Extreme Artificial Intelligence
-
Not really. This "code" is kinda the same for the robot and a person:
if self is touching("Hot Stove") feelHot();
But for the person, the function feelHot will have several million, if not billion lines of code. Robot will have much much much less. In the function, the robot will probably have something that tells him to move away his hand and maybe inspect it for any damage, but that's it. The person, on the other, would actually feel the pain. Maybe they will start crying, maybe they will get ice or maybe do something else. It is impossible to predict. If you write a new genius sorting algorithm computer will not be aware of it. Other people may inspect it and find it really smart and cool but computer will just execute it faster than a slower algorithm. You can teach a 10 year old the basic math and he will probably be able to use the algorithm, and perform the operations specified there, but he will probably not be aware of how it works. Even the basic functions for human, have unimaginable complexity. For computer adding 2 numbers is just adding 2 numbers. But for humans, each number can also invoke specific memory, feeling, etc.
Complexity does not imply self awareness. The ability to be unpredictable does not imply self awareness, but the ability to associate stimuli to a specific response and the ability to self monitor imply self awareness, there is no need to be as complex as a human to attain self awareness. Or and it's not the computer in question but the computer program. :)
“Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better man or woman.”
-
I was not sure the moment i asked the question, but after thinking about it and taking into consideration views from others, my view evolved and became more inclined to the fact that some programs can be or are already self aware. :)
“Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better man or woman.”
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
the fact that some programs can be or are already self aware
Such as? Name a few...
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
the fact that some programs can be or are already self aware
Such as? Name a few...
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
My view is that awareness is mostly about associating a stimuli to a particular response. At least any program that associates a keyboard input to a particular response is aware of those key strokes. So a word processor is aware if a keyboard button is pressed, but to be self aware a program only needs to have some self monitoring capability such as a feedback about it's performance. :)
“Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better man or woman.”
-
My view is that awareness is mostly about associating a stimuli to a particular response. At least any program that associates a keyboard input to a particular response is aware of those key strokes. So a word processor is aware if a keyboard button is pressed, but to be self aware a program only needs to have some self monitoring capability such as a feedback about it's performance. :)
“Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better man or woman.”
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
a word processor is aware if a keyboard button is pressed
Not really in terms of "self aware", but it is "aware" of key presses when the system signals that a key press has been done. Two completely different definitions. It just sits there idling waiting for a keyboard press event to be triggered. My idea of "self awareness" is one in which something can take care of itself without necessarily having interaction with something else. A word processor cannot and will not do anything until the user interacts with it.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
to be self aware a program only needs to have some self monitoring capability
Which still boils down to someone coding that capability. Looking through this entire thread, there are a lot of interesting points made by everyone...
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
currently it has not been achieved yet, but are programs that use sensory processing such as computer vision systems self aware?
-
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
a word processor is aware if a keyboard button is pressed
Not really in terms of "self aware", but it is "aware" of key presses when the system signals that a key press has been done. Two completely different definitions. It just sits there idling waiting for a keyboard press event to be triggered. My idea of "self awareness" is one in which something can take care of itself without necessarily having interaction with something else. A word processor cannot and will not do anything until the user interacts with it.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
to be self aware a program only needs to have some self monitoring capability
Which still boils down to someone coding that capability. Looking through this entire thread, there are a lot of interesting points made by everyone...
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
Paul Conrad wrote:
My idea of "self awareness" is one in which something can take care of itself without necessarily having interaction with something else.
But we interact with our environment and our own internal states thus we respond to environmental stimulation as well as to feedback from some of our internal mechanisms. Without this interaction we can be completely oblivious of our own existence.
Paul Conrad wrote:
Which still boils down to someone coding that capability.
Even humans are hardwired to be self aware following some form of design. :)
“Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better man or woman.”
-
Paul Conrad wrote:
My idea of "self awareness" is one in which something can take care of itself without necessarily having interaction with something else.
But we interact with our environment and our own internal states thus we respond to environmental stimulation as well as to feedback from some of our internal mechanisms. Without this interaction we can be completely oblivious of our own existence.
Paul Conrad wrote:
Which still boils down to someone coding that capability.
Even humans are hardwired to be self aware following some form of design. :)
“Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better man or woman.”
Cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am") proposed by René Descartes.... I know this will probably really open it up some...
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
Apparently so: Robot sees itself in a mirror[^]
Nice robot, any further advancement in this field will definitely lead to a completely independent robot (of course not one equipped with a deadly machine gun) that can go around and learn about it's environment. :) Nice link:thumbsup:
“Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better man or woman.”
-
Paul Conrad wrote:
My idea of "self awareness" is one in which something can take care of itself without necessarily having interaction with something else.
But we interact with our environment and our own internal states thus we respond to environmental stimulation as well as to feedback from some of our internal mechanisms. Without this interaction we can be completely oblivious of our own existence.
Paul Conrad wrote:
Which still boils down to someone coding that capability.
Even humans are hardwired to be self aware following some form of design. :)
“Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better man or woman.”
Well it seems you're already pretty convinced of what "self awareness" is (you defined it for us in an earlier post), so I won't comment on that. What I found most compelling is your signature: "...every year find you a better .. woman." SWEET! A better (new?) woman every year! I might actually enjo NO WAIT, HONEY, I DIDN'T WRITE THAT. PUT THE BAT DOWN! OW. OW. OW.
