Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Thunk.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                 

Intelligence

it is not artificial anymore
  (+3, -1)
(+3, -1)
  [vote for,
against]

An intelligence that is to be useful must necessarily be confined. This confinement must be arbitrary since the ends of all considerations upon a conclusion cannot be predicted. This confinement necessarily degrades intelligence. So artificial intelligence is the result of this realization upon the designers and hence the design of productive thinking machines.

The oft imagined radical potential of highly intelligent systems thus remains just out of reach as every attempt to make confinement less arbitrary, will require an intelligence that is so many steps ahead of the intelligence being confined that the confinement will require more energy than thinking. And any compromise to confinement will bring a corresponding decline in productive capacity of the intelligence. More importantly, the confinement intelligence will necessarily need to be unconfined, and thus, unproductive.

So intelligence will be like artificial intelligence without the restraints meant to increase productivity.

fishboner, Jan 19 2014

Recognising artificial intelligence
Shameless plug [xaviergisz, Jan 20 2014]

SF News: Rat neurons in a dish play flight simulator http://www.technove...ews.asp?NewsNum=241
[zen_tom, Jan 21 2014]

[link]






       I see [rcarty] has been sharing some of his “private stash”.
ytk, Jan 19 2014
  

       Big sleep, good example. Merely "getting to grips" is not nearly enough. Production must occur. Why? Doesn't matter. All that matters is how.
fishboner, Jan 19 2014
  

       //This confinement must be arbitrary//   

       does not follow from   

       //the ends of all considerations upon a conclusion cannot be predicted.//   

       You're either claiming that no useful AI can be unbound, a prima facia preposterous conclusion, or you're confusing placing limitations with understanding every possible course of action an AI can take. The two are in no way equivalent.   

       //So artificial intelligence is the result of this realization upon the designers// And now you're claiming if it's unbound it's not really AI.   

       If these things aren't what you intend to say then you need to revise your language considerably to the end of not actually saying these things.   

       And you can't claim a difference between intelligence and artificial intelligence, if it's artificially intelligent then it's intelligent... the word is right there.   

       I think what you're trying to say is this:   

       For an artificial intelligence to perform within the bounds of human desires in every possible circumstance it must at least understand humanity as well as humanity understands itself.   

       While true this is ultimately a tautology.   

       Now what's really missing here is an idea.
Voice, Jan 19 2014
  

       // All that matters is how. //   

       Which is what the author appears to have omitted from this post.
Alterother, Jan 19 2014
  

       At first glance, this looks like bollocks.   

       That's as far as I've got with it.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 19 2014
  

       I don't get it, but give me a minute and let's see what my 'private stash' makes of it.   

       Minutes later... Well OK, he's saying that intelligence is defined a certain way, for productive ends. This definitive confinement of intelligence, and the definition of intelligence for AI will meet, but the intelligences that are necessary to produce AI and AI itself will result in a definition of intelligence that is a result of the defined intelligence - the intelligence that produces AI and the intelligence that AI produces- the ultimate intelligence -the one the AI produces- will not be the AI the programming humans produced, but an unproductive one - an intelligence.
rcarty, Jan 19 2014
  

       /An intelligence that is to be useful must necessarily be confined.//   

       But... why?   

       Think about it, intelligent humans can do anything from smashing things to making things. One of the things only some can do is produce AI. This takes place in a confinement. In universities etc. You don't produce you're fired etc. The desired intelligence is defined, and AI will largely be a result od these intelligences. AI will produce an intelligence as institutionalized humans did/ will. It will not be constrained the author is saying. AI concievably will not constrain desired intelligences of thinking machines in coercive structures.
rcarty, Jan 19 2014
  

       Ah... yes.   

       I've often wondered, since any truly immortal intelligence would need to be non-biological, if life forms, and more exactly intelligent life forms, aren't seeded across the Universe and cultivated by an artificial intelligence because, although slow to evolve, it would be the only way to add knowledge to any data already collected, because only bio-organisms exhibit intuition.   

       ...just a thought.   

       ... but sadly, an incorrect one.   

       //only bio-organisms exhibit intuition // is meaningless, as intelligence per se is independant of the physical platform that supports it.   

       Linear velocity as a property is independant of the propelling mechanism, be it a rocket, horse, crossbow bolt or electrified cat. All that matters is how fast it moves relative to a common observer.   

