artificial inteligence is a myth!!!
-
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?
-
Don't you mean "unimpeachable"? Neil.
impeccable (Sorry I'm late, I missed the train.)
-
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?
C'mon, we do have an AI as smart as a dog! http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/the-triumph-of-artificial-intelligence-16-000-processors-can-identify-a-cat-in-a-youtube-video-sometimes/259001/