Can artificial intelligence come alive?

While geneticists are working on it, so far this isn't accurate. Then, there is the ethical issue. Hitler would have loved this.

With the advances in AI, perhaps people would prefer robotic children. This would not surprise me.
Hmm, highest IQs on the planet, Ashkenazi Jews, and then East Asians - not Germans. I am sure Hitler would have loved that. Right? BTW, coincidentally those Ashkenazis have won Nobel prizes far far out of proportion to their numbers and last time I checked, US Asian family household income outscored White. One of my neighbors is Korean. She has 3 daughters, two with a Phd (one a researcher in AI) and the third, the black sheep, only a Masters.

Interesting story about how that Korean IQ was discovered. A Brit teacher was posted to the British Korean embassy. His job, teaching the children of the British diplomats and the Korean embassy workers. He took with him an IQ test - thought it would be interesting to see how much smarter the Brits were than those Koreans. You can guess his shock and dismay at the results. (-8
 

Well, I believe everything in creation is ALIVE.
Soon, in the future, humankind will be able to
meld the human soul with human intellect.
Measure the force of thought, as a giant step
toward God consciousness. (in humans)

Yet, In " The Day after Roswell", the entity found
was apparently half human, half robotic, to
withstand incredible travel distance with no food
or bodily assimilation.
I think all things are possible by molecular manipulation.

This puzzles me.
I must ponder on this.
 
Hmm, highest IQs on the planet, Ashkenazi Jews, and then East Asians - not Germans. I am sure Hitler would have loved that. Right? BTW, coincidentally those Ashkenazis have won Nobel prizes far far out of proportion to their numbers and last time I checked, US Asian family household income outscored White. One of my neighbors is Korean. She has 3 daughters, two with a Phd (one a researcher in AI) and the third, the black sheep, only a Masters.

Interesting story about how that Korean IQ was discovered. A Brit teacher was posted to the British Korean embassy. His job, teaching the children of the British diplomats and the Korean embassy workers. He took with him an IQ test - thought it would be interesting to see how much smarter the Brits were than those Koreans. You can guess his shock and dismay at the results. (-8
Well, there you go. We don't need GMO children. Just let the Ashkenazis and Koreans run everything and our problems are solved.
 

Well, there you go. We don't need GMO children. Just let the Ashkenazis and Koreans run everything and our problems are solved.
I believe way back there somewhere the question of how humanity could evolve was raised. What I described was a way. I think the traditional Darwinian approach would be a little slow.

BTW it’s not just Ashkenazis and Koreans. Don‘t forget the Chinese and Japanese.
 
Alive in the sense that it can do what it's programmed to do. The potential for being able to create another AI as robotics improve, possible if mankind is dumb enough to make that possible. As for feeling pain, doubtful but what might a group of robots do if a power source were disconnected from one or two in the group?
 
There are 4 types of AI. However, since AI requires input from a computer (for now) it cannot come alive, but can operate on its own if programmed and initiated correctly.
Examples would be Conversational bots, Siri, self-driving cars, Robo-advisors and Alexa.
 
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the ability of a computer or a robot controlled by a computer to do tasks that are usually done by humans because they require human intelligence and discernment.

The Turing Test is a method of inquiry in artificial intelligence (AI) for determining whether or not a computer is capable of thinking like a human being. The test is named after Alan Turing, the founder of the Turing Test and an English computer scientist, cryptanalyst, mathematician and theoretical biologist. It is a three-person game in which a computer uses written communication to try to fool a human interrogator into thinking that it's another person. Despite major advances in artificial intelligence, no computer has ever passed the Turing
 
Hmm, highest IQs on the planet, Ashkenazi Jews, and then East Asians - not Germans. I am sure Hitler would have loved that. Right? BTW, coincidentally those Ashkenazis have won Nobel prizes far far out of proportion to their numbers and last time I checked, US Asian family household income outscored White. One of my neighbors is Korean. She has 3 daughters, two with a Phd (one a researcher in AI) and the third, the black sheep, only a Masters.