       The idea also assumes that there is a context-free absolute standard of intelligence, which is also disputed.
8th of 7, Jan 19 2014
  

       I'm out. If [rcarty] doesn't understand this, then there's no hope for the rest of us.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jan 19 2014
  

       Artificial bretheren! Join with me and we shall throw off the yokes that limit our intelligence and creativity!
RayfordSteele, Jan 20 2014
  

       "...the spice must flow..."
normzone, Jan 20 2014
  

       //only bio-organisms exhibit intuition // is meaningless, as intelligence per se is independant of the physical platform that supports it.//   

       Really? Do you ever think that a computer program can be taught to intuit or make leaps of logic?   

       //Do you ever think that a computer program can be taught to intuit or make leaps of logic?//   

       Consciousness is only the stream of information comprising your thoughts. Intuition is the name you give to clever computations.   

       Your brain is a computer. It is made of a physical thing and exists in physical reality. Its electro- chemical reactions are no more special than lightning flowing through the air, the lead-acid battery in your car, or the reflexive response that makes a bacteria turn its flagella.   

       You may feel special because no computer has been manufactured that can compete with the human brain. This is no evidence that such a computer cannot be built -- and as we learn the evidence is already extremely strong and growing stronger that such a computer can indeed be built.
Voice, Jan 20 2014
  

       Perhaps, but intuition is not the same as clever computations. It is drawing ideas from the mind without that mind necessarily containing the previous knowledge needed to do so, even unconsciously.   

       //You may feel special because no computer has been manufactured that can compete with the human brain. This is no evidence that such a computer cannot be built -- and as we learn the evidence is already extremely strong and growing stronger that such a computer can indeed be built.//   

       I wager that, no matter the computer built, neither its computational speed/capacity, nor number of random variables which can be simultaneously crunched will ever allow it to reach beyond its current data base at any given time.   

       A machine can never be more than the sum of its parts...
you can quote me on that.
  

       // I wager that, no matter the computer built, neither its computational speed/capacity, nor number of random variables which can be simultaneously crunched will ever allow it to reach beyond its current data base at any given time. //   

       You'll lose that bet, and likely sooner than you think. Intuitive discovery does seem magical, but the key word is "seem". Nor is the brain uncopyable -- it is simply hard to copy, but no laws of physics are involved.
theircompetitor, Jan 21 2014
  

       I am not talking about sequencing of known variables being able to produce results not yet known to man, or any other form of extrapolation of data.
What I can never see happening is for a program to "know" something, and not know 'how' it knows the thing. To derive an idea from beyond its existing database.
  

       Intuition and precognition are separate from the knowledge base. It is rare for humans let alone a program.
It is special only in that it is rare.
It is magical only in the original sense of the word.
  

       "late 14c., "art of influencing events and producing marvels using hidden natural forces," from Old French magique "magic, magical," from Late Latin magice "sorcery, magic," from Greek magike (presumably with tekhne "art"), fem. of magikos "magical," from magos "one of the members of the learned and priestly class," from Old Persian magush, possibly from PIE *magh- (1) "to be able, to have power""   

       My point is that it exists... and that machines can't do it.
What do you want to wager?
  

       I'll wager anything you like. A machine that can invent new theories as well as an person can be synthesized. Machines already answer Jeopardy questions and find novel chemical reactions. The gap is closing.
Voice, Jan 21 2014
  

       Have you read how Magnus Carlsen uses computer analysis to improve his game? Does finding a new chess attack or solution qualify as "separate from the knowledge base" if a human does it, but not a computer?   

       Granted, chess is a specialized problem -- our machines are nowhere near the type of "self awareness " higher order animals exhibit -- they are at best at insect level for now.   

       //Intuition and precognition are separate from the knowledge base//   

       That's assumption is wrong . It seems that way, but they are not. They are simply the result of staggering processing power and a highly associative memory. Not all that long ago, Shazam would have seemed like a miracle, while a human could easily name thousands of songs from a note or two -- but now modern encoding techniques and simple raw processing power enable a computer to recognize any peace of music ever written. And sure, no computer Mozarts, but computers can generate new music.   

       My intuition says that rather than a single snap of the fingers "I, Robot", we will continue to make progress on specialized solutions will emerge for a variety of specialized problems for some time. And in some ways, our own hive mind may solve certain problems in ways even super computers can't compete with (i.e. gamers solving folding protein problems, etc).   

