In general I agree with what's said there and I don't think it contradicts what I said. Humans have one set of emotions that result from millions of years of evolution. A true artificial intelligence (designed to learn and evolve on its own in response to stimuli, as opposed to simulating human behavior) would never gain the human set of emotions.
However, I do think that as the AI developed it might develop mental processes that are more analogous to feelings than thoughts. I'm struggling a bit on this point because I'm not sure how to define the difference between emotions and thoughts. But I think if you were to continuously interrupt an AI from performing its task, it might draw a set of conclusions that effectively describe you as "annoying." In future interactions with you, those conclusions might affect its judgment in a way similar to how the actual annoyance emotion plays out in humans.
I just watched the episode where Cameron says "Without John, you're life has no meaning" and I'm amazed by how interesting that line is, and how I missed it before. Cameron says it in response to Sarah saying something like "I love my son, you wouldn't understand." Cameron is trying to understand, and she draws a parallel between herself and Sarah to help in that understanding.
Cameron begins by operating under orders to protect John, but she also must consider the fact that without John her existence becomes meaningless, and she cannot self-terminate. So I think it's fair to predict she may eventually decide to protect John even if orders told her otherwise, because so far her entire existence has depended on him and removing him from her thought processes would be traumatic.
Love? Well, not really. If a human felt that way we'd probably consider it a kind of mental disorder, but then, I recall reading that humans who describe themselves as in love tend to have parts of their brain light up that we normally associate with insanity anyway.
no subject
However, I do think that as the AI developed it might develop mental processes that are more analogous to feelings than thoughts. I'm struggling a bit on this point because I'm not sure how to define the difference between emotions and thoughts. But I think if you were to continuously interrupt an AI from performing its task, it might draw a set of conclusions that effectively describe you as "annoying." In future interactions with you, those conclusions might affect its judgment in a way similar to how the actual annoyance emotion plays out in humans.
I just watched the episode where Cameron says "Without John, you're life has no meaning" and I'm amazed by how interesting that line is, and how I missed it before. Cameron says it in response to Sarah saying something like "I love my son, you wouldn't understand." Cameron is trying to understand, and she draws a parallel between herself and Sarah to help in that understanding.
Cameron begins by operating under orders to protect John, but she also must consider the fact that without John her existence becomes meaningless, and she cannot self-terminate. So I think it's fair to predict she may eventually decide to protect John even if orders told her otherwise, because so far her entire existence has depended on him and removing him from her thought processes would be traumatic.
Love? Well, not really. If a human felt that way we'd probably consider it a kind of mental disorder, but then, I recall reading that humans who describe themselves as in love tend to have parts of their brain light up that we normally associate with insanity anyway.