David --------- Empirical studies indicate that 20% of the people drink 80% of the beer. With C++ developers, the rule is that 80% of the developers understand at most 20% of the language. It is not the same 20% for different people, so don't count on them to understand each other's code. http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/picture.html#fqa-6.6 ---------
-
Well it seems you're already pretty convinced of what "self awareness" is (you defined it for us in an earlier post), so I won't comment on that. What I found most compelling is your signature: "...every year find you a better .. woman." SWEET! A better (new?) woman every year! I might actually enjo NO WAIT, HONEY, I DIDN'T WRITE THAT. PUT THE BAT DOWN! OW. OW. OW.
David --------- Empirical studies indicate that 20% of the people drink 80% of the beer. With C++ developers, the rule is that 80% of the developers understand at most 20% of the language. It is not the same 20% for different people, so don't count on them to understand each other's code. http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/picture.html#fqa-6.6 ---------
The "better man or woman" part is merely to be gender insensitive not that I'am a woman, I am a man. Just want to make women feel free to see that they are being considered in the statement. :laugh: so you can only "HONEY" me if you were a woman and I can only "HONEY" a woman. ;)
“Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better man or woman.”
-
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
That is by far the best description of AI that i have heard. I think you are totally right in saying that the approach must be different. In fact, the result will not be a computer at all, since a computer does what you tell it to. It is not the case that a self-aware entity will do as you ask. If i ask a lion to say cheese, it will most likely eat me instead.
-
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
a word processor is aware if a keyboard button is pressed
Not really in terms of "self aware", but it is "aware" of key presses when the system signals that a key press has been done. Two completely different definitions. It just sits there idling waiting for a keyboard press event to be triggered. My idea of "self awareness" is one in which something can take care of itself without necessarily having interaction with something else. A word processor cannot and will not do anything until the user interacts with it.
BupeChombaDerrick wrote:
to be self aware a program only needs to have some self monitoring capability
Which still boils down to someone coding that capability. Looking through this entire thread, there are a lot of interesting points made by everyone...
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
Your "Self Awareness" sounds to me more like "Self Sufficient" therefore under your definition anyone under the age of say 12 is non "Self Aware" Self Awareness has to do with comprehending that the item/animal/person is what is doing/sensing/thinking something at that time. If the entity in question has the ability to understand and modify its action based on what it is receiving from its senses, Then the entity can act accordingly and modify its behavior and FUTURE behavior (however long or short that may be base on memory length) to either repeat or avoid the stimuli it received when it performed said action. Thanks, T
-
Your "Self Awareness" sounds to me more like "Self Sufficient" therefore under your definition anyone under the age of say 12 is non "Self Aware" Self Awareness has to do with comprehending that the item/animal/person is what is doing/sensing/thinking something at that time. If the entity in question has the ability to understand and modify its action based on what it is receiving from its senses, Then the entity can act accordingly and modify its behavior and FUTURE behavior (however long or short that may be base on memory length) to either repeat or avoid the stimuli it received when it performed said action. Thanks, T
Excellent point. Yes, self sufficient is more what I am thinking. I like your definition of self aware. A +5 for that :)
""Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Apparently so: Robot sees itself in a mirror[^]
I would argue that in this case Qbo did NOT pass the "mirror test"[^]. To do that Qbo would have to be shown a picture of "himself" and learn it and be able to differentiate between the picture and the reflection. (The training would have to be done very carefully so that a response indicating self-awareness could not be constructed just from a phrase assembly algorithm.) There's nothing in the video of Qbo's response that indicates an understanding that what "he" saw was not a "representation" of him (picture), but was actually the instance of self.
-
I would argue that in this case Qbo did NOT pass the "mirror test"[^]. To do that Qbo would have to be shown a picture of "himself" and learn it and be able to differentiate between the picture and the reflection. (The training would have to be done very carefully so that a response indicating self-awareness could not be constructed just from a phrase assembly algorithm.) There's nothing in the video of Qbo's response that indicates an understanding that what "he" saw was not a "representation" of him (picture), but was actually the instance of self.
I agree, Q'bo can now (after this training) understanding or recognize that he is seeing a "Q'bo" in front of him, the verbal out put that "This is me" is nothing but a string variable they used during compilation. If the robot could have seen that the object in the mirror was performing the exact same actions as it was at the exact same time and made the leap to understand that it was the same object that it was seeing THEN it would have reached a major milestone towards self awareness. A baby isn't told that what it is seeing in a mirror is itself, you can actually watch the comprehension wash over the babies face as it makes this realization. This is the major difference in how a computer learns versus how a human learns I believe. Humans have the ability to make these "Leaps" in their learning and understanding of stimuli, Computers lack that ability at this point in time.
-
Paul Conrad wrote:
My idea of "self awareness" is one in which something can take care of itself without necessarily having interaction with something else.
But we interact with our environment and our own internal states thus we respond to environmental stimulation as well as to feedback from some of our internal mechanisms. Without this interaction we can be completely oblivious of our own existence.
Paul Conrad wrote:
Which still boils down to someone coding that capability.
Even humans are hardwired to be self aware following some form of design. :)
“Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better man or woman.”
