artificial inteligence is a myth!!!
-
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.
-
Yes i did and that makes me think that, I am not a troll, thats my particular point of view after watch the current state of the art of the AI
To what extent? I might have said the same thing after my one required undergrad class on the subject. Now that I'm just a thesis away from a masters concentrated on machine intelligence, I have a slightly different perspective. First, I don't believe that the limits of AI are inherent to the techniques themselves. Rather, AI is limited by the ability of us humans to provide effective mathematical models and enough hardware to to evaluate them, both of which are constantly being improved. Consider that it took about three BILLION years for the human brain to develop its current algorithms and resources. I'd say AI is progressing at a fantastic rate by comparison! Secondly, you denigrate the tradition program control structures (if, while, for, etc), but are you really so sure our brains work any differently?
-
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
In principle there is no limit to how intelligent a machine can become. What is a myth though is the idea that intelligence is consciousness.
-
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.
-
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
We are like programs, but instead of generating an unexpected error, when we don't understand something we say: "God made it that way"
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
-
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.
lewax00 wrote:
No we haven't. All that is doing is attempting to correlate some extremely rough measure to another. No more relevant than attempting to quantify your intelligence to that of a chimpanzee by weighing the brain.
lewax00 wrote:
Any field that relies on another can only advance so far on its own,
However the correlation is not direct. And computer science (which has more impact than electrical engineering) has advanced greatly but still no AI.
-
jschell wrote:
Just curious - where you live do a lot of people have two way wrist radios?
Certainly not the case where I am.Unless you live in another universe it's certainly possible where you are. How common it is was never in dispute.
jschell wrote:
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.First off: Flying cars - it's been done, just not in a way efficient enough for consumers (plus other issues like requiring additional licenses) Aliens - unless you're omniscient, you don't know that. It honestly seems very self centered to assume we're the only planet with life in the universe. Second, just because it doesn't exist now means it can never exist? Modern computers didn't exist 200 years ago, therefore they clearly cannot exist now and this conversation can't be taking place.
lewax00 wrote:
Flying cars - it's been done, just not in a way efficient enough for consumers (plus other issues like requiring additional licenses)
The point is that flying cars do not exist in the way that they were depicted in many ways in media. Just as wrist phones do not exist. Again... Hindsight is a wonderful thing but cherry picking a few items from literature that match current culture ignores the vast, vast number of things that do not and probably never will exist.
lewax00 wrote:
Aliens - unless you're omniscient, you don't know that. It honestly seems very self centered to assume we're the only planet with life in the universe.
I know that there are no aliens wandering the streets interacting with humans on a daily basis. Despite a HUGE number of media depictions of that in the past.
lewax00 wrote:
Second, just because it doesn't exist now means it can never exist?
New sciences that can have practical results, produce those results rapidly. Computers and bio-engineering are examples. New sciences that will not have results do not. Parapsychology is an example of that. The science of AI has been around since computers were invented. The results from that do NOT suggest that they will ever meet the common perception of the definition of "AI". Results that have come from that can have practical applications but do not meet the common definition. And there has not been any progress that would suggest that goal will be reached.
lewax00 wrote:
Modern computers didn't exist 200 years ago, therefore they clearly cannot exist now and this conversation can't be taking place.
This conversation would not have been taking place on computers 50 years ago. And it would have been far different on the computers of even 25 years ago. The difference is that computers have advanced significantly in that time. AI science has existed just as long.
-
jschell wrote:
There is no artificial intelligence. And with the current state of that study there never will be.
I would not give up that easily. We know one system that has declared itself to be intelligent. It is made up of spophisticated miniature switching units, known as neurons. We can emulate the switching function more or less precisely on a computer. But understanding and emulating this smallest unit of the system is not the key to intelligence. A brain is a network of large neural networks, so complex that it's unlikely that we can simply design a similar network and emulate it. But we do know the algorithm that has configured our brains. It's called evolution and we can also emulate it. If we disregard the amount of time it may require and also the capacity of the computer wich could do those emulations, I still think that it is possible to get results. And if that is true, those reults could just as well be aliens from another planet because they have been bred to survive and adapt to an emulated environment.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
CDP1802 wrote:
And if that is true, those reults could just as well be aliens from another planet because they have been bred to survive and adapt to an emulated environment.
There could be an alternative universe as well. However I am not discussing fantasy. I am discussing the current state of main stream research into AI that has been going on this planet for 50 years. And in that domain there has not been any significant breakthroughs and thus expecting that it will occur in any useful time from now is nothing but wishful thinking.
-
lewax00 wrote:
No we haven't. All that is doing is attempting to correlate some extremely rough measure to another. No more relevant than attempting to quantify your intelligence to that of a chimpanzee by weighing the brain.
lewax00 wrote:
Any field that relies on another can only advance so far on its own,
However the correlation is not direct. And computer science (which has more impact than electrical engineering) has advanced greatly but still no AI.
jschell wrote:
All that is doing is attempting to correlate some extremely rough measure to another.
Then give me a definition which can measure the intelligence of a dog and compare it to a computer. Not to mention, an equally complex neural network in a computer could theoretically out perform a biological one, just on the fact that the biological one also has to do a lot more things, like regulate bodily functions (which obviously a computer does not have).
jschell wrote:
However the correlation is not direct. And computer science (which has more impact than electrical engineering) has advanced greatly but still no AI.
Perhaps, but I'd argue neuroscience has an even bigger impact. How can we imitate what we don't understand? With greater understanding of how a brain works we may have better insight into how to replicate its functions.
-
Don't you mean "unimpeachable"? Neil.
Yes, I guess I put my bug foot in my mouth this time. Dave.
-
The sentence structure doesn't indicate that. Dave.
