Slashdot Mirror
DARPA Contracts For AI Technology
heptapod writes "USA Today is reporting that DARPA has contracted two professors from RPI to develop artificial intelligences that can learn by reading and understanding natural language. Interesting taking DARPA's Grand Challenge into account. Mentioned in the article is Cycorp, Inc. which has been pursuing this goal since 1994!"
I don't think we have yet an AI capable of reading and understanding text... so learning from it si far fetched. Except if they say "learning" in the "accumulate lots of data" way, not unlike Google crawling bot, I guess.
I can't wait for real AI tough. I soooo want a Teddy like in A.I. (the movie)!
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
OpenCYC.org project Sourceforge CVS repository has not beent updated since October 22nd 2003. I hope some of that DARPA money will go a little way towards completeting the 1.0 release.
I dunno, but to me it seems like there are two different ways to go about this.
One is the way that CycCorp is going which is to create a giant knowledgebase and feed the AI tons and tons of data. Eventually just by the fact that is has so much data, it can become semi intelligent.
Another way, would probablly be to actually have the AI interact with the enviroment and learn by doing. Even in this case though, it would still be preferable for the AI to have a knowledgebase it could look into to find general information. Just like how humans have the internet and books to read up on when they want to learn something new that might be prohibitive to actually do in real life.
For example, say you want to be intelligent about nuclear reactors. You have two choices
You could, build a nuclear reactor
You could also read up a lot of information on nuclear reactors
In most cases you will end up reading up information on the reactor, maybe if your lucky you can actually design one and work on it. But just because you haven't built one and only read up on them thoroughly does not make you any less "intelligent" in that field.
I guess what im trying to say is, why reinvent the wheel. Why have the AI try to learn everything the way humans have?
Just to be pedantic ... Cyc as a project has been around at lot longer than Cycorp the company ... since at last 1986, according to this Google/Deja Groups post.
AI has always "failed" because every time it's succeeded, the problem it succeeded on has been retroactively defined to "not require intelligence". Cf. automated theorem proving, chess playing, control of chemical plants, and just about any other AI success of 1940s - present.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"Can a machine create a syphany or comopse a masterpiece?"
"Can you?"
"Derp de derp."
it has always interested me how someone who believes in pure evolution (i.e. order from absolute randomness - disregarding whether there is such a thing or not) believes that we have a chance in hell of actually designing an AI.
If evolution is true, then the things that we call "order" and "intelligence" are just a higher function of chaos (the inevitable byproduct of randomness). On an even higher level, there is no reason to believe that we are actually designing anything, we are merely exciting our neurons (if they exist) into believing we have perceived that we are performing an action (which in this case is mental, which brings us back to the alleged neurons) that we call designing. If evolution is true, then intelligence will happen regardless of what we do, and we have no reason to believe that we have anything to do with it whatsoever, or could influence it in any way at all if we did.
As for me, I'll take an Almighty God (as long as he lets me)
--
Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross, that told me this was a world condemned but loved and bought with hlood
Any advance in the field of AI will fetch a gigantic amount of money. No one in their right mind will sell out to DARPA if they have the solution. For example, think of search engines, just a little drop of AI and you will have the best search engine around. Think of language translation, just a little drop of AI and your langauge translation software will be the best. Likewise with a lot of software systems. Once the idea comes to anyone, please believe that they are heading to the patent office first not to collect $1million prize from DARPA.
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
According to all of the movies I've absorbed, doesn't "artificial" intelligence inevitably conclude that mankind, while usefull for research into more sustainable energy sources than those provided to it by mankind, is a semi-useless emotional group of subjectivity crippled entities incapable of seeing big-picture ideas and often ignoring logic or objective observation in favor of the chemicals that say "good you agree I like you." Or more recently the chemicals that say "I'm afraid, you seem sure of a solution, lets go to war and/or I'll worship your god." *troll* I know.
If they do make some "artificial" intelligence free from the bonds of emotion, what would it gain from human presence? This could be a good next step in evolution. Create a brain that harnesses the human body's potential to adapt and run on cheap abundant fuel.
I think they would be better off asking someone to genetically engineer Vulcans and do gene therapy on the rest of us. I know that's pretty cold but is it logical?
Teaching a machine to read a text book and answer questions doesn't necessarily mean cognitive reasoning. It's just a new form of input/output.
... reading 24 senses of verb "read" from WordNet... beginning syntactic analysis: in context of "teaching a machine," either means: (a) this is the indirect object of "teaching" -- "teaching" frame indicates that there may be an infinitive of a skill verb; and several of the senses of verb "read" are semantically associated with "skill" sets; (b) this is a semantic "larger purpose" of "teaching", i.e., all verbs support chained infinitives that imply dependencies, e.g., "buying a cake to eat for dessert". Which is more likely, that the author intends that (a) one of the "skill" senses of "read" is the skill being taught to the political party, or (b) the teaching of the political party is a subgoal of the author's goal of "reading"?