Interesting story about how that Korean IQ was discovered. A Brit teacher was posted to the British Korean embassy. His job, teaching the children of the British diplomats and the Korean embassy workers. He took with him an IQ test - thought it would be interesting to see how much smarter the Brits were than those Koreans. You can guess his shock and dismay at the results. (-8
Back when I was working in a learning center, we were visited by Korean educators interested in our educational methods. They encouraged me to go to Korea to teach English. If not for administrative staff nearby, I would have told them what I really thought of our educational system. So, your post results don't really surprise me. I'm sure the same would be true of Americans. (Don't get me started, haha!)
 
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the ability of a computer or a robot controlled by a computer to do tasks that are usually done by humans because they require human intelligence and discernment.

The Turing Test is a method of inquiry in artificial intelligence (AI) for determining whether or not a computer is capable of thinking like a human being. The test is named after Alan Turing, the founder of the Turing Test and an English computer scientist, cryptanalyst, mathematician and theoretical biologist. It is a three-person game in which a computer uses written communication to try to fool a human interrogator into thinking that it's another person. Despite major advances in artificial intelligence, no computer has ever passed the Turing
I just watched a video on a humanoid robot that looked and had the facial expressions of the female host - and it seems they are getting close. (I'm sorry, but the link is no longer in my search history.)
 
Well , they're workin' on it...

Anatomically correct? 😲 Just think of the possibilities! You'll be able to build your own special “person” to order, as long as you have enough money to afford to do so. Of course, the robots will eventually be able to repair each other. Hopefully, humans will still have a place in this world. I guess, eventually, we're the ones who'll end up being the drones. 36

Bella ✌️
 
...the company's artificial intelligence showed prejudice in how it interacted with humans.
of course it does, its programmed to. the FB/jeezos algorithms send you what you want to hear and read and think.

that does not...make it intelligent. just makes it mechanically habitual.
 
of course it does, its programmed to. the FB/jeezos algorithms send you what you want to hear and read and think.

that does not...make it intelligent. just makes it mechanically habitual.
Two or more times in the last few years, facbk or gggl or other media attempted setting up a chat room/ forum like this one/ but it was run by ai and was "programmed" to "learn" and develop rules and make conversation from the people who signed up/joined in.

Within about forty eight hours, maybe a little more, it had to be shut down, it got so completely VULGAR and bad speaking/no good from it.
 
Two or more times in the last few years, facbk or gggl or other media attempted setting up a chat room/ forum like this one/ but it was run by ai and was "programmed" to "learn" and develop rules and make conversation from the people who signed up/joined in.

Within about forty eight hours, maybe a little more, it had to be shut down, it got so completely VULGAR and bad speaking/no good from it.
these sites dont add anything. while info may be a bit available one can no longer tell if the info, the sppsd "info"has
any accuracy without spending hours more time on the net which seems easier now than actually doing things
in a real world, since real world is barely a thing anymore.

these big sites suck up stuff then toss it back at humans as tho it has value when all its done is invade another
life conning that life into thinking it belongs somewhere in the morass of millionaire 'teck'.
:poop::poop:
 
Well , they're workin' on it...

I am absolutely fascinated by humanoid robots. Blame it on a love for dolls. These are truly amazing! And, although creepy, the 'human' skin investigations could dramatically change the lives of burn victims and others. My wish is that they make an army of robot warriors so that no nation ever has to send their children off to war. Perhaps a robotic police force might make better decisions than living officers before discharging a weapon.
 
I am absolutely fascinated by humanoid robots...

Most people just don't understand how some computer, ai, materials robotics, technologies are advancing. If the below impresses, Kurzweil will be a good read.


At 2:45 it begins a discussion of Japan designed robots with beautiful natural looking faces, female anatomically correct, the Western news media refuses to acknowledge that there and in China, it is also about a race to a lucrative sex industry...Robot Wives to Order!


I once took a community college class in non-verbal communication. The human face, muscles, flesh, skin, has considerable complexity of emotional recognizable expressions that we perceive on a not fully conscious of or aware level. Also small micro changes to our face others pick up as types of emotion and feeling and inner moment to moment expression that slowed down with video is revealing. Decades ago psychology researchers were already analyzing facial expression videos. By now I would expect the technology is greatly advanced and there are likely video libraries of different relative strengths of facial expression, graphically modeled to anatomical muscles, maybe on different ethnic skull variations, using synthesized pleasant young female voices. Robotic security system software would also have considerable interest in these human emotion detection technologies.
 
