limits of AI

[Delong]

I am skeptical that strong human-like AI is possible. I think AI can be made to look very much like human intelligence but I don't think it will actually be like human intelligence in the way that you and I are. For example, I don't think a computer can Actually feel pain or pleasure or fear and desire. I could be wrong but I am simply skeptical. I'm sure people can have those feelings towards robots and computers who actually look like they are like that. But can computers really feel? I am doubtful. I think feeling comes from biology and computers don't really have any kind of biology only a simulated kind of biology. Therefore I think there are limits. I obviously do not know the specifics of it but I am curious about it. Maybe computers can come very close but I don't think it can ever be exactly the same. Who are the big people working on AI right now? I would like to observe their progress.

[Ryan_m_b]

I have no strong opinions over whether or not we will one day create a humanesque conscious being in silico but as for whether or not it's possible I see no reason why not. If something exists then you can simulate it and the simulation will have the same characteristics as the original.

[DavidSnider]

There is no way to determine if another human being is "really feeling" something, let alone the even more abstract question of whether a simulation of a feeling is equivalent to a real one. People even doubt THEIR OWN feelings sometimes.

It's difficult for me to imagine how you would even test this.

Human-like AI is a bit of a waste of time I think. We already have humans, billions of 'em. What we need computers for are things like summing a million digits in a fraction of a second, or crunching away at a problem for days on end with no rest and other "stupid" things that humans are incapable of.

[Ryan_m_b]

Human-like AI is a bit of a waste of time I think. We already have humans, billions of 'em. What we need computers for are things like summing a million digits in a fraction of a second, or crunching away at a problem for days on end with no rest and other "stupid" things that humans are incapable of.
Agreed. Developing better and more capable software is by no means synonymous with trying to create a digital sentient being. Hell one day we may have software packages that are so good they can pass a Turing test and perform almost any task a human could but that in no way implies that under the hood is anything similar to what's going on in our grey matter.

[Delong]

I also agree. There doesn't seem any good reason to pursue humanesque AI other than sensationalistic mad science hoorah. First of all, is that even possible? And second of all how will we treat these computers and how will that change the distinction we make between humans and machines? Like you said we could create computers that pass every turing's test but is it really something that can feel and think like humans or is it something that can simply pass every turing's test we have so far thought up? Anyway, I do not understand computer science and philosophy of mind extremely well I am simply curious about the possibilities of a thing.

I know some AI already exists. Things like Watson and the chess champion. Even calculators are a simple form of AI.
As for crazy future scenarios I'm more worried about the things that happened in AI or I-Robot than the things that happened in Terminator or the Matrix. Can robots really feel? If so how will that change how we think about ourselves and machines?
Perhaps computers can sufficiently emulate the cognitive aspects of human and animal thought. They might even be able to have memories, learn, plan, make decision, make judgements, or form "desires". But can they actually experience these things like motivation or desire or curiosity? Well like DavidSnider said how can we tell? I suppose we have to investigate what it means to really feel these things in humans first and how we know it is the case and then see if it's possible to simulate that in computers. Perhaps I should study a little bit of neuroscience and philosophy of mind before I go answer that. COOL!

[zoobyshoe]

Yes to all. It has always seemed to me that superimposing emotions on a calculator would have no effect other than to greatly compromise its ability to calculate.

[D H]

I also agree. There doesn't seem any good reason to pursue humanesque AI other than sensationalistic mad science hoorah.
There's money in them there hills. Lots and lots and lots of money. It turns out that a good amount of the work that we think requires intelligence (whatever that is) is just as rote as is the work of those whose jobs have already been automated by run of the mill, non-AI software. Many aspects of the task of putting together a disparate bunch of parts to form some fantastic widget have been automated by simple software and machines. Planning the process, ordering the parts, keeping the machines running: That is where tomorrow's job security lies. Wrong. That work also is rote and can be automated by yesterday's AI. The only part that isn't rote (so far) is coming up with the process in the first place.

First of all, is that even possible? And second of all how will we treat these computers and how will that change the distinction we make between humans and machines?
It's quite possible it doesn't require real intelligence (whatever that is) at all.

Those of us who have struggled through four years of college to get a bachelor's degree and then even more to get an advanced degree look down upon our high school cohorts who never went to college at all. They have a problem with unemployment; we don't. Wrong. A lot of what we do requires no more intelligence than does knowing how to operate some machine in a factory. Whether this results in a neo-Luddite revolution remains to be seen. The nascent roots of this revolution are here right now in the Own Wall Street crowd.

Like you said we could create computers that pass every turing's test but is it really something that can feel and think like humans or is it something that can simply pass every turing's test we have so far thought up?
Google the term "Chinese room". Here's the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room.

I know some AI already exists. Things like Watson and the chess champion. Even calculators are a simple form of AI.
A calculator is not AI. Neither is Deep Blue. Calculators are just abaci. There is zero intelligence behind an abacus or a calculator. Deep Blue, while it did beat Garry Kasparov, did so by means of dumb brute force. There was very little intelligence behind Deep Blue. Developers of chess programs long ago abandoned the AI approach to computerized chess.

Whether brute force will suffice to accomplish that which deem to be a sign of "intelligence" (whatever that is) remains to be seen. Whether AI researchers can use AI techniques to solve those problems is another question. Yet another question is what this thing we call intelligence is, is.

[Ryan_m_b]

Yet another question is what this thing we call intelligence is is.
Definitely. The biggest problem with talking about things like this is the severe lack of good definition. When we can't define what exactly sentience or intelligence are how are we going to have a meaningful discussion about creating them? I tend to find it better to talk in terms of capability because at the end of the day that's what we want from machines; for them to do work so we don't have to. In fact it would be a far better if the mechanisms, however capable and human appearing*, were categorically nothing like humans in terms of consciousness or intelligence because then we get into a huge ethical quagmire.

*By human appearing I mean along the lines of natural language user interface rather than the Asimov-type human looking robot.

[Delong]

It's quite possible it doesn't require real intelligence (whatever that is) at all.

Those of us who have struggled through four years of college to get a bachelor's degree and then even more to get an advanced degree look down upon our high school cohorts who never went to college at all. They have a problem with unemployment; we don't. Wrong. A lot of what we do requires no more intelligence than does knowing how to operate some machine in a factory. Whether this results in a neo-Luddite revolution remains to be seen. The nascent roots of this revolution are here right now in the Own Wall Street crowd.

[/QUOTE]

I don't understand how this connects to the question it was supposed to answer.

[Hobin]

Yet another question is what this thing we call intelligence is, is.
I don't think this is a very difficult question at all. Intelligence is, as far as I'm concerned, "the ability to solve problems." Since there are many different kinds of problems, there must necessarily be different kinds of intelligence. This can even be simplified as "knowing what to do".

Then there's the fact that people tend to use different definitions. However, as language is primarily a means of communication, this definition makes sense, and does not seem to do injustice to most forms of what people call intelligence. Obviously, there are those who would say intelligence is primarily the ability to solve X kind of problem, or Y kind of problem that is most useful in situation Z. However, I have yet to find a more pragmatic definition than beforementioned one.