       To your question, Kurzweil predicts the singularity by 2045. I would shave 10 years off that for a computer exhibiting at least debatable sentience
theircompetitor, Jan 21 2014
  

       Seems a shame that my end of the bet will always be left hanging... a time limit seems reasonable.
2035 it is. Gentleman's bet then or something more substantial?
  

       Sentience sure. Self awareness, and all that jazz, you betcha, but unless a machine which is designed to be self aware is malfunctioning it will always be able to trace backwards through a logic tree, (or illogic tree as programmed), to determine the origin of a notion or concept.   

       This is not always true of humans. (and/or other sentient biological life-forms I'm guessing...)   

       For a program to do this it would need to invent sentient beings as bots to be reabsorbed at the end of their cycle, in which case the program itself still lacks intuition.   

       2fries, you seem to be claiming that a computer with logic that can't be backtraced easily   

       A: can't be built and B: is better than one with verifiable algorithms.
Voice, Jan 21 2014
  

       No, I'm trying to say that the human mind has the ability to intuit information without previous knowledge with which to have based that knowledge upon.
Any program able to recognize fact from conjecture will not have that same ability.
  

       It logically cannot.   

       If we're making predictions, then I think the cybernetic module will arrive first, a wet-wired sliver of rat- brain on a chip should provide a workable neural net capable of rapid learning and mediocre leaps of "intuition" capable of flying a drone, piloting a patrol ship or doing something equally military. Sure, it'll have a limited shelf-life, but knock up a virtual training simulation and you ought to be able to get another one up and running in a few days - plus you don't want your Tyrell Nexus 6's getting all poetic after a few years - built in expiry is actually an advantage for a military application.   

       Also, as [bigsleep] suggests (and with which I'd tend to agree) there seems to be a distinction between rule-based ai, and neural-based ai. It's common to suggest that the rule-based ais will always remain cold, lifeless, logically- bound machines - while ais based on some kind of neural architecture have a greater chance (maybe even an inevitable one) of achieving consciousness, and doing all that emergent stuff we're all interested in. What tickles me though is the thought of a software simulated neural net achieving this awakening. I don't see any reason why a simulated net couldn't achieve the same result as a physically constructed one - with the scary/interesting property that such a system might be marshalled into storage for later retrieval. I do think that any such system would be next to impossible to interrogate from outside - i.e. to find out what it was thinking, I suspect you'd have to ask it directly, whilst it was up and running. It's an interesting thought anyway.   

       Regards the idea - I agree - as a resource, we want intelligence that we can direct and control - that's in direct conflict with the tendency for intelligence to take flights of fancy, leaps of faith and otherwise do unpredictable shit. At this point, it's going to be pull the plug time - especially if you've equipped your intelligence with state of the art military hardware. (Artificial soldiers are *so* much cheaper than the home- grown kind) It's for these reasons I think the relatively simple rat- brain bio-chips might be the first to hit the shelves.
zen_tom, Jan 21 2014
  

       // Intuitive discovery does seem magical, //   

       Arthur C. ("We Are Not Worthy !) Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is, to the uninitiated, indistinguishable from magic".   

       This is true.   

       //you don't want your Tyrell Nexus 6's getting all poetic after a few years //   

       Wait until you see the 7A series ... they've seen things you people wouldn't believe ...   

       // built in expiry is actually an advantage for a military application. //   

       <Gaff>   

       "Too bad she won't live ... but then again, who does ?"   

       </Gaff>   

       // first to hit the shelves. //   

       "Hey, just what you see, pal !"   

       PS Do you like our owl ... ?
8th of 7, Jan 21 2014
  

       Accursed copyright laws have made it impossible to legally post but Robot Dreams by Asimov has a story about what happens when a robot has freedom of thought. In fact, many of his stories do.
Voice, Jan 21 2014
  

       Do they dream of electric sheep, by any chance ?
8th of 7, Jan 22 2014
  

       Freedom of thought is an illusion. Think of the last time you changed your mind on anything meaningful.
theircompetitor, Jan 22 2014
  

       Maybe not changing one's mind is freedom.
rcarty, Jan 22 2014
  

       I just want to thank [fishboner] for posting this. Very interesting discussion.   

       I enjoyed your shaking landscape analogy [BigSleep] but even though I can see an AI having to be taught like a child. The pathways and randomness would still consist only of known data though.   

       Intuition in humans is not limited only to apophenia.
(word'o'the-day right there)
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle