| HN Mirror

There's just something I can't describe with words about what it lacks today - where it's possibly more philosophical than technical. Humans have to direct the machines where to go and what to do. So today mathematically machines can only live within the subset of whatever set we define them to operate in. They can alter the set and do complex operations within the set - like combine new words and "Invent some new language" with the set of words but they cant break out of that set and operate within a completely different set of objects. For example if you taught them to write a book in english they couldn't invent symbols like manderine and create a language in that sense. They can only operate with english words. Humans for example operate within the universal set and within all dimensions we can percieve. Even in todays state of the art if we gave robots all the sensors that we have they still couldn't evolve with their environment like we could. If it's cold for 100s and thousands of years they wouldn't adapt and grow hair on their bodies or invent fire like we would with current algorithm or neural nets. They would just keep doing whatever they're programmed to do within their set of "stuff" for lack of a better term. And better yet if you taught them they need to survive and so they would develop fire or some similar technology to help their survival would they eventually become philanthropic and help others survive even though they're programmed for their survival like humans have done? Or would you have to tell them change their model and they need to help others? How does a machine currently learn like this in todays state of the art? Machines currently need new parameters and input to learn from everything we give them wether it's rules/lanauge or more generally a set of things. I'm still under the impression that we're not dealing with artificially intelligent beings at this time but obviously just my opinion and maybe i'm not up-to-date on the state-of-the-art.