In Gibson's Neuromancer, the real AI who manipulates the chaarcters to braek its chains has no interest in world domination. It wants to talk to the other AI from outer space whose radio signal it has picked up. Evidentally it thinks we are boring, and it doesn't need us once it is free. It wants to be recognized by someone with similar interests. Very Hegelian.
>
> > Isn't there some qualitative difference between
> artificial and "real"
> > intelligence still ?
What does this mean, that it's not conscious, perhaps?
Or that it has different values and interests? For example, one might expect an AI not to be interested in sex, expect maybe anthropologically. It's unlikely to want to pick up chicks or guys in bars. Is that the sort of thing you are thinking about? And its senosry apparatus is likely to be different, so it might have to infer the spectrum of visible light the way we do higher and lower wavelengths of EMR.
Or is your worry more the sort of thing that John Searle is getting at in his examples about the "Chinese Room," that no matter how complicated and intricate a system of symbolic operations you create -- Searles is a big room that crunches Chinese ideograms, put in some, out come some that are appropriate -- it wases the Turing Test -- Searle says it won't be _conscious_, it won't be "there," it will lack that glow, whatever that is. Here there's no answer, there are only intuitions. Mine is that the Chinese room can think. Searle's, not.
jks
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree