Sebastian Thrun Quotes

Someday in the distant cyborg future, when our internal and external memories fully merge, we may come to possess infinite knowledge. But that's not the same thing as wisdom.

We build our technologies as a way of addressing all our anxieties and desires. They are our passions congealed into these prosthetic extensions of ourselves. And they do it in a way that reflects what we dream ourselves capable of doing.

By 2029, computers will have emotional intelligence and be convincing as people.

A computer would deserve to be called intelligent if it could deceive a human into believing that it was human.

Artificial intelligence is growing up fast, as are robots whose facial expressions can elicit empathy and make your mirror neurons quiver.

If we're going to achieve compassion in the machines and also feel safe with the machines, to raise machines with human-like values, we need to make them human-like by simulating, or perhaps eventually imitating, human beings in high accuracy from top to bottom.

We can make life in the computer. Granted, it's limited, but we have learned what it takes in order to actually construct it.

The research rat of the future allows experimentation without manipulation of the real world. This is the cutting edge of modeling technology.

As a science fiction fan, I had always assumed that when computers supplemented our intelligence, it would be because we outsourced some of our memory to them. We would ask questions, and our machines would give oracular - or supremely practical - replies.

We need to build EQ in our AI systems because, otherwise, they're not going to be as effective as they were designed to be.

I'm a big technology individual. I love science and technology, and anything that has to do with capturing events so that they can be experienced later.

Our computers double in capability on time scales of only a few years. It's hardly outrageous to believe that we will successfully develop thinking machines within a handful of decades, or at most a century or two. If that happens, these artificial sentients will quickly leave us behind.

The sad thing about artificial intelligence is that it lacks artifice and therefore intelligence.

I've come to a view that humans will continue to do what we do well, and that computers will continue to do what they do very well, and the two will coexist, but in different spaces.

In chess, computers show that what we call 'strategy' is reducible to tactics, ultimately. It only looks creative to us. They are still just glorified cash registers. This should make us feel uncomfortable, whether or not we think computers will ever be good composers of music or artistic painters.

Post-human intelligence will develop hypercomputers with the processing power to simulate living things - even entire worlds. Perhaps advanced beings could use hypercomputers to surpass the best 'special effects' in movies or computer games so vastly that they could simulate a world, fully, as complex as the one we perceive ourselves to be in.

Supercomputers will achieve one human brain capacity by 2010, and personal computers will do so by about 2020.

Could an android listen to the whining, requests for advancement, and entreaties for guidance and affection that pour from subordinates? Sure it could. Frankly, all that would be easier on the robot than it is on me.

Truly smart technologies will remind us that we are not mere automatons who assist big data in asking and answering questions.

The basis of computer work is predicated on the idea that only the brain makes decisions and only the index finger does the work.

There is a real danger that computers will develop intelligence and take over. We urgently need to develop direct connections to the brain so that computers can add to human intelligence rather than be in opposition.

I've always been interested in technology, but specifically how we can use machines to engage the imagination. I started using computers when I was young and was fascinated by creating rules and instructions that allow a computer to engage in a dialogue with humans. The stories found in the data all around us can do just that.

If computers remain far worse than us at image recognition, a certain over-confident combination of man and machine can elsewhere take inaccuracy to a whole new level.

People are good at figuring out what's attractive, and computers are good at quickly searching and finding. You put them together, and bang!

What's casual for a robot isn't necessarily what's casual for a human.