Analysis topic

Discussion in 'The ChitChat Lounge' started by horsesmouth, Sep 13, 2012.

  1. horsesmouth

    horsesmouth Active Member

    My trainers said I'm quite poor at these topics.. lack of understanding, wrong examples & poor imagination..I guess actively discussing it is the best way to improve...
    Topic:
    "The human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are only tools of human minds."

    Needless to say, this is a GRE analysis issue. It's quite easy to say yes, but I want points that could say no, and also counter argue with points that say yes. And on the contrary, I observed that while arguing with 'yes' as your answer, it's difficult to sound cogent.

    'No':
    1. Human mind has the ability to learn which machines don't have yet, but that doesn't mean they won't in the near future. 50 years back, we could have never thought of computation as we do it today, so we can't say it is not possible.
    2. Machines will always have the upper hand at computation speeds for pre-defined algorithms, no matter how fast a human mind becomes.
    3. With just the human mind we could only theoretically 'fly', but without actual creation of the machine, it would not be a possibility. This shows that the practical achievements of human dreams are dependent on machines, even though they are created by humans themselves.
    4. Human mind might not be as supreme as we think, because it is the same mind that can create weapons of mass destruction too. (I don't know whether it sounds relevant.)

    Any more points?

    (Point to note:
    Saying 'no' doesn't mean that machines are superior to human mind, it just means that human mind isn't/will always not be superior to machines only because they are tools of human minds. This would, unarguably, look good for the conclusion.)

    If I were to say 'yes':
    1. Human mind created machines, and can make more powerful machines, and creator always has supremacy over the created.
    2. Machines can be programmed to understand commands, but can never actively learn.
    3. Machines can never
    dynamically adapt, so if they were left to nature, they would be 'extinct'.
    4. They don't have a conscience (But being supreme contains no 'clause' of having a conscience)

    Any more points from this side?
     
  2. guitarplayer729

    guitarplayer729 New Member

    Normally I would say after watching all those(Terminator, Matrix)movies, I think if we give them an AI they could become superior.
    But that AI would only work on pre-defined algorithms so unless there is a pre-defined algorithm to change those algorithms on the basis of some criteria, they can never adapt to the nature, So humans would always be superior.

    Machines can never do something unless humans define it.
    Hence humans are superior.
     
  3. horsesmouth

    horsesmouth Active Member

    Okay so if you are on the 'yes' side, how would you refute my 4 points that say 'no'?
    I would bank my argument on the dependence of humans on machines for the sake of expediency.
     
  4. wylder

    wylder New Member

    Human mind vs a mechanical mind...

    A mechanical mind would have the speed advantage but I believe the other critical part of intelligence would be creativity or the ability to think outside the assumed rules. Unfortunately the very basic principle of a machine limits its creativity.
    (While on this topic, you could check for AI vs AI videos on YouTube where two AI bots converse with each other... Quite trippy)
     
  5. guitarplayer729

    guitarplayer729 New Member

    1. Even if machines could learn new things, we wouldn't be mad to give them the ability to learn whatever they experience. We would keep them in a controlled state so they could learn only those type things which we let them experience.
    2. They have speed but they can't do it in the way we do it. Example:- If you give a calculator this command 1+1+1*0, it will show the answer 0 but it is not true. It does not follow BODMAS as we do. Also if you are playing a video game, say fighting, then the opponent(AI) will never go for fast and effective or slow and powerful. It will do as the algorithm specifies. It cannot make tactics.
    3. We use the machines to do our work. A machine does not fly on itself. We use it to fly us.
    4. Uh, what?
     
  6. alpha1

    alpha1 I BLUES!

    I have never being great in RC sections (= reading mountains of text and making sense out of it), so can you confirm if you want arguments for machines being superior to man ...
     
  7. mymusicmyguitar

    mymusicmyguitar New Member

    I already know what you are thinking!!! :p
     
  8. horsesmouth

    horsesmouth Active Member

    Interesting point!

    1. But does that prove in any way that 'human mind will always be superior to machines'. In fact not letting them gain superiority over us by not giving them AI does not disprove the potential for them being superior to us. Plus it can't be said that it won't happen in the future.
    2. Not being able to give machines those abilities is our shortcoming, not theirs. So they are inferior because we can't make them better yet.
    3. Interdependence. We have the creative mind, and them the practical capabilities. Still can't explain why human mind would possibly always be superior
    4. haha never mind. That was an ethical consideration saying how human mind has degenerated towards negativity and self-destruction while machines haven't. But I'd rather withdraw that comment. It's entirely subjective and the topic of a separate discussion.

    Arguments for machines being superior to man ...with possible examples
    And also a suggestion as to which side I should argue on (or which side could get me a better score or would sound better and more convincing by default) if i have to write an essay about that..
     
  9. guitarplayer729

    guitarplayer729 New Member

    How can they gain superiority if don't let them.
    They can't develop a brain on their own. They cannot evolve.
    They have a potential, but only we can tap it and unlock it. No one knows what the future has in store for us.
    Maybe they would be able to evolve. If a person can make them superior, then that person becomes superior too(in a stupid but reasonable logic). Maybe both will live in peace but humans don't have a good affinity about peace I guess. We always show our superiority over everything so peace is not an option. Maybe they would be our slaves and then some advanced Robot comes and makes the realize the need for rebellion.

    No one knows.
     
  10. horsesmouth

    horsesmouth Active Member

    lol for the rebellion concept!

    But your other points say indirectly that human mind can't be called superior. Maybe we are imperialising machines, just what the British did to us. But that doesn't make us superior.
     
  11. guitarplayer729

    guitarplayer729 New Member

    Britishers were an example of what human beings do now everyday.
    We aren't superior, we think we are.
    But no one can force us to do something. They can't mess with our free will.
    It cannot be said the same for machines. They can be forced to kill the bot they were made with, they trained with.
    But humans hesitate to even part with the smallest of things. Machines don't have emotions. It makes them both superior and inferior.(In 2 different logics)

    They might be the next part of evolution. They maybe the next species but that could or could not be the way of nature.
    Maybe we humans might evolve into something better after we face a threat from machines.
     
  12. wylder

    wylder New Member

    Another thing that came to my mind...

    A big factor in the success of the human race was the building up of society. We humans were able to evolve into colonies with advanced patterns of division of labor. Members of our societies train in different skills and co-ordinate under a leadership to create a self-sufficient society. This is one aspect that makes us superior to other intelligent animals.

    I doubt that humans would have any reason yet to build such a society of intelligent machines that are co-operative and self-sufficient.
     
  13. alpha1

    alpha1 I BLUES!

    Well to begin with: whenever humans make a comparison for superiority or inferiority, they always choose the properties and characteristics that benefit them.

    When someone says that humans have "real" intelligence and "real" feelings/emotions, whereas machines have "artificial" - they are treading the path of self fulfilling prophecies.
    Who decides what is real and artificial? Who decides which is indeed better?

    On a secondary note:
    Lets take the case of artificial intelligence. The reason why it looks so basic and elementary rudimentary and so ineffective is because we are comparing it with human brain which has had a head start of few billions years of evolutionary advantage.
    Let us compare this same artificial intelligence with "intelligence" of an elementary creature say a virus or a bacteria.
    Not much difference, perhaps the artificial intelligence may trump over this basic "intelligence". The reason why a bacteria will survive in an environment is not because of its intelligence, BUT, because of various mutations that happen with each generation. Each random mutation produces a new organism that may be better adapted to the environment or may be worse ... the worse gets eliminated and the better adapted one survives. The progeny of this better one may again regress to worse or may become better or remain same.

    The only thing on the side of Bacteria is the numbers. The sheer multitude of its mutating population ensures that at least something survives.So if survival is the criteria to judge the superiority - intelligence is not really a "better" trait as such (and other traits can compensate for lack of it).

    So coming back to the human vs machine intelligence stuff - can you say that because humans appear more intelligent - they are superior?


    Now coming to the superiority of intelligence aspect itself. As I mentioned earlier in the "side note" - evolution has given us a huge head start in everything. Today's AI does indeed have self-learning capabilities. (that's why it is AI, otherwise it just remains a simple program).
    Self mutating intelligence? I am not aware - but when it happens, you will have to give it some time.
    Can you guarantee that this self learning self mutating automaton will remain inferior to human intelligence?
    Actually, how will you be able to distinguish between such "artificial intelligence" and a "natural" human intelligence?


    Lets go into the physiological/biological details. The biology of human beings has been devised bottom-up. What we are today was readily available even when our brains were not capable enough (proto-humans). However, we are more like jack of everything and master of none. Machines are specifically designed to be master of one requirement. When we have a requirement of "jack of all trade" machine - perhaps we will start devoting time and energy into understanding and creating it. Again there is no guarantee that such a machine after numerous iterations still will remain "inferior" to the humans.
     
  14. alpha1

    alpha1 I BLUES!

    Eeks I realized that my rambling is not going to help you with the GRE.

    Take the side of human beings being superior but also pip-in the point about evolution and giving similar time frame to the machines to come up to the level ... Therefore "The human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are only tools of human minds." is correct till now, but no one knows the future and what humans become capable of designing*. As I mentioned - self mutating, self-learning mode is essential for "living" intelligence and its not really impossible to come up with it in future.

    Once this happens - the machines will no longer remains just the Tools of human minds.



    * Learned humans had absolutely no idea about nuclear reactions and stars and universe about a hundred year ago. Today the scene is dramatically different! (only 100 years ago = 3-4 generations back)
    Current Civilized societies have been in existence for only 5000-10000 years. Just see the amount of change - from fearing the nature, we have moved over to changing the nature!
     
  15. alpha1

    alpha1 I BLUES!

  16. alpha1

    alpha1 I BLUES!

    ^^^^
    OMFG!
    Is this a result of artificial intelligence running amok?
     
  17. horsesmouth

    horsesmouth Active Member

    Hmm...your points are really good for conversation... but not for GRE
    I'll use evolutionary headstrart as an opposing point...

    Will computers become self aware?
    that link... was like....oooh!
     
  18. horsesmouth

    horsesmouth Active Member

    hahaaah!
    *sad*
    fvcker destroyed the thread...not that it was a really hot topic for discussion... but it looks worse now...
     
  19. guitarplayer729

    guitarplayer729 New Member

    That link showed that computers cannot become aware according the reasons that we have provided now in this thread.
    They can become aware if a human brain is installed in a Bot but it would not be able to spread in different Bots.
    So now can we start to make assumptions about how Robots can become aware?
     
  20. horsesmouth

    horsesmouth Active Member

    The best example of self aware bots are computer viruses. Even though they lack a typical hardware, you can't deny they can't replicate.
    Also, compare them with viruses in the real world, they lack hardware too, but only in a broader perspective.
     

Share This Page