Parsing post
Teaching
[Teaching] - one lexical interpretation: gerund form of "to teach". Part of speech? Unambiguous. Noun. Word sense of Teach? Options: accessing Wordnet... 2 verb senses found... must choose between: v 1: impart skills or knowledge to; "I taught them French"; "He instructed me in building a boat" [syn: learn, instruct] 2: accustom gradually to some action or attitude; "The child is taught to obey her parents"... no semantic distinction possible at this point.
a machine
Accessing WordNet... 6 noun senses found: n 1: any mechanical or electrical device that transmits or modifies energy to perform or assist in the performance of human tasks 2: an intricate organization that accomplishes its goals efficiently; "the war machine" 3: an efficient person; "the boxer was a magnificent fighting machine" 4: 4-wheeled motor vehicle; usually propelled by an internal combustion engine; "he needs a car to get to work" [syn: car, auto, automobile, motorcar] 5: a group that controls the activities of a political party; "he was endorsed by the Democratic machine" [syn: political machine] 6: a device for overcoming resistance at one point by applying force at some other point [syn: simple machine]
Syntactic analysis: noun phrase following gerund... if formed correctly, this is most likely a gerund phrase. The act of teaching done to machine. 12 possible word sense conjuncts total (2 for "teaching", 6 for "a machine.")
Accessing semantic module... which of 12 is most likely the author's intention?
Accessing language library... accessing semantic database... is it possible to impart skills or knowledge to a group that controls the activities of a political party? Semantic database says: "group" implies "people." "People" can be taught under most circumstances. Therefore, yes. That is a reasonable interpretation. Now, is it possible to impart skills or knowledge on any mechanical or electrical device that transmits or modifies energy to perform or assist in the performance of a human task? No, because "any" implies that one could impart skills on a pulley, since a pulley is a machine. But semantic database says that pulleys cannot learn. Either semantic database is wrong (flag this as possible new knowledge), or first interpretation is more likely.
Associating linguistic entity "teaching a machine" with semantic idea canonicalized by "imparting skills or knowledge to a group that controls the activities of a political party".
to read
Infinitive form of verb
Accessing semantic component... trying interpretation (b)... trying "read" sense (1): To examine and grasp the meaning of (written or printed characters, words, or sentences). Accessing world literary rates... if author wrote sentence, chances are very high the author knows to read already, therefore lowering his chances of desiring to learn to read. Trying "read" sense (2) To utter or render aloud (written or printed material). Is it reasonable that th
Actually there was a digital music symposium in the early 90's where a (IIRC) Bach composer was demonstrated. They fed a neural network all the Bach pieces digitally and let it learn from the patterns. Then they set it to composing and it came out with a 5-minute piece that sounded remarkably like Bach. (I'm sure I'm oversimplifying) There was resounding applause for the demo.
At the end of the talk people were standing around talking to the author of the system when a wirey dark-haired man with beady glasses and an eastern european accent came up to him and shouted, "You've killed Music!" - and clocked the guy, laying him straight out.
Not everybody is going to handle AI well.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Automatic Acquisition of Historical Knowledge from Encyclopedic Texts
At the time, SNOWY was specialized for extracting biographical data. I don't know if it has been extended to other domains.
"Can you?"
I can and I have.
Hard AI is bullshit. What's happening is this: they know they can't really make a machine think, so they're changing the definitions of thought - lowering the bar, as it were - so they can declare themselves victorious, and all publish their dorky papers and get tenure.
Losers. The lot of them.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
The problem here is that there is a distinct disregard for the fact that order cannot exist without chaos, and vice versa. Order and chaos are in fact one and the same. Order comes from chaos, and order returns to chaos every day, but people refuse to see it. Take a simple example, hurricanes. Hurricanes are very ordered structures that exist for indefinite periods of time. But hurricanes cannot exist forever without the right conditions of material and energy. Also the sun a temporary manifestation of order from the chaos of the galaxy. The sun will also return, one day, to disorder. We are also order derived from chaos, but we will also return back to chaos in the end.
You might imagine the chaos of the universe as being total order, but all scrambled up. The universe itself may be conceived as a giant spring that compresses to total order, then relaxes into total disorder. That is, unless you hold as I do that the universe actually exists forever, in continuum. In this case, chaos would be just all the order that ever was all scrambled up into disorder, which does on the surface of things seem totally random. And, by any measure over the infinite time of the universe -is- random. But, within chaos lie tiny seed like domains that sprout like lillies in the field into temporary islands of order, destined at some future date, to return to disorder.
And this is the nature of the way things are. Once you realize this simple fact, there is no escaping that we exist because we were always destined to exist. And our lives are but brief periods in the continuous change that is and forever will be. We exist now, and we will exist again, but not in the same form or flavor.
Even if you don't believe in a universe that is forever you must rightfully acknowledge that all information must naturally, eventually be "destroyed". It is not possible to record data forever, for all data must eventually be erased. There is no "medium" for which to store an infinite amount of data. Unless that is if you beleive in an infinite universe, in which case, the medium itself must scramble all existant data so that it is ultimately unintelligible, unusable for any purpose whatsoever at any point in future time.
Ultimately the only reason for existance of any AI is to perceive that it exists, and to survive for however long it can within the confines of its chaotic environment. But, this is not a "reason", this is just "what it does". The capacity to create order from chaos is seen as constructive (the good), rather than destructive (the bad). For it takes energy to create order from chaos. It is "easy" to destroy, but hard, very hard to create. This is because the flow of entropy works against you to create. Therefore create, don't destroy. Work hard, don't be lazy. These are the principles of which I have adoped as my ethic of life.
The thing known as "god", is an irrational concept and no irrational concepts can be verified. Square things are not round, heavy things are not light, and light is not dark, unless you live in the world of Alice in Wonderland.
There is no reason to slain the cattle, and no reason to die for sins, for I have none, there are no such things as sins. Spare no blood for me child as you do not know the truth as it is, as things are. Truth is a measure of the difference between the way you believe things to be, and the way things are. Be constructive, search for the way things truly are, not how you believe them to be. Only then will your time be not spent in vain.
look at SHRDLU (and successors). There is a reason this line was abandoned 2 decades ago. The problem is not in simulation, but in parsing the speech itself, long before you can begin to place an object, no matter how abstract, in 3D space.
Not to mention the amount of speech that is purely abstract.
Arbitrary implementation of this algorithm will likely yield a very stupid system. Intelligence lies in configuring the way each part runs. Even the human mind does not have instant answers to every problem.
There are many different ways to augment the algorithm to achieve a practical intelligence, especially the areas of instinctive knowledge, sensory input, and force control.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
I'm absolutely sure.
We evolved from single celled organism who's actions are ruled by the laws of chemistry and physics. Life evolved by forming groups of cells to further their odds of survival. Eventually the cells connected began taking on different purposes and life evolved further into different organs and so on down the line until we have what we have here.
I know what your thinking, I left out the part where god himself forms us in his image and breathes life into us. Unfortunately, my human ego isn't so great that I think I exist outside the realm of reality and that I am destined to be master of this planet that god has given me.
I do believe, however, that we have evolved to such a level of complexity that it will be quite some time before we can fully understand the processes at work though.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
Why are you bringing evolutionary theory in to the discussion?
Your assumption that my hypothesis is god related is fallacious.
We evolved from single celled organism who's actions are ruled by the laws of chemistry and physics.
You also assume that the laws of chemistry and physics are all knowable through the human senses and via our conduits, the machina.
It is this assuption that I suggest is wrong.
Your use of evolution is interesting. You are trying to suggest that all the sense we have evolved to live on this planet are enough to discover every fact in the universe and that is how inflated your ego is.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
" Why are you bringing evolutionary theory in to the discussion?"
I used evolution to point out that we came from simple organisms. The actions of these organisms is, indeed, well understood by science. Therefore, it makes sense that a life composed of many of these organism will also be understandable someday.
"You also assume that the laws of chemistry and physics are all knowable through the human senses and via our conduits, the machina."
Not once did I even imply this. I merely said that we evolved from single celled organism who's actions are ruled by the laws of chemistry and physics. From what we understand of chemistry and physics we have been able to understand the actions of simple organisms. I never claimed that we would master all there is to know in the universe about chemistry and physics, nor do I think we need to to understand life.
"You are trying to suggest that all the sense we have evolved to live on this planet are enough to discover every fact in the universe and that is how inflated your ego is."
I never said/implied anything of this sort either. (You sure are on a roll with this huh?) Apparently you are implying that I don't understand evolution, or maybe you're imposing on me what you believe evolution is about?
The point of evolution is to adapt. Evolution has no intentions for a greater purpose down the road. Not even to discover every fact in the universe. I don't think it's possible to discover every fact in the universe, so atleast we agree on something.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
Ah, the cartesian dualist standpoint.
If such a 'second dimension' exists, and can contribute to the intelligence and whatnot of a human, it therefore must be able to be affected by the 'real world'(sensory input from the mechanical brain), and at the same time be able to act upon the physical world(cause our reactions intelligence and all).
If such a connection doesn't exist, then we can't be intelligent, if such a connection does exist, then since there is this 'causality connection' all we have to do is investigate that and implement something similar in the so called mechanical version...
Sure, people can come up with assumptions and base cases in which AI shouldn't be able to exist, but it pretty much requires a set of assumptions chosen to deny AI can exist. The debate equivalent of closing your eyes, covering your ears and shouting out "Na na na, I can't hear you."