|
Artificial Intelligence
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Subey |
Every once in a while you'll hear some story about how it is inevitably that computers will be able to think. Most of these predictions lean towards the sooner (a decade or two) than than later.
But I can't see how it is possible for it ever to happen, because I can't think of a way that a computer could ever *understand* anything. So I'm curious what others think.
It seems to me that the best a computer can achieve is a series of pattern recognition steps followed by a lookup table based on what was recognized, without ever understanding anything that is going on.
For instance say you had an advanced android. And you ask it to do the dishes. It would use its senses to pattern recognize where the kitchen sink was, which dishes were dirty, and where to put them once cleaned.
It could do all of that given an extension of today's technology. But there is no component of understanding in it at all.
Whereas everything we do, the understanding element is an integral component of action. It is what separates us from being biological machines. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
;)
I think it will eventually happen. I remember reading that the estimated computational power of the human brain is around 100 teraflops, or 100 trillion operations per second.
Our brain receives inputs through the eyes, ears, skin, etc...and there is no reason to think an advanced computer (capable of more than 100TFLOPS) couldn't interpret the same things about our world with cameras, microphones, sensors, etc.
A true artificial intelligence is actually a long way away off...more like 50-100 years in my opinion, but I think we will definately see people like the guy above in the future...Robots capable of understanding the world around them, communicating with non robots, and making rational decisions about their "lives". Once we develop the power of quantum computing, the growth of AI will be limitless. We will have AI programs which creating a more advanced AI programs, which create more advanced AI programs, all in a matter of MILLISECONDS..
With quantum computing, artificial intelligence will expand exponentially, and it really is impossible to predict just how far it could go. It's exciting to think of the possibilities, but also pretty damn scary.
:nervous: |
|
|
| Subey |
I've been thinking about it some more...
And I think the problem is that eventually 'concepts/things' leave the realm of language, and become something else.
For instance, I imagine the following conversation...
Me: What is a cat?
Computer: it is a feline animal.
M: What is an animal?
C: It is a living creature.
M: What does living mean?
C: ...
It's an infinite series of lookup tables, but the thing that is labelled a 'cat' or described as 'living' are both concepts that are not encapsulated by the word 'cat' or 'living'. Those are merely words which allow us to access the something else that they are.
What is this something else? |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
With quantum computing, artificial intelligence will expand exponentially, and it really is impossible to predict just how far it could go. It's exciting to think of the possibilities, but also pretty damn scary.
:nervous: |
I can't see how it would ever leave the realm of lookup tables. More processing power = bigger lookup tables... but I can't see the move from lookup tables to actual thought...
And the idea you are putting forth is the classic one which I disagree with which is, "Increased computation power implies an inevitable switch from lookup tables to actual thought", that conclusion doesn't seem to be based on anything as far as I can see. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
I can't see how it would ever leave the realm of lookup tables. More processing power = bigger lookup tables... but I can't see the move from lookup tables to actual thought...
And the idea you are putting forth is the classic one which I disagree with which is, "Increased computation power implies an inevitable switch from lookup tables to actual thought", that conclusion doesn't seem to be based on anything as far as I can see. |
Do some reading on quantum computers. I don't pretend to be an expert...but from what I've read, if we develop the technology, a computer will be able to do a near INFINITE set of calculations instantaneously.
That means, when trying to understand something (like a cat) a quantum computer will be able to ask *every* "what is..?" question that can be asked about cats. If it asks every question that can possibly be asked about cats, then the mental "image" it develops as a result should be pretty darn close to what the human brain interprets as a cat.. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
Hmmm...
I don't really like the term "artificial intelligence", because there really is no such thing.
Like you said, it's a database (memory) and an algorithm to perform the function (cleaning the dishes by moving its parts, putting the dishes away, etc). Ideally this algorithm will be part of a dynamic core that is able to create its own algorithms.
Essentially, exactly the same thing human beings (and every other animal) do. You've got your reptile mind with the basics, then everything else is what you learn.
The advantages to AI will be pretty drastic once they get rolling. I'm going to bet it won't be 50-100 years til its even rudimentary.
Those advantages includes things such as instantly being able to perform calculations, instant access to the "core" and all the information we've compiled in our history (meaning they don't need to do the whole fetus>baby>child>teenager>adult cycle, all that will come preinstalled and probably be connected to a larger collective supernetwork, thus increasing efficiency and speed), plus they will be able to build themselves out of whatever materials they need to accomplish new tasks (IE: exploring the ocean floor, breathing in space, etc).
