A theory that deals with human's emotional response to non-human entities that emulate human behavior. While the article mostly deals with what the human SEES, I think it needs to start extending to more than just how fluid the animations or facial details are, such as Artificial Intelligence (concepts of morals, emotions, learning abilities, etc).
One of the MOST memorable moments I've had was being 12-13 and having a small 30 second conversation with John Carmack (possibly the greatest computer programmer EVER???? no, i didn't have sports heroes haha). The Quake 2 game has just been released, which sported the "most advanced AI system" for the time. Rather than the characters moving around like zombies, they would sometimes sidestep shots, duck, look for cover or run away to get another monster to double-team.
I asked him "you ever think that maybe AI will get so good that the monsters realize they are being killed and don't want to be killed? So they leave the game and find other things to do, like crash the computer out of anger?"
he says "that's going to be our little secret"
then about a month ago, i found this quote about the next Unreal Tournament:
quote:
quote:
When I first got the Darkwalker up and running, I was really surprised to see bots jump in and start really effectively sowing destruction and navigating around with it, even though I hadn't written any custom AI for the vehicle, and it had very different attributes than any other vehicle in the game. There have also been quite a few cases during development of what seemed like bots cheating turning out to be bots effectively exploiting bugs in the game.
Hear that? BOTS WERE FINDING EXPLOITS AND... USING THEM!
Subey
quote:
Originally posted by Omega_M
9 relies and nobody mentioned the Turing test ? :eyes:
The person linked here has a PHD in Artificial Intelligence. When I last saw him I used the hilarious joke, "But would you pass a turing test?". If you knew him it would be hilarious...
quote:
Originally posted by Omega_M
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.
I see what you are saying but these seemed like later steps to be dealt with. That the first step would be to try and envision something outside of the "pattern match + response lookup" model that was some semblance of true thought.
Subey
quote:
Originally posted by SuspicionVandit
One of the MOST memorable moments I've had was being 12-13 and having a small 30 second conversation with John Carmack (possibly the greatest computer programmer EVER???? no, i didn't have sports heroes haha).
I saw him on tv a few days ago in reference to civilian spaceflight, I thought it odd that they didn't mention his computer background at all.
Neat video going over some basic bot programming here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/coding4fun/archive/2007/02/19/1719502.aspx
Krypton
Machines have the advantage of being devoid of all emotion. They can choose the best possible solution based on mathematical algorithms. Logic-wise, computers certainly overtake us. But can a computer be aware of its own existence?
DJ Shibby
1. We're forgetting that we did not always have these same emotions and consciousness and self-awareness. I think we're operating under the assumption that we've always existed as we do now; it is not so. Everything about being alive is about dynamics and adaptation, from us right down to the very first cellular organism, and perhaps even into the mud and water and whatever else "made" life.
2. We're not even aware of what all of the potential "laws of physics" even are. If you're saying that we'd need to tune it to the best capability we can in the environment we exist in, then yes, I agree...
I think we're still quite young as a species, and we don't quite yet have a good enough grasp of the universe and our philosophies to make any assumptions. The theories will only get stranger, as well.
Like I said, at least 50-100 years until this even becomes a basic, vague beginning. We're thinking inside the box by assuming that we'll always have the same beliefs, theories, and way of problem solving that we do now. As a matter of fact, the exact opposite appears true: major revolutions of thought are happening at exponential rates, and will continue to as the population grows and the foundations of knowledge are expanded upon and passed down.
In 100 years, it will be a different ballgame. In 300-500, or whenever self-awareness occurs (which could be a natural immune response of sorts from the universe) technology and development will be very different. We're just going to see the tip of the iceberg in our lifetimes.
Don't get me wrong, I understand why it would trigger fear and apprehension; being evolved over and knowing that its happening and being the cause of it? We think of ourselves as the tragic hero, when in fact we're passing on the torch of what it is to be a cognizent entity in this bizarre universe. That's quite a gift.
It's something only humans will ever be able to experience. But a lot of our mentalities in general right now are still deeply rooted in "us vs them", "us vs nature", "survival". We just now have a semi-solid footing on the planet and space in order to be able to relax. I have a feeling in the future there will be more of an understanding of the shackling nature of many of our most basic instinctive thoughts and reactions; and we'll slowly shed them off as we will, just like Galileo illuminated us on God, and King illuminated us on racism.
Krypton
It is my belief that philosophy/religion is a by-product of human self-contemplation. If machines were able to consiously question their own existance, would a new philosophy/religion arise from AI? Imagine a religion of machines based on mathematical logic!! Perhaps a philosophical model devised by machines could provide insight to all philosophies currently floating around today.
Omega_M
quote:
Originally posted by Subey
I see what you are saying but these seemed like later steps to be dealt with. That the first step would be to try and envision something outside of the "pattern match + response lookup" model that was some semblance of true thought.
"Pattern match + response lookup" models will depend on the mathematical equations that describe the dynamics of our brain. It is necessary to first derive these equations. Measuring a physical variable quantitatively is the first step towards developing a mathematical model.Therefore, the fundamental challenge is to develop the ability to quantify abstract emotions and thoughts.
To develop an intelligent model it is necessary to answer these questions:
What are the inputs to the brain ? How do you measure them ?
What are the outputs ?
What are the variables that define the states of the brain ? Are they measurable ? Are they controllable ?
What are the mathematical relations between the inputs and the outputs ?
What type of a control system needs to be implemented to generate the appropriate response to a given input ?
Once you have this model, it may
1) Either be simulated before hand for all possible input/output combinations and can be used in the lookup table form
2) Run in real time to choose an appropriate response to a given stimulus ( like our brain) --> I think this would be a better approach.
In my opinion all such studies are incomplete without a complete understanding of consciousness. If we simulate the system according to the first method mentioned above, then it would seem that the lookup table has consciousness ! The lookup table may be printed into a book, and the book will have consciousness ! That sounds absurd. Hence, the need to understand this property before even attempting to design an AI system to replicate human brain.
All AI robots have extremely complex dynamic models and control systems in place. This is not just a question of developing an algorithm. An algorithm is meaningless without the underlying mathematical description of the behavior and a mechanism to generate a response based on the math model and inputs.
LeopoldStotch
Yes. I agree with many of the posts above. In my opinion, Artificial Intelligence is a very touchy subject. The art of computers is easy to just program from top to bottom, and tell it what to do based on algorithms, responses, and dictionaries. But what makes us humans different from computers is the art of life and emotion. Each one of us is different in every way, shape and form. We act, think, and move in a particular way unique to us. We can get into a discussion about how our actions, thoughts, and movements are based on our exterior environment, and how it influences us, but that's another topic for another day. :)
With Artificial Intelligence, yes it does take processing power to compute the actions what a robot can do based on the stored dictionary. However, it also involves the logics of languages, parsers, semantics, and pattern recognition. In the past, if you tell the robot "Pick up a rock", it would go into the dictionary, and attempt to look up the term "Pick up a rock", which we all know is very futile and unproductive.
Developers and scientists these days have broadened this terminology in 2 ways: languages and recognition. Now, if a robot is told "Pick up a rock", it will attempt to figure the primary subject/noun of the sentence, which is "rock". Then, it will attempt to figure the action of the sentence, which is "pick up". Through recognition, it puts together the logic "rock" and "pick up", matches it with it's dictionary through hashing, algorithms, and tables (i know sounds complicated for this sentence, but for longer logic, it's necessary. lol ), and picks up the rock.
Arbiter
quote:
Originally posted by Subey
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.
Can you think of a way that an assemblage of neurons, synapses, and chemical interactions could allow an organism to "understand" anything?
In any case, since those biological and chemical components apparently are sufficient to, when properly arranged, allow for "understanding," it seems as if we could probably create a "computer" capable of "understanding" out of those materials.
Of course, the question of what exact criteria define understanding, or what can still be called a "computer" for that matter, cloud the matter significantly.
That said, it seems to me the issue is more the presently incomprehensible nature of consciousness than any functional limitation inherent to computer systems.
DJ Shibby
quote:
Originally posted by Omega_M
To develop an intelligent model it is necessary to answer these questions:
What are the inputs to the brain ? How do you measure them ?
What are the outputs ?
What are the variables that define the states of the brain ? Are they measurable ? Are they controllable ?
What are the mathematical relations between the inputs and the outputs ?
What type of a control system needs to be implemented to generate the appropriate response to a given input ?
Yes, patterning and control are important... you've got to make it able to discern itself.
But.. to think:
We all come from a single cell, embroided with nothing but a set of commands that turns into every organ of us. And from there, well, we all know the rest.
Yet I can't remember my first year of life, nor the womb; why?
That is when we piece together, slowly but surely, the "algorithms" with which we exist. Don't touch the hot stove. Learn your letters and your name. Color within the lines.
Simplicity explodes into infinity.
As arbiter, wisely as always, said.. if it's already been done, we can do it just the same or better.
Furthermore:
If we can't, that will be a damn shame.. because it will mean the end of the line for us.
venomX
quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
Can you think of a way that an assemblage of neurons, synapses, and chemical interactions could allow an organism to "understand" anything?
In any case, since those biological and chemical components apparently are sufficient to, when properly arranged, allow for "understanding," it seems as if we could probably create a "computer" capable of "understanding" out of those materials.
Of course, the question of what exact criteria define understanding, or what can still be called a "computer" for that matter, cloud the matter significantly.
That said, it seems to me the issue is more the presently incomprehensible nature of consciousness than any functional limitation inherent to computer systems.
I agree with Arbiter here. The functionality and 'understanding' of concepts in our brain is not much more a cascade of interactions. Nothing that computers could not mimic. One of the things biopsychologists and neurologists haven't been able to figure out is how all these interactions seem to be controlled by an independent component. Theres plenty of information about emotions and other matters of brain functioning and their relationship to behavior. The missing link is consciousness as Arbiter says.
