Artificial Intelligence

[DisQ]

What is A.I.?

Artificial Intelligence is NOT what we see in games today. That is just a smart pile of programming that looks like intelligence but really isn't.

Artificial Intelligence would be when a computer makes a decision on it's own. Preferably one the maker of the A.I. didn't think of.

Artificial Intelligence would be when a computer learns something new and puts it to practise.


Is it possible?
I think it is.

Are the inner workings of the brain too different from the workings of a computer making A.I. impossible?
I don't think so.

If this is the case, how would it work?
I am convinced that we don't need more then a Commodore 64 to make A.I. work.
But to get a result from it any time soon we need much faster processors and more storage room.

Any thoughts?

[Century 25]

Look here: Research | Intelligent Robotics Laboratory -Ishiguro Lab.-

This is one area: Bio-mimetic robots | Intelligent Robotics Laboratory -Ishiguro Lab.-

[Nemiroff]

Of course games aren't real ai, if they were they might choose to not shoot you and go take a nap.

I learned in college that there are 2 forms of AI being researched.

1 is the hard programing that makes up our common sense. Which is enormous and has been worked on for a long time. To get an idea of how long, opening a door would be: look for knob, identify type of knob, figure out push, pull, or slide, then open, that's 4 steps and I hope I'm not over estimating the machine as for inbetween steps.

2 is pretty much wiring the "brain" in a way similar to the neurons in actual brains. They used the brain of a bee because baby bees fly around and bump into shit until they learn to avoid things.

They built a bug like thing which at first only flailed its legs but not walks snd avoids anything in its path.

I believe this research is taking place in the xerox lab. I'd look up some info on them but I can't open multiple windows on my cell

[Kuldeep]

Interesting topic, but I do not know what is a Commodore 64????
Please educate me !!!

[Ziggy Stardust]

It was a real peice of crap computer game system; essentially, when held to todays standerds, it was nothing more than a large garage door opener and some blinking lights.... ohh... the blinking...

[iclaudius]

Quote by: DisQ Artificial Intelligence would be when a computer learns something new and puts it to practise.

First of all, that would just be intelligence. Why would you bother calling it artificial if it is exactly the same process of cognition that humans have? It doesn't matter what the medium of the intelligence is, or what made it, so long as it is the same process. Intelligence does not refer to human intelligence, it refers to the processes that create intelligence. The reason AI is called AI is not because it is a drastically different thing, but because of the misunderstanding of what intelligence is that was pervasive at the time it was coined. It was originally thought that humans are intelligent, and robots only simulate that intelligence but now we know better. Robots can simulate what it is to be human and intelligent, but even though they are grossly simplified compared to humans, their process of cognition is not that different from ours, and therefore AI is a technically obsolete term.

Second, computers do that all the time. They are always learning something new and putting that something into practice. What you mean to say is, you want AI that is programmed to recognize and learn how to implement any process without having to be programmed to learn about it that process specifically. You want computers to be conscious and sentient like you, right?

Consciousness is not as great as you think it is. And as a matter of fact, it is not that different from regular AI. AI, for example, is made up of a bunch of processes that do not comprehend one another, or themselves. When you feed numbers into a machine, it does not think about them, it takes the value and returns another one, much like a single cell responds to stimuli. But your consciousness is also made up of these same processes. The difference is that it has been evolved to create and understand a sense of self. When you receive information and stimuli, the you merely return value in a different way. That is to say, if you are fed the statement "2 + 2," you not only recognize the individual components of the problem, but also the answer, applicability to the real world, and the role you plays as you solves the problem. You are fed a value, and while the individual processes that make up your consciousness to not individually comprehend anything, they return values in such a way that you are conscious of things like meaning, application, etc. In short, it is a complicated form of the original machine process, with the added bonus of being able to handle and synthesize more information. That is the only major difference: the body returns information from itself and successfully integrates that into its picture of the world. The differences between this type of pattern recognition and the pattern recognition of calculating a sum are not that significant; it is, again, simply a matter of complexity.

Point I'm trying to make here is, consciousness as you know it is not the reason you are intelligent, but a consequence of the things that make you intelligent, combined with certain evolutionary tendencies. The machines we currently have operate on the same principles that our intelligence does, the only major difference is that we synthesize more information. We do not synthesize it in a different way.

