artificialincemanation?
373165
As far as I know, Artificial insemination is when semen/sperm is put inside a woman's womb by an 'artificial' method, ie, not through having sex, (supposedly by using a turkey baster). That wouldn't work for a woman who'd been sterilised like you describe because the egg wouldn't be able get from the ovaries, down the tubs and into the womb.\n\nHowever, I think there's a way of collecting eggs directly from the ovaries, mixing them with sperm in the lab and then putting the mixture inside the woman's womb. It's called "in vitro fertilisation". That might work for the woman you describe, assuming she still had at least one ovary that was still producing eggs.
90780
I dont know about that.\n\nBut there are AI softwares to recreate various\n human behavioural patterns.
77413
make any sensing devices, which has the altest features. u can get a lot abt them on internet and modify them for the latest demands
376562
I think that referrs to the computur programs that mimic biological entities.\n\nFor example, programming many small robots to behave like ants is one (source 1).\n\nOr a computer program that models behavior of bacteria or another single celled organism. (source 2)\n\nIt might help to know what context it was written in, or where you hear it used.
939655
Others have wondered whether or not downloading the contents of one's brain into an ultra-high-capacity chip would allow for the continuation of the consciousness. Arthur C. Clarke seems to think so. I'm not so sure, but it is an interesting Q.
1114478
I think you just need to go through this Wikipedia Page..\nIts really well maintained & with thorough explaination of various concepts..\nCheck: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Artificial_intelligence
571275
I am no computer theorist, so I am not qualified to comment really. But I off late keep notice that the thrust has shifted from trying to create a machine that mimics humans right from the start, to something that can learn prodigious amout of stuff by gradual interaction.\n\nOnly yesterday, I read about a robot that learns like a child\nhttp://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,57432,00.html\n\nA lot of bots are now being plugged to messaging services to monitor how people communicate and gather data/opinions on events. If I remember right, AIM has such a bot program.\n\nSo my guess would be a decade should see us reach where the turing test will begin to look do-able! But somehow, that thought is not so comforting to me...
211327
No, Actually I think that reproducing, concious and self-aware machines will be more ultimate.\n\nTwo parts:\n\nOne . . . \nIntelligence, is measurable as problem solving ability. Perhaps ultimately as the ability to solve new problems. Important, but I think that there are more interesting thing in store for us in the future.\n\nFor example, machines would be able to reproduce, and to adapt as a group through the processes of mutation (mistakes in reproduction) and natural selection. If they are concious and self aware, then their behaviors would be quite difficult to predict in different environments.\n\nTwo . . . \nPerhaps then we will have created something that can qualify as alive. Whether a supreme deity (I will use god in the generic sense rather than God in the specific sense, because I think this debate is applicable to many different interpretations of god.)\n\nDoes god take responsibility for man's creations? Though god may take responsibility for creating a world with disease, suffering, etc, Does god take responsibility for murder, war, genocide etc.? If god takes credit for man's creations then yes, god is ultimately responsible for these things by giving man the choice and ability to make these thing happen . . . and god would be responsible and credited for intelligent of living machines that were made by the hands of man.\n\nHowever, if god is not responsible for murder, war, genocide etc. then god would also not be responsible for man making an intelligent machine.\n\nA god can't have it both ways . . . either he's responsible for all of humanity's actions and creations or none of them.
170783
There are many different AI techniques. Most AI bots simply have massive databases of common phrases and their responses. In essense, they use human evaluation functions that are created with lots of time and care.\n\nOther bots use a language tree, and simply respond with random choices along that tree - or a combination of random and evaluation functions.\n\nYou'd be surprised how simple their basic design is. A language is so complicated that it is nearly impossible to create a good 'fake' speaker without constant human input and tweaking, along with a massive database of some sort to fuel the bot's brain.
111866
The theory delves into concepts of predestination, predetermination, and free-will. It proposes that human beings, animals, and others are really not in control of their own lives. Rather, what we do, when we do it, and how we go about doing it are determined by a complex set of interactions provided by the environment, people around us, etc. It is not hard to imagine some machine or random algorithm controlling these interactions, much like AI in a video game (FEAR, call of duty II...).
189806
Irrational persistent actions
906752
Well I'm doing my part.  My computer and I have regular conversations.  Well.  Almost regular.  I have been working at integrating TTS and Speech Recognition into a single application.  With the aid of an animated Avatar, this software seems to work as a real agent.  Although hopefully not as bad as agent Smith from the Matrix.  Check it out on YouTube:\n\nhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYu6_cNRCD4
76663
Hey pal,\n\nIn my opinion you can try Network Security or Artificial Inteligence!\n\nWish you luck,\nCiao,
14366
absolutely! and i think thats a great question. i did not know about cyc or 20q.\n\ni could see this yahoo beta program here as something when properly utilized that could become the basis for sometihng 'smart'. and i dont just mean the answers to all of the questions, although those are certainly an integral part. i think that maybe what we are missing in our quest for artificial intelligence is that we are try to figure out how to get a machine to understand all of these facts and figures and answers.\n\ni think that we need to rethink things. what if we could teach a machine to ask questions?\n\nanyway, these are sortof the random musings that bounce around in my mind. good luck!
642090
Intresting point, but you would have to construct a panatropic net with which to store a Matrix of all the dead minds. However, we're not far off making that discovery! ;0)
283432
To put the question in an operational way, you should first define what you mean as "self-awareness".\nSuppose tomorrow I give you a machine that I claim is self-aware. How do you plan to decide whether the machine is truly self-aware or is a fake?\nAlan Turing, in his famous paper of 1950 (see reference), proposed a simple test to decide that. The Turing test is still a reference framework for the AI.\n\nIf you accept (as I do) the rationale of the Turing test, your question is now well-posed.\nSaid that, my personal opinion is that there is no specific reason why a machine cannot pass the Turing test. It's only matter of time. Remember, some decades ago, Chess playing was considered the hard frontier of AI. Today you can get free or low-cost programs capable to win over most human Chess Masters.
774826
Artificial systems are good!  Or rather, neutral.  What makes them good or bad is their content.  Fight for freedom, but do it through the channels of these systems, unless they don't exist.  Without them, there is chaos, right?  Live your life as free as you can, but understand why the stuff is there.