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.
... and we're coming for you next.
to make friends. :(
--J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
Check out the flamewars in the wpg.general newsgroup. McKinstry ("McChimp") was a liar and self-promoting ass until he took off from Winnipeg leaving debt in his wake. He was not a visionary, he was a drug-addled delusional kook. Hell I remember his bogus "OxyLock" protection scheme which, like any protection scheme, utterly failed.
disclosure: I'm in a few of the usenet posts as he and I were about the same age and grew up in the same city.
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.
I can't remember the name, but there was this one Sci-fi story about the human race being grown by a superior species. In the same way that we would grow bacteria in a petri dish and put a ring of penecillin around it to kill all bacteria that try to leave that specific area, we were also being confined. But we were confined intellectually - our penecillin was "the discovery of an invisible nuclear shield" that could protect against a nuclear blast. In the story, every scientist who came close to this discovery would commit suicide. The story follows one particularly brilliant scientist who easily solved the problem, but was consumed by an irrisistable urge to kill himself once he figured it out.
Anyone remember the name of that story? Or was it a book? I don't remember.. but it's pretty interesting to think about - especially if AI researchers begin to have a statistically higher probability of suicide.
Maybe this is our penecillin?
New webcomic updated on Sundays: HERE
The problem with the "emergent intelligence" from lots of "neural networks" approach is even if it works you often don't really know why it works (or whether it's really working the way you want) - it's more a probability thing.
;).
:).
;)
The idea that a neural network given a "large enough corpus" can resemble a human being might be true. But a "long enough dead end" could look like a highway. Then again we are probably dead ends too, and so it's more a matter of which one goes on for longer
My other objection to such approaches is, if you wanted a nonhuman intelligence from neural networks that you don't really understand (the workings of), you can always go get one from the pet store.
As it is the Biotech people probably have a better chance of making smarter AI than the computer scientists working on AI - who appear to be still stuck at a primitive level. But both may still not understand why
Without a leap in the science of Intelligence/Consciousness, it would then be something like the field of Alchemy in the old days.
I am not an AI researcher, but I believe things like "building a huge corpus" are wrong approaches.
It has long been my opinion that what you need is something that automatically creates models of stuff - simulations. Once you get it trying to recursively model itself (consciousness) and the observed world at the same time AND predict "what might be the best thing to do" then you might start to get somewhere.
Sure pattern recognition is important, but it's just a way for the Modeller to create a better model of the observed world. It is naturally advantageous for an entity to be able to model and predict other entities, and if the other entities are doing the same, you have a need to self model.
So my question is how do you set stuff up so that it automatically starts modelling and predicting what it observes (including self observations)?
Chris was best remembered on K5 for his article on how exciting it was to see what a cat sees by chopping the eye out and wiring it up. I suggested that he perform a simpler test - fill the cat's bowl with food and set the bowl down. If the cat sees the bowl and comes, we know what the cat can see - its food bowl. No cats were harmed in the making of my experiment. Despite this, it was still informational.
www.voiceofthehive.com - Beekeeping and Honeybees for those who don't.
It's discouraging reading this. Especially since I knew some of the Cyc people back in the 1980s, when they were pursuing the same idea. They're still at it. You can even train their system if you like. But after twenty years of their claiming "Strong AI, Real Soon Now", it's probably not happening.
I went through Stanford CS back when it was just becoming clear that "expert systems" were really rather dumb and weren't going to get smarter. Most of the AI faculty was in denial about that. Very discouraging. The "AI Winter" followed; all the startups went bust, most of the research projects ended, and there was a big empty room of cubicles labeled "Knowledge Systems Laboratory" on the second floor of the Gates Building. I still wonder what happened to the people who got degrees in "Knowledge Engineering". "Do you want fries with that?"
MIT went into a phase where Rod Brooks took over the AI Lab and put everybody on little dumb robots, at roughly the Lego Mindstorms level. Minsky bitched that all the students were soldering instead of learning theory. After a decade or so, it became clear that reactive robot AI could get you to insect level, but no further. Brooks went into the floor-cleaning business (Roomba, Scooba, Dirt Dog, etc.) with the technology, with some success.
Then came the DARPA Grand Challenge. Dr. Tony Tether, the head of DARPA, decided that AI robotics needed a serious kick in the butt. That's what the DARPA Grand Challenge was really all about. It was made clear to the universities receiving DARPA money that if they didn't do well in that game, the money supply would be turned off. It worked. Levels of effort not before seen on a single AI project produced some good results. Stanford had to replace many of the old faculty, but that worked out well in the end.
This is, at last, encouraging. The top-down strong AI problem was just too hard. Insect-level AI, with no world model, was too dumb. But robot vehicle AI, with world models updated by sensors, is now real. So there's progress. The robot vehicle problem is nice because it's so unforgiving. The thing actually has to work; you can't hand-wave around the problems.
The classic bit of hubris in AI, by the way, is to have a good idea and then think it's generally applicable. AI has been through this too many times - the General Problem Solver, inference by theorem proving, neural nets, expert systems, neural nets again, and behavior-based AI. Each of those ideas has a ceiling which has been reached.
It's possible to get too deep into some of these ideas. The people there are brilliant, but narrow, and the culture supports this. MIT has "Nerd Pride" buttons. As someone recruiting me for the Media Lab once said, "There are fewer distractions out here" (It was sleeting.) It sounds like that's what happened to these two young people.
Couldn't have said it better myself. I knew Chris for a few years back in the day (even stayed at his house on Maryland a few times), and you nailed it. He was a drug abusing paranoid kook who videotaped CNN 24 hours a day and watched it on fast-forward to see if anything the US government was doing might be affecting him. He was your stereotypical geek who never got past his teenage pathos of "the MAN is trying to get me" - and as such, pretty much refused to get any real sort of work after a while. He just moved on to scamming people. Leaving behind debt is an understatement.
He did have access to some pretty potent LSD, though. Before knowing him, I always thought LSD was pretty harmless, but with the quantities that man could ingest, I now wonder if permanent brain damage kicks in. And he loved to combine it with a little coke - or whatever other easily accessible drug was around.
Funny, the last I had heard about him was his mindpixel scam. Which made me chuckle a lot, because very few people seemed to catch on that the entire project was just the ravings of a drug-addled lunatic.
I didn't realize he finally offed himself. I say finally because everyone who knew him expected it "any day now" - since at least the early 90s. I'm rather astounded he held on so long.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
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.
No, I'm saying that if you take it seriously you're going to drive yourself insane. There's absolutely nothing you, or anyone, can do about what someone else says or does on the Internet, or in person for that matter. Trying to do so is an exercise in futility. The only person you have even a little control over is you.
It shouldn't matter (to you) if I say something that is offensive, what matters is how you deal with it. You have choices in how you react to it. One of those choices is to ignore it and write it off as "oh, that's just some asshole on the Internet." Another is to become upset about what some anonymous asshole on the Internet who didn't know your friend has said. It is your choice.
Who am I to you? Nobody. Why should anything I say at all have any impact on you if you don't want it to?
For example, you may consider my stance of "you can only control yourself" as lame-ass, and attempt to insult me by insinuating that I live in the past, but I can choose to react negatively to that (ie: "waaah, my fewwings are hurted") or I can read between the lines and see that you're just angry about someone making a joke about your departed friend and not take offense -- just like I would do "in real life."
--J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
A "fact" database.. where ever did they get the idea of storing knowledge as a resource for intelligence?
That is totally out of left field.
I feel like a child by the ocean, dwarfed next to such massively innovative thinking.
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.
This whole story reminds me of the poem Richard Cory (http://www.bartleby.com/104/45.html):
I mean, seriously, with facts like "Brittney Spears is not good at solid-state physics" or whatever, it seems like their database really is a joke, and that they have to introduce a program to cull all that information.
Programs for parsing semantic content are quickly becoming much better. The reason why Google is not interested in the "Semantic Web" is because they think that their smart bots will be able to mine sematic information from websites, emails and books without any help from human interpreters. That seems to me like the proper start of machine intelligence. What those bots will "learn" will be the right basis for a common-sense database, not the input of some pimply teenagers writing about Btrittney.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I learned most of my *nix skills on a NeXTstation I bought from someone named Pushpinder Singh in 1993. If I remember right he was at MIT. So I think it's the same as this guy. That's... really weird.
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
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
...but all it says is "My responses are limited. Please try to ask the right questions"
Either way, it's unfortunate that these men should be lumped together. Their tragic circumstances, while having some superficial similarities, are actually quite unique.
This is one of those examples of the human urge to categorize creating an incorrect conclusion.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Because if a robot had feelings, it could determine its own behavior. The great DA solved this puppy long, long ago:
The scientists at the Institute thus discovered the driving force behind all change, development and innovation in life, which was this: herring sandwiches. They published a paper to this effect, which was widely criticized as being extremely stupid. They checked their figures and realized that what they had actually discovered was `boredom', or rather, the practical function of boredom. In a fever of excitement they then went on to discover other emotions, Like `irritability', `depression', `reluctance', `ickiness' and so on. The next big breakthrough came when they stopped using herring sandwiches, whereupon a whole welter of new emotions became suddenly available to them for study, such as `relief', `joy', `friskiness', `appetite', `satisfaction', and most important of all, the desire for `happiness'.
This was the biggest breakthrough of all.
Vast wodges of complex computer code governing robot behav- iour in all possible contingencies could be replaced very simply. All that robots needed was the capacity to be either bored or happy, and a few conditions that needed to be satisfied in order to bring those states about. They would then work the rest out for themselves.
And that's why Eddie, the shipboard computer is always happy to help the humans - that's his "happy" goal. That's why the doors sigh with pleasure when they open and say "thank you for making a simple door very happy". They're happiest when they do door stuff - let people through them, open and close efficiently, etc.
It's comedy, I know. But it's also really amazingly good thinking.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
http://www.chrismckinstry.com
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)
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.