At 2:45 it begins a discussion of Japan designed robots with beautiful natural looking faces, female anatomically correct, the Western news media refuses to acknowledge that there and in China, it is also about a race to a lucrative sex industry...
Robot Wives to Order!
Surely everyone remembers "The Stepford Wives"! Let's have a little refresher, shall we?

What's a 'Stepford Wife'? The Anti-Feminist Stereotype Created By A Movie.

76558d3799033510d1f6178c3fede814.jpg

"Even if you've never seen The Stepford Wives, the dark 1975 film sci-fi/horror film where wealthy suburban men turn their partners into subservient robots, you know what a "Stepford Wife" is. A Stepford Wife isn't just perfect, she's too perfect. There's an eerie, robotic quality to the way that she goes about her day and dotes on her husband. Subservient and docile, the Stepford Wife is a thing that should not be.

There are at least three iterations of The Stepford Wives and multiple, lesser, spin-offs, and while each version of the story packs its own specific punch it's the phrase that seems to stick with the population, not the story, not the harrowing images on the big screen. Decades after the film's initial release and slow journey to cult status, the term "Stepford Wife" has nestled into the vernacular at large to describe anything that's too perfect, or too good to be true.


"To put it simply, a Stepford Wife is a submissive woman who puts her husband's wants and needs ahead of hers while maintaining an immaculate personal appearance. Eternally youthful and docile, the term is full of venom. No one should be excited that they're fulfilling the Stepford ideal of perfection and servitude unless it's something to which all parties have consented.

Based on the 1972 novel by Ira Levin (Rosemary's Baby) and director Bryan Forbes' 1975 film, Stepford Wives were robotic versions of a woman, refitted to be a better version of someone's partner. Forbes came up with the signature Stepford style: Think Marilyn Monroe meets June Cleaver. Their bodies are sculpted and their minds are molded to be exactly what their husbands want. The Stepford Wife doesn't want anything more than to serve because that's how she's programmed.

The Stepford Wives follows Joanna Eberhart, a New York City photographer whose husband, Walter, persuades her to move to Connecticut. There, they and their two children settle in the idyllic town of Stepford, which has an unnatural number of bland, smiling women in long skirts. Joanna and best friend Bobbie Markowe grow suspicious as they watch new friends like Charmaine Wimpiris change personalities overnight, transforming into obedient male fantasies. The terrifying truth is, the members of the local men's association have been killing their wives and supplanting them with high-tech, subservient robots.

Forbes crafted a thriller in bright suburban sunlight, where modern-minded 1975 women are replaced by soulless androids who will just die if they don't get this recipe. More than four decades later, the film stands as a creepy gender study that cleverly explores a woman's role in the home and turned "Stepford wife" into a household phrase. "It has passed into the language", says Nanette Newman, who starred as the eerily cheery Carol Van Sant. "A Stepford wife epitomizes somebody who is perfectly made up, looks perfect, and presents a very perfect facade.

Feminism challenged the the traditional view of gender roles -- that men were the smart ones, the ones who belonged in charge, doing things of great consequence, and women were subservient by nature, fit to do easy and less consequential tasks that were denigrated as "women's work." Furthermore, a higher emphasis was placed on women's appearance; they were expected to look put together at all times, and to "keep" their figure -- important to "keeping" a man.

There was the condescending idea that women should aspire to "have it all" -- a perfect home, perfect kids, perfect marriage and perfect appearance -- and that this would bring satisfaction. But having it all sounds a lot like doing it all, doesn't it? Keeping everyone else happy and everything tidy requires a near abdication of self.

The sinister husbands in the film don't really want wives -- they want unquestioning multi-taskers who look and behave perfectly and appear to be happy about it. They want robots, so they make robots.

The fact is, managing a household is complex, potentially soul-draining, and may have required more skill than the jobs the bread-winning men were doing. Striving for the Barbie-doll ideal, forever dieting while their beer-swilling husbands packed on the pounds and lost their hair, required a discipline those husbands couldn't (or chose not to) understand.

