Why don't biologists use biology to create super intelligence instead of CS engineers making computer AI?

Many people mistake Artificial Intelligence to some self-thinking program but it's just a bunch of "if" and "else" code statements written by a programmer in a certain language like python or c.
True AI would have self-awareness, reasoning, self-thinking and that's a thing a person from medical and biological background could create not computer engineers and programmers.
Programmers only create set of instructions for a machine.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

BlueVeins · 22-25

Generally, the distinction between AI and other algorithms is that AI are capable of learning and self-correction while algorithms that aren't AI are not. It's why Pandora's song selector is considered an AI while the bots in Call of Duty, for example, are not. These kinds of AI aren't really programmed by people; they're programmed haphazardly by other algorithms, which, themselves are programmed by people. What you're thinking of is general AI.

Northwest · M

The way you describe AI, is not really how it works, but you're not that far off from the truth either.

Calling today's technology AI, is a misnomer. We're not there yet.

What we have today is a combination of two fields: Knowledge-Based Expert Systems (KBES) and Problem Solving Systems (PSS).

KBES, use a combination of natural language processing, machine learning, statistical analysis, data collection, search algorithms, image recognition, vision, robotics, sensors (and I will stop here for brevity).

PSS: is what the name implies.

When combined, systems can start to "think" and "predict".

"AI" systems, still rely on heuristics (using "knowledge" acquired through KBES, to develop simple, but not optimal solutions to a problem), but cannot, yet, roam on their own. They can be left to their own devices, but given the state of technology, and its limitations, they will not be able to function like humans, with human intelligence.

We don't know yet what it takes to develop actual intelligence.

Biologists, and if by that you mean micro-biologists, are not in the Frankenstein business. Computer Science/Engineering and Microbiology, are merging, and will continue to merge. For the moment, the goal is to produce therapies. Cancer for instance, or genetic problems. So it's not the way you imagine it.

Eventually, I believe an Android is inevitable. We're probably centuries away from that.

Authoritarian · 22-25, M

Ok, thank you for enlightening me in this subject
I'm just a small web designer and use python for backend so don't much knowledge in the field..

4meAndyou · F

They are developing AI now that learns.

https://newatlas.com/artificial-intelligence-program-imitates-child-cognitive-development/33972/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603381/ai-software-learns-to-make-ai-software/

I also read an article in Popular Mechanics that was very interesting. Robots and AI were put completely in charge of running a warehouse, and the machines organized things in ways so foreign and alien to us that a human would never have been able to find anything. It was organized according to which items were frequent sellers...closest to the door, and so on.

Your thoughts about creating biological super intelligence can only be achieved safely through biological adaptation and through a breeding program, over a long period of time, eliminating factors such as pollution and poisons in the air and water.

All other biological super-intelligence programs would be entirely experimental, and might result in madness or death.

View 1 more replies »

4meAndyou · F

@BlueVeins It's a very Hitlerian concept...the creation of a master super-intelligence instead of the creation of a master race, but essentially the same idea. I used to read sci-fi, and Robert L. Heinlein wrote a series which contained a character named Lazarus Long, who was incredibly long lived. His fictional character created the Lazarus Long Foundation, and they would actually approach people who had a record of long lived ancestors, intelligence, and good health, and paid them to have children.

I believe that for the super-intelligence idea to work, there would also have to be a constant need for it in the environment itself. Our bodies and minds adapt to environmental demands.

BlueVeins · 22-25

@4meAndyou That sounds like a really exciting series. And even aside from the limited intelligence problem, the degredation of human DNA is only going to get worse until we either fall from our post and suffer greater environmental demands or engineer our way out of it. 😟

4meAndyou · F

@BlueVeins Medical science is actually interfering with natural selection, polluting our gene pool through unnatural extension of human life. You reap what you sow.

SooperSarah

You must not be aware of current ai. It's much more than if-else statements. ai learning to play video games on its own, and beating human players.

Authoritarian · 22-25, M

An AI beating a human is not a new thing, computer has always been ahead of humans in mathematics.
It all comes down to mathematics, and a mathematical machine created by engineers cannot have "Curiosity", "Risk-taking factor" and "Consciousness" I just mean to say the whole artificial intelligence project is in wrong hands.
It Should be primarily a biological project, the scientists of human body, mind and brain.

SooperSarah

@Authoritarian The point is that it learned how to play on its own, and excelled.

CharlieZ · 70-79, M

"Programmers only create set of instructions for a machine"
Wrong.

But, said by one that works in the field, me, you have a Good point and (inside that being right), a still wrong point.

But posting it may become controversial.

Authoritarian · 22-25, M

@CharlieZ please correct me ..

CharlieZ · 70-79, M

@Authoritarian About software being a set of intructions?
Or about the "nature" od AI?

Authoritarian · 22-25, M

@CharlieZ about software being a set instructions..

jomsim · 26-30, M

I agree with you that "programmed" AI is a bit basic and is never going to be up to much. But "learning" AI, like generative adversarial networks do take some of the model from how mammal brains work. It's just a simple silicon version of what our carbon does, but its getting better. There are already areas where it's better at some things than our own brains are. When it's better than our brains at 50% of what we do, then we'll have genuinely created something that can outpace us.

Authoritarian · 22-25, M

AI becoming better and accurate doesn't mean they outpace humans.
Accuracy is mathematical, we need psychological results.
Infact, when the AI starts taking risks, starts making errors and feels sorry for the error ( which is an emotion ) that's when we can say the AI has genuinely became better.

My point is that the whole AI thing is on the wrong track.
Silicon can never replace carbon, our brain has chemical reaction and biological reactions.
The laws of chemistry cannot be broken but chemistry and biology can come together to form a real ai.

jomsim · 26-30, M

@Authoritarian But surely we are just biological machines and, at the lowest level, our intelligence is a biological neural network. If another network works in the same way, but non-biologically, that fact alone wouldn't make it different. Where it would be different is that we can't replicate the inputs and the impact of our sensory experience. The silicon would evidently have a different psychology, if you want to call it that, but different doesn't mean inferior.

ImKelsey · 26-30, F

A bigger brain has side-effects that distort body shape: ultimately threatening the abilities to feed and procreate.

SW-User

Biologists don't understand how intelligence works any more than anyone else, and modern AI doesn't work that way anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter

Add a comment...