artificial inteligence is a myth!!!
-
I see a lot of people responding that technology will evolve to the point where we will have good AI. I don't think that is what you are saying so I am not sure why they are using that as their argument. I agree, with current technology and if elses and loops, we will not get to AI.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
I agree, with current technology and if elses and loops, we will not get to AI.
And the advances so far, however humble or grand they may be, have been accomplished with what? Magic spells? Those things are just the atoms we use to write down algorithms and probably will continue to play that role for a while yet.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
-
ryanb31 wrote:
I agree, with current technology and if elses and loops, we will not get to AI.
And the advances so far, however humble or grand they may be, have been accomplished with what? Magic spells? Those things are just the atoms we use to write down algorithms and probably will continue to play that role for a while yet.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
Magic is code that works and no one is sure why. :) So, yes, there is some of that. Yes, ifs and loops have built the current advances but the point is to get close to true AI we'll need something a lot better. However, with processor speeds continuing to improve maybe a switch statement with 12 million cases and nested ifs won't perform that bad.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Any programmer who thinks that we are going to reach the human intelligence by if switchs elses for loops, is either crazy or has inhaled a pound of cocaine
...u mean, like u did? I don't think that invention of AI got anything to do with stupid messages like this published here.
-
Oh sorry I should have posted In my humble opinion I think that we are not going to imitate human intelligence by for loops else etc what do you think and please dont slap me in the face
Have we accomplished anything with loops or other basic program structures? Yes, we have used them to formulate algorithms. I also see no fundamentally different alternative, so future algorithms, whatever they may be able to do, will very probably be formulated the same way for any forseeable time.
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
and please dont slap me in the face
That will have to wait until I come to Cuba next time :)
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
-
Magic is code that works and no one is sure why. :) So, yes, there is some of that. Yes, ifs and loops have built the current advances but the point is to get close to true AI we'll need something a lot better. However, with processor speeds continuing to improve maybe a switch statement with 12 million cases and nested ifs won't perform that bad.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
I would place my bets on neural networks, which by the way are ideal to be 'offshored' to the graphics processor. And then there is that strange new idea to build supercomputers with as many GPUs they can find... Seriously, I see no alternative to algorithms and the now traditional ways of writing them down. I don't expect that to change any time soon. What you probably really mean is that the algorithms were laughably inadequate up to now. Edit: I just summoned up the disassembly of a switch statement before my inner eyes and asked myself what makes you think that we need fast processors for large switches? Apart from a tiny delay by a sure cache miss after a certain size, the branching instructions (that's the equivalent of a goto ;P ) will need the same time as they always do.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
-
If you are going to slam someone, make sure your post is impeachable, i.e. "an aply", "meat". Dave.
Or, "intellegent"! ;P
-
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
also my parents are russians and you REALLY know they are not stupids
Russians are just as capable of being stupid as the rest of the world, and smart parents can have stupid children, so I fail to see what point you're trying to make. (Not saying anything about you specifically either way, just that your point makes no sense.)
Whoa there! Respect a man who respects his parents. We don't have too many of that.
-
I think you are right. Programming is about procedures to solve problems, effectively. One can only program as many solutions as the programmer can think of. But true intelligence is the ability to solve NEW problems. Therefore traditional programming canot achieve that.
============================== Nothing to say.
Very early in the game (I am thinking around 1970 or a bit earlier), a theorem-prover was set loose on a known problem. It came out with a proof for a theorem; that proof was different from what the mathematicians had constructed. The mathematicians had to agree that the new proof was correct. What do you say about that? Among the earliest successes in AI have been the Checkers playing program of the same vintage; MYCIN which at that time could take in symptoms, suggest medical tests, and based on the results suggest a diagnosis; a program that could figure out the structure of crystals from its x-rays; etc. More recently, it is Deep Blue, the chess-playing program and Watson which can answer Jeopardy questions and is being deployed in business environments. All one can say is that there are solvable problems in AI and there are problems not solvable today. That does not mean that they will remain unsolved forever. Peace.
-
OK, dont know if you are trying to confuse me, playing dumb or it is a genuine question, i will suppose the last one. Lets stay with the example you gave of current AI, the social networks algorithms. It is based on a set of rules, lets say(for the sake of simplicity) if the user if from north america and is male, the algorithm will "decide" to show a beer adverticing. Now of course the algorithm may take tons of rules i used only 2 because i want to keep this simple. Now if the one who had to decide what adverticing must show to the users was a human being, he may decide to show other adverticing although he was only instructed to only take into account the location and gender, he may also take into account new paramters withouth being told to do so, like age, politic, religion, etc. So with this simple example(maybe not the best) just what im trying to say is that a part of our intelligence is the capability to break the rules, which i called free will(maybe not the best translation because english is not my native language). I hope i had made my point at least little bit more clear.
