Artificial, AI VR, Android, and etc sex bots

'The idea that synthetic life can't exceed its maker is foolish and narrow-minded. It's accurate by current definitions and parameters but with a more open and flexible system, I can see the wall crumble around that idea.' Completely Agreed. Even in present parameters its debatable if its accurate or not, Chess AIs have built up all the knowledge of chess humans had made in 3k years within 4 hrs with just the basic chess rules at hand and crushed many of the present meta openings with new knowledge it discovered. Isnt the human achievements/knowledge a reflection of human complexity? So an AI who performs better than us in discovering knowledge should be more complex? Moreover quantum computing is coming, our brains only use electro-chemical medium for communication, not even the magnetic effects of electricity is used anywhere (MRI can read magnetic signals but those are produced due to electricity and are not put into use anywhere in our body/brain) so something using quantum effects for computing is waay more complex than any of it.

@ Teutonic Order I think you took it too personal lol this was a disclaimer for my following text " I think making an AI that replicates is a mistake and replicating humans is also a stupid idea if you're looking for a higher life form." I thought that would be clear as the next bit of text would talk about replication "Know if you make an AI that's sole job is to replicate and produce better more efficient versions of its self with no limits as to how to do it but with only simple rules of how the world works. In theory, you can have an AI in a number of generations develop unthinkable inventions." Do you get it now? So next I did say that " The idea that synthetic life can't exceed its maker is foolish and narrow-minded. It's accurate by current definitions and parameters but with a more open and flexible system, I can see the wall crumble around that idea." In there I state that I understand that given current definitions and parameters this is the case but it's not a science it's a code of ethics made to preserve a clear head for engineers. It's too narrow-minded to close the door of improbable cases for we don't know all of the parameters. There is no data that says it is 100% impossible for X y , & Z. I'd rate the possibility of advanced AI to a 99% but that's what a singularity is. After all, all life started with reactions aka viruses. If they can mutate to that level then surely with rapid growth whether it be biological or machine could surpass man. So in I think that all of my and your ideas are stupid and limited and that only higher minds can make solutions to what road if at any can be crossed to achieve an electric mind higher then it's maker. I think a mind that does not think normally would be best but yet again I have no idea.

@ Teutonic Order Disclaimer all of this is really narrow possibilities and I'm really just thinking off the top of my head with the later stuff being mostly improbable syfy stuff as im sure we all understand wasting resources for this is not going to happen. It's still fun to think about what may or may not work. Yeah, that makes sense but I still think that it's an iffy thing do to the fact that we are comparing biomass to silicon chips. A human brain is amazing but it's not really reliable or accurate as most known functions are made by estimates, not hardcore feedback info. This means that the brain is computing with faulty data and is using basic rules and learned experience to react respectively. Meaning a human brains outcome of that computed data may not be trustworthy or valid. On the other hand, a machine can calculate and reference correct data accordingly and its outcome will be more practice even if it's wrong. So in turn, if a human vs an AI of the similar intellect or common knowledge it would be the AI that would win across the board. It's reactions to stimulus would also be better and more accurate and on average their numbers should surpass that of humans. This is the bases of what I meant when I said that if one AI reached human level intellect it would surpass all humans. It's not that it's better per say it's just that its knowledge would be greater than all humans to some degree. Now onto "What I meant, intrinsically is... You cannot make an artificial human brain that is smarter than humans... It simply is not possible... Think of it like the old stateement of "human creativity is limitless, yaaay" then someone says to him "try to think of a new color that doesn't exists"." Yes, I agree, no machine that attempts to function as the original will get past the original nor will the original get past its self. I do think however that if you made something that does not attempt to problem solve as a human or function as a human then it will come to its own state of resolve. This is what I mean by no purpose and all it knows is the basic rules (basic all the knowledge of how the world works even the things that don't but allow it to search for those definitions by its self) of its state and surroundings. This would make it evolve much like a virus and allow it to find it's own meanings. This is for sure the dumbest way to replicate evolution for an AI but I think human intervention would only dumb it down and so it really needs to be left alone. If we had crazy resources I would bet an AI could birth its self from a similar state humans wherein but reduce the time as cyberspace events can happen much faster. If they really want to go nuts dedicate a whole star and planet-sized computer to developing this mind. Now let's say this did work what why would anyone do it even if they had all the resources. They would want to manipulate the AI at every turn and alter it's growth so it doesn't get too strong or that it doesn't think crazy stuff.