45 minutes ago, grumpyOldDude said:

Why? If humans coded the logic by which the "AGI" thinks or operates and builds upon... AGI would develop (because of infinite and fast self programming resource) to be more advance than us , but why would it be alien to us

Well the question is what do you define as thinking? If thinking is simply defined as small pieces acting in accordance to produce some sort of output to an input, then wouldn't a search engine qualify as thinking? It's not human thinking, in the sense that it thinks using some sort of search algorithm. Something similar could be said for a natural language engine. A navigation algorithm does also think in that sense. Moreover, AGI would emerge from these sort of things interacting with one another in ways we didn't foresee. Kind of like the general goal of machine learning. So if we cannot foresee how these things would interact with one another, how it would utilize algorithms, what it would emphasize, etc., it's form of thinking would seem alien. We wouldn't see it as 'thinking' necessarily. 

Then there's just hardware. Machines are built on transistors, and inherently use base two. We are built on neurons and count on 10 fingers. We perceive through eyes, ears, skin, nose, etc. Machines can perceive differently. Machines use different means to perceive similar things. Moreover, machines can perceive things we simply cannot. These are the reasons I think any machine intelligence would be alien.

Two foundational elements of a "thinking machine" already exist.  Deep Mind can learn and adapt through trial and error, and there are many different means of creating a "self programming" computer.  These are two key elements of a "thinking machine".  I can create a "self programming simulation" and I am not even a programmer.  If you think in terms of centuries instead of years, if we can already do these two things it seems nearly a certainty too me that we will have "thinking machines" within a few centuries, and maybe even a lot sooner than that.

The issue than becomes how you define "intelligence".  Even if we reach the point that machines can actually "think", is thinking alone intelligence?  Is something like a "soul", if such a thing even exists, necessary for it to truly be considered to be a "thinking machine".  Does it need to be sentient to have truly achieved the goal?  

I think a "thinking machine" is a near certainty, considering that we already have some of the basic building blocks for doing that and 300 years (for example) is a very long time to work the rest of it out.  So if you are just talking about a "thinking machine" I think that is an eventually certainty.  Commander Data, on the other hand, is a lot more than just a "thinking machine".  So the definition of "intelligence" is the key to this discussion, otherwise everyone is likely to be talking about different things.

21 hours ago, deltaKshatriya said:

If thinking is simply defined as small pieces acting in accordance to produce some sort of output to an input, then wouldn't a search engine qualify as thinking? It's not human thinking, in the sense that it thinks using some sort of search algorithm. Something similar could be said for a natural language engine. A navigation algorithm does also think in that sense.

             ...

So if we cannot foresee how these things would interact with one another, how it would utilize algorithms, what it would emphasize, etc., it's form of thinking would seem alien. We wouldn't see it as 'thinking' necessarily. 

 Search engine, navigation algorithm don't come near qualifying as a thinking machine. Someone presses a button and out comes the output. They don't think independently, don't make decisions independently., They are not creative. They don't make choices. A chess program doesn't have a mind, and as such its decisions are not really independently, they are programmed decisions They only obey your commands 

21 hours ago, Kavik Kang said:

I think a "thinking machine" is a near certainty, considering that we already have some of the basic building blocks for doing that and 300 years (for example) is a very long time to work the rest of it out.  So if you are just talking about a "thinking machine" I think that is an eventually certainty.  Commander Data, on the other hand, is a lot more than just a "thinking machine".  So the definition of "intelligence" is the key to this discussion, otherwise everyone is likely to be talking about different things.

In the future, at best I can see machines having only a pseudo-human-mind 

A machine can simulate human mind or intelligence, but it would be missing self awareness + independent creativity (for instance independently designing and constructing another machine based on their independent intuition) + social endeavours.

You might say but Termites do not have self awareness i e they cannot recognise themselves in a mirror. But they meet the other 2 requirements  

4 hours ago, grumpyOldDude said:

Why? If humans coded the logic by which the "AGI" thinks or operates and builds upon... AGI would develop (because of infinite and fast self programming resource) to be more advance than us , but why would it be alien to us

Because we don't code the logic. 

No-one is going to write an AGI the way we write "normal" computer programs. You can't write 

if (isHappy()) smile();
else if (isAngry()) frown();

AGIs are simply way too complex for this. We don't even know how our existing machine learning algorithms work, and in many ways, we can't know.... the datasets are simply too complex for us. This might also be the reason that we don't understand consciousness. It could be that "consciousness" is simply an emergent property of extremely complex data processing (possibly an abstraction?).

I would recommend this as a simple primer to machine learning

I think the greatest limitation to our development of a sentient artificial intelligence is currently limited by our model for the human mind and how intelligence works. The model is extremely limited and poorly understood, even by neuroscientists and brain surgeons. However, given enough research and time, that particular scientific model will progress towards higher levels of correctness (which is interesting in a different way, because it would be the first model which is self aware).

As far as intelligence goes, I think its more of an emergent property of our neural topology. There's nothing magical or fancy about it, and to some people who wish to see magic where it doesn't exist, this may be disturbing on an existential crisis type of level. A narcissistic part of our identity wants to believe we're unique and special, but the reality is that we're really not and that may be hard to deal with.

To say that creating sentient artificial intelligence is "impossible" is a completely foolish and absurd claim which hints at a level of unawareness/ignorance on your part. Just because you don't know how to do it, doesn't mean it isn't possible. Although our current scientific models for general intelligence have big gaps, there is no guarantee that those gaps will continue to exist far into the future. You just can't say with reasonable certainty what type of technological achievements will never be possible, because you'd just be applying modern ignorances towards the future.

Super Intelligent Humanoid Sophia looks very creepy indeed.

World's first robot citizen 'Sophia' gets her own legs 

Damn robots!!!