What you have described is not free will. You just added more choices. The algorithm can do that as well. I think what you maybe want to say is you believe a human can adapt to an unknown option (this really has nothing to do with free will). Your assumption is wrong. Various studies have shown that we can have a network readjust itself even after being taught. It's simply new parameters. In your example age etc. The AI does learn that age is relevant for beer. And maybe even more effectively. A human would continually think "oh they are 21" while the AI will quickly pick up on low response (why...because beer is an acquired taste...but neither AI or human care). The AI then starts given rum ads while the human keeps failing with beer ads. -------- This has nothing to do with free will. Free will is about being able to choose A over B even though something guides us to A. One could argue that because AI does not have free will they wiould consistently pick the more intelligent and logical choice. Then again one can also argue that free will is an illusion. The choice we pick under the belief of "free will" was in fact a guide yet highly complex calculation that we simply do not comprehend, but use every moment of our lives.
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.
-
Any programmer who thinks that we are going to reach the human intelligence by if switchs elses for loops, is either crazy or has inhaled a pound of cocaine
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
Any programmer who thinks that we are going to reach the human intelligence by if switchs elses for loops, is either crazy
Perhaps. My personal opinion is that AI systems and the current state of hardware can't come close to the computational and reasoning prowess of the human brain. But what does that have to with AI being a myth? Perhaps you don't realize that what was once considered state-of-the-art AI (image processing, expert systems, robotics, natural language translation, neural networks) is being used by you and I in our daily lives. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
What you have described is not free will. You just added more choices. The algorithm can do that as well. I think what you maybe want to say is you believe a human can adapt to an unknown option (this really has nothing to do with free will). Your assumption is wrong. Various studies have shown that we can have a network readjust itself even after being taught. It's simply new parameters. In your example age etc. The AI does learn that age is relevant for beer. And maybe even more effectively. A human would continually think "oh they are 21" while the AI will quickly pick up on low response (why...because beer is an acquired taste...but neither AI or human care). The AI then starts given rum ads while the human keeps failing with beer ads. -------- This has nothing to do with free will. Free will is about being able to choose A over B even though something guides us to A. One could argue that because AI does not have free will they wiould consistently pick the more intelligent and logical choice. Then again one can also argue that free will is an illusion. The choice we pick under the belief of "free will" was in fact a guide yet highly complex calculation that we simply do not comprehend, but use every moment of our lives.
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.
OK i think i understand what you are saying, and yes maybe the term free will is not correct, but to me it seems the best way to call it. Im not an expert in Neural networks, but i have used them several times at college and yes they can learn, but unless you are talking about a new type i dont know or heard about, the structure of a neural network is static, what changes with the training is the weight of the path the impulse runs through between 2 neurons, and yes after they are trained they can be trained again to "learn" something diferent. But as far as i know what they cannot do is to change the input, i mean if you create a huge neural network that works with an input of lets say 25 parameters, it will always take into consideration 25 parameters, it cant grow bigger than that, in the example the NN takes 2 parameters into consideration, if it was designed that way, doesnt matter how many layers it has it wont take into account any other parameter, for that being posible you would need a new NN. So what im trying to say is that what i dont see posible in AI as it is right now is the adaptability our human intelligence has to get new parameters into account(at least talking about NN, im sure there are plenty of other models/theories in AI that i havent heard about). Well then all this was on my assumption that there is no NN that has the ability to mutate/evolve(with this i mean that the same NN, can change to be able to receive a new input it wasnt designed for) without being redesigned, if exists a model or something i dont know please just tell me the name of that model or theory so i can read about it and agree completely with you.
-
Any programmer who thinks that we are going to reach the human intelligence by if switchs elses for loops, is either crazy or has inhaled a pound of cocaine
I think it'th a hit!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I agree to some extent with both of you Vasily and Collin. I think(well is more like i hope or wish) humanity will be able to create intelligence as good as normal human being at least, posibly something beyond that, but im sure that it wont happen in our lifetime.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
My friend real inteligence cant have a mathematicall model so it cant be
programmed.Collin Jasnoch wrote:
How are you so certain?
Show me inteligence that can not be "mapped" as you say, and I will show you how maybe you just are not inteligent enough to map it.That one is easy, free will cant be mapped/modeled, an algorithm is based on a set of rules. You can say that you can create a/"set of" rule to create new rules, but then again is just another rule that cant be broken. free will is the part of intelligence that make us able to break any rule to adapt or get better.
Free will is not as free as you may think. Free will is a decision that is reached by analyzing your current environment (hormonal balances and current blood pressure etc taken into this account as well), processing the current data and measuring the outcome against the cost of achieving the preferred goal and making a decision based on this threshold. Free will is an extremely complex mathematical algorithm.
-
I agree to some extent with both of you Vasily and Collin. I think(well is more like i hope or wish) humanity will be able to create intelligence as good as normal human being at least, posibly something beyond that, but im sure that it wont happen in our lifetime.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
My friend real inteligence cant have a mathematicall model so it cant be
programmed.Collin Jasnoch wrote:
How are you so certain?