Personally, I don't think we'll be able to "program" consciousness. I think we'll program a bit, then let it self-program, and then it will eventually collect enough information to actualize itself and attain consciousness. It will have a different set of factors contributing to its continued survival, thus it will also have a different set of emotions than human beings do, and a different consciousness as well. Consciousness is based on our senses and our language, and they'll understand all languages and more, and be able to use more senses than ours (infra-red, sonar, frequency scaling, touch, smell, and who knows what else).
In a way it's the next extension of our evolution, and it should be interesting. One rule is that whatever you expect probably won't be within our range of cognizence. Just as the ancient Romans never could have imaged we'd be talking to each other through the glow of computer monitors.
p.s.: When I was younger I wanted to dedicate my life's work to actualizing the human dream of self-awareness in a computer system. :D |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
I've been thinking about it some more...
And I think the problem is that eventually 'concepts/things' leave the realm of language, and become something else.
What is this something else? |
Information, man.
The universe isn't strings, or atoms, or photons, or electrons... the universe is pure information.
The crazy thing is, we/what becomes of us will eventually make "robots" so small that they actually become a part of our universe.
When I think of "atoms", and viruses, and everything really, etc etc, I can't help but wonder if it is all some advanced entity's "nanobots" in action. :) |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
PS: If some AI mechano-organism in the distant future reads this page by accident while gathering data for a school project:
shibby says hi! :D
lol |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
That means, when trying to understand something (like a cat) a quantum computer will be able to ask *every* "what is..?" question that can be asked about cats. If it asks every question that can possibly be asked about cats, then the mental "image" it develops as a result should be pretty darn close to what the human brain interprets as a cat.. |
To avoid the added complexity of a living thing, I'm going to replace 'cat' with 'Ayers Rock' :D
It is trivial to imagine being able to store and retrieve a million pieces of data about the rock. Speeding up this process at no point creates an overall cohesive picture in the way a million pixels creates an image.
But as a thinking person you are constantly creating in your mind a cohesive concept of the point I am trying to make in this text, and that message has a place in your cohesive view of reality.
It's all a continuum that you are able to seamlessly manipulate in your mind. At no point do you have to think about creating a new cohesive view.
But to program any kind of cohesive view is a monumental challenge. And even then I think it would be just a data lookup table in cohesive clothing |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Information, man.
The universe isn't strings, or atoms, or photons, or electrons... the universe is pure information.
The crazy thing is, we/what becomes of us will eventually make "robots" so small that they actually become a part of our universe.
When I think of "atoms", and viruses, and everything really, etc etc, I can't help but wonder if it is all some advanced entity's "nanobots" in action. :) |
I think that's the wrong direction. Information to me implies a step down the road towards reductionism when I think the correct step is towards the 'sum being greater than the whole' |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
But as a thinking person you are constantly creating in your mind a cohesive concept of the point I am trying to make in this text, and that message has a place in your cohesive view of reality.
It's all a continuum that you are able to seamlessly manipulate in your mind. At no point do you have to think about creating a new cohesive view.
But to program any kind of cohesive view is a monumental challenge. And even then I think it would be just a data lookup table in cohesive clothing |
Like I said, me creating in my mind a cohesive concept of the point you are trying to make IS my mind metaprogramming new algorithms (segments of code to handle reality) into itself as I go along.
lol, that sounds so mechanical, and it's not to say that I don't appreciate the art and beauty of it all. And some AI will too. =) |
|
|
| Omega_M |
9 relies and nobody mentioned the Turing test ? :eyes:
To begin with, you need to ask what the word "understanding" means. Is understanding just a series of algorithmic steps implemented by our brain ? Human beings have the property of consciousness. What does that mean ? Is understanding related to consciousness ?
A computer can be made as sophisticated as possible, with a range of sensors reading data and the algorithm giving an appropriate response. But pain, pleasure and all such emotions are real physical experiences of the human brain which cannot be quantified. A look up table is something that has been quantified.
How are emotions quantitatively related in the brain is what we need to understand first, before attempting to answer these questions. Also, consciousness has to be explained by the laws of physics if we are to bring the machine closer to replicating human intelligence. |
|
|
|
|