Another way of viewing the Stepford Wife is as a critique of the unfairness of traditional gender expectations. In order to be the perfect wife, you'd almost have to be a robot. And those seemingly perfect wives we all meet from time to time? Maybe they really are robots.

The Stepford Wives was neither a critical or commercial success. Earning only $4 million at the box office in 1975, the film was derided by genre film averse critics and second wave feminists who felt that the film was attempting to co-opt their movement with a shiny, beautiful facade. Many second-wave feminists derided it as exploitative trash. A 1975 New York Times article described how Columbia Pictures invited feminist activists to a Stepford screening, only for them to meet the film with "hisses, groans, and guffaws." Betty Friedan called it a "rip-off of the women's movement" and then "stomped out of the screening room."

"She was very upset about our movie," Tina Louise says. "Very upset. She thought Ira Levin was saying that's the way things should be, but he didn't feel that way at all." Neither did Forbes or the rest of the cast. "Bryan always used to say, 'If anything, it's anti-men!'" Newman recalls. "If the men are really stupid enough to want wives like that, then it's sad for them. I thought the men were ridiculous to want to make women into servile creatures."

What people missed at the time is that the film is a warning. The bad guys win. Katherine Ross is choked to death with a pair of nylons by her robotic doppelgänger. It's every bit as harrowing as the final moments of Night of the Living Dead and Invasion of the Body Snatchers. In the years following the film's release it became a cult classic. Each film offers its own perverse pleasures at a price."

Robot wives to order? Please pass me the bucket, I need to hurl. vomit

Bella ✌️
 
Surely everyone remembers "The Stepford Wives"! Let's have a little refresher, shall we?

What's a 'Stepford Wife'? The Anti-Feminist Stereotype Created By A Movie.

76558d3799033510d1f6178c3fede814.jpg

"Even if you've never seen The Stepford Wives, the dark 1975 film sci-fi/horror film where wealthy suburban men turn their partners into subservient robots, you know what a "Stepford Wife" is. A Stepford Wife isn't just perfect, she's too perfect. There's an eerie, robotic quality to the way that she goes about her day and dotes on her husband. Subservient and docile, the Stepford Wife is a thing that should not be.

There are at least three iterations of The Stepford Wives and multiple, lesser, spin-offs, and while each version of the story packs its own specific punch it's the phrase that seems to stick with the population, not the story, not the harrowing images on the big screen. Decades after the film's initial release and slow journey to cult status, the term "Stepford Wife" has nestled into the vernacular at large to describe anything that's too perfect, or too good to be true.


"To put it simply, a Stepford Wife is a submissive woman who puts her husband's wants and needs ahead of hers while maintaining an immaculate personal appearance. Eternally youthful and docile, the term is full of venom. No one should be excited that they're fulfilling the Stepford ideal of perfection and servitude unless it's something to which all parties have consented.

Based on the 1972 novel by Ira Levin (Rosemary's Baby) and director Bryan Forbes' 1975 film, Stepford Wives were robotic versions of a woman, refitted to be a better version of someone's partner. Forbes came up with the signature Stepford style: Think Marilyn Monroe meets June Cleaver. Their bodies are sculpted and their minds are molded to be exactly what their husbands want. The Stepford Wife doesn't want anything more than to serve because that's how she's programmed.

The Stepford Wives follows Joanna Eberhart, a New York City photographer whose husband, Walter, persuades her to move to Connecticut. There, they and their two children settle in the idyllic town of Stepford, which has an unnatural number of bland, smiling women in long skirts. Joanna and best friend Bobbie Markowe grow suspicious as they watch new friends like Charmaine Wimpiris change personalities overnight, transforming into obedient male fantasies. The terrifying truth is, the members of the local men's association have been killing their wives and supplanting them with high-tech, subservient robots.

Forbes crafted a thriller in bright suburban sunlight, where modern-minded 1975 women are replaced by soulless androids who will just die if they don't get this recipe. More than four decades later, the film stands as a creepy gender study that cleverly explores a woman's role in the home and turned "Stepford wife" into a household phrase. "It has passed into the language", says Nanette Newman, who starred as the eerily cheery Carol Van Sant. "A Stepford wife epitomizes somebody who is perfectly made up, looks perfect, and presents a very perfect facade.