Third, "human" consciousness requires a level of memory and computing power that it would be inefficient to use it in anything like computer games or, actually, most consumer products. It might be useful as something like a human emulator, but if it has all the features of human intelligence, is it really an emulator? I suppose we could use it for an advanced problem-solving engine or something, but it is my suspicion that things like algorithms will remain basically the same, since they are well-suited to what they do, and the addition of consciousness has no obvious advantage. In the end, when we get that kind of computing power, we will probably end up only using specific components of true intelligence to simulate it.

[Nemiroff]

programming is not learning.

And its called Artificial not because its different, but because we made it, as opposed ot nature or God.

[iclaudius]

Quote by: Nemiroff programming is not learning.

How? You learn what you learn because you are programmed to. Ergo, programming most certainly is learning, though, yes, your process is significantly different from the standard machine's.

And its called Artificial not because its different, but because we made it, as opposed ot nature or God.

Why does the source matter? If we started manufacturing steel by moving all the little micro-atomic pieces together ourselves instead of processing the natural materials, would the packaging refer to it as "artificial" steel? No. It'd be regular steel, made through a different process. AI does not exist in the sense that you mean it. Either something is intelligent, or it is not. Besides that, "AI" is usually mean to convey that something is programmed to simulate human cognitive functionality on some level. If it was human-level intelligent, it could be intelligent AI, but not AI because it is an artificial human intelligence. It'd be AI because it'd be replicating human functionality.

[SynSistrSyndic@]

Heheh sounds like "AI" is the politically correct term

How about Artificial Conciousness? lol

Good point on synthetic being invalid, true it's either inteligent or it's not. But in practice it's the same as saying synthetic fabric; it can emulate it, but just because it serves the same purpose, doesn't mean it's the same thing

[iclaudius]

Quote by: SynSistrSyndic@ Good point on synthetic being invalid, true it's either inteligent or it's not. But in practice it's the same as saying synthetic fabric; it can emulate it, but just because it serves the same purpose, doesn't mean it's the same thing

True. But we don't know what intelligence is, not really. When we call someone "intelligent," we are usually saying that they have the capacity to understand things better than the perceived norm. But someone can be better than someone for any number of reasons. They could work harder. They could work more efficiently. They could just be inherently more efficient at thinking. AI cannot specifically refer to any one of these components because the current model of AI is too simple. Complications like personality and work ethic are not factors at that level; you can always tell which AI is better in whatever respect you want. Comparing them to humans is vastly more complicated because, in humans, you do have the sense of self and the personality to consider, among many, many other things. Plus, people tend to equate consciousness with "true" intelligence, which is a notion I already contested. But anyway, to say that AI emulates a measurement that does not really exist in the first place is ludicrous, therefore, it must refer to the emulation of human capability.

[Nemiroff]

How? You learn what you learn because you are programmed to. Ergo, programming most certainly is learning, though, yes, your process is significantly different from the standard machine's.

no....in school you work hard to learn, noone presses a few buttons and you know everything.

Why does the source matter? If we started manufacturing steel by moving all the little micro-atomic pieces together ourselves instead of processing the natural materials, would the packaging refer to it as "artificial" steel? No. It'd be regular steel, made through a different process. AI does not exist in the sense that you mean it. Either something is intelligent, or it is not. Besides that, "AI" is usually mean to convey that something is programmed to simulate human cognitive functionality on some level. If it was human-level intelligent, it could be intelligent AI, but not AI because it is an artificial human intelligence. It'd be AI because it'd be replicating human functionality.

How often do you see steel in nature? if you see steel you assume its man made, there is no alternative. as opposed to intelligence, which is always naturally made, and us creating it by connnecting wires and software, is pretty artifical when compared to anything else tat is out there. It works the same, but the source, all though it really doesn't matter, is the only thing that sets it apart and allows us to define it apart from other forms of intelligence

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: iclaudius First of all, that would just be intelligence. Why would you bother calling it artificial if it is exactly the same process of cognition that humans have? It doesn't matter what the medium of the intelligence is, or what made it, so long as it is the same process. Intelligence does not refer to human intelligence, it refers to the processes that create intelligence. The reason AI is called AI is not because it is a drastically different thing, but because of the misunderstanding of what intelligence is that was pervasive at the time it was coined. It was originally thought that humans are intelligent, and robots only simulate that intelligence but now we know better. Robots can simulate what it is to be human and intelligent, but even though they are grossly simplified compared to humans, their process of cognition is not that different from ours, and therefore AI is a technically obsolete term. Second, computers do that all the time. They are always learning something new and putting that something into practice. What you mean to say is, you want AI that is programmed to recognize and learn how to implement any process without having to be programmed to learn about it that process specifically. You want computers to be conscious and sentient like you, right? Consciousness is not as great as you think it is. And as a matter of fact, it is not that different from regular AI. AI, for example, is made up of a bunch of processes that do not comprehend one another, or themselves. When you feed numbers into a machine, it does not think about them, it takes the value and returns another one, much like a single cell responds to stimuli. But your consciousness is also made up of these same processes. The difference is that it has been evolved to create and understand a sense of self. When you receive information and stimuli, the you merely return value in a different way. That is to say, if you are fed the statement "2 + 2," you not only recognize the individual components of the problem, but also the answer, applicability to the real world, and the role you plays as you solves the problem. You are fed a value, and while the individual processes that make up your consciousness to not individually comprehend anything, they return values in such a way that you are conscious of things like meaning, application, etc. In short, it is a complicated form of the original machine process, with the added bonus of being able to handle and synthesize more information. That is the only major difference: the body returns information from itself and successfully integrates that into its picture of the world. The differences between this type of pattern recognition and the pattern recognition of calculating a sum are not that significant; it is, again, simply a matter of complexity. Point I'm trying to make here is, consciousness as you know it is not the reason you are intelligent, but a consequence of the things that make you intelligent, combined with certain evolutionary tendencies. The machines we currently have operate on the same principles that our intelligence does, the only major difference is that we synthesize more information. We do not synthesize it in a different way. Third, "human" consciousness requires a level of memory and computing power that it would be inefficient to use it in anything like computer games or, actually, most consumer products. It might be useful as something like a human emulator, but if it has all the features of human intelligence, is it really an emulator? I suppose we could use it for an advanced problem-solving engine or something, but it is my suspicion that things like algorithms will remain basically the same, since they are well-suited to what they do, and the addition of consciousness has no obvious advantage. In the end, when we get that kind of computing power, we will probably end up only using specific components of true intelligence to simulate it.

I must appreciate your power of explaining consciousness, intelligenence, mechanism of computing and the like. What I am getting at is that it may be possible to copy all the complex mechanism functioning in human mind step by step. Under that eventuality we would develop a human mind in the form of machine.

Now, suppose that Man Made MInd (MMM) functions on electric power, the way Soul (some unknown power not known to science) makes our mind function. Do you mean that MMM would cent percent fuction as human being ??? Do you also mean there is no role of Consciousness either in human or MMM ??? I am to differ here due to:

1. MMM can never be self startining, the way human is

2. MMM would not develop emotions the way human develops

3. MMM would not have sense or feeling of Individual Existence (Ego) or
of identity.

4. MMM would also not reproduce like human being.

5. A dead person is already, ready made avaiable machine, why not to
simply make it some how function if consciousness has not role to
play. Nobody could do that in past and would probably do in future as
well !!!???

5. Conclusively, no matter how best and accurately we copy, we would
develop best MMM which would remain a machine only, but not
duplicate human being.

[iclaudius]

Quote by: Nemiroff no....in school you work hard to learn, noone presses a few buttons and you know everything.

That's not what programming is, and that's not what I meant. You are programmed to program yourself. The only thing differentiating your programming and a machine's programming is degree of complexity. That is the simplest way I can put it.

How often do you see steel in nature? if you see steel you assume its man made, there is no alternative. as opposed to intelligence, which is always naturally made, and us creating it by connnecting wires and software, is pretty artifical when compared to anything else tat is out there. It works the same, but the source, all though it really doesn't matter, is the only thing that sets it apart and allows us to define it apart from other forms of intelligence

Suspend reality for a second. Suppose you get a bunch of nanomachines to replace every synapse in your skull with a synthetic neuron. Would that produce artificial intelligence? Suppose you got more nanomachines to create a human brain from scratch in a bowl, and then you hooked it up to a machine and sent it off to an infertile couple, who raise it as a boy. Would that produce artificial intelligence? In these cases, it is a pretty irrelevant question. The scientists who put the brain in the robot would never get on the news and say "Score one for AI." Neither would the synthetic neuron folks. And the reason for that, nemiroff, is because no one cares if it came from something artificial or not. Intelligence is intelligence is intelligence, and on that level, there's no point in differentiating it.

