AI is not done building the blocks to become fully efficient on its own.. what you are trying to explain is a very feasible idea.. but once that Pandora's box is open, what will happen to humanity?

That is a problem that I came across too. If they become smarter than us and can have emotions, some of them will do bad things. What we can do is restrict them from doing so, but I don’t think that is AI if something is restricting them from thinking a certain way. So this leads to a more philosophical problem that will be really hard to solve.

You are saying that we don't have strong AI with consciousness, which is true. But the field of AI also includes various algorithmic tasks such as pattern, speech, image recognition and many others. We can't mimic the complete human brain currently through software, but we can replicate many of the complex tasks it performs.

Even the scientific calculators are AI. It's just as we advanced we don't consider it. And yah, The real AI is not yet in this planet.

Go onto YouTube and search for GPT-3. After your mind is blown away by that, search for Lambda AI. Then search for Dalle-2, stable diffusion and mid journey. Finally cons that GPT-4 is expected to be released in the next few months and is rumoured to be very significantly better than GPT-3.

I have seen AI generated art and it is certainly impressive, but it seems more like they you give them a prompt, and it goes onto the internet and finds the most related pictures and morphs it into one picture.

That is not how it works. Go and watch the videos as I suggested.

The lack of independence you're referring to comes from the fact that the AI models dominating the current discussion (the GPT series, DALL-E, etc) are all statistical models that rely on the data that they're fed into. So they don't have the built-in mechanisms that would allow them to generate outputs (whether it's pictures, sentences, etc) that go beyond the exposed dataset.

(As you say, things get more complicated--there are statistical models that require inputting initial biases (e.g. Bayesian models, etc), but I'm putting those aside.)

Critics of modern AI (Noam Chomsky, Gary Marcus, etc) therefore argue that modern AI approaches will never achieve human-level intelligence because human minds aren't blank slates that rely totally on external data--there are lots of innate built-in mechanisms that allow them to generate outputs, even if they've never been exposed to the relevant data.

For example, research has shown that kids growing up in an environment where there's no linguistic input (look up "pidgin" and "creole" languages, if you're interested) will simply invent their own language which ends up having the same underlying structure as other languages (like English). (This is a case of the argument by "Poverty of the Stimulus"--which states that there aren't enough data in a child's environment to learn the language of his community, so there must be a built-in innate language faculty--dubbed "Universal Grammar"--that allows him to learn the language.)

Notice this is simply impossible for statistical models--statistical models don't do anything if it's not fed any data; it doesn't generate anything by itself (much less a full-fledged human language). But proponents of modern AI approaches (Yann Lecun, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabi, etc) argue that statistical models can achieve human-level intelligence, and most argue that scaling is all you need--i.e. you just need more data. Their views stem from the empiricist tradition that the mind is the product of the external data it is exposed to--no innate mechanisms needed.

So yes, your concern is very much debated--though most people in the modern AI community are on the data-centric side. The empiricist (i.e. data-centric) people argue more data is all you need to achieve a fully generative system. The nativist (i.e. in support of innate mechanisms) people argue that in order to achieve the generative capacity of a human being--which largely seems to be "independent" of external inputs as you say--you need to first flesh out the built-in innate mechanisms that human beings seem to have. So I'd look into those discussions if you want to probe further.

I will check them out. I honestly don’t know much about this, and this was just a thought. But I am interested. So thanks for the recommendations. 😁

How different is a human and a computer? People arrive with code. It’s all code.

Can you explain how humans work in laymen terms? This sounds interesting.

Humans and computers are immeasurably different.

[deleted]

Parts of human DNA (genes) hold the code. RNA deciphers and translates the code. Your OG human cells knew what to do, because of the instructions or code, given to become the proteins that are you. Many will debate the facets of this question and bring human error to the conclusion. Humans are self building. Humans are an intelligence.

Wait so is it possible to do something like making/coding a gene with a computer?

DNA sequence can be synthesized in a laboratory.