Slashdot Mirror
AI Going Nowhere?
jhigh writes "Marvin Minsky, co-founder of the MIT Artificial Intelligence Labratories is displeased with the progress in the development of autonomous intelligent machines. I found this quote more than a little amusing: '"The worst fad has been these stupid little robots," said Minsky. "Graduate students are wasting 3 years of their lives soldering and repairing robots, instead of making them smart. It's really shocking."'"
It's not the AI which is going nowhere. It's the traditional approaches to AI such as Minsky's symbolic logic which are not going anywhere. Seach google for Henry Markram, Maass, Tsodyks. Their research seems very promising.
> You'll never have real, true intelligence
:-)
Define "real, true intelligence"
> You can try to simulate that, but so far
> simulation consists of what amounts to a
> gazillion 'if' tests
That's what tradiditonal AI school is doing. Yes, you are correct. It won't go anywhere. On the other hand spiking neural networks are very promising. Search google for "liquid state machine". These researches are making progress novadays, not Minsky.
The problem with that is that no one really *knows* how the brain works beyond a very, very basic and limited understanding. No one has ever been able to satisfactorily create/reproduce one. There's more going on than just synapses in there, that much most scientists can agree on. What they don't agree on is *what* else is going on in there.
My journal has hot
I took Minsky's class last year, and let me tell you, the article couldn't print 75% of the irate stuff he has to say about AI, MIT, and life in general. We once spent an hour class session listening to Misky rant about modern science fiction and random things he didn't like about his Powerbook. In fact, most of his classes were extended rants about something or other (you zealots will be happy to know that he too, hates the Microsoft).
He comes across as affable but bitter. I found it strange that though he cointually complains about the leadership of the AI lab, he and his protege Winston were in control of it for some ~30 years without making any groundbreaking progress. In fact, Minsky's latest work "The Emotion Engine" is simply a retread of his decades-old "Society of Mind." I suspect that now that Brooks and the new guard are moving in, the old guard is looking for someone blame its lack of results on.
Here's some perspective from an MIT AI lab grad student who's been inspired by both Minsky and Brooks. (Minsky is on my Ph.D. committee.)
"AI has been brain-dead since the 1970s."
I agree, unfortunately. At least, what was traditionally meant by "AI" has been brain-dead. There is very little focus in the field today on human-like intelligence per se. There is a lot of great work being done that has immediate, practcal uses. But whether much of it is helping us toward the original long-term goal is more questionable. Most researchers long ago simply decided that "real AI" was too hard, and started doing work they could get funded. I would say that "AI" has been effectively redefined over the past 20 years.
"The worst fad has been these stupid little robots."
Minsky's attitude towards the direction the MIT AI lab has taken (Rod Brooks's robots) is well-known. And I agree that spending years soldering robots together can certainly take time away from AI research. But personally, I find a lot of great ideas in Rod's work, and I've used these ideas as well as Marvin's in my own work. Most importantly, unlike most of the rest of the AI world, Rod *is*, in the long run, shooting toward human-level AI.
Curiously, just last month I gave a talk at MIT, tited "Putting Minsky and Brooks Together". (Rod attended, but unfortunately Marvin couldn't make it.) The talk slides are at
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bob/dangerous.pdf.
In particular, I shoot down some common misperceptions about Minsky, including that he is focused solely on logical, symbolic AI. Anyone who has read "The Society of Mind" will realize what great strides Minsky-style AI has made since the early days. I also show what seem like some surprising connections to Brooks's work.
- Bob Hearn
This may get a little too philosophical, but I'm going to give it a try. What is the key difference between programming and parenting? You explicitly tell your child what they are and are not allowed to do (sometimes they malfunction/misbehave) and do it anyway. You tell them what emotions are appropriate at certain times. At grandma's funeral it is not appropriate to giggle and laugh. It is also not appropriate to look bored, as we are showing respect for the dead. After going through all the disallowed emotions, that leaves a solemn look and maybe some tears.
What about pattern recognition? How long do parents spend holding up pictures of various animals or various shapes for their children to identify?
When it gets right down to it, every one of us has been significantly programmed by our parents, teachers, and government. I am not arguing against the system, just saying that's how it is. I don't believe AI as anticipated will ever truly exist because the degree of creativity and imagination desired exists only in humans either because of an all-knowing, all-powerful creator or millions of years of mutations.
Human Level AI's Killer Application - Interactive Computer Games, John E Laird and Michael van Lent American Association for Artificial Intelligence AI Magazine Summer 2001 pp 15-25
My summary of the above - the AI in games might not be too hot (some would dispute with the academics about that but let it go), but game environments themselves are complex enough to pose a challenge for state-of-the-art AI researchers.
(Bits On Our Mind, an exhibition of some undergrad and graduate computer science work) ...and I headed STRAIGHT for the nematode booth. You see, I had heard that some clever Cornellian had created a simulation of the entire neural network of a nematode. The way I saw it, there was nothing else there that could possibly be more interesting than that.
:P
So I found myself standing in front of a computer screen. It was a worm swimming through water! In 3D! In real time! After I pushed my jaw shut, I began to ask the genius student some questions...
"Is that real-time?" "Well, actually, no, that is a 10 second looping clip that took a week to calculate."
"Well, I see a neural map there. Is that complete?" "Well, actually, no, that is a simplified version of the real nematode nervous system, on the order of about 1 simulated neuron to 10 actual neurons."
"So you simulate neurons! That's awesome. Let's see the code." (He proceeds to flip through 4-5 pages of very sophisticated-looking mathematical equations to describe the behavior of ONE neuron.)
What a let-down! No wonder Minsky is pissed, real AI is HARD!
We will soon have hardware that has the number of connections or processing power of a human brain. The problem is nobody's come up with the software to run on it. In humans this is what makes the brain more than big organ ... the "soul" if you are religiously inclined. Maybe a human soul can be reduced to nothing more than a program with an enourmous propesity to learn and adapt over years of training / habituation ... say from the years 0 to 18.
Try and name an AI researcher who is not a self-important jerk...
... all at MIT/AI ... need I continue?
Oh, say, Rod Brooks, Tomas Lozano-Perez, Hal Abelson, Gerry Sussman, Eric Grimson, Pat Winston, Tom Knight
The difference between Minsky and the rest is precisely as the first poster asserted. Having read Minsky's books, known him professionally and personally, and having taken his course, I must agree that the amount of weight placed on his words are not equal to their value. As others have observed (I forget whom and where), Minksy's original contributions were interesting ramblings at the edge of a new field which happened to pinpoint rich veins of research in some cases, and kill off valuable paths in others (think perceptrons which are, yes, in fact, very useful things, and yes, in fact, do model real neurons reasonably well, and no are not computationally impoverished unless you abide by Minsky and Papert's artifice of only single layers). In otherwords, in some cases, he got lucky, in others he fell flat. This initial success led him to continue pontification (think "Society of Mind", a book of little real contribution), while doing marginally small amounts of actual research. Rod Brooks, in contrast, has made far more, and far deeper, contributions working on his subsumption architecture.
Minsky's course (at the advanced graduate level) consists of students listening to his musings and ramblings which he often repeats through the term, since he has no syllabus, no agenda, and no apparent desire to teach. When he gives talks, they are all extemporaneous; someone like Churchill could pull that off, Minksy's stream-of-consciousness style keeps his acolytes happy, but leaves those with real thirst for knowledge quite parched. Does this not fit the accusation?
So what if Minksy thinks graduate students shouldn't be soldering robots? Does that matter? So what if the current AI field isn't following his pet projects, is he making any contributions himself? We've made tremendous strides in AI over the past decade; they just haven't been where Minksy thinks they should be, despite his questionable over-all track record. Exactly why should anyone care that much?
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.