Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Randolpho" data-source="post: 248569" data-attributes="member: 3016">Well, well, well, an AI thread! I'm a Computer Science major, and I love AI discussions. Aside from the totally nonsensical social commentary, this is an interesting thread.I'll start with a question: What really *is* Artificial Intelligence? When people talk about AI, do they mean the AI that we have now for games (i.e. complex if this do that alghorithms), or are we talking about Artificial *Sentience*? I think that AI originally meant Artificial Sentience, but with the use of the phrase to encompas things like which direction the Ghosts move in Pacman, we need to start differentiating between the two. So, from now on, I'm going to assume that when people say Artificial Intelligence, they really mean Artificial Sentience. Next, I'll jump right into the discussion by answering a short post:Actually, no amount of programming will ever get a computer to hvae desires. This is, actually, a *hardware* problem. All forms of Artificial Sentience are hardware problems. Frankly, and I state this with absolute certainty, we will never see true Artificial Sentience on, say, our PC. The problem is the design of computers in general. The Bus system. The CPU itself. Memory. None of it will *ever* result in Sentience. It's too geared toward direct computation. AI advocates seem to be under the impression that if we design a complex enough system of algorithms that, as long as we have the CPU power to crunch through it, we'll manage to get AI. I personally blame Turing for that one. Ever since his silly little test, people have been trying to pass it using software. Silly them, they're barking up the wrong tree.Artificial Sentience will come, if ever, from Intel, not from Microsoft.</blockquote>

Verification