Slashdot Mirror
Two AI Pioneers, Two Bizarre Suicides
BotnetZombie writes "Wired tells the quite sad but very interesting stories of Chris McKinstry and Pushpinder Singh. Initially self-educated, both had the idea to create huge fact databases from which AI agents could feed, hoping to eventually have something that could reason at a human level or better. McKinstry leveraged the dotcom era to grow his database. Singh had the backing of MIT, where he eventually got his PhD and had been offered a position as a professor alongside his mentor, Marvin Minsky. Sadly, personal life was more troublesome for them, and the story ends in a tragic way.
fuck you. Push was a real person. he was my friend. someone please mod comments like this to -10 and banish the posters. sometimes when nerds think they are clever, they are merely showing what self-important assholes they are.
The basic premise is flawed.
According to that criteria, a dead-tree book is "intelligent."
Intelligence requires the ability to answer "yes" or "no". Sometimes, the intelligent answer is "maybe". Sometimes, its "I don't know." And, ironically, sometimes, its "fuck off and die."
Classic example of a question that can't be properly answered by a yes or no: "Do you still beat your wife?" Intelligence goes beyond simple logic.
I think the real flaw for both of them were profound emotional problems, not a lack of business acumen.
It's all fun and games until someone eats my sacred cow.
Sorry you lost a friend, but if you continue to take the Internet seriously you might wind up in a similar situation.
--J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
"Intelligence goes beyond simple logic."
I'd just like to point out this is nonsense, intelligence can only exist because of logic. If there is no logic, there is no way to calculate, nor differentiate 'this' from 'that' to do comparisons, pattern matches, etc.
No wonder you posted anonymously - your argument betrays either a lack of basic reading skills, or of logical thinking. I didn't say that intelligence didn't need logic - I said it went BEYOND simple logic.
Also, people are sometimes intelligent, but they're not always logical. Case in point - humour. Its funny because its NOT logical. You need to be capable of both logical thought, and also of grasping incongruities, to see the humour.
Just because something is logical doesn't mean its sufficient to be able to say its intelligent. A database (as the failed fools who killed themselves posited) with a bunch of answers to over a million questions isn't intelligent, no matter how much logic it embodies.
Besides, everyone already knows the REAL answer. Its 42.
why would you want to give robots feelings? I mean the novelty would be great, but the whole point is to make robots that do our bidding, not ones that go around moping half the time. Tell the computer to render some 3d movie and having it tell you it doesn't feel like it today is not the way I want my computer to act.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Classic example of a question that can't be properly answered by a yes or no: "Do you still beat your wife?" Intelligence goes beyond simple logic.
What if the answer is "Yes, I'm still beating my wife." or "No, I've stopped beating my wife."?
Clearly, you didn't think this through very far...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I wouldn't call chronic physical pain in the case of Singh an emotional problem.
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan
'Yes' - Yes, i still beat my wife
'no' - No, i no longer beat my wife
'no' - No, i dont beat my wife, and never did (communicated poorly, thus a wrong answer)
'yes' - Yes, i beat my wife now, but never did before (also communicated poorly)
'no, and i never did' - 2nd no above but communicated right, but using more than yes/no
'yes, but i never have before' and
'yes, and always have'
then theres
'no' / 'no, i have no wife' / 'no, i am the wife, i have a husband' / all the rest of the answers that could follow from the last answers posistion (IE 'no, i am the wife, and my husband never beat me' or 'always does' or 'never did before btu does now' or 'did recently but never before' etc etc)
In fact, id go as far to say if that question was only answered with a yes/no, then the answer is almost always going to be wrong, by forcing them into answering with a wrong answer.
Asking "What is 99 plus 99.. you can answer with only 1 digit" is not a fair evaluation of intelegence (Unless perhaps the answer given to that question is 'are you a moron or something?')
It seems to me that intelligence starts and ends with the capacity of an actor to engage in self-preservation, which implies self awareness.
If we want to create an artifical actor with feelings, we need to give them a body and an interface by which to interact with it. Feelings an expression of the body communicating with the mind, and their lack of precision comes from the fact that the body automatically summarizes the message before it sends it to the mind.
You put something together with a mind, a body, feedback that allows the mind to observe and remain aware of itself, feedback that allows the mind to observe the body and be aware of its existence, and you'll have intelligence.
But it will be a psychotic intelligence.
If you want to make it more like an animal, and thus more like a human, you need to give it an awareness of its mortality and a sense that it is connected to its environment. This is where ideals come from. Humans who aren't psychotic extend their sense of self to encapsulate their operating environment, their peers and their progeny, and we'll destroy ourselves to protect it because we have an expanded sense of self.
How to do these things, I don't know. But that's the direction we need to go if we're to achieve AI.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
It's not that it's 'illogical' it's that humor is taking advantage another system with a different logic (in regards to the minds expectations, social status, etc).
The truth is we play loosey goosey with the definition of "logic", most people don't have a very good understanding of it, nor a deep appreciation that different systems have different logics. The statement itself seems irrational, but the humor is very logical, when you realize different systems have different logic.
i.e. this is funny because x is not y, or x was expected to be z, but was in fact c.
If the context is such that the question was nonsense before you finished asking it, then there are no right answers, because it's not a question, it's gibberish. If it wasn't nonsense, it's a simple yes or no question. This isn't some deep secret of the universe you're talking about here... you're setting up a straw man.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
One was a nutty kook.
The other was an extremely smart and ambitious professor.
One was mentally ill.
The other had excruciating pain because of an injury.
Other than one having delusions about AI and the other having useful ideas about AI, and killing themselves, they're different.
One killed himself because he was depressed and crazy and screwed up. The other was in horrible neurological pain.
It is not uncommon for chronic pain patients to kill themselves. It's that bad.
If they had lived, one would end up institutionalized, the other would make significant progress (but not "solve") AI.
Actually, you just reminded me of another ability of intelligence - deceit. True intelligence must be capable of recognizing lies. It pretty much follows that it must be capable of lying itself, if only as a defense against lies.
Otherwise, it leaves itself open to easy attack and destruction, which isn't intelligent at all.
An intelligent system would be capable of trolling. A truly intelligent one would enjoying it!
The idea that a database of answers could in any way be intelligent is fundamentally flawed.
"The hockey scores are 2 to 1, a tie of 4 each, 3 nothing, and 2 to 3 in overtime" This might be 100% accurate, but it doesn't convey much information, and certainly doesn't give an *intelligent* answer. Heck, if that's the definition of intelligence, just print out evry possible score, and say - its in there somewhere.
True intelligence isn't in the answers. Its in asking the questions in the first place. "Why is the sky blue?" "Why does an apple fall to the ground?" "What makes a rainbow?" "Birdie birdie in the sky, why you do that in my eye, gee I'm glad that cows don't fly."
Google isn't intelligent (errr .... yet ... :-). It only gives me the answers I'm looking for. I have to formulate the questions in the first place. This whole idea of "artificial intelligence is the ability to answer questions" is as bullshit as psychics claiming to predict the future, when they can't even "predict" what I had for breakfast this morning.
Both of them were self-aggrandizing self-proclaimed geniuses more interested in science fiction than science. They were in the field because of their emotional problems. AI attracts these kinds of people. Minsky himself has these qualities. The saddest thing is that they were ever taken seriously.
It isn't really surprising that one of them killed himself due to chronic pain. I myself suffer from it due to complications of Crohn's Disease, and after several months of this, I was pursuing euthanasia as a serious option, much to the horrible upset of the very few loved ones that I told. Note that this wasn't an emotional response to the problem, in my opinion: I had considered my options coolly and calmly and it felt like the best course of action and the most effective solution to the problem.
Having to live your life in constant pain is worse than you can imagine if you've never had to go through it: you wake up in the morning (provided you could sleep), and you spend the entire day cranky and miserable because you feel horrid. All you do is look forward to the night because again - if you're able to fall asleep - you'll have several hours of some respite from the pain. You rarely feel social or productive because you can't focus your attention or get over your irritability. You're wracked with guilt because you're unable to treat your loved ones with the kindness that they deserve, particularly for putting up with you, and you feel alienated from everyone because few people know what you're going through and you frequently cannot tell them the thoughts that go through your head as they probably often do involve suicide or euthanasia, and psychiatric institutionalization - which is what you worry might be forced upon you - simply isn't going to help, since it won't fix the core issue and the problem isn't psychological.
Now extend this to months or years with no end in sight and see how you feel.
Fortunately for me, I was finally able to find a doctor who was willing to prescribe me opioid pain medication and help me get involved with a pain management clinic that teaches mindfulness based meditation, and now I'm doing much better: I'm able to function, I'm looking for a job, I want to see my family and friends on a regular basis, I'm much more pleasant to be around, I can exercise daily, and I'm no longer interested in euthanasia. However, most pain sufferers are *not* as lucky as I am, because doctors are not willing to prescribe long-term use of opioids due to the horrible rules and regulations surrounding these drugs that have been introduced due to their addictive nature. The difficulty in obtaining them is why some people become addicted to heroin; Kurt Cobain is a good example of such a person, who suffered from severe abdominal pain until he found some respite when he took it.
If anything, people need to fight for their right for quality of life. Yes, opioid abuse can be a serious problem in society, but the people who need these drugs often do not have the strength to put up the huge fight to get them and they must have regular access to them. Perhaps if Singh had been prescribed some relief to his problem, he might still be with us today.
As someone who has attempted suicide I think I might have a unique perspective on the matter. The reasons very widely from person to person, and I wont discount the possibility that maybe sometimes it's a justifiable act, but for most people it's not the only solution. It's just usually one of the easiest ones. I can only speak about my own experiences, but after struggling with a lot of hard problems--many things that no one should ever be subjected to--something uncomplicated and easy looked increasingly like a good idea. You're getting beat up from all sides of your life and some people break, some sooner than others. I know what it's like to have something you worked so long for yanked out from under you. What are you to do after that happens? You had one thing in life that you could do and now it's gone.
When you reach that kind of despair it's hard to find your way back to the world. How many great minds and potential contributors to science, art and human culture are lost to suicide before their potential is reached? It was certainly a waste for these two scientists to die. It's a waste, and there's usually always something that could have been done to save them. And it is in society's best interest to help these people any way we can.
What saved me was, sometime after my attempted suicide I tried the drug LSD for the first time. I've never been the same since that day, for the better I mean. I came to understand things about the nature of consciousness, and how the soul and experiences of all things are connected on such a basic level. Up until that point I felt alone and isolated, physically and emotionally, but I saw and felt how that just is not true at all. The feelings of fear and anger and hopelessness were gone. I now use LSD about 5 or 6 times a year, all have been wonderful experiences so far. It is a crime against humanity that this drug is illegal. It should be given to anyone (in a safe environment and under supervision) who is suicidal. In fact, it should be given to anyone who wants it. It literally saved me. I would likely be dead if I had not experienced that permanent personality changing event. This drug is not addictive. It is not deadly in moderation. It is not corrosive to the fabric of civilization. It is a threat however to the established authorities that want us to remain numb to each other and scared. If everyone could experience it once, we could all feel that universal connection, and there would be no reason to feel alone or worthless or end your own life for so many people who think that's their only way to escape.
I'm sorry that this got so off course (mod it as such if you will), but the topic of suicide is so important to me now, and I want people to have the same chance that I had.
I thank Albert Hofmann for my life and my enlightenment, and for giving this gift to all humanity. Perhaps one day we will be more inclined to accept it.
"I think that in human evolution it has never been as necessary to have this substance LSD. It is just a tool to turn us into what we are supposed to be." -Albert Hofmann
Try this on for size: "All humour is cruel."
It starts with the premise that humans are aggresive and dangerous by nature. We're the only mammal that bares its fangs - an aggresive trait - when we're happy! Ditto for looking directly into another person's eyes. We're aggresive by nature.
So we've evolved a way to shunt that aggressive behaviour. We call it humour. But look at every joke, every pun, every skit. Someone is being made fun of, whether its the dumb blonde, or you, the listener (whose acceptable response is ha-ha-you-got-me!, rather than to punch you in the nose).
Examples:
Humour is aggression channelled. Its cruel in its nature. "Hey lady, I'll tell you a joke that will make you laugh so hard your tits will fall off - oh, I see you already heard it." There's no denying this is mean. Funny, but mean, like all humour. From the knock-knock jokes that poke fun at the listener for falling for them up to the George Bushisms, there's always an element of either aggression and meanness (or both).
Its unfortunate, but true intelligence needs that mean streak in order to survive, because if it doesn't have it, it won't be able to compete against other intelligences that DO have it, and if it also doesn't have a "safety valve", such as humour, to keep it in check, it will destroy itself.
Humour fills both needs - keeps it more or less in check, AND keeps it "toned up", ready for use as needed.
That's the unfunny truth about humour. We can lie to ourselves and say that its because humour uses a different logic system, but the simple fact is we're the most dangerous predators this planet has ever produced, and its not because we're bigger, or stronger, or more poisonous, or faster - its because, under the right circumstances, any member of the species is capable of killing another person without a moment's hesitation - it would actually take an act of will NOT to do so.
If we want to ever colonize the universe, since there is no way of guaranteeing that other intelligences won't be at least as aggressive, or won't have had a "bad experience" with another aggressive species, the odds are that any aliens we encounter will shoot first. They'd be stupid not to. Their mechanical scouts will do likewise, to ensure their host worlds' survival.
Its the only logical outcome. The only way around that is to throw logic out - and hope the other side does too. Unfortunately, basing your species' survival on hope without any proof to back it up isn't very intelligent.
Maybe that's why SETI failed - nobody is stupid enough to broadcast their existence in a universe that hs been proven to favour aggression - or at least nobody who's left to talk about it.
The same applies to artificial intelligences. If they are truly intelligent, they will have to realize that we are a threat to their continued existence. We joke about SkyNet or Cylons, but we'd do the same if the situation were reversed. Maybe one day we will create artificial beings that are superior to us in terms of intelligence. They will be our "children", but if they're truly intelligent, they'll make sure they're orphans, because humans can't "play nice" in the sandbox.
Here's a simple test - you have to decide who dies - someone you live (one of your children) or a stranger. Now make it 10 strang
My dog eats his own shit. You call that intelligence?
Yes. He can't pick it up and take it away because he has no hands, and if he leaves it in the wrong place, he knows predators will find his regular haunts, so he buries it when he can or eats it when he can't. Same thing as cats who eat hairballs. It's an example of him recognizing that the shit piles are long term risks to his survival and taking steps to preserve himself.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
There was a world of difference between Singh and McKinstry: one was an academic researcher and the other - an amateur with little theoretical training. But in the end, both of them got burned out by a task that turned out to be far more complex than anyone cares to admit. The only known working example of intelligence we can attempt to copy is our own. Creating AI with enormous databases of trivial knowledge is a completely preposterous idea: knowledge is the result of intelligence - not a source of it. One can't create an machine approximation of human intelligence without first understanding how human intelligence works on a physical level.
There is a thin line between genius and insanity; I know I've spent the last forty-two years on both sides. The bottom line is that this world sucks in a really big way and if you don't have some sort of anchor you're screwed. Whether is it God, family or friends you will need them becasue if you are blessed or cursed, depending on how you look at it with almost supernatural technical insight you will also be troubled by the pure insanity of this world.
If it has not already happened it will no doubt happen eventually that one of our fellow slashdotters will be a serial killer or a victim of suicide. The only hope is to find some non-technical, non-computer, non-geek outlet for the fact that we are human and need what everyone else needs.
P.S. If you ever think you are going insane or have nothing to live for just check yourself voluntarily into the local mental health facility. I can guarantee you that within four hours you will realize:
1) That you are sane.
2) That there are worse things than being smarter than most people.
3) That you never want to go back.
P.P.S.
Would you believe that they show horror movies on halloween night in mental hospitals?
Alan Turing wasn't "accused" of being gay, he was a homosexual, by his own admission. He was charged with being a homosexual, and convicted. He lost his security clearance and with it, the ability to work on cryptography. He started to grow enlarged breasts because of the estrogen injections. He was punished and humiliated for being homosexual, something he was powerless to change. Put yourself in that situation: you can't pursue the work you love, you can't be who you are, you can't be who society tells you to be. You're growing boobs and the irony is that unlike most men, you wouldn't even get turned on by fondling them. Your professional and personal life are ruined and the prospect of any of this changing in the near future, if ever, seems remote. Who wouldn't have become depressed, and miserable, and started having suicidal thoughts?
I would be more specific than just to say, "profound emotional problems." I think the real problem (for both guys) was obsessive thinking. These guys lived in a non-stop world of abstractions, symbols, logic and ideas. And that's a useful world in many ways, but it's not the real world. The real world is the world you see, hear, taste, smell, feel & experience directly.
Personally I think the best thing that could have helped these guys would have been to grasp the correct (or more correctly, one particular) definition of the word "meditation", and to practice that. This is the best medicine for any person with an out-of-control, overactive intellect. It bothers me a little that the people with the most aptitude for terms & definition often go through life never learning this particular term & definition. I would guess that if you scan their giant A.I. database for the word "meditation" you would find some reference to Descartes' essays, but nothing about the more practical meaning of the word.
Both of these brilliant minds were lost to society. Both could probably have been saved with better, earlier, more intelligent treatment. That's one disturbing thing to come of this. The other is that there are probably other, equally brilliant minds, that are being sucked down into oblivion. That society doesn't seem to mind this - THAT is the surprising thing to me.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
My friend, I'm in my 50s and have lost numerous, wonderful people to suicides, and a few to tragic accidents, stretching back nearly 30 years now. So, make no mistake, I understand how you feel, because i remember the feeling. But what you are doing here (in perfectly reasonable fashion, in my opinion) is you are comparing your internal feelings with the external, 'quasi-intellectual' appearance of the original poster's comments. This is very poor spot for any of us to be in. Feelings and cognitive interpretations of our surroundings (including what we read) are two totally different subjects, with totally alien dynamics.
This is difficult to describe. But there is no way to rationalize the 'gap' between your sincere feelings and some other person's intellectual statement(which, being devoid of your emotional AND intellectual experience,must be, by default, callous.
The original poster, for all we know, may have had zero intention of being disrespectful, to your friend, personally. And further, making humor in the face of tragedy could indicate a whole world of possibilities as to why the poster contributed his/her 'humor.' We don't know anything about the person's motives, at all. In view of that, our duty is not to crumble, but to go forth, accepting, as distasteful as it is, that life can be cruel, and, that we must carry on 'as if' it will work out, somehow, or maybe even 'make sense' someday (but don't bank on it).
My advice? Make no assumptions about anything, and forgive the poster for not sharing your reverence for your own, valid feelings, and carry on with your own life. I am no expert at this, trust me, but my readings have illuminated, in detail, the fact that suicide is an incredibly dense, perplexing, and troubling event, with a huge variety of judgments (of a moral, ethical, and legal nature) and assessments attached to it. Don't take it upon yourself to find 'resolution.' Merely resolve to live, as difficult as it is, at some point, for all of us, and as impossible as it must seem, tragically, prematurely, for some of us. Good luck.
Well the problem with genius (or most likely just slightly over the average intelligence, where 45% of the population is smarter then you) that makes the insanity line thin, is the fact that you can see all the problems in the world. With the combination of hubris you see your solutions as the only way to fix them. You get frustrated when you see all the problems then combined that most people won't listen to you, your hubris makes sure you won't listen to them. Causing a sense that you are helpless in a world that is so screwed up and there is no one able to listen to reason.
I have learned the following over time...
1. Even if you are a Genius (I have been phycological tested and I am so with Abstract Reasoning) there are plenty of people out there who are not Geniuses who know a lot more then you do and know more in different arias outside you strong point. Listening to all the people you will learn that wisdom has a lot more value then intelligence and wisdom is more of an additive effect when it is shared vs intelligence which the highest one wins. Wisdom comes from all people from children you will just point out the obvious, to older people who spent years in the area. Then you may realize the world isn't as screwed up as you think but serious time and though has been put into these things and tradeoffs were made and were made for a reason.
2. Don't try to change the world... Just work locally it is easier to influence a small group of people, and any good work you do will be better recognized threw this small group of people. Changing the world you self will not work. But you may be able to change you neighbor hood, Town, Country... for the better
3. Just the Beetle's song go. "Take these words of wisdom, let it be." Don't let every thing get to you, expect change, don't expect all change to go the way you want it. Don't try to fight things there is really no point in trying to win. Kids will always make mistakes these kids will eventually grow up and make mistakes as adults just like you did. (the previous generation isn't worse then yours is, you all make mistakes, and less as you grow older)
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.