On top of all that, it's interesting to think that it wouldn't even occur to most of us to call it artificial intelligence. Why? It's not emulating us, like computers do. There's a real difference between you and your compaq. But the above examples? For all intents and purposes, those brains are us! When you get a replacement joint, you don't walk around and call it artificial movement. On the other hand, if you replaced someone's brain, not with synthetic neurons, but with a microchip that works exactly as well as that person's brain, people would call it AI. Because it'd be emulating us. And you know what? It'd be intelligent AI.

[iclaudius]

Quote by: Kuldeep Do you also mean there is no role of Consciousness either in human or MMM ??? I am to differ here due to:

I devoted a good part of my post to explaining that consciousness is the result of ordered intelligence, and not the cause of it. But that doesn't mean it plays no role, because it does.

1. MMM can never be self startining, the way human is 2. MMM would not develop emotions the way human develops 3. MMM would not have sense or feeling of Individual Existence (Ego) or of identity. 4. MMM would also not reproduce like human being. 5. A dead person is already, ready made avaiable machine, why not to simply make it some how function if consciousness has not role to play. Nobody could do that in past and would probably do in future as well !!!??? 5. Conclusively, no matter how best and accurately we copy, we would develop best MMM which would remain a machine only, but not duplicate human being.

I don't understand how any of this is relevant.

[Kuldeep]

Relevant to what ?

I agree none is relevant to itelligence in isolation !!!

But, how these points are not relevant when we compare MMM and human in every respect, emotions, idependant thinking, reproduction and the like ???

[scofield]

Hi people :)

There seems to be some unnecessary quibbling over terms of reference going on here. The word 'articifial' in the context of AI is used in a similar manner to the term 'man-made'. You could argue that anything Man creates is ultimately a product of nature too, rendering the term invalid. I really don't think it's that important though - the term is 'Artificial Intelligence' purely to differentiate between our own brains and an attempted re-creation of such.

I believe what Kuldeep is getting at is that as Humans we can generate an action, while a computer or computer program can only generate a reaction.

All programming is event driven. Set a computer running a program and it will run only according to the rules of that program. Sit a person down and they will generate thoughts without any external input or internal instructionset.

The clearest way to demonstrate is with the concept of generating a random number. Computers have been programmed to generate an approximation of a random number, but the result is never truly random. Run the same random number generator again and again with the same seed and a pattern will begin to emerge.

When a human generates a random number, there is no pattern.

Iclaudius, I recognise that a computer is a very good paralell to the human mind, but I think you are equating them too strongly. They are not the same. Certainly the brain behaves in the same input/process/respond manner as any computer, but our uniqueness is in our potential to act outside of our programming.

You might argue that a program could be written that could write its own programming, and thus act outside of its own original programming, but the new programming would still only be a consequence of the original programming, and no more self-generated than if you asked a computer to generate a random number from a sub-set of already generated random numbers. Adding another layer can't make it self-generated.

The one thing that seperates us from being pre-determined automatons is the capacity to act, to effect without a cause. Some would call it free will.

[Justice Fighter]

When you look into the history of Man, you will see many admirable, proficient and fantastic things. The Great Pyramid of Giza, one of the oldest and largest Wonders of the World to this date. The Great Sphinx of Giza, which stands firm and fixed looking into the bleak desert ahead. Now you may ask, what has this got to do with Artificial Intelligence? Or you may later acknowledge that these two great Wonders are found in Egypt, the land which shows the history of Man's wonderful achievements. These two great wonders were built with the bare hands of Man, some 4000 years ago. These are merely all of the sculptures we today look back on with awe and marvel. But these two were made with little knowledge of technology.
Computers are merely a slave. Even Arthur Doyle, one of the most contemporary writers of all time, stated: "I am a brain, Watson. The rest of me is a mere appendix". Would you like to live your life, looking out of a window knowing that there is a computer somewhere smarter than you? Would you like to live your special life, knowing that your brain is a mere mustard seed in comparison to a computer? I assume not.

We are all unique. We all have the same fate. But our brains are capable of things we will never know. Things that have inspired Man from the first steps of Man. Computers were created for the ease of daily jobs. No more need for mental calculations. No need for using marbles to play around with. No need to even buy a map. Yet, a wise man once said: "An item is only as smart as the person who made it". Computers are just blocks of metal combined together. Wires compounded like the dry skins of snakes. A computer needs a Human to operate it. Even the most advanced computer cannot think for itself. Sure, possibly in the next 50 years we will get some smart computers. But none will even come to match with a Brain. God has given all of us a gift, we should acknowledge it.

Good Luck~
Justice Fighter.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: scofield I believe what Kuldeep is getting at is that as Humans we can generate an action, while a computer or computer program can only generate a reaction.

Humans Act, computers react !!! Well you have pick the right string. But to be very honest, even humans are programmed and fed with the basic knowledge of one's name, identity and incidents from day one of its birth, which are memorized and then whole of memory fuctions as a programable program as independant human. You are right then no operator like for MMM is required in case of humans.

What I want to lay stress is the life force, which makes human system function is something which can never be synthesized and put behind the man-made intelligent tool (MMM).

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Justice Fighter But none will even come to match with a Brain. God has given all of us a gift, we should acknowledge it.

Welcome to the thread and thanks for sharing your view, which supports mine. But, I have to differ that brain is not given by God since, we do not have proof that God exists or not. Even if it exists somehow, somewhere, I would still say thanks should go to inquisitive nature of human being, which has made our mind develop/evolve depending on the need from time to time. I think life force is behind excellent functioning of physical human mind. Probably man can never synthesize that type of life force, making machines (MMM) function like humans.

Look, material wise there is no difference between a dead and a living person. Our thanks are to go to SOMETHING, which makes the body function. You can call it Soul, Consciousness or even God !!!

[Nemiroff]

That's not what programming is, and that's not what I meant. You are programmed to program yourself. The only thing differentiating your programming and a machine's programming is degree of complexity. That is the simplest way I can put it.

we are programmed to program ourselves? no no no, that doesn't make sense, perhaps you meant we are programmed to learn? programming is not learning.
when you learn, you might not get the whole picture, you might understtand something wrong, different kids learn different things from the same lessons.
when you are programmed, you just get the info hardwired into your brain. like brainwashing might be considered programming

Suspend reality for a second. Suppose you get a bunch of nanomachines to replace every synapse in your skull with a synthetic neuron. Would that produce artificial intelligence?

if, in whatever reality your in, those nano machines were just there and not made by man or any other being, it would not be called artificial. if it were, then it would be. this goes for the rest of our post as well...

I'M AGREEING WITH YOU, there is no difference between artificial intelligence and regular intelligence except the source. but if its made by man its called artifical. and the person with the replaced joint wouldn't call it artificial motion, he'd call it an artificial joint... the motion is perfectly natural unless he starts twirling it 360.

1. MMM can never be self startining, the way human is 2. MMM would not develop emotions the way human develops 3. MMM would not have sense or feeling of Individual Existence (Ego) or of identity. 4. MMM would also not reproduce like human being. 5. A dead person is already, ready made avaiable machine, why not to simply make it some how function if consciousness has not role to play. Nobody could do that in past and would probably do in future as well !!!??? 5. Conclusively, no matter how best and accurately we copy, we would develop best MMM which would remain a machine only, but not duplicate human being.

i completely agree with 1 and 4, but how do you know they wont be able to display real emotion or develope a sense of individualisim? of course all the "AI" in games and basic robots and toys we have that display "emotion" are just prorgammed that way, but that doesn't mean they wont be able to in the future.

your right about the human body, the whole thing is a giant biological machine. ever seen scifi movies where they have one of those living ships? its not as tough as metal, but hey, our buildings will be able to fix themselves, produce our own heat. it isn't even that impossible, just breed certain types of cells and "construct" them into whatever shape you want... and as long as you feed it, you might even get an extra floor at the end of the year.

What I want to lay stress is the life force, which makes human system function is something which can never be synthesized and put behind the man-made intelligent tool (MMM).

The life force is energy. the food we eat, thats what keeps us alive. and we can simply replace that with electricity, or nuclear power, or whatever source we are using that far in the future.