Hacker News Reader

Comment by marcofloriano | Hacker News Reader

Thanks a lot for your answer.

And yes, a lot of people are trying to recreate intelligence without life ... the problem is ... intelligence is a function of living beings. You don´t see, on nature, intelligent rocks,for instance. But you do see intelligent insects, like bees.

So first of all, i think we need to create some kind of rudimentary life and then develop intelligence on it.

DNA is the base of life. There´s patterns, a language behind the DNA ... so i do think we can use "programming" to create structures like the DNA to form artificial beings.

So i think it´s really possible to create life (artificial) and intelligence (rudimentary) with our current technologies, but we cant do that with our current paradoxes , our way to do things. We need new forms of think, we need to start thinking like gods, not like humans. Sorry by the poor enlgish.

View on HN

Why does intelligence have to be a function of living being?

If intelligence is a matter of the kinds of mental activities someone/something is able to perform, what activities require DNA?

"Why does intelligence have to be a function of living being?"

It´s not a rule, i think, but what´s the point onto copying the functions of the brain and all other stuffs from "nature" if you don´t copy the most important, LIFE ? All the functions of human brain exists to support LIFE, including intelligence.

Sounds really dumb for me to try to recreate intelligence in a dead being, if intelligence is an attribute of living beings. You can get close (like data mining, neural networks and so on) but, maybe, we cant get REALLY at there.

Intelligence is important to save human lives, and to make human lives better. That is the answer to the question of "why". We need machines that can do thinking better than we can, so that more thinking gets done, so that we can get more of what we need.

Non-life intelligence is to support human life, not its own.

There are serious ethical and practical reasons why non-person AI is preferable.

Compare to artificial movement.(cars) Wasn't autonomous motion once a unique feature a living things? Why would you create a thing that moves if you don't also make it alive? All autonomous motion exists so that the organism can support its LIFE.

Why create motion in a dead being? you can get close, like clockwork automatons, but you can't REALLY get there.

Likewise, there are ethical and practical issues with creating people to move things to support your life.

"Compare to artificial movement.(cars) Wasn't autonomous motion once a unique feature a living things? Why would you create a thing that moves if you don't also make it alive? All autonomous motion exists so that the organism can support its LIFE."

Compare artificial movement with real movement ... could not be much better if we have artificial movement better than real movement ? A car with artificial movement is nothing close to a car that have a human on control. That´s because the human is alive and can make a much better approach to the real world than a dead machine.

"Why create motion in a dead being? you can get close, like clockwork automatons, but you can't REALLY get there."

Sure ... and i think it´s a good thing to do, but it should not be called artificial intelligence, because intelligence is much more than just data and inference. When i talk about artificial intelligence, i´m talking about intelligence and not dumbness (or artificial close intelligence). If we have to create intelligence, let´s make it right, not close ...

"Likewise, there are ethical and practical issues with creating people to move things to support your life."

Only GOD can create people. What we can do is create machines, intelligent machines, just this, nothing more, don´t make mistakes, please.

By the way thanks for your awesome comments and sorry by my poor english.

Don't confuse the movement with the control of the movement. We can build machines that move much better than any animal, especially at certain scales and by certain measures.

A clockwork automaton really does move, it makes no sense to say it's not true motion because it is dead. If you need something moved, you move it yourself, you use an animal, or you use a machine. Machines generally move more.

Someday machines will be generally more intelligent.

I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say intelligence.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/tx/optimization/

>Only GOD can create people.

Many theists would say only god can create life, which is what you propose, yes? They are wrong for much the same reasons you are.

Evolution has little to no 'intelligence' depending on how you measure it, and yet it produced life and intelligence. We should be able to create much more powerful intelligent machine, just as we have created much stronger machines.

"If intelligence is a matter of the kinds of mental activities someone/something is able to perform, what activities require DNA?"

DNA structures are like algorithms. The DNA is the information that tell our cells (and cells is the most basic unit of life, most important too) how to do things. So everything requires DNA ...

Life is not something inside you and me. Life is something present at each cell of our body. It´s not just the brain that can die, our finger, our foot, our skin ... everything can die. We are the combination of all this, we are not only our brains like Artificial Intelligence tend to think. Everything is interconnected to perform life. Including intelligence. Intelligence don´t exist for itself, it exists for the living being.

Look, i´m nothing and i just have very basic knowledge of AI, i´m much more a philosopher than a researcher. But, i´m trying to bring new points in order to find new ways to do things. So i´m just trying to bring up new points, not the final truth.

These are not new points, and I suspect they have been considered by nearly every AI researcher.

I think you're falling prey to having limited knowledge about a field and then expanding on that knowledge thinking that what you think must be new because you didn't know it before.

Probably the best course of action if you want to advance the field of AI is to first get current with the the field, then start thinking up new stuff, preferably in concert with other people in the field to keep you on the right track. It's rare that an outsider with limited knowledge of a field can suddenly make some fairly obvious contribution that those in the field had overlooked.

Thanks for the advice jacquesm, i´m going to study everything deep before asking new questions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com