Show me inteligence that can not be "mapped" as you say, and I will show you how maybe you just are not inteligent enough to map it.That one is easy, free will cant be mapped/modeled, an algorithm is based on a set of rules. You can say that you can create a/"set of" rule to create new rules, but then again is just another rule that cant be broken. free will is the part of intelligence that make us able to break any rule to adapt or get better.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
I agree, with current technology and if elses and loops, we will not get to AI.
And the advances so far, however humble or grand they may be, have been accomplished with what? Magic spells? Those things are just the atoms we use to write down algorithms and probably will continue to play that role for a while yet.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
-
Any programmer who thinks that we are going to reach the human intelligence by if switchs elses for loops, is either crazy or has inhaled a pound of cocaine
You have studied AI, so you should know that AI does not try to replicate human intelligence anyway. Mostly for one reason: Artificial Intelligence is hard, but Artificial Stupidity is much much harder. :-) Jokes aside, in AI we want to write systems that solve problems as well as or better than humans do. We do not want to create a human mind with all the unnecessary baggage that comes with it. So in a sense it doesn't quite matter whether it's possible or not, research in the field is not going in that direction because it wouldn't bring any benefit.
-+ HHexo +-
-
Any programmer who thinks that we are going to reach the human intelligence by if switchs elses for loops, is either crazy or has inhaled a pound of cocaine
Firstly define "human intelligence". Personally I believe shall never get to "human intelligence", whatever we make will be clearly a machine intelligence, which will be spooky/odd/wierd/inhuman, along the lines of the lines of "uncanny valley" is for modelling human physical items. Perhaps you mean "human consciousness" Because we haven't agreed on what defines an alternative intelligence as we've not met any human-equivalent species on this planet, or if we have we made them extinct (early hominids) so your initial question is unanswerable. Humans will eventually create programs that will become self aware and human-like in abilities, but I think **that** particular feat will be more of an accident than by design.
-
Any programmer who thinks that we are going to reach the human intelligence by if switchs elses for loops, is either crazy or has inhaled a pound of cocaine
-
OK i think i understand what you are saying, and yes maybe the term free will is not correct, but to me it seems the best way to call it. Im not an expert in Neural networks, but i have used them several times at college and yes they can learn, but unless you are talking about a new type i dont know or heard about, the structure of a neural network is static, what changes with the training is the weight of the path the impulse runs through between 2 neurons, and yes after they are trained they can be trained again to "learn" something diferent. But as far as i know what they cannot do is to change the input, i mean if you create a huge neural network that works with an input of lets say 25 parameters, it will always take into consideration 25 parameters, it cant grow bigger than that, in the example the NN takes 2 parameters into consideration, if it was designed that way, doesnt matter how many layers it has it wont take into account any other parameter, for that being posible you would need a new NN. So what im trying to say is that what i dont see posible in AI as it is right now is the adaptability our human intelligence has to get new parameters into account(at least talking about NN, im sure there are plenty of other models/theories in AI that i havent heard about). Well then all this was on my assumption that there is no NN that has the ability to mutate/evolve(with this i mean that the same NN, can change to be able to receive a new input it wasnt designed for) without being redesigned, if exists a model or something i dont know please just tell me the name of that model or theory so i can read about it and agree completely with you.
what you said only occurs because the NN has no way of getting the 3º parameter. As a human, you can't get some parameters on your own. Parameters like, let's say, the radiation level on the ambient. you depend on a separate equipment that it's not "built in" your body, so you need a Geiger counter. If no one is available, then you can't take the radiation level in account. If you can provide a way to the NN to get parameters that you don't predict that it will use, then i see no reason for the NN to be unable to learn to use them, even with the actual technology.
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
-
W∴ Balboos wrote:
My father recently mentioned how, as a kid, they marveled at the impossibility of the comic strip detective Dick Tracy's two-way wrist radio.
Just curious - where you live do a lot of people have two way wrist radios? Certainly not the case where I am. I can also note that none of the following exist either - flying cars - PSI powers - Faster than light travel - Aliens - Superheroes - Minature people living in a dome - Many, many other things. And neither does Artificial Intelligence. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but cherry picking a few items that match current culture ignores the vast, vast number of things that do not and probably never will exist.
Let me cherry pick another: Spock, on StarTrek, with his communications device stuck in his ear. I seem to recall quite a bit of that around, lately. Another responder to your comments talked about the invention of the computer - add to the the concept, even after they were invented, that people would carry them built into their telephones and simultaneously be hooked up (nearly everywhere) to another impossible miracle, the internet, whereby they can watch event happen throughout the world live in the palm of their hand - and it would become so ubiquitous in some areas that it is being considered a threat to public safety because. What a depressing point of view you carry with you.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010