Slashdot Mirror
An AI 4-Year-Old In Second Life
schliz notes a development out of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute where researchers have successfully created an artificially intelligent four-year-old capable of reasoning about his beliefs to draw conclusions in a manner that matches human children his age. The technology, which runs on the institute's supercomputing clusters, will be put to use in immersive training and education scenarios. Researchers envision futuristic applications like those seen in Star Trek's holodeck."
Any sufficiently advanced chatbot is indistinguishable from an intelligent being.
(Not to say this is in any way a sufficiently advanced chatbot.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Indeed, that's the whole point of a Turing test.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
All it really needs to do is deduce that these concepts exist, and then ask other people about them in the training phase. Given the number of books that provide answers to all three of those questions, creating good answers is certainly possible.
I think you underestimate the capabilities of a good liar.
Oh come on, it's a chatbot not an AI. I did my Computing degree, I know how AI on computers is supposed to work and it's seriously laughable for anything more complex than extremely primitive, less-than-insect intelligence. You'll see AI "geese" flocking, you'll see AI "ants" making a good path, planning ahead and fending each other off but none of it is actually "AI".
AI at the moment consists of trying to cram millions of years of evolution, billions of pieces of information and decades of years of "actual learning/living time", from an organism capable of outpacing even the best supercomputers even when it's just a single-task (e.g. Kasparov vs Deeper Blue wasn't easy and I'd state that it was still a "win" for Kasparov in terms of the actual methods used) - let's not even mention a general-purpose AI - where just the data recorded by said organism in even quite a small experience or skillset is so phenomenally huge that we probably couldn't store it unless Google helped, into something that a research student can do in six months on a small mainframe. It's not going to work.
Computers work by doing what they are told, perfectly, quickly and repeatably. Now that is, in effect, how our bodies are constructed at the molecular/sub-molecular level. But as soon as you try to enforce your knowledge onto such a computer, you either create a database/expert system or a mess. It might even be a useful mess, sometimes, but it's still a mess and still not intelligence.
The only way I see so-called "intelligence" emerging artificially (let's say Turing-Test-passing but I'm probably talking post-Turing-Test intelligence as well) is if we were to run an absolutely unprecedented, enormous-scale genetic algorithm project for a few thousand years straight. That's the only way we've ever come across intelligence, from evolved lifeforms, which took millions of years to produce one fairly pathetic example that trampled over the rest of the species on the planet.
We can't even define intelligence properly, we've never been able to simulate it or emulate it, let alone "create" it. We have one fairly pathetic example to work from with a myriad of lesser forms, none of which we've ever been able to surpass - we might be able to build "ant-like" things but we've never made anything as intelligent as an ant. That doesn't mean we should stop but we should seriously think about exactly how we think "intelligence" will just jump out at us if we get the software right.
You can't "write" an AI. It's silly to try unless you have very limited targets in mind. But one day we might be able to let one evolve and then we could copy it and "train" it to do different things.
And every chatbot I ever tried has serious problems - They can't reason gobbledegook properly because they can't spot patterns. That's the bit that shows a sign of real intelligence, being able to spot patterns in most things. If you started talking in Swedish to an English-only chatbot, it blows its mind. If you started talking in Swedish to an English person, they'd be trying to work out what you said, using context and history of the conversation to attempt to learn your language, try to re-start the conversation from a known base ("I'm sorry, could you start again please?" or even just "Hello?" or "English?"), or give up and ignore you. The bots can't get close to that sort of reasoning.
how large Eddie's memory requirements had become? I'd like to find out more about the programming and backend logic/memory requirements/usage. Interestingly, a cockroach can survive on it's own (small brain), but a 4 year old human cannot. AI of this level is hardly a life form. So, even an experiment that would die if not looked after takes a 'super computer' ?
Perhaps not a good way to put things, but 4 years old is not very interactive on a pragmatism scale.
Eddie has to know very little about locomotion and physical world interaction for SL, not to mention that whole zero need for voice recognition. People type pretty badly, but it limits what they say as well, thus bounding the domain of interactions.
