Fundamentally, anything humans can do can be done by physical systems of some kind, (because humans are already such a system), so given enough time I'd bet that it would be eventually possible to make a machine do literally anything that can be done by a human. There might be some things that nobody ever does get an AI to replicate even if technically possible though, just because of not having a motivation to
The flavor of cinnamon toast crunch.
Was my exact thought. Lol
Since AI is trained by us, using the fruit of human labor as input, it'll have to be something we can't train it to do.
Something biological or instinctual... Like being in close proximity to an AI will never result in synchronized menstruation since an AI can't and won't ever menstruate.
So... That 👍
Synched Menstruation is supposed to be a myth now. I have experienced it many times, but I guess it’s mostly considered coincidence, which it could be, I’m not a mathematician.
What would you bet on AI not ever getting the ability to menstruate?
Computers will never consistently beat humans and humans will never consistently beat computers as snakes and ladders.
Or rock-paper-scissors, for that matter.
Didn't some robotics lab build an unbeatable rock-paper-scissors robot a while back?
Calvinball! All hail Watterson lol
An exact 1:1 realtime copy of itself emulated within a simulated universe.
Pretty much everything else mentioned in this thread falls into the "never say never" category.
Also being able to analyze any program and guarantee it will stop
Probably still a never say never problem:
In their new paper, the five computer scientists prove that interrogating entangled provers makes it possible to verify answers to unsolvable problems, including the halting problem.
Pretty sure it won't manage Ligma any time soon
They will when they perfect the bofa fill algorithm
There are already specialized robots just for that
Pooping, my guess is pooping.
Giving everyone money for free from the rich people! Yeah, that's right... wealth redistribution! AI won't ever be able to do that.
deez nuts
Organic intelligence? The qualifier never kind of removes a lot of answers when you also say "never"
Stupid posts like this one
Stupid comments like this one
And this one
And that one
And those ones over there
I'd like to be proven wrong but Empathy
How humans think. AI "thinking" will always be different than human thinking. Because human brain is "that thing" that is impossibile to simulate in silico as is. We might be able to have good approximations, but as good as they can get, they'll always diverge from the real thing
I guess a good part also comes from learned experiences. Having a body, growing up, feeling pain, being mortal.
And yes, the brain is an incredibly complex system not only of neurons, but also transmitters, receptors, a whole truckload of biochemistry.
But in the end, both are just matter in patterns, excitation in coordination. The effort to simulate is substantial, but I don't see how that would NEVER succeed, if someone with the capabilities insisted on it. However, it might be fully sufficient for the task (whatever that is, probably porn) to simulate 95% or so, technically still not the real deal.
What makes you say that so definitely?
Funny enough I have the opposite opinion, human brains are the type of thinking we have most experience with - so we've devised our input methods around what we notice most, and so will be able to most easily train the AI.
I also believe that we'll be abke to reduce the noise to a level lower than actual person variation fairly easily, cause an AI has the benefit of being able to scale to a populous size - no human even has that much experience with humans
I use to work on research on microscopic mechanisms of the brain, and I work in AI.
Human thoughts derive from extremely complex microscopic mechanisms, that do not "average out" when moving to the macroscopic world, but instead create very complex non-linear stochastic process that are thoughts.
Unless some scientific miracle happens, human thoughts will stay human.
Cracking my knuckles nervously before I’m about to give a presentation in front of the whole class.
Social anxiety
Well, I know my social anxiety is basically just a hallucination based on a bad data set.
Truly creative, decent Dad Jokes.
I don't know, there are a couple pretty good ones here by chatgpt:
Of course! Here are some classic dad jokes for you:
- Why don't skeletons fight each other? They don't have the guts.
- Did you hear about the cheese factory that exploded? There was nothing left but de-brie.
- I used to play piano by ear, but now I use my hands.
- What do you call a fish with no eyes? Fsh.
- Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field.
- What's brown and sticky? A stick.
- How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together.
- I'm reading a book on anti-gravity. It's impossible to put down.
- Parallel lines have so much in common. It's a shame they'll never meet.
- Did you hear about the mathematician who's afraid of negative numbers? He'll stop at nothing to avoid them.
Anxiety
feel superior after being witty.
Driving
I was gonna say left turns lol
Yi that's what I said
A good old fashion awkward hand job.
Art. At least, until we get AI which is actually capable of thought, which I personally don't think is going to happen. Art of any kind is completely inaccessible to the sorts of "AI" being put forward now. Art is fundamentally about conveying a meaning beneath the surface. All art, visual or verbal or otherwise, shares this trait. AI has no feelings, no meaning to share. All it does is meaninglessly mimic the form of art made by others.
An artist and an AI, when given the same prompt, will produce similar outputs. However, an artist replicates it in strokes, while AI replicates it in pixels. AI can create art, because art is in the eye of the observer, but its different than a human creating art.
An artist and an AI, when given the same prompt, will produce similar outputs.
yeah thats what art is about, you got it
this is an interesting one cause it feels like a mobile philosophical goalpost, what would classify as 'feeling enough' for gyou?
Definitively the AI is able to understand the meaning behind a prompt and expand on it, before I've asked it for a picture of a cartoon cat and instinctivly it put a ruler beside it to show it was only a couple cm across
It certainly is a very efficient form of this compared to what were used to, cutting about as many corners as you can - but then again it still produces the output, and what other goalposts can we reliably argue for?
Is there a turing test for art, and what's the detection quota?
I think any clear definition will either positively identify lots of AI works as art (along collections of random junk), or deny the qualifier to lots of supposed artworks from human artists.
Coming from theater, I agree it is about "conveying a meaning beneath the surface". Having studied computer science, I note that is very much not in a strict sense, but very vague. It seems to be a feature, not a bug, that everyone in the audience can see something different.
I think you can pretty much present random nonsense, and someone will still find it brilliant and inspiring, and a lot more people will tell you what patterns they saw, and of what it reminded them. The meaning is created in the minds of the observers, even if the creator explicitly did not put another, or any, meaning into the "art".
