The Future of Artificial Intelligence: Can machines become sentient (self-aware)

As a computer science major and science fiction fan, I find the field of artificial intelligence intriguing.My question is with the rapid miniaturization of computer chips, increase in processing power and memory size, and introduction of novel innovations such as neural networks, nanotechnology and quantum computing, do you think that machines well become self-aware (sentient) and if so how and when?I am particularly looking for intelligent input from subject matter experts in these fields. I am also interested in the military aspects of artificial intelligence and possible ramifications. Please stay away from the dooms day, Terminator references. I am looking for constructive debate and discussion.I look forward to an interesting discussion.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

I guess that is the key. What distinguishes sentience from non-sentience and is there a difference between real sentience and simulating sentience?Here is an example of simulating sentience. Talking with a chatbot here: AI Research yesterday, at first it seems pretty intelligent but than you can see that this online program is just parsing your words and regurgitating well constructed responses based on your own responses. There is no actually sentience or rational thinking here. This is what is termed in the AI world "weak AI" as opposed to an actual thinking and self-aware machine, "strong AI" (which has yet to be achieved). Yes, but raw processing power and memory does not equate to sentience. If the rules and processes are not there as they are in our brains to give us the capability to be self-aware aka sentient than no amount of processing power will automatically make them self-aware. Agreed. Maybe we are approaching this in the wrong way? Maybe artificial life/intelligence needs to evolve in much the same way as real life/intelligence through a machines self-evolution of intelligence vice simulating human intelligence based on a set of rules. The real question becomes how do we get a machine to think on its own?The only problem with this is once machines start thinking on their own, can we control them and what restrictions should we place on them? What role will moral and ethical behavior have on these machines if any at all? DARPA is already doing this: DARPA Grand ChallengeThe military is already incorporating this technology to remove the fragile human element from many tedious and dangerous military tasks. The Navy is working on pilotless drones to take off and land on aircraft carriers. One called Firescout is already in service and can land on destroyers, cruisers, ac carriers and other air-capable ships. The Army and Marines are working on AI land attack machines, etc. Sentience is being self-aware of one's own existence, thoughts, feelings, etc.I think there is a vast difference between where machines are at today and the level of sentience that humans are capable of. I think machines are sentient on a level of some lower intelligent lifeforms i.e. fish, insects, etc but not even on par with most mammals.So how does this work on the animal level? Many animals especially the higher intelligent ones, are self-aware of not only there own actions, behaviors and feelings but also they are aware that of themselves as individuals i.e. apes, dolphins, elephants, etc. I don't think machines are anywhere close to this level yet.Excellent dialog Phage. Thanks for your input.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

That makes sense. If you think about it the only difference between us and machines is the medium i.e. organic vs. inorganic material. The laws of physics and chemistry are the same. If the end result is the same i.e. self awareness, than you correct. Even humans themselves express different levels of awareness i.e. a baby and mentally challenged person are less self-aware than say a Buddhist Zen Master. True. I would venture to say that as self-aware as humans think they are, we are not self-aware 100% of the time. Sometimes we run on auto-pilot aka instinct during fight or flight survival events i.e. fighting in wars, running out of a burning building, etc. However, on average humans are more self-aware than any other living or non-living thing in the universe that we know of. I think that is the level we are talking about when we use the term "sentient".I get where you are going with the "pass for sentience" as that is the key criteria for the Turing Test, which is our current baseline for determining machine sentience (can you tell the difference in a blind test if you are talking to a machine or a human). However, this can be deceptive because there are chatbots and other programs know that can fool humans at least some of the time but truly are not self-aware.Also, another component to this is that humans can self-learn (teach themselves). Machines are at the cusp of this but have not really achieved the true capacity to teach themselves without any human intervention. I think this too plays into true sentience. Yes, but humans really do have limitless ability for self-correction and their ability to learn and self-teach whereas machines have not achieved this. Machines do not have the capacity as of yet to identify themselves as individual thinking machines, know that they are actually thinking, have the ability to teach themselves without limitations and understand their place and role in the world around them. Humans do have the capacity to do all the above.
I think that is the threshold we are trying to achieve.Of course this begs the question, why do we want machines to achieve this and what are the implications both morally and scientifically of this accomplishment. Agreed. Without the ability to know that you are an individual and capable of rational thought than you do not have the true capability or capacity to disobey or in more precise terms strive against the biological/physical rules that we are constrained by.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Some humans also said we would never fly, go into outer space, etc, etc. But we have exceeded even our wildest expectations.I believe anything that we can imagine is most likely possible, the question really is, how probable is it given our current status as the human race and when. Of course alot of this has to do with the time, money and effort we put into these ventures. If we wanted to, as humans, we could already be living on Mars. The problem is that we sqwabble and fight to much as groups of humans instead of joining together to achieve loftier goals.So I don't think the problem is that it is a physical impossibility as much as it is a matter of, is this something we want to do as a human species and utilizing how much of our resources? I agree it is not just about computing power or memory as I expressed in my last post. I think we have to tackle the fundamentals of biological thinking. By emulating the human brain I think we can emulate self-awareness i.e. sentience. IBM is actually working on a project called "Blue Brain" in which they are creating a synthetic "brain" by reverse engineering a biological brain down to the molecular level and recreating a digital equivalent of this brain using supercomputers simulating biologically realistic models of neurons Blue Brain Prjoect. Never say never.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Agreed. I think to break it down in simplistic terms, what is unique with biological computers aka brains is their ability to parallel process on a much more massive scale than what is possible with today’s computers. We are talking about tens of billions of neurons within the human brain each with several thousand synapses (biochemical connections - equivalent to electronic switches or transistors) firing near simultaneously (yes I know they do not all fire at exactly the same time). That is a massive amount of computational power which allows very complex operations such as pattern recognition, symbolic language development and human self-awareness to occur. There is nothing we have created that compares to this type of setup.Until we reach this threadshold the possibility for human like sentience (self-awareness) is not achievable. However, like I discussed previously, animal like sentience (insect level) may be possible. That is machines have the capability to independently interact with their surroundings but truly not understand on a human level what they are interacting with.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

By sentience, I think we can all agree we are talking human-like sentience. The ability to contemplate one's self and the ability to increase their knowledge base both on an individual level and collectively. Culture (accumulation of moral and social norms) and science (expounded accumulation of knowledge of ourselves and the universe around us) are only achievable at this level of sentience.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Ok, I accept the argument that it would prohibitively difficult (though not impossible) to accomplish this feat in the near future (say 20-50 years down the road given our current technological and political status). However, let's say we did create a human-like sentient machine 50 years down the road. How do you think this would play into our idea about religion and morality?I am curious about this on a religious level.
If a machine could make independent, rational and sometimes moral decisions, would Christian’s and other religious people think that these sentient machines would need to be saved? Would they think they are capable or worthy of being saved?
Would they think they are moral agents or just imitations of God's creation by disobedient humans?Thought this would be interesting discussion as well.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Good answer. I am curious to wonder if our level sentience is a natural byproduct of evolution and how common it is. Considering we only know about life on this planet this is currently an unanswerable question. However, the question arises, if other species i.e. dolphins, elephants, etc were able to evolve without the impedement of human beings, would it be natural for them to evolve a more sentient level of cognition?Also, can we develop a machine mind that mimics the natural evolution of the biological mind. If so than this may be the key process that will help synthesize a human-like sentient machine mind. Who knows but it is an interesting discussion.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

I agree that sentience is a by-product of evolution of the brain however I do think self-awareness definately has an effect on our own evolution both past and present. Without sentience we would have no science/culture/etc. True. It is a very subjective and hard to grasp concept. Agreed. Ake 'culture' though some higher intelligent animals have some rudimentary forms of this. Basically accumulated extrasomatic knowledge passed down from generation to generation.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

I guess you can make the religious argument that machines can't have an afterlife (life after death) but they can potentially live forever (uploading their mind to new 'bodies' as their old ones where out). I think then the concept of a soul becomes a moot point does it not?

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Another set of sci-fi books that outline the potential dangers of emergent singularity in AI is Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson's Legends of Dune series which describe cyborgs, AI thinking robots and a super intelligent AI computer program overlord called 'Omnius' that take over the known universe, subjugate humans as slaves and isolate any free humans to a small sector of planets who attempt to overthrow this AI empire. It really is a fascinating read.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Read the Legends of Dune and it will describe this in a fictional futeristic setting.The real question is: Do we really want to open Pandora's Box by doing so? Are we not dooming the future of the human species by making a thinking machine that can rewrite its own programming andthus making ethical rules such as Asimov's 'Laws of Robotics' (which are good primer for weaker AI systems to follow) powerless?

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

I have heard about this proposition as well. The problem is that our conscience 'mind' is tied to our physical brain. The uploaded "you" and your current self are not the same. You would essentially die and a new version of you (a copy of your memories, etc) would continue to exist. This is the same problem with cloning yourself or lobotomizing your brain into two hemispheres and placing the other half into a viable body. Either way, your own conscience would cease to exist once you die but a copy of you would live on. This is really not solving the immortality problem. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Agreed. I don't think the Laws or Robotics or any other human-derived restrictions will hold if true AGI-type sentience takes place.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Agreed. I guess my question isn't so much as death as individual conscienciousness. If a copy of my brain is made and put into another biological body/computer/android/etc. I will still identify myself inside my body not inside that other machine. That is the point I am trying to make. It is not like if you upload your brain into a computer your consciencessness automatically jumps into that computer. Does this make sense? Yes, I think this may be the only possible way of maintaining my own consciousness being. If you identify yourself as you than the answer is no. Agreed. Agreed. But will our consciousness jump into a machine just because we make a copy of it there as is implied in a neural upload? I think not.I agree that if we conduct a gradual replacement process as you mention above that would be one of the only possible way of maintaining our own individual consciousness. Agreed. When the technology comes along, I am sure someone will be a guienea pig.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World