Feminism challenged the the traditional view of gender roles -- that men were the smart ones, the ones who belonged in charge, doing things of great consequence, and women were subservient by nature, fit to do easy and less consequential tasks that were denigrated as "women's work." Furthermore, a higher emphasis was placed on women's appearance; they were expected to look put together at all times, and to "keep" their figure -- important to "keeping" a man.

There was the condescending idea that women should aspire to "have it all" -- a perfect home, perfect kids, perfect marriage and perfect appearance -- and that this would bring satisfaction. But having it all sounds a lot like doing it all, doesn't it? Keeping everyone else happy and everything tidy requires a near abdication of self.

The sinister husbands in the film don't really want wives -- they want unquestioning multi-taskers who look and behave perfectly and appear to be happy about it. They want robots, so they make robots.

The fact is, managing a household is complex, potentially soul-draining, and may have required more skill than the jobs the bread-winning men were doing. Striving for the Barbie-doll ideal, forever dieting while their beer-swilling husbands packed on the pounds and lost their hair, required a discipline those husbands couldn't (or chose not to) understand.

Another way of viewing the Stepford Wife is as a critique of the unfairness of traditional gender expectations. In order to be the perfect wife, you'd almost have to be a robot. And those seemingly perfect wives we all meet from time to time? Maybe they really are robots.

The Stepford Wives was neither a critical or commercial success. Earning only $4 million at the box office in 1975, the film was derided by genre film averse critics and second wave feminists who felt that the film was attempting to co-opt their movement with a shiny, beautiful facade. Many second-wave feminists derided it as exploitative trash. A 1975 New York Times article described how Columbia Pictures invited feminist activists to a Stepford screening, only for them to meet the film with "hisses, groans, and guffaws." Betty Friedan called it a "rip-off of the women's movement" and then "stomped out of the screening room."

"She was very upset about our movie," Tina Louise says. "Very upset. She thought Ira Levin was saying that's the way things should be, but he didn't feel that way at all." Neither did Forbes or the rest of the cast. "Bryan always used to say, 'If anything, it's anti-men!'" Newman recalls. "If the men are really stupid enough to want wives like that, then it's sad for them. I thought the men were ridiculous to want to make women into servile creatures."

What people missed at the time is that the film is a warning. The bad guys win. Katherine Ross is choked to death with a pair of nylons by her robotic doppelgänger. It's every bit as harrowing as the final moments of Night of the Living Dead and Invasion of the Body Snatchers. In the years following the film's release it became a cult classic. Each film offers its own perverse pleasures at a price."
would ha
Robot wives to order? Please pass me the bucket, I need to hurl. vomit

Bella ✌️
For my dead ex, one of these women would have been perfect for him.
"Keeping everyone else happy and everything tidy requires a near abdication of self."
You have that right. /-;
 
For background, from Wiki:
"
Artificial intelligence was founded as an academic discipline in 1956, and in the years since has experienced several waves of optimism, followed by disappointment and the loss of funding (known as an "AI winter"), followed by new approaches, success and renewed funding. AI research has tried and discarded many different approaches since its founding, including simulating the brain, modeling human problem solving, formal logic, large databases of knowledge and imitating animal behavior. In the first decades of the 21st century, highly mathematical-statistical machine learning has dominated the field, and this technique has proved highly successful, helping to solve many challenging problems throughout industry and academia."
 
The Stepford Wives image of what men supposedly want is totally nuts. The idea that men just want a pretty mechanical doll, rather than a human being... really? But think how boring that would be. Not to mention the little fact that they had to kill their real wife first in order to replace her with the doll, and that this is what most men want.

I like using Alexa to play music, give me the weather forecast, give me factual information such as the names of national leaders, who starred in a movie, mathematical calculations (simple ones), list recipes, and so on. But ever try to have a real conversation with one? Not only does she not look anything like a human being, I wouldn't mistake "her" for one even if she did.

Though I do think the varying answers I get to "Alexa, thank you" are pretty funny. I like an AI device programmed with a sense of humor better than HAL.
 


Back
Top