artificial inteligence is a myth!!!
-
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
-
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
For all of you having problems with the idea of AI actually learning like we do, please Wiki Genetic Algorithms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm Not only do they work extremely well, they learn, IMHO, much faster than back-propagation (which paradigm was being used earlier to make a point...) Kiwsa
-
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
It depends! If by reaching the level (or above) human intelligence you mean that a computerized system will be able to do the exact same things as human - then OK, you are right. But why would we do that? There are about 6½ billion people in the World, perfectly capable of that already. The modern view of AI (at least the sucessfull direction!) suggest that intelligence is a measure of how adjustable the mind is when confronted with an unforseen problem, and how a solution is found. The solution may be based on pure logic (machine) as opposed by a emotional solution (human) - remember Will Smiths objection in the otherwise terrible movie "I Robot" when a robot selected to save the grown up (33% success) instead of saving the child (17% success). But what do we need? Logic or emotions?
-
Yes, young Padawan, neural networks are just a mathmatical model of the neurons that hopefully make up the grey mass between your ears. Training neural networks by the traditional feedback approaches has been found limited in many ways. Defining the topology and weights of a neural network to make it suitable for any task is an entirely different matter. Lazy people have simply tried to let one of the most powerful search algorithms[^] do that job and the results are really promising. The gray mass between your ears has been configured by the same algorithm, with the tiny drawback that it had begun to do so many millions of years before any of our ancestors was able to climb a tree and pick some fresh fruits there. Once that you have understood all that, then you may come to realize that the problem is not finding an adequate emulation of neurons or how 'mechanical' they appear to you. It's the complexety of the desired result that will make us take a little more time than we would like. Ok, here we go again. I forgot once more that you are the one and only authority on those things. You have looked at it, once again not seen the forest because of all those trees and therefore it's all just a myth.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
I'm of the opinion intelligence can be made without free will and even that free will be impersonated by applying the full set of human emotions to decisions, all the AI's experience, and a slight degree of randomness (possibly using a seed generated from the parents'). Having a full amount of override control in any decision is a good start to free will. However, people are always scared to admit free will can be created, as it seems to detract from the superiority of being human.
-
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.
Until we can break away from the Turing model, we will never be able to achieve AI. Although you could argue that we humans are also Turing machines. Very complex in nature but still Turing machines nonetheless and very predictable.
-
No, although it did generate a healthy mix of intelligence levels in its replies. Friendly AIs are fun
-
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.
The very existence of free will is still hotly contested in neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, and theology. Even theoretical physicists weight in on the controversy every now and then. If I take your definition of free will, which is not a universally accepted definition, what you are really describing is a system that is non-deterministic. While difficult, it is possible to create programs that are also non-deterministic so I would argue that, by your definition of free will, a program is indeed possible which has free will. A lot or research into emergent behavior has gown down this path. Even if one wanted to just simulate what you call free will, all one would have to do is insert a rule which says that all other rules can be broken (e.g. a statistical weight driven system).
-
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