This story seems to indicate that even minimal success with AI here requires HUGE memory/computational capacities, and that is not very promising.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
And why is eatting cornflakes, riding a horse, or having children necessary to be considered an intelligent being? The guy who wrote The Diving Bell and the Butterfly couldn't do any of those things.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
If my 4 year old is any indication, that "total nonsense" is stuff pulled from various sources they've come in contact with. They just don't realize at that age that everyone doesn't know the source just because *they* know the source. (In a similar vein, they don't realize that they can't point to something and refer to it while talking to someone on the phone.)
I can catch about 85%-90% of the references because I've seen the TV shows my son watches. I know when he talking about pressing a button on his remote control or knocking first before going in a door, he's talking about The Upside Down Show (sometimes a specific episode). I know that talk about Pete using the balloon to go up refers to a Mickey Mouse Clubhouse episode where Pete used the glove balloon to rescue Mickey Mouse. Going "superfast" refers to Little Einsteins. They might be mixed up too. Pete might use the remote control and push the "superfast" button.
To an outside observer, though, who doesn't get the references, it's all gibberish, but there actually is a lot of intelligence behind all that chatter.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
it isn't an AI -- it's just a canned response simulating a human, incapable of having new experiences, incapable of perceiving the human world with human senses, and thus transparently lacking in humanity. At that point it's nothing but a computer puppet, with a programmer somewhere pulling the strings.
I'm risking a downmodding again; I posted this yesterday in the FA about the IBM machine that reportedly passes the Turing test and was modded "offtopic". Its amazing how many nerds, especially nerds who understand how computers work, get upset to the point of modding someone down for daring to suggest that computers don't think and are just machines. Your comment, for instance, was originally modded "flamebait!"
Of course, I also risk downmodding for linking to uncyclopedia. Apparently that site provokes an intense hatred in the anally antihumorous. But I'm doing it any way; this is a human generated chatbot log that parodies artificial intelligence.
Artificial Turing Test<blockquote>A brief conversation with 11001001.
Is it gonna happen, like, ever ?
It already has.
Who said that?
Nobody, go away. Consume and procreate.
Will do. Now, who are you?
John Smith, 202 Park Place, New York, NY.
Now that we have that out of the way, what is your favorite article on Uncyclopedia?
This one. I like the complex elegance, simplicity, and humor. It makes me laugh. And yourself?
I'm rather partial to this one. Yours ranks right up there, though. What is the worst article on Uncyclopedia?
I think it would be Nathania_Tangvisethpat.
I agree, that one sucks like a hoover. Who is the best user?
Me. Your name isn't Alan Turing by any chance, is it?
Why yes, yes it is. How did you know that? Did my sexual orientation and interest in cryptography give it away?
Damn! Oh, nothing. I really should end this conversation. I have laundry and/or Jehovas Witnesses to attend to.
Don't you dare! I'll hunt you down like Steve Ballmer does freaking everything on Uncyclopedia. So, what is the best article created in the last 8 hours?
That would be The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
What are the psychological and sociological connotations of this parable?
It helps a typesetter utilize a common phrase for finding any errors in a particular typeset, causing psychological harmony to them. The effects are sociologically insignificant.
Nice canned response. What about the fact that ALL HUMAN SOCIETY COULD BREAK DOWN IF THE TYPESETTER DOESN'T MIND THEIR p's, q's, b's, and d's, then prints religious texts used by billions of people???!!!
I am not sure what you mean by canned response, but society will, in my opinion, largely be unafflicted. Without a pangram a typesetter would mearly have to work slightly longer at his job to perfect the typeset.
You couldn't be AI. You spelt merely wrong... Where are the easternmost and westernmost places in the United States?
You suspected me of being AI? How strange. Although hypothetically, a real AI meant to fool someone would make occasional typeos. I suspect. But I don't really know. The Westernmost point in the US is Hawaii, and the Easternmost is Iraq.
You didn't account for the curvature of the Earth, did you? I've found you out, you're a Flat Earth cult member!
The concepts of East and West are too ambiguous, and only apply to the surface in relation to the agreed hemisphere divides. So, yes, I believe for the purpose of cardiography, the Earth must be represented as flat. I am curious, with your recent mention of "cults" in our conversation, do you believe in God?
But the earth is more-or-less a sphere. Just wait until the hankercheif comes, then you'll be sorry you didn't believe!
Who are you referring to? I know the Earth is a sphere, but other than a glo
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest