artificial inteligence is a myth!!!
-
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
If it was that intelligent it would write itself :-D
-
If you are going to slam someone, make sure your post is impeachable, i.e. "an aply", "meat". Dave.
Don't you mean "unimpeachable"? Neil.
-
I'm beginning to think that human intelligence is a myth!
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1ohh c'mon we're not intelligent at all, how can we study intelligence if ourselves don't understand our mind xD
-
If you are going to slam someone, make sure your post is impeachable, i.e. "an aply", "meat". Dave.
-
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
Probably true! Intelligence is made up of a number of classic AI abilities including rule based, learnt responses, memory, association etc and a touch of "je ne sais pas", a random element that allows the substitution of a typical AI conclusion by what appears to be a random result that gives a better outcome. A sort of thought evolution, this random element is the biggest difference between human/animal intelligence and AI.
-
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
Have you ever used neural networks i did, they dont learn they are just a mathematic code that adjust the output based on previows input-output examples and that is if the problem you want to solve can be mathematically modelled if not then neural networks is useless.
Yes I have used them. And by your description I think you barely studied them. It is not as simple as that unless you are talking about simple neural networks. When you involve hidden layers and different learning theories (yes they do learn) you can model things methematically. The whole point is to use it when the mathematical model is unkown (i.e. you do not know if one exists but theorize it does). In these cases the performance is still often better than humans because they can respond quicker and with better results. Also, NN are not the only form of A.I. It is actually a tool to use when making an A.I. system. Humans are not intelligent just because they have a Neural Network. They have many other things going on as well (obviously). The same is true with digital programs. But their things that are going on may end up slightly different allowing them to elevate their inteligence (e.g. being connected to a database vs. being connected to a brain of memories)
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
My friend real inteligence cant have a mathematicall model so it cant be programmed.
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.
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.
Map this: "Human General Intelligence" (a.k.a Common Sense) :-D, seriously, i believe he refers to the fact that we still don't have Terminator like intelligences running around us and i believe is not by the lack of tools, but of the lack of processing power.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
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)
cmon people intelligence its not making something that can recognize a face, a fish can do that and fish are not inteligence, inteligence its to CREATE for example E=MC2, and i still say taht a for loop and if and switches cant achieve that, about the cocaine was a joke
-
Have we not been there already? If I remember correctly, another one of your opinions was that if you don't understand C++ and therefore don't like it, then everybody else must also dislike it for the same reasons. And I also remember your reactions when someone does not share your opinions. Therefore you may be a totally misunderstood genius, so forgive us mere mortals. Or maybe you really don't realize how provokative, arrogant and not so intelligent your behavior may make you appear. Looking at your past posts, I prefer to think that you are deliberately posting rough 'opinions' and just enjoy defending them to the bitter end. That would make you a troll. Not the worst kind, but a troll nonetheless.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
CDP1802 wrote:
Therefore you may be a totally misunderstood genius, so forgive us mere mortals. Or maybe you really don't realize how provokative, arrogant and not so intelligent your behavior may make you appear.
I think is just that he needs some english classes to speak less rude.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
I'd love to, but as you say, IP is an issue. I've been trying to figure out a more general application of the ideas, but I haven't been able to so far. Plus I think it needs a bit more polish (the code in the core is a mess...it works, it's just not pretty yet).
It looks to me like an expert system, when i was in my carrer i dearly teacher of mine showed us a system that was able to make medical decisions, although the decisión engine could be reprogrammed to be used for other purposes.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
cmon people intelligence its not making something that can recognize a face, a fish can do that and fish are not inteligence, inteligence its to CREATE for example E=MC2, and i still say taht a for loop and if and switches cant achieve that, about the cocaine was a joke
Vasily Tserekh wrote:
inteligence its to CREATE for example E=MC2, and i still say taht a for loop and if and switches cant achieve that,
Are you sure? http://creativemachines.cornell.edu/eureqa[^] And article about it. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/robot_invasion/2011/09/robot_invasion_can_computers_replace_scientists_.html[^]
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.
-
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 +-
hhexo wrote:
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.
Creating an intelligence that could match that of an human was one of the early goals of AI, however as you correctly point, that's no longer the case, and it changed because early AI researchers promised "Human like intelligence" in a short span of time (10 or 20 years i guess), but as they predictions didn't turn true, they lost funding for their reserach, that's why they shifted focus in more manageable goals, like creating expert systems (narrow field experts) that could replace expert humans (like a chess player).
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
True, current computers cannot go that far. But I believe dreams will come true when quantum computers go commercial.
I can't wait for a quantum positronic brain. :-D
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
jschell wrote:
So why isn't there an AI now that is at least as smart as, for example, a dog?
In a way, we have[^]. Any field that relies on another can only advance so far on its own, just as AI relies to some extent on neuroscience and electrical engineering. For example, the science behind something like a warp drive works out, we can even figure out how much energy it would take, the only problem is we don't know how to apply the energy in a way to do it.
Using conventional computer components, we know how much electricity would be needed to run a computer that may be equal to the processing power of the human brain. Check out the article.
-
lewax00 wrote:
Because as we all know, fields never improve and never become more advanced.
Look at the advances in medicine in the past 50 years. And the past 200. Look at the advances in computers in the past 50 years. Look at the advances in bio-engineering in the past 50 years. Look at the 'advances' in parapsychology in the past 50 years. New sciences which can produce results tend to advance quickly. Those that can't - don't. AI is a new science. So why isn't there an AI now that is at least as smart as, for example, a dog?
A dog is a highly intelligent creature. If we could emulate a dog, a human wouldn't be much of an advancement.
-
Map this: "Human General Intelligence" (a.k.a Common Sense) :-D, seriously, i believe he refers to the fact that we still don't have Terminator like intelligences running around us and i believe is not by the lack of tools, but of the lack of processing power.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
Well if that is what he is refering to that is just silly. Just because a system can walk around and talk to humans does not make it an AI system. In addition just because it can not walk around and talk to humans does not mean it is not an AI system. But yes, those systems do not yet exist mostly because of processing power. It is comming though.
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.
-
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.
There's certainly an aspect of intelligence that involves responding to changes in the environment. I believe for this reason that many "AI" examples are actually forms of information processing. Connect the algorithm to a different bit feed, and it will never identify the patterns and adapt to produce output of value to its "caretakers" (the humans that keep the power on). Achieving that form of intelligence requires the ability to distinguish between the self and the environment. That is an aspect of consciousness, which is really nothing mysterious, it's just awareness of change. Of course, that requires some kind of semantic memory (not just the ability to store and retrieve tokens whose meaning is known only to others) to do the differencing against, and self-consciousness requires a capacity for self-introspection. I like the cockroach example somebody threw up earlier, but I think that it gives an incomplete picture of the challenges and opportunities ahead of us. The human mind, as any accomplished Buddhist will tell you, is a far more complex thing than the study of the brain alone can explain.
-
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.
Can you break the ruleset that allows you to create and break new rules?
-
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
GAs (and GPs) only 'appear' to learn. They're just efficient searchers. So efficient they cheat if you don't get the fitness function correct :p
-
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).
The "Free Will" in your brain is the result of different portions of your brain, vying for attention and voting to decide the next course of action. While one section of your brain is voting to enforce rules and stay on task, another may be voting to go out and eat some ice cream. Parts of your brain are constantly voting to break rules. Though this is a component of our intelligence, it's not an example of rational intelligence.
-
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 you totally underestimate the power of computability. Our brains are following physical and chemical laws that can be simulated by means of if-then contitions, for loops and mathematical calculations. Just take a look at protein-folding simulations that can be carried out today. I just think it's a matter of having enough computing and networking power as well as enough low-level understanding of how a real neuron operates for singularity to become a reality.
