Can you realy call Kitt a computer?

knightimmortal · Post by **knightimmortal** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 12:14 am

*smiles contentedly* Thank you, KFCreator.

Now if only the other projects could be just as showcased.

KI

TT Snim · Post by **TT Snim** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 12:17 am

I think perhaps that we humans have the ability to make something after a form of ourselves, but not completely human. Perhaps an AI would have the ability to think similarly, but would not be able to consider itself human, just as KITT could not truthfully consider himself human.

This is what you said, among other things. Your whole post, in fact, is very close to my own musings.

Please, I invite you to my own writings on AI... Mind you It's quite an old, out of date report, but it is the foundation, so far, for my research.

http://www.angelfire.com/gundam/ttsnim/gentec.html

If you read this you will understand better I hope.

knightimmortal · Post by **knightimmortal** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 12:21 am

*sigh*

KI
(shreds her degrees)

TT Snim · Post by **TT Snim** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 12:29 am

WHAT?!?!?

(Folds arm)

I'm not saying I CAN MAKE AI WORK! I'm just saying I hope I can HELP!!!

(Glears at floor)

Besides, it will take a lot more than we curently know to create true AI. Of this I am certen. I understand that the road is long. All the more reason for me to do as much as I can.

(Looks up and smiles)

Maybe some day I'll find some thing ot really grate, or maybe I'll fade, but I know I'll be happy just trying.

By the way, Darkningt, I read Showdown. Loved it. Really loved it. Glad to see another Dean Anderson fan.

TT Snim · Post by **TT Snim** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 12:33 am

(Blink Blink)

And the car too...

Coooooooool!

Darknight · Post by **Darknight** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 12:46 am

I'm glad you loved Showdown, I put a lot of work into it. I have read over your site, but I'm afraid we disagree on something pretty fundamental. I don't believe that we can make something from nothing, because that is part of being a deity. We can work with only that which has been presented to us, as our Bible says pretty clearly, "there is nothing new under the sun." Any concept that you can think of was there before you conceived of it - you're merely tapping into a pre-existing notion. I recommend reading some Greek philosophy, chiefly Plato, and his writings of Socrates.

My point is that we are not made exactly as God, but we are only a reflection of him. Hence, I believe that with AI, we can only make a reflection of ourselves. I say this because what you are saying on the board doesn't seem to match what is on your site.

DK

P.S. No offense intended.

TT Snim · Post by **TT Snim** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 1:04 am

Like I said, that report was writen some time ago... I am planing on writing a new one some time in the future... like with in the next 6 months or so... I hope you will be interested in reading it.

I don't take any ofence at all, infact your coments are welcome.

I too belive that AI will be mearly a reflection of our own selves. I don't think some thing from noting can be achived... (Must read own report again...) think it will take deep study and advancments in technology before we can start making any visible progress on a widly viewed basis. I plan on experimenting with small bots in the next hand full of years, then posibly tinkering with larger ones. (I hope I never meet a real Karr... or Lore, for that matter...) Some day I wish to see a full car AI, but this will take many years, wich I may not have, to acomplish.

I'd love to hear more about your project some day. Hope you will show me.

TT Snim · Post by **TT Snim** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 1:08 am

OK... I just skimmed my own report... Yep, that sucker has to burn... I'll be taking it down when I get my new PC. Then, hopefully, a better report will be put up.

BURN, BABY, BURN..

Darknight · Post by **Darknight** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 1:40 am

Can't wait to see your new report, with updated research. You probably won't see too much in the way of a report from me, though, because I think that the principles of AI are just too complicated and elusive to pin down in one report. Besides that, I'm pretty cautious about what I let out to people. I don't have to tell anyone here at KRO what a little AI could do in the wrong hands

DK

Post by **Michael Pajaro** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 3:28 pm

KFCreator wrote:they ran a small article talking to an MIT researcher who is currently developing an AI program that they claim "has the intelligence of a 3 or 4 year old" and has the ability to learn and incorporate new ideas into its program on its own.

I get frustrated by scientists and journalists (like those with PopSci) who sort of mislead people regarding their inventions. An AI program may be able to adapt "in a way that parallels a 3 or 4 year old child" but clearly their program is NOT as intellegent as a child. At that age, a person has a functioning vocabulary of probably several thousands words. He is self-aware. He is capable of expressing himself creatively. These are all characteristics of intelligence which I don't think you'll find with the MIT project or any other AI project yet.

Mike

knightimmortal · Post by **knightimmortal** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 3:39 pm

Ok, so even if they do come out with it, you are still going to bash it down and not believe? Now that is playing dirty pool.

KI

Post by **Michael Pajaro** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 3:47 pm

When they demonstrate a true AI, I will accept it for what it is. But saying that a program has the intelligence of a 3 year old because it can adapt is misleading at best, lying at worst.

CNN ran a story about some miniature robots that "got camera shy" during a press conference. That's irresponsible reporting, because these robots had no idea whatsoever what a camera was. They were basically just elaborate toys that "learned" about their environment through trial and error. As they ran around the room, they bumped into things less and less, and therefore started staying away from the cameras more. It had nothing to do with being shy.

One of the reasons why so many people think that KITT already exists (and yes, there are plenty out there) is because science is very poorly reported and people don't understand what the true state-of-the-art is.

Mike

knightimmortal · Post by **knightimmortal** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 3:53 pm

Just checking, because it really did sound like you would smash it down if it ever came into existance.

And by the way, the MIT one, has the right track, they have three of the 40 criteria for the general definition of AI, so it doesn't kill to at least give some hope in the right direction for true science.

KI

knightynight · Post by **knightynight** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 7:04 pm

Darknight, I have a deeper respect for you than I had previously conceived was possible. not to say that I didn't respect you before, but you hit the nail right on the head when you said "we are not made exactly as God, but we are only a reflection of him". And quoting Ecclesiates, too! That's one of my favorites.

I personally feel that people are like God's way of painting a portrait of himself. The materials that we consist of, physical AND spiritual, is merely the paint that God used.

Deep stuff.

Darknight · Post by **Darknight** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 2:08 am

*splat!* My head just exploded, haha. Seriously though, thanks knightyknight for your kind words.

DK

KFCreator · Post by **KFCreator** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 11:22 am

Mike, I think you're getting somewhat confused yourself. Intelligence doesn't depend so much on the ability to be self-aware as does the definition of "life." A machine can be programmed to be intelligent but is not necessarily alive because it lacks the ability to be self-aware. A good reference to these AI issues is the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "The Measure of A Man," where the android Data is put on trial by Starfleet to determine whether he is a real "lifeform" or if he's just a machine and collection of parts and programming and is therefore the property of Starfleet to do with as they see fit. Very good episode for all to watch, even if you're a non-Trekkie. Anyway, just my two cents.

Post by **Michael Pajaro** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 12:40 pm

I'll agree with you up to a point KFCreator... You have a good point that something could possibly be intelligent without being self-aware (although that is a debate in itself). But when we start talking about building a real KITT or comparing existing machines to children, then I think we should understand what the differences are. Clearly KITT was self-aware, so in order to build a real KITT we have to build a self-aware machine. And I don't see that happening for many decades.

Mike

Darknight · Post by **Darknight** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 12:24 am

Let me just add in that things can be alive also and not self aware, such as bugs, fish, or perhaps even dogs and cats. Sure, they have wants, but I doubt that they have the ability to consider their own identity. *pictures cat sitting with legs folded, eyes closed, burning incense, asking, "Who am I, really?"*

DK

Crusing · Post by **Crusing** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 3:06 pm

Me and my freinds were just talking and one of them brought up a pretty good topic.

He told me "can you realy call Kitt a computer?" I thought about it a little bit and said he did function as computer but Kitt was much more than a computer because he had a personality like a person.

What do you guys think can you realy call Kitt a computer?

whet · Post by **whet** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 3:12 pm

Yes of course you can call Kitt a computer that is what he is.
It's just that Kitt in realaty is very advanced even by today's standard's.
But maybye one day it won't be so unrealastic to have computer's like Kitt.
It's just that Knight Rider is still very ahead of it's time.

knightimmortal · Post by **knightimmortal** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 3:14 pm

What else would you call him?

Some would call him an Artificial Intelligence, but deep down, an AI is still generated off of a computer.

Some people say that the human brain is one big organic computer that you input processes in, and get processes out.

So no matter what you do, KITT is still an artificial being, that is a group of digital circuits and runs by logical processes. He is still a computer.

See, what you and your friends need to do is realize that a computer is far beyond the thing sitting on your desk. (If you are using a laptop, it had better still be on a desk, otherwise, you will fry your lap). What you have before you most of the time in the form of a personal computer, is an overglorified word processor that can play games. It's not even a true computer. (Unless you do floating point calculations, at which point, THEN it's a computer.

A supercomputer can do many things, including control other functions to do as it wants, and a super computer can in fact process data faster than a human, and in effect, that is all that KITT does. He processes faster than a human, while emulating humanity. It's part of his programming, which....still makes him a computer.

So no matter what your imaginations want to call him, KITT is a computer, plain, simple, and basic. More specifically, he is a computer with enhanced Artificial Intelligence capabilities, that controls multiple systems that work in conjunction with the main processor. He still has a CPU, he still has circuits, and he still is a computer.

KI

Sith · Post by **Sith** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 3:14 pm

Yes. lol

He has circuits and chips etc.

But then again, he is an Artificial Intelligence.

Perhaps a better description would be to call him a sentient car.

knightimmortal · Post by **knightimmortal** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 3:17 pm

That wouldn't be wise.

If he was sentient, then he should have been able to leave the Foundation at any time, and not be considered 'Foundation Property'. Gotta be careful with that label, because if you go too far over into the sentient side, then you run into: Is KITT a slave?

KI

Sith · Post by **Sith** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 3:20 pm

Interesting point.

I believe he was in many ways.

We speak of him as a he, yet he quite clearly was an 'it'. He had no sex as such, just a masculine voice.

By sentient I really meant that he was self aware, and could manage rational thinking.

But then, the 'Override' button on his dash really just says to me at the end of the day, he was just a tool.

Post by **Michael Pajaro** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 4:08 pm

This is not exactly canon, but I make distinctions between the Knight 2000, the Knight Industries Two Thousand, and KITT.

The Knight 2000 is the physical car. You can drive it, you can turbo boost with it, but it doesn't think.

The Knight Industries Two Thousand is the computer integrated into the car. It thinks. It processes data. It speaks.

KITT is the programming or whatever you want to call it that is the personality of the computer. It is what makes the Knight Industries Two Thousand more of a "he" than an "it". You could build a dozen physically identical Knight Industries Two Thousands, but you would only have one "KITT". And I would have to say that KITT is sentient.

We casually say that KITT refers to the complete package, the car/computer/software, so it's definitely correct to say KITT is a computer. But remember, in Soul Survivor KITT was removed from the vehicle. The car was no longer KITT.

Long answer to short question.

Mike

Can you realy call Kitt a computer?

Can you realy call Kitt a computer?

knight rider: original

knight rider: 2008-2009

team knight rider

other knight rider

news

user contributed

videos

photos

follow us