2001: HAL

[psikeyhackr]

Yes; but, would we be able to tell the difference?

If the machine is smart enough to notice that we cannot tell the difference won't it conclude that HUMANS ARE STUPID? If it is not smart enough to notice then wouldn't that be a failure of AI?

 

[Cathbad]

won't it conclude that HUMANS ARE STUPID?

You mean... it will know the truth??

*gulp*

 

[Onyx]

If the machine is smart enough to notice that we cannot tell the difference won't it conclude that HUMANS ARE STUPID? If it is not smart enough to notice then wouldn't that be a failure of AI?

So what if it thinks that we didn't observe a philosophical phenomenon, or it doesn't observe the same itself?

If a computer was as smart and conscious as a cat, it would be a major leap forward in AI. These oddly meta concerns hardly disqualify machine or people from potentially qualifying as being self aware.

 

[Al Jackson]

There has always been an interesting difference between the movie HAL and the book HAL.
Clarke has a chapter in 2001 called (I think) called The Need to Know. Clarke , without being too explicit, tries to explain HALs behavior.
In the film , Kubrick gives hints that HAL is losing it, the chess game, odd conversations , even claiming that HAL is infallible, but never is the Clarke explanation given.
I think this is because Kubrick considering HAL as a 'strong' AI offers the opinion that just like a human a real AI could just go bonkers for no got reason at all.