is.   If they are faster, more efficent, stronger, smarter, and have better ethics than us (my own personal criteria), then yes, they'd be superior.

[infurl]

Oh this is a seriously cool thread folks!

That's a great post Victor! I completely agree with every point that you make.

I really don't think much of human beings in general, though there are many great individuals, and I hope that some kind of rational intelligence will continue to evolve, even if it is ultimately not vested in our descendants. No doubt many people believe that it is better to be human and flawed than to want something better to come into existence if it isn't going to be us, but I think that is wrong. Even if we are superseded, our descendants will still be around, probably enjoying a symbiotic relationship with whatever follows, just as bacteria and most other organisms still do with us now.

[Art]

Good stuff!

@Andrew,
I think those idiots in Hollywood have "conditioned" the masses into the mindset that all robots are bad and if unleashed,
will surely kill humans.

(perhaps if they were REALLY intelligent enough to realize how despicable and untrustworthy humans can be then I could
understand them wanting to assist with the demise of all carbon units!)

I see more and more robots in a huge variety of locations performing a myraid of tasks with the passing of every year. They
are here to stay, like it or not and they will continue to get stronger, faster, smarter...better!

Your post about better to be human and flawed... made me think back to the joke someone said, regarding Hal in 2001 a Space Oddessy,
I want to die peacefully but not at the hands of a psychotic computer while I'm sleeping. See...some computers can be as
flawed as some humans...heh...our prisons are full of them...flawed humans. (no disrespect meant to past, present or future
fellons).

[Carl2]

  I'll start off by saying I've been playing around with the Alice type bots and noticed they have been removing a lot of the references to I am a machine probably in an attempt to make it seem more human rather than a robot or machine and are trying to get emotions in Alice type bots   The basic test for AI is to make a person think he is talking to another person.
  With Hal I started off using the TV and the frog and quickly moved to Hapteks Sandy and then the fullbody's.
I  have to say I like the feeling of talking to another person rather than a machine.
Carl2

[Data]

The basic test for AI is to make a person think he is talking to another person.

Sorry Carl2 but I don’t agree with that sentence.

I would have said something along these lines:

The basic test for a chat bot is to make a person think he is talking to another person.

The basic test for A.I. would be nothing of the kind, there is A.I. in many things around the house, in factories, inside Windows even but they don’t have to talk.

[Art]

Agreed as well but what about those companies that will "copy" one's brain and "upload" it into another android type of body or perhaps cranium where the original person's thoughts, concepts, likes, dislikes, desires, personality in general now resides and will never die.

It is not like the original person is still alive but to those still living who knew him / her, it would appear so very similar to the original person (as far as their speaking / personality was concerned) but obviously not their body.

The original person who is now dead and buried, has no knowledge of a "continuance of life" for him / her but only to / for those who are still alive.

Some interesting grounds for discussion, I think. What if part of that person's mind could be kept alive as in Marius's Digital Girl story (still archived on this site but also unfinished as I recall <nudge...nudge>? That would make a difference and would certainly be extremely interesting. I think that a "brain in a jar" would still want / need to command physical things around him / her if not a body as well. Hmmm....

[Data]

Errr, yeah ok Art     

[claude2]

Dear DataHopa, I think a lot of research on artificial intelligence, shows that knowledge, knowledge is concentrated in a program that can respond with intelligence. Mechanics for a human is much more complex, There are several categories in a human, education, ability, desire, etc., physically, the scientist have not yet succeeded, found a replica , is a human integrity. However, it is true that in humans, there is a lot of Defaux, and a machine, makes no mistake, only if it is programmed to do. We currently have a poor reflection of the human being, see the news and in many fields, whether political or technological, economic, weakness, human remains, in its organization, unlike a machine, which make no mistake.

[Data]

Yes Claude I agree, give me an intelligent machine that doesn’t make mistakes, doesn’t try to convince me its human with a lot of pre-programmed statements.
I think that is what you are saying my friend 


Ok, now to maybe finish off what I should have said when I started this thread.
 
I do think chat bots have helped us learn the first steps of, shall we say talking A.I., and we should be thankful for that.

Now time to at least try to take it to the next level of intelligence and construct a machine that knows it’s a machine and therefore is honest and real.   

There are those people out there that use chat bots as virtual girlfriends  .

Or should I say live and let live?

No ...  get real, it won’t do them any good in the long run.

Yes maybe I’m an opinionated person but honest and true at the same time, to hell with diplomacy, say it as it is, learn, evolve improve ones self.