-
Survival instinct. Base programming. Call it what you want, there is no doubt about it. When you are hungry, do you not eat? That is a goal. Do you communicate with others to better define requirements? That is a goal. Do you go to work every day to make a living? That is a goal. If AI has the goal of 'please the master', that is the same as 'I need to procreate to ensure survival of the species'. Who put that goal in your instincts? Hmmmmm? :-)
-
The definition of intelligence is 1.The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Honestly from that meaning alone, I would say many systems, ones that were not even meant to be A.I., are in fact more intelligent than the average human. I am not joking here. Think about it. Think about what social networks currently do. They aquire knowledge about you and your network an aply skills of successful matching of advertising campaigns and further networking. There is not a human being on this planet that can do that more efficiently. I also have studied A.I. and there is plenty of it already out there. Maybe it does not meat your standards of being intellegent. But then again, maybe you just aren't very intelligent. So your standards are irrelevent.
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.
The definition is beautifully simple. I think that applications COULD be intelligent, they certainly gain data naturally, however could this be considered knowledge? Knowledge is an acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation. Can current AI study or investigate a principle, truth or fact? A social network could be seem to gain knowledge of a user's topical preference, however a social network does not naturally learn new skills. It is given new skills by a developer. Though I certainly don't think that AI is a myth, I think that with current technology it is probably out of our reach (for now).
-
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
-
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
Oooh! A pound of coke! Right on man!
-
jschell wrote:
All that is doing is attempting to correlate some extremely rough measure to another.
Then give me a definition which can measure the intelligence of a dog and compare it to a computer. Not to mention, an equally complex neural network in a computer could theoretically out perform a biological one, just on the fact that the biological one also has to do a lot more things, like regulate bodily functions (which obviously a computer does not have).
jschell wrote:
However the correlation is not direct. And computer science (which has more impact than electrical engineering) has advanced greatly but still no AI.
Perhaps, but I'd argue neuroscience has an even bigger impact. How can we imitate what we don't understand? With greater understanding of how a brain works we may have better insight into how to replicate its functions.
lewax00 wrote:
Then give me a definition which can measure the intelligence of a dog and compare it to a computer.
You first - give me an accepted definition that provides objective criteria for intelligence. Make it easy on your self - try to find one that works for just humans.
lewax00 wrote:
Not to mention, an equally complex neural network in a computer could theoretically out perform a biological one,
There are many things that one can hypothesize.
lewax00 wrote:
but I'd argue neuroscience has an even bigger impact. How can we imitate what we don't understand? With greater understanding of how a brain works we may have better insight into how to replicate its functions.
That is simplistic. The fact that I know a great deal amount how sight works in terms of the brain doesn't mean that I can use that to create a computer that does the same thing.
-
lewax00 wrote:
Then give me a definition which can measure the intelligence of a dog and compare it to a computer.
You first - give me an accepted definition that provides objective criteria for intelligence. Make it easy on your self - try to find one that works for just humans.
lewax00 wrote:
Not to mention, an equally complex neural network in a computer could theoretically out perform a biological one,
There are many things that one can hypothesize.
lewax00 wrote:
but I'd argue neuroscience has an even bigger impact. How can we imitate what we don't understand? With greater understanding of how a brain works we may have better insight into how to replicate its functions.
That is simplistic. The fact that I know a great deal amount how sight works in terms of the brain doesn't mean that I can use that to create a computer that does the same thing.
jschell wrote:
You first - give me an accepted definition that provides objective criteria for intelligence.
I'm not the one claiming the cited article isn't a valid example, you are. If something with a brain is intelligent, I have no problem accepting a simulated brain is also intelligent.
jschell wrote:
That is simplistic. The fact that I know a great deal amount how sight works in terms of the brain doesn't mean that I can use that to create a computer that does the same thing.
That's the complete opposite of what I said. Being true in one direction does not necessarily make it true in the other. (In this case "You can simulate it only if you have the knowledge" is not equivalent to "If you have the knowledge you can simulate it". This is basic logic.) And if you know how the whole system works there's no reason you can't simulate it in software. If you can't, then you're probably missing pieces. And considering the article is specifically talking about simulating the human visual cortex, which means they HAVE simulated the part of the brain dealing with vision, so if you can't do it it's because either your knowledge of how that system works or your knowledge of software is lacking, because it's been done already, proving it can be done.
-
jschell wrote:
You first - give me an accepted definition that provides objective criteria for intelligence.
I'm not the one claiming the cited article isn't a valid example, you are. If something with a brain is intelligent, I have no problem accepting a simulated brain is also intelligent.
jschell wrote:
That is simplistic. The fact that I know a great deal amount how sight works in terms of the brain doesn't mean that I can use that to create a computer that does the same thing.
That's the complete opposite of what I said. Being true in one direction does not necessarily make it true in the other. (In this case "You can simulate it only if you have the knowledge" is not equivalent to "If you have the knowledge you can simulate it". This is basic logic.) And if you know how the whole system works there's no reason you can't simulate it in software. If you can't, then you're probably missing pieces. And considering the article is specifically talking about simulating the human visual cortex, which means they HAVE simulated the part of the brain dealing with vision, so if you can't do it it's because either your knowledge of how that system works or your knowledge of software is lacking, because it's been done already, proving it can be done.
lewax00 wrote:
I'm not the one claiming the cited article isn't a valid example, you are.
So you are claiming that that article provides a definitive objective measure of intelligence? And one that allows comparison between humans as well?
lewax00 wrote:
That's the complete opposite of what I said. Being true in one direction does not necessarily make it true in the other.
However this thread and sub thread is exactly about that - creating artificial intelligence.
lewax00 wrote:
because it's been done already, proving it can be done
Then why does research continue on that very subject?