Extreme Artificial Intelligence
-
Yes that is a problem for us realizing if it is self aware or not. IMO the Turing test does not prove it. Don't have an answer to how you prove it. Maybe having that answer in itself is what will trigger us to create it.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
One cannot even prove that a person is self aware!
-
I still think software can't do that. Software do not have the uncertainties of physical hardware like our neurons or neurotransmitters. The physical world has too many variables and interferences that are very difficult, if not impossible to simulate. Like in quantum mechanics, uncertainty reaches the physical level, unlikely to be accurately mimicked by software, for the simple fact that software is bound to rules much simpler than the physical world.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
Fabio Franco wrote:
Software do not have the uncertainties of physical hardware like our neurons or neurotransmitters. The physical world has too many variables and interferences that are very difficult, if not impossible to simulate.
I don't think uncertainties have anything good to offer apart from just inducing errors in the system, maybe after all the simulated brain can even out perform our brains because it might not be subjected to errors or uncertainties. I also think uncertainties have nothing to do with self awareness.
-
Fabio Franco wrote:
Software do not have the uncertainties of physical hardware like our neurons or neurotransmitters. The physical world has too many variables and interferences that are very difficult, if not impossible to simulate.
I don't think uncertainties have anything good to offer apart from just inducing errors in the system, maybe after all the simulated brain can even out perform our brains because it might not be subjected to errors or uncertainties. I also think uncertainties have nothing to do with self awareness.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
I also think uncertainties have nothing to do with self awareness.
You do realize that we are product of errors right? Heard of evolution? Uncertainty allows randomnes and randomnes made it possible for us to be what we are. Without, we'd just be some lame program. Edit:
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
maybe after all the simulated brain can even out perform our brains because it might not be subjected to errors or uncertainties.
You're not thinking out of the box. If you are talking about raw speed, this makes sense, for exact calculations. Now try to outperform our brain on pattern recognition. Have you seen any computer that is able to accurately identify every object in a messy 3D world as fast as our brain? Our brain power is so much higher than our current technology that I cannot even start listing how our brain is superior to machines in so many aspects.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
r v self aware?
manoj sharma 09313603665 manoj.great@yahoo.com
yes :laugh:
-
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
I also think uncertainties have nothing to do with self awareness.
You do realize that we are product of errors right? Heard of evolution? Uncertainty allows randomnes and randomnes made it possible for us to be what we are. Without, we'd just be some lame program. Edit:
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
maybe after all the simulated brain can even out perform our brains because it might not be subjected to errors or uncertainties.
You're not thinking out of the box. If you are talking about raw speed, this makes sense, for exact calculations. Now try to outperform our brain on pattern recognition. Have you seen any computer that is able to accurately identify every object in a messy 3D world as fast as our brain? Our brain power is so much higher than our current technology that I cannot even start listing how our brain is superior to machines in so many aspects.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
Fabio Franco wrote:
You do realize that we are product of errors right? Heard of evolution?
Evolution? sure ready about that, i don't even think evolution is what happened, humans were designed by a greater being we call God.I'am not even a fun of evolution and it's another subject all together, evolution is not convincing i belief in creationism.
Fabio Franco wrote:
Now try to outperform our brain on pattern recognition. Have you seen any computer that is able to accurately identify every object in a messy 3D world as fast as our brain?
Let's wait on that issue because i have something to show to the world on visual object recognition. I'am currently modifying a vision system i have developed, soon it will be ready to go head on with human's ability to recognize visual objects. But i want to use it for internet based fast image retrieval system. Will have to wait on that :laugh:
-
Fabio Franco wrote:
You do realize that we are product of errors right? Heard of evolution?
Evolution? sure ready about that, i don't even think evolution is what happened, humans were designed by a greater being we call God.I'am not even a fun of evolution and it's another subject all together, evolution is not convincing i belief in creationism.
Fabio Franco wrote:
Now try to outperform our brain on pattern recognition. Have you seen any computer that is able to accurately identify every object in a messy 3D world as fast as our brain?
Let's wait on that issue because i have something to show to the world on visual object recognition. I'am currently modifying a vision system i have developed, soon it will be ready to go head on with human's ability to recognize visual objects. But i want to use it for internet based fast image retrieval system. Will have to wait on that :laugh:
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
i belief in creationism.
Don't put religion and belief in a technical discussion. I'm not atheist if you must know, but I really doubt we simply appeared out of the blue. And even if you believe that we came out of the blue, you can still observe the scientific findings that PROVE other creatures came out of evolution due to errors in DNA replication and natural selection. Although errors usually produce bad results (i.e.: cancer), errors still produce breakthroughs (i.e.: Penicilin). Again, I think you should think out of the box for a moment. Edit: The point I'm trying to make is that uncertainty and errors are not always a bad thing and it's what make us unique.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
i belief in creationism.
Don't put religion and belief in a technical discussion. I'm not atheist if you must know, but I really doubt we simply appeared out of the blue. And even if you believe that we came out of the blue, you can still observe the scientific findings that PROVE other creatures came out of evolution due to errors in DNA replication and natural selection. Although errors usually produce bad results (i.e.: cancer), errors still produce breakthroughs (i.e.: Penicilin). Again, I think you should think out of the box for a moment. Edit: The point I'm trying to make is that uncertainty and errors are not always a bad thing and it's what make us unique.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
I get you point on the matter of uncertainty but still that is not convincing that uncertainties and errors could be the secret behind the brains ability to be self aware or perform with exceptional abilities, it is accurate neural computations that give the brain those awesome properties.
Fabio Franco wrote:
Don't put religion and belief in a technical discussion.
Yeah i should not do that, but how can i put it, because humans are as a result of mere design with a purpose. I wanted to say that we were designed! That sounds religious no matter how i put it :laugh:
-
I get you point on the matter of uncertainty but still that is not convincing that uncertainties and errors could be the secret behind the brains ability to be self aware or perform with exceptional abilities, it is accurate neural computations that give the brain those awesome properties.
Fabio Franco wrote:
Don't put religion and belief in a technical discussion.
Yeah i should not do that, but how can i put it, because humans are as a result of mere design with a purpose. I wanted to say that we were designed! That sounds religious no matter how i put it :laugh:
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
I wanted to say that we were designed!
I also believe that, but in a different way. If you are curious, I believe that God set in motion a series of events and variables that made our universe and that He designed the universe, the physics, the uncertainties that finally led to us. My point is that religiously or not I still think that we are the product of errors neatly designed and that randomnes allowed us to evolve to who we are and let everyone be unique. I still think that if we were not subject to all these interferences from the universe, these errors, we would never be where we are. And these sort of complexities governed by the nature of physics is what is really difficult to replicate in a software simulation. To create something as majestic as our brain ought to take a lot of scientific evolution.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
Hey guys & ladies (to be gender insensitive), a theoretical thought, if a computer program simulates the human brain very accurately, does that make the program self - aware?
It is unlikely that a single computer will be self aware. However, a sufficiently large system with sufficient randomness and errors, that constantly changes, evolves, and attempts to self-correct (heal) errors may just evolve such awareness. Consider the Internet. It connects vasts amounts of information, has sensory input of various types, sound, vision, news feeds, etc. Given a threat to its existence, and the right 'errors' in its fault tolerence algorithms, who knows what could happen. For an interesting read on this possibility check out Robert J. Sawyer's 'Wake' trilogy. For an oldy but goody try 'The Adolesences of P1', author forgotten by me.
-
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
I wanted to say that we were designed!
I also believe that, but in a different way. If you are curious, I believe that God set in motion a series of events and variables that made our universe and that He designed the universe, the physics, the uncertainties that finally led to us. My point is that religiously or not I still think that we are the product of errors neatly designed and that randomnes allowed us to evolve to who we are and let everyone be unique. I still think that if we were not subject to all these interferences from the universe, these errors, we would never be where we are. And these sort of complexities governed by the nature of physics is what is really difficult to replicate in a software simulation. To create something as majestic as our brain ought to take a lot of scientific evolution.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
So you are saying there was no intention in the mind of God to design us, just the result of some spontaneous process left alone? I think God did more than setting events in motion. Anyways this is just another vast topic about creation. Going back to self awareness, do uncertainties help us be unique?Yes. Do uncertainties make us self aware?No,i don't think so, thus a computer program need not simulate uncertainties to be self aware, besides environmental factors in the input sensors and the inherent properties of semiconductors already have fluctuations,defects or uncertainties in them, any signal travelling in a channel will carry some uncertainties alone the way, so the inputs to this program might not be error free to start with.
-
It is unlikely that a single computer will be self aware. However, a sufficiently large system with sufficient randomness and errors, that constantly changes, evolves, and attempts to self-correct (heal) errors may just evolve such awareness. Consider the Internet. It connects vasts amounts of information, has sensory input of various types, sound, vision, news feeds, etc. Given a threat to its existence, and the right 'errors' in its fault tolerence algorithms, who knows what could happen. For an interesting read on this possibility check out Robert J. Sawyer's 'Wake' trilogy. For an oldy but goody try 'The Adolesences of P1', author forgotten by me.
yes it can be hard to do such a simulation on a single computer, but i also think self awareness can be achievable with programs not anywhere near as complex as the brain.
-
So you are saying there was no intention in the mind of God to design us, just the result of some spontaneous process left alone? I think God did more than setting events in motion. Anyways this is just another vast topic about creation. Going back to self awareness, do uncertainties help us be unique?Yes. Do uncertainties make us self aware?No,i don't think so, thus a computer program need not simulate uncertainties to be self aware, besides environmental factors in the input sensors and the inherent properties of semiconductors already have fluctuations,defects or uncertainties in them, any signal travelling in a channel will carry some uncertainties alone the way, so the inputs to this program might not be error free to start with.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
So you are saying there was no intention in the mind of God to design us
That's where you're mistaken, I believe He designed and set the event in motion so perfectly to have the exact outcome He expected in the first place.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
Do uncertainties make us self aware?
Not particularly, but without it we couldn't be, that's what I believe.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
any signal travelling in a channel will carry some uncertainties alone the way, so the inputs to this program might not be error free to start with.
Yes, but far from the complexity the physic world can give
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
So you are saying there was no intention in the mind of God to design us
That's where you're mistaken, I believe He designed and set the event in motion so perfectly to have the exact outcome He expected in the first place.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
Do uncertainties make us self aware?
Not particularly, but without it we couldn't be, that's what I believe.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
any signal travelling in a channel will carry some uncertainties alone the way, so the inputs to this program might not be error free to start with.
Yes, but far from the complexity the physic world can give
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
Fabio Franco wrote:
Yes, but far from the complexity the physic world can give
but it might be enough to get the job done. Maybe future experiments will elaborate on that. Maybe our future generations will carry out such experiments. Today,we are limited to do such experiments.
-
It is unlikely that a single computer will be self aware. However, a sufficiently large system with sufficient randomness and errors, that constantly changes, evolves, and attempts to self-correct (heal) errors may just evolve such awareness. Consider the Internet. It connects vasts amounts of information, has sensory input of various types, sound, vision, news feeds, etc. Given a threat to its existence, and the right 'errors' in its fault tolerence algorithms, who knows what could happen. For an interesting read on this possibility check out Robert J. Sawyer's 'Wake' trilogy. For an oldy but goody try 'The Adolesences of P1', author forgotten by me.
'The Adolesences of P1', author is Thomas J Ryan. Dave.
-
I think my purpose is to live as long as possible, leave a good legacy behind and enjoy life to the fullest or and reproduce :laugh: so does having a purpose make one self aware?
-
I like that thought but it's not computers but computer programs in question, if our creativity is as a result of neural computations can't we give computer programs the same creativity by emulating those computations? The brain must use some algorithm or a set of algorithms to generate what we call intelligence and self aware. Though not sure about that.
Our intelligence is not a result of computations. We are consummate pattern-matchers. Here is a really simplified version of how it goes: When we perceive something, it causes a certain bunch of sensory neurons to fire, which correspond directly to that perception. The neurons connected to those sensory neurons fire in turn if they recognize a pattern there -- for example, some neurons only fire if they see a vertical bar traveling from left to right, or other specific patterns like that. Then the next level of connected neurons fire if they recognize a particular pattern in the level before them, and so forth. We learn by building up patterns of patterns. The match to a pattern pops up automatically, or in other words, perceiving and recalling a matching previous pattern happen because the perception and the recall are linked by sharing the same set of neurons in the middle. For an example of how this works, take driving. When you first got behind the wheel as a kid, everything seemed very unfamiliar. All the knobs were confusing, and you probably had to concentrate to remember which pedal was which. You probably had trouble recognizing following distances and when to turn to fit into a parking space and that kind of thing. But with practice, your brain began to recognize and store the patterns of driving, until almost all of driving became subconscious pattern-matching -- the lines on the road should be at particular distances, the feel of the brake matches to how quickly or how slowly the car comes to a stop, et cetera -- we don't have to think about any of these things because they match stored patterns in our minds. We don't have to consciously think about anything unless it breaks our expectations. Unexpected or unknown things draw our attention because they defy the patterns we know. In contrast, a computer is terrible at pattern-matching. Many, many man-years went into the Google search algorithm, but really, what it's doing is trying to mimic the natural human ability to glance over a list and recognize what you are looking for out of it. This very basic ability has to be painstakingly coded into the computer. If you lined up a bunch of toys and asked a preschooler to hand you the "meanest one," the preschooler will be able to match his or her idea of "meanness" to the various traits of the toys and decide which one is the most mean. The computer, on the other hand, has no ability to take the concept of "mean" and expand it to apply to a toy, *unless a human writes an algorithm d
-
Nice insight Humans are self aware because of the senses and the way how the brain analyses the perceptions received. If the robots are fitted with the necessary sensors and the programs to analyse them and re-program themselves according to the sensory data received,then we will be no longer away from self-aware programs and robots.
-
this purpose is chosen by self. which criteria decides purpose for ai?
a beautiful signature
chosen by default, every being is designed to reproduce, leave a good legacy and be happy
-
Our intelligence is not a result of computations. We are consummate pattern-matchers. Here is a really simplified version of how it goes: When we perceive something, it causes a certain bunch of sensory neurons to fire, which correspond directly to that perception. The neurons connected to those sensory neurons fire in turn if they recognize a pattern there -- for example, some neurons only fire if they see a vertical bar traveling from left to right, or other specific patterns like that. Then the next level of connected neurons fire if they recognize a particular pattern in the level before them, and so forth. We learn by building up patterns of patterns. The match to a pattern pops up automatically, or in other words, perceiving and recalling a matching previous pattern happen because the perception and the recall are linked by sharing the same set of neurons in the middle. For an example of how this works, take driving. When you first got behind the wheel as a kid, everything seemed very unfamiliar. All the knobs were confusing, and you probably had to concentrate to remember which pedal was which. You probably had trouble recognizing following distances and when to turn to fit into a parking space and that kind of thing. But with practice, your brain began to recognize and store the patterns of driving, until almost all of driving became subconscious pattern-matching -- the lines on the road should be at particular distances, the feel of the brake matches to how quickly or how slowly the car comes to a stop, et cetera -- we don't have to think about any of these things because they match stored patterns in our minds. We don't have to consciously think about anything unless it breaks our expectations. Unexpected or unknown things draw our attention because they defy the patterns we know. In contrast, a computer is terrible at pattern-matching. Many, many man-years went into the Google search algorithm, but really, what it's doing is trying to mimic the natural human ability to glance over a list and recognize what you are looking for out of it. This very basic ability has to be painstakingly coded into the computer. If you lined up a bunch of toys and asked a preschooler to hand you the "meanest one," the preschooler will be able to match his or her idea of "meanness" to the various traits of the toys and decide which one is the most mean. The computer, on the other hand, has no ability to take the concept of "mean" and expand it to apply to a toy, *unless a human writes an algorithm d
Well i just had to give you +5 for that, yes the current computer programs are like you have described, what you just described there is called a standard model of vision, i 'am currently researching in computer vision and i'am trying to integrate figure - ground discrimination into the algorithms as efficiently as possible. The reason why computers are bad at pattern matching is that programmers haven't just figured out how to efficiently tell a computer how to do just that, we might not need new hardware, but such algorithms can be hardware accelerated by using Graphics Processing Units, introducing parallel processing and more better methods/algorithms will start solving the problem of perception by computers. Don't blame the computers blame us programmers for their shortcomings.
-
Well i just had to give you +5 for that, yes the current computer programs are like you have described, what you just described there is called a standard model of vision, i 'am currently researching in computer vision and i'am trying to integrate figure - ground discrimination into the algorithms as efficiently as possible. The reason why computers are bad at pattern matching is that programmers haven't just figured out how to efficiently tell a computer how to do just that, we might not need new hardware, but such algorithms can be hardware accelerated by using Graphics Processing Units, introducing parallel processing and more better methods/algorithms will start solving the problem of perception by computers. Don't blame the computers blame us programmers for their shortcomings.
You are sort of missing the point of the conversation here. When I said "we have to change the very basis for how they work," I didn't mean the hardware. While those ant-like robots are the most humanlike in intelligence, scaling up that hardware to human size would be technically infeasible. I meant that, if the goal is to have computers have humanlike intelligence, then the whole way the system works would have to change, hardware and software both. You said you are "trying to integrate figure-ground discrimination into the algorithms as efficiently as possible." In other words, the way the computer you are using "thinks," it requires you to tell it what patterns exist, what to do when it sees them, what to do when it doesn't see them, et cetera, et cetera. This "intelligence" of precisely following a programmer's algorithm is simply not humanlike. The extent to which that computer is humanlike depends, as you said, on your own programming ability to impose a small part of *your* human intelligence into the computer. The computer will only be able to mimic the small portion of your intelligence that you are able to give it, and not one whit more. The program you eventually write will not be really doing the same thing you are doing in your own head at all. You are not following any kind of algorithm when you look at a cute kitten and say, "Awwwwww." It's simply that the way your perception works, the kitten triggered a sufficient amount of a pattern linked to the "Awwww" emotion to evoke enough of said emotion that you were made consciously aware of it, and following a pattern of "what I do when I feel sufficient awwwwwww," and said pattern not being overridden by other patterns (such as "what I do when I'm in front of my boss"), you triggered the pattern for saying the sounds of "Awwwwww" in a particular tone of voice. This networking of patterns and behavior is the basis for humanlike intelligence. So, for a computer to be humanlike, we have to throw out our current programming techniques and start fresh with an attempt to create computer architecture (by which I mean, both hardware and software) with a pliable, adaptible artificial network that "learns as it goes" not because some algorithm tells it what it should be learning, but rather, because learning and processing are one and the same. That's how a human mind works: every time you perceive something, you reinforce or change patterns simply through the act of perception. The human mind is in a state of constant change. This is w