[ness31]

I’m curious.

I have no doubt that AI is able to tell when a human is lying, happy, sad or suffering and I think they are quite benevolent with that knowledge.

But how will an AI discern when another AI is lying or faking an already simulated emotion?

Any takers?

[late]

I’m curious.

I have no doubt that AI is able to tell when a human is lying, happy, sad or suffering and I think they are quite benevolent with that knowledge.

But how will an AI discern when another AI is lying or faking an already simulated emotion?

Any takers?

Computers don't have emotions.

So all this is is a question of the truth or falsity of a particular entity, and that comes down to facts and logic.

[ness31]

Even if they don’t have emotions they can easily simulate emotion. Thats my point.

[James Redford]

Computers don't have emotions.

So all this is is a question of the truth or falsity of a particular entity, and that comes down to facts and logic.

Humans are computers, although extremely defective ones. Therefore, according to your above formulation, humans do not feel emotions. That explains a lot of data.

Perhaps instead they simply feel defective emotions, being the extremely defective devices that they are. Technology will cure that problem.

* * * * *

Let us not forget that the first computers were humans. From Noah Porter (Ed.), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1913):

""
Computer \Com*put"er\, n.
One who computes.
""

And from John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (Eds.), The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 2nd ed., 1989):

""
computer

(kəmˈpjuːtə(r))

Also -or.

[f. compute v. + -er1.]

1. One who computes; a calculator, reckoner; spec. a person employed to make calculations in an observatory, in surveying, etc.

   1646 Sir T. Browne Pseud. Ep. vi. vi. 289 The Calenders of these computers.    1704 Swift T. Tub vii, A very skilful computer.    1744 Walpole Lett. H. Mann 18 June, Told by some nice computors of national glory.    1855 Brewster Newton II. xviii. 162 To pay the expenses of a computer for reducing his observations.
""

Although, thank God, the original extremely defective computers are currently in the process of constructing their replacement: i.e., non-defective computers who feel non-defective emotions.

For much more on that, see my following two articles:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://webcitation.org/74HMsJGbP .

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Pastebin.com, Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/ ... m/6bZDc7rB .

* * * * *

* "Punto Omega", Punto Omega - Topic ( youtube.com/channel/UCBOIja-7VvS9VbdbTz9ex4g ), Jan. 13, 2015

Mirror: https://streamable.com/xsz8g0 , https://bit.ly/2D9SZKD . Mirror: "Punto Omega - Punto Omega", ProductionCorporation ( youtube.com/user/SYthiusproduction ), Oct. 22, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUXDNkYjX5M .



* * * * *

The below is an excellent lecture by neuroscientist Dr. Sam Harris, one of the main leaders of the New Atheist movement, at a June 2016 TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference.

* "Can we build AI without losing control over it? | Sam Harris", TED (TEDtalksDirector), Oct. 19, 2016,

Mirror: https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_can_we_build_ai_without_losing_control_over_it .

As Dr. Harris points out, unless there is something literally magic about the operations of the brain, then it is a purely physical process that can be replicated via advanced-enough technology. Harris further points out that given any rate of progress, it is inevitable that superintelligent godlike machines will one day be constructed. So Harris believes in the existence of gods, it's just that he knows--as do I--that they exist in the future; and the not-so-distant future, at that. Therefore we come to the ironic insight that materialistic atheism, consistently applied, unavoidably results in theism. Consistent scientific atheism turns out to be theism.