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!"
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. Ask it to write an essay with a definative argument and solid conclusion based on the material read would impress me, not regurgitating facts and figures found in a book.
"It's difficult to meditate on amphetamines." - Joe Walsh
...artificial intelligences that can learn by reading and understanding natural language...
OK, but can it learn from mistakes?
For all of the thousands of times I've read the phrase "artificial intelligence," it's only recently occurred to me to wonder whether there's a point in using "artificial." Certainly the first flavors of this are at best insect-like, or sort of idiot-savant (like chess playing), but when we first experience a system that's as awake as we're all hoping for... then it's just "intelligence," isn't it?
I know - read four thousand sci fi novels and then come back to this conversation... but it seems that the "artificial" of this phrase is increasingly awkward. It makes some people dismissive about the potential, other people feaky about the same, and seems destined to always shortcut the philosophical payload. Not because I fret over the machine's eventual feelings (though if it's Linux-based, I'm sure it will have very warm, friendly, altruistic feelings), but because by boxing code-based intelligence into the "artificial" category, it props up the more mystical perception of our own native smarts.
The very word, from "artiface," suggests that whatever it will be, it won't really count as intelligence. But we're very comfortable (or at least I am) talking about, say, an intelligent dog or primate. So, if we can even approach that with a system that isn't any more fragile than walking, breathing meat... then surely that's not artiface? OK, smack me around now. Thanks.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's a $400k grant with two optional extensions. The school will take half, the profs will take part of their own salaries out of it, and then it'll support a couple PhD and MS students. This is no big deal.
The parent is suggesting that artificial selection is proof against natural selection.
And you can't breed dogs or horses or humans or anything else to enhance a specific trait can you?
The fact of the matter is that we are fundamentally no different from the amoeboid life we evolved from, and the rest of the life that evolved from it, just more complicated. If simple insectoid neuro circuitry can be approximated with simple neural nets (read this for more info on this highly debated subject) it could easily be argued that it is not the distinction between artificial and "natural" intelligence that should be question/examined but the existence and definition intelligence itself, and quite possibly life for that matter. These are concepts as arbitrary and ill-defined as the spirituality that their nay-sayers flaunt so wantonly in protest.
For christ's sake (pun and capitalization intended), think before you flap your rot. (There's just no escaping them on this subject)
Of blankness, I know nothing.