[PAllen]

I have long felt that it is enormously more likely that the first alien intelligence we communicate with will be one we built than an ET one. Which isn't to say how likely , how soon this is. Just that I think there are fewer fundamental obstacles to the former.

[256bits]

I don't think this is a very difficult question at all. Intelligence is, as far as I'm concerned, "the ability to solve problems." Since there are many different kinds of problems, there must necessarily be different kinds of intelligence. This can even be simplified as "knowing what to do".

Wouldn't "knowing what to do." be more instinct, and easily programmable.
I bet you meant intelligence can be thought of as solving a problem not encountered before.

[Hobin]

I bet you meant intelligence can be thought of as solving a problem not encountered before.
If you meant, "not encountered before by said person," then yes. If you had already encountered the problem, you would mostly be recalling the solution from memory, which I agree is not a sign of great intelligence, per se.

[D H]

I don't think this is a very difficult question at all. Intelligence is, as far as I'm concerned, "the ability to solve problems." Since there are many different kinds of problems, there must necessarily be different kinds of intelligence. This can even be simplified as "knowing what to do".
Defining "intelligence" is a very hard problem. The only working definition is the terribly circular "intelligence is the quantity that IQ tests measure." IQ tests offer what is at best an ersatz measure of intelligence. It measures intelligence in the sense of a "Chinese room" test. True intelligence is, in my mind, the ability to solve problems that no one has yet solved. One big problem with this definition: How are you going to measure it? Detect it? Define it other than after the fact?

To exemplify the difference between true intelligence and the ersatz intelligence measured by IQ tests one needs look no further than Richard Feynman. He was without doubt one of the most intelligent of all recent physicists, yet his ersatz intelligence (his IQ test score) was a paltry 125.

[SW VandeCarr]

Defining "intelligence" is a very hard problem. The only working definition is the terribly circular "intelligence is the quantity that IQ tests measure." IQ tests offer what is at best an ersatz measure of intelligence. It measures intelligence in the sense of a "Chinese room" test. True intelligence is, in my mind, the ability to solve problems that no one has yet solved. One big problem with this definition: How are you going to measure it? Detect it? Define it other than after the fact?

To exemplify the difference between true intelligence and the ersatz intelligence measured by IQ tests one needs look no further than Richard Feynman. He was without doubt one of the most intelligent of all recent physicists, yet his ersatz intelligence (his IQ test score) was a paltry 125.

For what it's worth, the "Turing Test" seems to be the putative standard for "humanesque" intelligence that many still use. There are many experimental designs that are consistent with Alan Turing's original description (1951) and, afaik no machine has yet been developed that seriously warrants a comprehensive Turing Test.

[zoobyshoe]

Defining "intelligence" is a very hard problem...

...To exemplify the difference between true intelligence and the ersatz intelligence measured by IQ tests one needs look no further than Richard Feynman. He was without doubt one of the most intelligent of all recent physicists, yet his ersatz intelligence (his IQ test score) was a paltry 125.
The "very hard problem" would be solved by defining Richard Feynman, then.

[256bits]

If you meant, "not encountered before by said person," then yes. If you had already encountered the problem, you would mostly be recalling the solution from memory, which I agree is not a sign of great intelligence, per se.

Memory is a part of intelligence, just as much as problem solving. One has to make an assensement of a situation and determne whether to use the rules stored in memory applicable to the same old same old problem or devise a new set of rules for a never encountered problem. Intelligence can range from that of a lobster, to a dog, to a chimpanzee, to a human.

So I agree with your statement that intelligence is not that hard to define. Problem is you cannot give an IQ test to a lobster or a dog. So the level of intelligence maybe is more difficult to pin down. While the Turing test to some is the holy grail to strive for, so that one can say a computer is as smart as a human, I would seriously bet that very few humans themselves could make a passing grade, as much as computer could. It seems to have the same level as Asimov's three laws of robotics which are severly flawed for design of AI by humans. IE The military would love to have a robot that can kill.

At present silicon needs support staff for repair and energy replenishment. Would we become slaves to our intelligent robots if they themselves are not able to sustain themselves as a unit.

[Hobin]

Defining "intelligence" is a very hard problem. The only working definition is the terribly circular "intelligence is the quantity that IQ tests measure." IQ tests offer what is at best an ersatz measure of intelligence. It measures intelligence in the sense of a "Chinese room" test. True intelligence is, in my mind, the ability to solve problems that no one has yet solved. One big problem with this definition: How are you going to measure it? Detect it? Define it other than after the fact?

To exemplify the difference between true intelligence and the ersatz intelligence measured by IQ tests one needs look no further than Richard Feynman. He was without doubt one of the most intelligent of all recent physicists, yet his ersatz intelligence (his IQ test score) was a paltry 125.

I tend to disagree with this definition of intelligence for exactly this reason. Pragmatically, defining intelligence as the IQ-quantity doesn't have any use. The ability to solve problems (which Feynman was very good at), however, has.

It's a lot harder to accurately test someone's ability to solve 'problems', though. After all, what kind of problems? When is something considered a problem? Does age matter when testing this? etc. etc. We'll most likely stick with IQ-tests for quite a while, which I think are the most reliable way to test one's potential for academic problem-solving at the moment (though I'm actually not sure of this; I've never really bothered to look up any studies to see whether this can be confirmed).

[Boy@n]

People with low IQ (e.g. those with Down Syndrome), still have feelings, pretty much so.

While even the most sophisticated software on fastest world computer doesn't have any... Simply, without consciousness there aren't any feelings (nor emotions).

Also, IMO, consciosness and intelligence isn't the same thing... Level of IQ depends on quality of brains, while consciousness either is or isn't present.

All life is conscious, so, these two seems to be either one and the same thing or being two things as part of one (e.g. a coin with two faces).

All life is conscious, but awareness and intelligence varies in regards to structure of biological cells (not just brains), while human brains have the most comlpex biological structure on Earth, or say, in known Universe, thus they offer the best known ability to comprehend, imagine, create etc., and enermous capacity to associate and memorise (in capacity of storing data computers are already ahead of us humans, while in ability to comprehand they are behind even from bacteria, which knows well how to survive).

Computers/robots shall have feelings only when they become self-aware. And I don't think that's possible to achieve with software alone, no matter how sophisticated the software (simulation) is.

[OCR]

If you meant, "not encountered before by said person," then yes. If you had already encountered the problem, you would mostly be recalling the solution from memory, which I agree is not a sign of great intelligence, per se.

http://www.dailywav.com/0904/quitelikethis.wav

Computers/robots shall have feelings only when they become self-aware.


http://www.dailywav.com/0106/fullestuse.wav



Note: links only clickable with IE8... copy and paste to address bar with Firefox. Opens in WMP.




OCR... :wink: ... lol

[Ryan_m_b]

All life is conscious, so, these two seems to be either one and the same thing or being two things as part of one (e.g. a coin with two faces).

All life is conscious, but awareness and intelligence varies in regards to structure of biological cells (not just brains), while human brains have the most comlpex biological structure on Earth, or say, in known Universe, thus they offer the best known ability to comprehend, imagine, create etc., and enermous capacity to associate and memorise (in capacity of storing data computers are already ahead of us humans, while in ability to comprehand they are behind even from bacteria, which knows well how to survive).

Computers/robots shall have feelings only when they become self-aware. And I don't think that's possible to achieve with software alone, no matter how sophisticated the software (simulation) is.

All life? Including bacteria, plants and brain dead patients? I highly doubt it. All the evidence points to consciousness being a product of a central nervous system. I also don't think it is fair to say that the human brain is the most complex biological structure, really there isn't much difference in complexity between a brain and many other organs.

If we discover how exactly emotions are generated then we may be able to emulate that on a chip. But that's hardly useful, what we want is computer programs that can solve problems in a mechanical, non-conscious way and if it acts like a person then that's all the better for interfacing.

[MarcoD]

If we discover how exactly emotions are generated then we may be able to emulate that on a chip. But that's hardly useful, what we want is computer programs that can solve problems in a mechanical, non-conscious way and if it acts like a person then that's all the better for interfacing.

I wonder about that. People in CS make a difference between (human) thought and computation. Humans are good at thought but lousy at computation whereas computers are good at computation but lousy at thought.

We don't really know what thought is, apart from that -if we sidestep a lot of philosophical issues- it seems to be the byproduct of an organ, the human brain, a complex entity made out of an incredible number of neurons but also hormones, which interacts with the other organs which make up a human body. (And, of course, while interacting with, or driven by, the environment, with probably even an evolutionary goal.)

It therefor seems reasonable that if you want something close to an organic intelligence, you'ld need to model all that - a brain, neurons, hormones, and a body.

That's the thing with your comment: How would you motivate an organic like intelligence if it wouldn't have emotions like love, curiosity, or ambition, to drive it? It may well refuse to give a correct answer to the simplest calculation like "3+5" since there is nothing driving it.

(This is under the assumption that you really want something like 'organic' intelligence in silicon, which I think we want. We (humans) are just so much better at solving 'easy' tasks, like cleaning the house, whereas computers have to be programmed by humans to do that, and still fail at the easiest of tasks.)

[PAllen]

I think the main reason to pursue strong AI is not any particular belief about its utility, but simply because 'maybe we can', just like many other non-practical pursuits (is anyone expecting utility from understanding dark matter?). If we could, it would be cool that we could, and the result would presumably be cool. It would certainly shed light on questions of what is intelligence or consciousness.

[gordonj005]

Maybe I'm just being a reductionist, but saying that we can never create an AI engine that can truly feel because it doesn't have any biology - in my opinion - is just silly. Biology is a series of complex chemical interactions, and these complex chemical reactions can be summarized by relatively simple physical laws, I don't think there is anything particularly special by calling it, "biology" because computers are governed by the same physical laws as humans are. So saying that our notion of a feeling is somehow special, and that no machine could ever replicate it seems to me absurd. I think the human brain is very scattered, and even if we had everything perfectly mapped out it wouldn't be very computer like. Logically, computers are much more rigorous and are less prone to being misled, and I suppose if you define this weakness as a human trait, then yes computers I don't think will seem very human like to us because they are too systematic and logical.

Personally I don't see the point in developing AI, because the whole point of computing is to do superhuman calculations, and developing emotions hinders the efficiancy of a computer. But when listening to EMI or Emily Howell I get conflicted. Ahh well, I guess we'll see what the future holds :P

[DarkReaper]

Firstly, I think that is possible. Plant a computer into a clone, which allows fluid interaction between the clone and machine, and your "emotion-AI" is formed.

Perhaps it is not that ideal for AI to possess 'real' emotion; which IMO should be the clones' duty, that is if we progress that far. Then we would prefer cyborgs? But the former possessing "fake emotion" would definitely be essential, for UI purposes or such. That would then eliminate the need for rocket science just for interacting with the machine..

[Ryan_m_b]

Firstly, I think that is possible. Plant a computer into a clone, which allows fluid interaction between the clone and machine, and your "emotion-AI" is formed.

Perhaps it is not that ideal for AI to possess 'real' emotion; which IMO should be the clones' duty, that is if we progress that far. Then we would prefer cyborgs? But the former possessing "fake emotion" would definitely be essential, for UI purposes or such. That would then eliminate the need for rocket science just for interacting with the machine..

This would not work. Putting a computer inside someone won't make it conscious.

[DarkReaper]

This would not work. Putting a computer inside someone won't make it conscious.

To elaborate, a computer would be placed within a living clone. Which the clone gains the added benefit of being able to interact with the computer (given an interaction environment is built), the clone then, in human language, reply and interact with its 'master' (a human).

Given sufficient modifying of the clone which renders it dependent on an actual human due to certain factors like the representation in Star Wars: Attack of the Clones.

Another example is the appearance of AI in Sci-Fi titles such as Halo, which bears the idea of an AI almost fully-functioning as an actual human, with hindering factors such as lack of senses of touch, etc. [Of course, inspiration is a good source of creation.]

[Ryan_m_b]

To elaborate, a computer would be placed within a living clone. Which the clone gains the added benefit of being able to interact with the computer (given an interaction environment is built), the clone then, in human language, reply and interact with its 'master' (a human).

This is not science, you are espousing science fiction here. There is no way to play a computer in a living organism and expect it to integrate, let along become an artificial intelligence.

[D H]

Firstly, I think that is possible. Plant a computer into a clone, which allows fluid interaction between the clone and machine, and your "emotion-AI" is formed.

To elaborate, a computer would be placed within a living clone. Which the clone gains the added benefit of being able to interact with the computer (given an interaction environment is built), the clone then, in human language, reply and interact with its 'master' (a human).

This is just nonsense. You are hand-waving intelligence into existence and using this as proof that true AI is possible.

What is so special about a clone here? How is the computer connected to the clone? Implant a computer chip into a living being and about all that will happen is that this implantation will invoke the foreign body reaction.

[lostcauses10x]

Limits of AI may be more related to technology and our inability to understand our selves.

Until recently the use of tools by animals was not even excepted.

Mans ability to limit his perception of the wold around them to preconceived ideas has slowed down mans advancement through out history.
The main idea is we are above all else seems to be the most prevalent idea that limits mankind.

[Ryan_m_b]

Limits of AI may be more related to technology and our inability to understand our selves.

Until recently the use of tools by animals was not even excepted.

Mans ability to limit his perception of the wold around them to preconceived ideas has slowed down mans advancement through out history.
The main idea is we are above all else seems to be the most prevalent idea that limits mankind.

Do you have anything to back up these claims? Animal tool use has been observed for a very long time (or do you think that for millennia people ignored bird's nests?). Are you by any chance confusing the paradigm shift in animal studies from behavioural to cognitive studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition#Historical_background)?

I have no idea what you are getting at in terms of limits of perception, empirical science distinctly avoids this and has given us the scientific world we live in.

[Ibix]

I agree with gordonj005 - reductionist and proud.

If you created a computer to simulate a human being cell-by-cell, molecule-by-molecule, quantum-state-by-quantum-state, I can see no reason (excepting magic, in which I include the concept of an eternal soul, at least for the purposes of this discussion) why such a thing would not think in just the same way the person it simulates does.

That is, I think, a kind of proof-by-brute-force that strong AI is possible in the absence of outright magic. At the least, I think it forces you to acknowledge that objections to the possibility of strong AI are difficult to ground in science (Penrose may disagree). It is not at all a practical way of building an AI; the computational requirements are horrible. I suppose a way to get from what I describe to a working AI is to work out ways to simulate the necessary features of multiple cells in a few computationally-efficient steps, and build up from there.

[Ryan_m_b]

I agree with gordonj005 - reductionist and proud.

If you created a computer to simulate a human being cell-by-cel...

That is, I think, a kind of proof-by-brute-force that strong AI is possible in the absence of outright magic...
I agree with your statement but I'm not certain that this will be a goal in the development of artificial intelligence for quite a while, nor if it is necessarily a desirable goal. Instead in my opinion what we will see is a continuation of what we have now; increasingly sophisticated and capable software possibly combined with a more natural interface. I'm thinking a more advanced version of Siri rather than a digital entity based on the inner workings of the mammalian brain.

[lostcauses10x]

"empirical science distinctly avoids this and has given us the scientific world we live in."

Correction is: tries to avoid.And should do so. Yet it all still comes from the observations (ability to perceive and the limits of such) and the human factor of the mind.

As for evidence of what I said, try reading old text books and even the arguments today by some of ridicules ideas. strangly enouhg if some groups did get into power as in the past those that think teach and would go agaist ideas of groups could and would find themselves persecuted.

Of course this just strayed of off the topic of AI, or has it??

If such a humanoid AI existed it would be resisted by some groups as noting more than a machine, even if it did come to a realization it existed.

The original poster sets limits almost immediately: "but I don't think it will actually be like human intelligence in the way that you and I are.". It is a simple example of such perceptions and preconceived ideas. ( Note: this is not meant as an attack on the original poster, it is just a simple example.)

Simply put I can not see what can and will become of AI. A great deal of science fiction has been wrote on the topics. To say it can not be human in the end form, or more than human who is to say?? The technology nor the advances of AI are to that point yet.
When it comes to humans and its use of such developments in AI, if today's usage of the internet is any idea, most would be to play games, and or some sort of other gratification of an individual: such as porn, or some form of social status. Humans are the strangest critter on the planet.

Who is to say what will be and not be??

[256bits]

The iphone robot.
Doesn't an app exist for this. iface.
If your phone can recognize you, then how far away will it be before the "humanization" of the iphone occurs.

i can just imagine:
Pls call my better half.
No
What!! Pls call my better half.
NO.
Why not?
I'm busy.
Doing what exactly.
Nothing. And it's none of your business.
Sigh.

[Boy@n]

The true importance of being able to feel/emote is that it gives living beings will to survive.

So, if we'd try to to create a "being" which might be even greater than us (say, more capable), then giving computers/robots "consciousness" won't be enough. It will have to feel to be motivated to strive, prosper and survive, or else it would just be in a "frozen state", since from where would it get motivations to do anything? Yes, you can let it "think" (simulate it) that it is motivated for this and that, but that isn't true motivation.

Say Earth will get to be destroyed, humans will immediately look for the way to survive, and perhaps populate other planets, but a robot, would do nothing on its own, except if we program it to be "ready" for such situation. The point is, robots do only what we program them to do, and having consciousness wouldn't matter, since as said, motivations doesn't happen because of consciousness alone, but because of having feelings and emotions on top of that, or better to say, in parallel with that.

How can computer feel? Whatever program you make for computer it won't make it feel (no matter how amazing the simulation might be), and even combining silicon chips with biological cells won't be enough. Why? Because mere presence of physical elements and biological cells, even if put in "right structure", don't give rise to consciousness and feelings "automatically". How can I claim this? Just imagine the second after a human dies... what changes? Brain is there, body is there, but consciousness and feelings aren't. Why not? Why cannot we put consciousness back into those brains? (Imagine that we keep brain in wet and warm condition, and pumping blood in it.) What is lacking?

I used to make computer programs so I have a clue about what one might program/simulate and one might not. And IMO, no matter how closely we imitate human brains with computer software it won't ever match. Roger Penrose says, put simply, that brains are capable of working in non-algorithmic way, while computers cannot. He's not alone with this idea. What about you?

[Boy@n]

The true importance of being able to feel/emote is that it gives living beings will to survive.

So, if we'd try to to create a "being" which might be even greater than us (say, more capable), then giving computers/robots "consciousness" won't be enough. It will have to feel to be motivated to strive, prosper and survive.

Yet, how can computer feel? Whatever program you make for computer it won't make it feel (no matter how amazing the simulation might be), and even combining silicon chips with biological cells won't be enough. Why? Because mere presence of physical elements and biological cells, even if put in "right structure", don't give rise to consciousness and feelings "automatically".

Imagine the second after a human dies... what changes? Brain is there, body is there, but consciousness and feelings aren't. Why not? Why cannot we put consciousness back into those brains? (Imagine that we keep brain in wet and warm condition, and pumping blood in it.) What is lacking?

I used to make computer programs so I have a clue about what one might program/simulate and one might not. And IMO, no matter how closely we imitate human brains with computer software it won't ever match. Roger Penrose says, put simply, that brains are capable of working in non-algorithmic way, while computers cannot. He's not alone with this idea. Though, I don't think that ability is the only and most important difference between a very advanced robot and a human, there is something we aren't seeing yet (scientifically I mean), well obviously, since if it weren't so, we'd know exactly how mind/thoughts "form" (emerge from brain/body).

[chiro]

To me there is one word that sums up the difference between a computer and a human being and that is intent.

In saying this however, it is hard to really define intent in the context of human beings. For all we know, our intent might be, for the most part, predetermined. It might even be that the intent of a collective organism and its individual parts is pre-programmed or solveable based on a solution to a system like an optimization problem for example, but this is digressing.

So in saying that, if AI was ever to get to the stage where it would be hard to distinguish between humans and a computer, intent would have to be addressed. As humans have the ability to change their intent over time, so would a computer.

[Boy@n]

To me there is one word that sums up the difference between a computer and a human being and that is intent.

In saying this however, it is hard to really define intent in the context of human beings. For all we know, our intent might be, for the most part, predetermined. It might even be that the intent of a collective organism and its individual parts is pre-programmed or solveable based on a solution to a system like an optimization problem for example, but this is digressing.

So in saying that, if AI was ever to get to the stage where it would be hard to distinguish between humans and a computer, intent would have to be addressed. As humans have the ability to change their intent over time, so would a computer.
Intent is good example, but IMO you'd not have any intent if you'd not have feelings. The desire/intention to do something, to do anything, comes due to existence of feelings... Feelings motivate.

So, biological physical existence (life) brings awareness, awareness with nervous system brings consciousness, consciousness with complex enough brains brings thoughts and feelings, consciousness with even better brains bring ability to communicate well (e.g. language), this brings to intentions and desires, which is resulting in action and experiencing within this physical existence, comes procreation. Circle is complete.

[Ryan_m_b]

Intent is good example, but IMO you'd not have any intent if you'd not have feelings.

The desire/intention to do something, to do anything, comes due to existence of feelings, while feelings are possible due to mind/consciousness and our physical body, where consciousness is possible due to awareness/brains.

So, awareness brings consciousness, consciousness brings thoughts and feelings, these two bring intentions and desires, and all of that brings experience within existence.

Where are the feelings/emotions driving the intent of my computer? Or car? Or even my heart for that matter? Complex objects are capable of doing complex tasks entirely without emotion. I think it is fallacious to suggest that complex tasks require intent, it is entirely conceivable that one could put together a software package capable of a wide range of tasks (including learning new tasks) whose "intent" is simply the fact that it is on and it is programmed to work.

[jim mcnamara]

"AI" as described by D H is already in production, and making serious money and affecting your daily life -- spend 19 minutes here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_slavin_how_algorithms_shape_our_world.html

[Boy@n]

Where are the feelings/emotions driving the intent of my computer? Or car?
Did I say that? Even if I somehow did (no idea how), I meant the opposite, that computers don't have feelings, thus they don't have desires/intents.

Or even my heart for that matter? Complex objects are capable of doing complex tasks entirely without emotion.
Have you heard of people who cannot emote, and they have great difficulty to do ANY tasks, including getting out of the bed when they wake up. They still manage to do it, with great difficulty, because they use memory of past experiences when they were still able to emote.

I think it is fallacious to suggest that complex tasks require intent, it is entirely conceivable that one could put together a software package capable of a wide range of tasks (including learning new tasks) whose "intent" is simply the fact that it is on and it is programmed to work.
That's no intent, less so desire, if it's programmed in. Desires and intentions arise spontaneously when one is motivated through feelings/emotions, which are both possible through consciousness, which is possible through awareness.

[Ryan_m_b]

Did I say that...
The point that you seemed to have missed is that complex tasks do not necessarily require an emotive agent. Humans are intelligent and emotive agents, the latter affects what and why we do things. However it is fallacious to assert that all intelligent agents must have emotions.

I mentioned devices capable of complex tasks because I believe it is a good analogy to how intelligent software does and will work, mechanically with no awareness or emotion.

[shashankac655]

"If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it , we would be so simple that we couldn't"-
Emerson M. Pugh

[Boy@n]

The point that you seemed to have missed is that complex tasks do not necessarily require an emotive agent. Humans are intelligent and emotive agents, the latter affects what and why we do things. However it is fallacious to assert that all intelligent agents must have emotions.
We are just sharing opinions, right? Neither of us can claim to know if feelings are necessary for intelligent life to survive and prosper, or not.

It is my belief, that any intelligent being, who is aware of oneself and others, will have some kind of feelings, because feelings drives and defines the self-aware one in who one is and what one does. IMO, intelligence, left alone, would be as good as dead.

I mentioned devices capable of complex tasks because I believe it is a good analogy to how intelligent software does and will work, mechanically with no awareness or emotion.
No matter how good the software will be, it won't be able to evolve, survive and prosper within a changing environment in such efficient way humans can do it. Computers/robots will be only able to perform tasks they'll be programmed to perform. Simulating creativity and inventing won't give them those abilities.

[Ryan_m_b]

We are just sharing opinions, right? Neither of us can claim to know if feelings are necessary for intelligent life to survive and prosper, or not.

It is my belief, that any intelligent being, who is aware of oneself and others, will have some kind of feelings, because feelings drives and defines the self-aware one in who one is and what one does. IMO, intelligence, left alone, would be as good as dead.
Well we can and we can't. I would maintain that you are making the claim that an intelligent agent must be an emotive one. I would counter that claim by pointing out that non-emotive objects can perform complex tasks that previously would have only been in the domain of human beings. For example; software that can analyse speech semantically and respond. I see no reason to suggest that as complexity of tasks increases emotion must arrive. I'm quite tired now so I'll give the matter some thought overnight but I'm pretty sure there are examples of intelligent agents without emotion.
No matter how good the software will be, it won't be able to evolve, survive and prosper within a changing environment in such efficient way humans can do it. Computers/robots will be only able to perform tasks they'll be programmed to perform. Simulating creativity and inventing won't give them those abilities.
Software can evolve, genetic algorithms are a good example of that. As for the rest of your statement I don't think you can categorically say that it isn't possible to write software capable of learning and adapting. Such things already exist in a limited capacity and I see no reason to believe that this capability cannot scale.

[gordonj005]

Just looking at the evolution of humans and the brain, we already have a billion year head start. So to think that we could compress that process into a matter of decades might be unrealistic. But, I think if clever enough software and powerful enough software were set up so that a computer could evolve (maybe throw in a 3D printer and give it some robotics to repair and modify itself) I think yes, in the long term you could have a machine that could have conciousness, even emotion.

[Ryan_m_b]

Just looking at the evolution of humans and the brain, we already have a billion year head start. So to think that we could compress that process into a matter of decades might be unrealistic. But, I think if clever enough software and powerful enough software were set up so that a computer could evolve (maybe throw in a 3D printer and give it some robotics to repair and modify itself) I think yes, in the long term you could have a machine that could have conciousness, even emotion.
I think there is a flaw in this thinking; the eye has had billions of years to evolve yet we managed to invent cameras. Now cameras are obviously nothing like the eye, but they don't need to be and it is certainly not desirable for them to be. Instead they fulfil a function that the eye can also do but in a different way.

This is how we approach developing intelligent software. We don't have to simulate an entire brain and body in order to make some software that can recognise voice, or faces, or patterns of behaviour etc. It doesn't have to be anything like human to perform tasks that at the moment we have to employ our intelligence for.

[PAllen]

I think there is a flaw in this thinking; the eye has had billions of years to evolve yet we managed to invent cameras. Now cameras are obviously nothing like the eye, but they don't need to be and it is certainly not desirable for them to be. Instead they fulfil a function that the eye can also do but in a different way.

This is how we approach developing intelligent software. We don't have to simulate an entire brain and body in order to make some software that can recognise voice, or faces, or patterns of behaviour etc. It doesn't have to be anything like human to perform tasks that at the moment we have to employ our intelligence for.

Right, a good example being chess programs. While this has little relation to general intelligence, attempts to model human thinking about chess never go very far. Using completely different methods, computers have reached a point where no human would consider a match against a computer at any time control.

(Caveats: it is virtually undisputed that top humans play some positions better than any computer; and also true the computers play some positions better than any human. Yet the last human computer match (involving Vladimir Kramnik) demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction that human-computer direct matchups were no longer interesting. Final observation, suggesting value of cyborgs for the medium term: expert human players (human ratings go, e.g. novice, class player (E, D, C, B, A), expert, master, International Master, Grandmaster, top 20 player) + medium strength computer programs beat the strongest computer programs (playing with no human assistance).

[atyy]

All life? Including bacteria, plants and brain dead patients? I highly doubt it. All the evidence points to consciousness being a product of a central nervous system.

What evidence is this?

To start, how do I know Ryan_m_b is conscious?

[Ryan_m_b]

What evidence is this?

To start, how do I know Ryan_m_b is conscious?
The evidence would be that you are conscious (presumably), everything that is linked to your consciousness is found in other people who report similar experiences and all investigations into brain activity thus far show no difference in how peoples brains seem to work.

Of course one can never get around the proposal that everyone is a philosophical zombie bar oneself but it's not a logical proposition.

[atyy]

The evidence would be that you are conscious (presumably), everything that is linked to your consciousness is found in other people who report similar experiences and all investigations into brain activity thus far show no difference in how peoples brains seem to work.

Of course one can never get around the proposal that everyone is a philosophical zombie bar oneself but it's not a logical proposition.

I'm a zombie. I presume you are one.

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm a zombie. I presume you are one.
Considering we live in a world where the vast majority claim consciousness I can only conclude;

1) Everyone is conscious and you are joking
2) Everyone is conscious and you are trying to make a point
3) Some people are zombies and you are one of them
4) Everyone but me is a zombie but the nature of most of them is to pretend to be conscious

I'm going to go with option 1 or 2. Either way we are getting off track.

[D H]

Of course one can never get around the proposal that everyone is a philosophical zombie bar oneself but it's not a logical proposition.
Now why did you have to bring that up? Just because philosophers worry themselves silly about zombies and qualia does that mean that the sciences need to do so.

I guess it was inevitable that these concepts would arise. Discussions of what constitutes "true AI" are problematic given that we do not yet know what constitutes natural intelligence.

[2012 ctt]

I think it's more plausible that artificial intelligence will gain a different form of intelligence/awareness as to human intelligence/awareness. I was reading a article about a particular fish that was deemed intelligent because it used a rock to break a shell to get the food inside. Some scientists had a problem with calling that a form of intelligence others justified that intelligence can be judge in different ways. I agree with that later.

AI could eventually reach a human like state of mind but I think that's a long time off and their really isn't any point to start working on that right now.

[gordonj005]

But the thing about the eye is that its flawed. We design the camera to be better. The human body is not by any stretch of the imagination a perfectly functioning system. So I don't see your argument..... The argument here is whether AI systems CAN develop emotions and conciousness, NOT whether its advantageous to develop them or not. I think we're on two different topics.

[Ryan_m_b]

But the thing about the eye is that its flawed. We design the camera to be better. The human body is not by any stretch of the imagination a perfectly functioning system. So I don't see your argument..... The argument here is whether AI systems CAN develop emotions and conciousness, NOT whether its advantageous to develop them or not. I think we're on two different topics.
I think you've missed a couple of points again. Firstly when we say things like "the eye is flawed" or "a camera is better" it is really important to first describe what metric you are using to establish this and then apply it universally. For example: In terms of resolution and practicality the camera is better. In terms of efficiency and durability the eye is better.

I bought up the example of a camera because it does a few of the jobs that the eye does, specifically it does the few jobs that we want to replicate but in a more convenient (to the best of our ability) way. The discussion going on in the thread right now is dealing with the claim that intelligent software will require emotions. I'm contesting that by pointing out that when we want to replicate a human faculty (e.g. vision) we don't go about it by copying how humans work. This led to the examples given by me and others of intelligent software that acts nothing like a human does. Because of this I disagree that it is necessary that a future general intelligent piece of software will require emotion.

[Constantinos]

Hey!

It seems that most people agree that sometime in the future, technology will be able to -at least- simulate everything that now only humans can do. I'm not concerned with a "when" but in the order of steps that will have to take place.

For example, it seems as if chess playing is much easier to replicate than walking. Computers have mastered chess playing. Walking on two feet will probably take a lot longer to replicate.

So the question/discussion is, what do you think the order of replication of human attributes will be. What are the most difficult to replicate human characteristics and what are the easiest. Can we even know before we succeed? Are there things impossible to replicate?

[phyzguy]

There are already robots that walk on two feet. See the link below. But to me, this has nothing to do with 'intelligence'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7946780.stm

[D H]

Speaking of cameras, here's a rather expensive chess board whose pieces are various (expensive!) camera lenses or parts thereof:

http://www.instablogsimages.com/1/2011/07/22/lensrentals_chess_set_01_g2izg.jpg

A computer can now beat the best human in chess (but not even close in go). However, imagine taking a supposedly intelligent robot into a messy room and tell it to find and assemble the chess boards. The above is one of the boards. Here are some more:

http://www.beautifullife.info/wp-content/uploads/06/img6.jpg

http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2009/06/30/vacuum-tube-chess-set_01_zR3na_58.jpg
A basic problem with designer chessboards: They designers don't know the game. White on the right.

http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2010/08/18/hammond-chess-set_vLIsA_58.jpg
Obviously a bit too much drinking is going on here. White on the right, clowns.

http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2009/10/27/chess-set-_02_5nw8X_17621.jpg
Why are so many of these designer chessboards set up wrong?

http://www.inewidea.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/2009081403.jpg
No way to get this one wrong!

http://trendsupdates.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/air_chess.jpg
Finally, white on the right.

http://interiordeco.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/harim-chess.jpg?w=480


The reason for the above is because someone of note said (danged if I can find the quote) that while a computer program can beat a human, it could never find a chessboard in a messy room. And that's the kind of board used in tournaments. The designer board above? Without special programming? Not a chance, at least not for a long time.

Pattern recognition is what we humans do best. Not math, not logic, and definitely not considering millions of options. We are pretty lousy at math and logic, and we certainly can't look 17 plies deep into a chess game. We don't need to. Human chess players think by gestalt. Computer chess programs don't think. They work by brute force.

A computer go game that can beat the best human is still a long ways into the future. Brute force can help; a computer go game did beat a 8 dan professional a few years back. However, the program was given a nine stone handicap (about the same as a two rook handicap in chess) and ran on an 800 CPU supercomputer with equivalent of 15 teraflops.

If someday a computer program is made that can beat an 8 dan profession playing white, that program still won't be able to find the chessboard hidden in plain sight in a messy room.

[Lapidus]

Pattern recognition is what we humans do best.



Highly recommended reading for everybody interested in human intelligence and AI: Jeff Hawkins On Intelligence
(http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Jeff-Hawkins/dp/0805074562)

[wuliheron]

Modern computers are largely based on the theoretical model first produced by Von Neumann in WWII. Its a great theory for producing a universal calculating machine and automatons but, evidently, completely inadequate for an AI approaching the capacity of a human being. Not really surprising when you consider the human brain has little resemblance to a conventional computer chip.

IBM recently completed stage 2 of their first neuromorphic processor design. Essentially they are attempting to cram as many pseudo neurons and synapses onto a chip as possible with current technology. They carefully studied how the brain of a cat is organized and tried to replicate the most important aspects on a chip using reprogrammable memristors capable of recursive functions. Like the human brain the circuitry itself changes according to the needs of the program at the moment making it capable of calculations well beyond those of conventional Von Neumann designs using a similar number of components. Instead of programming it how to walk or talk, you would teach it.

Its essentially the brute force engineering approach to the problem. If the theories and mathematics are completely inadequate, build a few working models and see how they work. Semiconductors are a multi billion dollar industry with huge research budgets that can easily afford such things. Considering how little progress has been made with the foundations of fuzzy logic, chaos theory, etc. it seems quite likely that like the steam engine such brute force engineering approaches will produce answers before the theoreticians do.

Quite likely then we will first see computers and robots that imitate much of what humans can do and the fact that some of them might approach human consciousness may be something that slowly dawns on us over time.

[Constantinos]

I see my question was moved, but people here are mostly concerned with what machines can and can't do. Although this answers part of my questions, I'm more interested in the hierarchy of difficulty of the things that AI can or will be able to do.

It just seems strange to me that what people consider as "higher functions" of the mind, like strategic thinking and decision making are more easily implementable (at least in certain cases) than making a machine that is able to see(i.e identify objects around it the way humans do) or just cross the countryside on foot and be able to do it as well as humans or better. Most people take these abilities for granted. What makes seeing so much more complex than chess playing?

An idea I have is that the difficulty of a task that humans do to be implemented by machines is proportional to how long this task has been evolving. For example, seeing has been evolving long before there where any humans around, but our strategic thought has been evolving for maybe a few hundred thousand years? (maybe more, I don't know really but certainly much less than the evolution of seeing) The more time something is evolving, the more complex it gets, right? So are we going to get computers winning at all symbolic games(chess, go, computer games) long before we see a robot team winning at a soccer game?

[Willowz]

All of our definitions of intelligence have been of anthropomorphic nature. So, I don't see why we won't see sentient AI in the future, since technology is bounded with our own intelligence. I mean, everything to this point can be called of AI nature based on its dependence on our intelligence.

[gordonj005]

I think you've missed a couple of points again. Firstly when we say things like "the eye is flawed" or "a camera is better" it is really important to first describe what metric you are using to establish this and then apply it universally. For example: In terms of resolution and practicality the camera is better. In terms of efficiency and durability the eye is better.

I bought up the example of a camera because it does a few of the jobs that the eye does, specifically it does the few jobs that we want to replicate but in a more convenient (to the best of our ability) way. The discussion going on in the thread right now is dealing with the claim that intelligent software will require emotions. I'm contesting that by pointing out that when we want to replicate a human faculty (e.g. vision) we don't go about it by copying how humans work. This led to the examples given by me and others of intelligent software that acts nothing like a human does. Because of this I disagree that it is necessary that a future general intelligent piece of software will require emotion.

Yes, I would agree with you there. Furthering technology does not require emotion or conciousness. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. What I'm arguing is that its possible that future generations of AI could develop these features independent of what we require from it. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the trend of this thread. But I definitly agree with you on that point.

[D H]

Furthering technology does not require emotion or conciousness. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Furthering technology in general? Of course not. Creating a true artificial intelligence: There are plenty who disagree with you. Just go to google scholar and search for qualia+zombie+artificial intelligence. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=qualia%2Bzombie%2Bartificial+intelligence&btnG=Search
What's the right answer: Nobody knows. Should you or someone else create a true AI that doesn't have qualia and then we'll know the answer. The flip side (attempting to create a true AI but failing) does not provide an answer. It just means the researcher tried and failed.

[Willowz]

I think the term "true AI" is self defeating.

What do we mean by "true AI". I don't see how it could mean anything else than something identical to a human being. But, how do you create something that is not identical with a human being to be identical with a human being in the first place?

Or more simpler. What satisfies the criteria for "true" in "true AI"?

[D H]

What satisfies the criteria for "true" in "true AI"?
The standard definition is a construct that can pass the Turing test.

[Willowz]

The standard definition is a construct that can pass the Turing test.But, that is a very poor definition. I believe, there are chatter-bots that can satisfy the criteria.

[D H]

I believe, there are chatter-bots that can satisfy the criteria.
First off, find one. Even with those artificially constrained contests that limit judges to a small time limit or a canned set of questions, the humans still win.

Secondly, I said it is the standard test. I didn't say it's a good one. There's the Chinese Room problem, after all.

Finally, most AI researchers don't care. Most of them know that true AI is a long ways away. They're quite happy proposing or creating soft AI that wins grants or makes money. There is still quite a bit of money to be made with soft AI.

[Boy@n]

Right, a good example being chess programs. While this has little relation to general intelligence, attempts to model human thinking about chess never go very far. Using completely different methods, computers have reached a point where no human would consider a match against a computer at any time control.

(Caveats: it is virtually undisputed that top humans play some positions better than any computer; and also true the computers play some positions better than any human. Yet the last human computer match (involving Vladimir Kramnik) demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction that human-computer direct matchups were no longer interesting. Final observation, suggesting value of cyborgs for the medium term: expert human players (human ratings go, e.g. novice, class player (E, D, C, B, A), expert, master, International Master, Grandmaster, top 20 player) + medium strength computer programs beat the strongest computer programs (playing with no human assistance).
Interesting example, but it doesn't hit the point I am making.

Also, computers are not better than humans at quick matches, say 1 minute match, humans win all the way down.

Of course, you can say that when computers get more powerful than today that they will someday win humans in chess even in 1 minute matches.

But, my real point here is, that humans have great advantage over computers because of adapting and learning abilities through motivation (which comes via emotions and feelings), e.g. exchange some figures on the board and run the chess program, it will suck, while a human will be able to play immediately almost as good as before. Or worse for computers, invent a new way to move a piece, say, instead of L move for knight it moves in S shape, computers on they own (without dedicated programmers intervention), would not be able to play at all, while humans wouldn't have much difficulties, they could play right away.

Go game (and alike games Go-moku and pro version Renju) is another interesting example, where computers don't stand a chance against good human players.

[Boy@n]

Well we can and we can't. I would maintain that you are making the claim that an intelligent agent must be an emotive one. I would counter that claim by pointing out that non-emotive objects can perform complex tasks that previously would have only been in the domain of human beings. For example; software that can analyse speech semantically and respond. I see no reason to suggest that as complexity of tasks increases emotion must arrive. I'm quite tired now so I'll give the matter some thought overnight but I'm pretty sure there are examples of intelligent agents without emotion.
Found any? Performing complex tasks is one thing, deal with new tasks, or old ones which changed (e.g. chess example above), is quite another.

Software can evolve, genetic algorithms are a good example of that. As for the rest of your statement I don't think you can categorically say that it isn't possible to write software capable of learning and adapting. Such things already exist in a limited capacity and I see no reason to believe that this capability cannot scale.
I agree that this field has a lot of potential for advancement, but I still maintain (I could be wrong), that without true motivation (simulated one won't do it), computers or robots with AI won't do anything more than what they will be programmed to do.

Even if we make incredible piece of software, which tells itself "I want to learn and adopt", it won't really learn by understanding like humans do (just calculating the data, no matter how complex, doesn't just automatically give rise to consciousness and self-awareness), but it will just gather data on its storage medium, and it won't really adopt, it won't know what it is doing and if that is best for adopting or not, and thus, such simulated adoption cannot be even close to such efficiency as that of humans.

I'd say that consciousness cannot be calculated/simulated, but instead, I'd dare to say that consciousness is essential element to whole physical existence of our Universe. The question then is, how to "tap into it"... Brains obviously became capable of doing so, while computers obviously haven't, yet, at least not in the way we are making them today (in physical and software sense).

So, will we, humans, be able to make computers "tap into consciousness"? Well, I don't see why not, if nature did it we might too. I just think that it will demand from us doing radical changes in thinking about it all.

Are feelings and emotions part of consciousness? Well, I guess we'll know when we make computers conscious. But I am ready to bet on it being so ;)

[Ryan_m_b]

I'd be wary about attributing characteristics like intelligent to consciousness, there's some interesting evidence emerging in neuroscience that consciousness is a by product of our mind rather than a controller (some studies have shown conscious awareness of decision making occurring after that decision is enacted). Also the link between consciousness and emotion is a difficult one to pin down, people with psychopathy for instance have extreme trouble feeling emotions or empathising with others and so simulate these things instead.

[PAllen]

Also, computers are not better than humans at quick matches, say 1 minute match, humans win all the way down.



This is false. In fact, the longer the time control, the better humans do against computer chess programs. Top players were helpless against computers at speed chess many years before tournament time controls. In a postal match (days per move), indications are that a top postal player would still be competitive.

Further, if you look back at my post, it had nothing to do with anything you were saying. It was simply amplifying a comment Ryan_m_b made about the eye: that in making a computer do a specific task, we don't need to emulate the way people do it, and can arrive at a very different mix of strengths and weaknesses as a result.

(FYI: I am well aware that methods used successfully in chess have not worked in Go, nor are such methods ever likely to work in Go).

[nucl34rgg]

The issue really depends on what you think humans are. I believe human beings are physical systems. In that sense, we ARE computers -- really, really different biological machines that can feel pain, pleasure, love etc, but physical machines nonetheless. If you believe in a soul etc, then you would probably make the argument that any intelligence we attempt to replicate would lack that inner "thing" that makes people...well, people! However, if we look at strictly what we know about the human body, the brain etc, then there is no reason to believe that we couldn't create and simulate intelligence if we knew more about what it meant to be intelligent! In actuality, every time a human being reproduces, they create a new intelligence. Also, any one of your cells could be used in principle to create a new intelligence. My point is that physically, the creation of a new intelligence occurs daily. We just don't quite understand it, YET! Perhaps some day...

[D H]

FYI: I am well aware that methods used successfully in chess have not worked in Go, nor are such methods ever likely to work in Go.
Yes and no.

A go playing program has beat an 8-dan professional recently. Running on a 15 teraflop, 800 CPU supercomputer. With a nine stone handicap (chess equivalent: Toss both of your rooks). The solution is still essentially brute force, just a different kind of brute force.

[PAllen]

Yes and no.

A go playing program has beat an 8-dan professional recently. Running on a 15 teraflop, 800 CPU supercomputer. With a nine stone handicap (chess equivalent: Toss both of your rooks). The solution is still essentially brute force, just a different kind of brute force.

A nine stone handicap is huge, as you've noted (in chess, I believe I could regularly beat Gary Kasparov with an equivalent handicap, and that's not saying much). Unlike chess, for a long time, the best Go playing program was one with essentially no lookahead at all, just pattern recognitions algorithms.

It is my opinion (not a rigorous argument) that substantially different methods than were used with chess are required for Go. That does not mean I think progress will not be made, or even that it need be slow; just that a different mix of approaches will be required.

[D H]

It is my opinion (not a rigorous argument) that substantially different methods than were used with chess are required for Go. That does not mean I think progress will not be made, or even that it need be slow; just that a different mix of approaches will be required.
One of those substantially different methods that is used with quite a bit of success in computer go is Monte Carlo techniques, i.e., plopping stones down at random. Highly parallelizable, zero intelligence. Combining that technique with some pattern matching against a huge library yields even better play. Still highly parallelizable, and still zero intelligence.

That's apparently good enough that computer go games could now beat me. I've played off and on for 40 years, mostly off. The mostly off, occasionally on, means I'm perpetually on the patzer (kyu) scale. I've made it to up 1 or 2 kyu a couple times. Several computer go games are at the 1 or 2 dan (amateur) level now.

[MarcoD]

I bought up the example of a camera because it does a few of the jobs that the eye does, specifically it does the few jobs that we want to replicate but in a more convenient (to the best of our ability) way. The discussion going on in the thread right now is dealing with the claim that intelligent software will require emotions. I'm contesting that by pointing out that when we want to replicate a human faculty (e.g. vision) we don't go about it by copying how humans work. This led to the examples given by me and others of intelligent software that acts nothing like a human does. Because of this I disagree that it is necessary that a future general intelligent piece of software will require emotion.

Since I think I was one of the posters who brought it up, I'll try to play the devil's advocate on this one. My original line of thought:

People act in certain manners, from a true AI perspective -where I loosely define true AI as, say, a conscious thing, something I could converse with,- I would also expect it to act. But why do people act? Because they have intent. And why do they have intent? Because they have emotions: love, hate, greed, etc. And why do people have emotions? Difficult, but let's assume it is similar to pain reflexes and gives a Darwinistic edge over zombies.

So a truly intelligent router -one I could also converse with,- I assume, would act with the intent to route optimally out of the 'love' for moving bits around, not because it does an exhaustive search on a space of solutions. That emotion, love, may not be quantifiable or understandable for us humans, but a conscious router might describe it that way, since I don't see why it would otherwise do what it needs to do, which is to route.

And that's my problem with your example: An eye is not intelligent, neither is a chess playing program.

[Ryan_m_b]

Since I think I was one of the posters who brought it up, I'll try to play the devil's advocate on this one. My original line of thought:

People act in certain manners, from a true AI perspective -where I loosely define true AI as, say, a conscious thing, something I could converse with,- I would also expect it to act. But why do people act? Because they have intent. And why do they have intent? Because they have emotions: love, hate, greed, etc. And why do people have emotions? Difficult, but let's assume it is similar to pain reflexes and gives a Darwinistic edge over zombies.
Here is where our discussion breaks down, if you are going to define AI as a conscious thing and then assert that intents require emotions then we aren't going anywhere. I see no reason to equate consciousness with intelligence and no reason to assume that subjective emotions are a required part of the process.

[DROBNJAK]

Intelligence doesn't require emotions. Emotions are simply primitive thoughts, kind of evolutionary residue from in-vertebra.

Computers had been as intelligent as humans from the first day when they were switched on. Human intelligence is nothing but finding a path of least resistance in a given context. Simply put, computers are blind, they do not have sensors to establish the context, so somebody from outside environment needs to translate context to them. Once the context is translated to them, computers are as capable as humans.

As well, consciousness doesn't exist. It simply egocentricity of animals. A thinking medium doesn't need to be self-conscious to be able to reason.

[D H]

Intelligence doesn't require emotions.
That is a bald assertion, a fallacy. Science doesn't have a good handle on what intelligence truly is.

Emotions are simply primitive thoughts, kind of evolutionary residue from in-vertebra.
Another bald assertion. Perhaps you are thinking of instinct, not emotion.

Computers had been as intelligent as humans from the first day when they were switched on.
This is blatantly false by any meaningful definition of "intelligent".

Human intelligence is nothing but finding a path of least resistance in a given context. Simply put, computers are blind, they do not have sensors to establish the context, so somebody from outside environment needs to translate context to them. Once the context is translated to them, computers are as capable as humans.
Simply put, this is nonsense.

As well, consciousness doesn't exist. It simply egocentricity of animals. A thinking medium doesn't need to be self-conscious to be able to reason.
And you know this how?


This last post is the last straw. This thread has been going nowhere fast because from the very onset it has not been based on science. It has instead been based on beliefs.

Thread closed.