Slashdot Mirror
Reading Guide To AI Design & Neural Networks?
Raistlin84 writes "I'm a PhD student in theoretical physics who's recently gotten quite interested in AI design. During my high school days, I spent most of my spare time coding various stuff, so I have a good working knowledge of some application programming languages (C/C++, Pascal/Delphi, Assembler) and how a computer works internally. Recently, I was given the book On Intelligence, where Jeff Hawkins describes numerous interesting ideas on how one would actually design a brain. As I have no formal background in computer science, I would like to broaden my knowledge in the direction of neural networks, pattern recognition, etc., but don't really know where to start reading. Due to my background, I figure that the 'abstract' theory would be mostly suited for me, so I would like to ask for a few book suggestions or other directions."
In my AI class, last semester, we used Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig's Artificial Intelligence A Modern Approach, 2nd Ed.. It's fairly dry, but good for theory nonetheless. If you're a physics geek, it should be right up your alley; they approach everything from a mathematical angle and then have a bit of commentary on the theory, but never seem to get to the practical uses for the theory.
If you're in the US, send me an email and I'll send you my copy. They charge an arm and a leg for these books and then buy them back for 1/10 the price. I usually don't even bother selling them back.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
I must second that, Russel and Norvig book is one of the most important books.
I would also recommend:
Artificial Intelligence: A new Synthesis from Nills J. Nilson, who is considered one of the founders of A.I.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
I prefer James Anderson's "An Introduction to Neural Networks". I think it is better suited for someone coming from the physical, mathematical, or neuro- sciences.
.. as applied to normal computers. In this case its simply speeded up serial computation - ie the algorithm could be run serially so Programming Erlang is irrelevant. With the brain , parallel computation is *vital* to how it works - it couldn't work serially - some things MUST happen at the same time - eg different inputs to the same neuron, so studying parallel computation in ordinary computers is a complete waste of time if you want to learn how biological brains work. Its comparing apples and oranges.
I read "On Intelligence", too. While Hawkins has some interesting thoughts, I was less than inspired. Probably because I read John Searle's "Rediscovery of the Mind" first. Actually, most of Searle's work, as well as the work of Roger Penrose has led me to the conclusion that the Strong AI tract is missing the boat. The Strong AI proponents, like Hawkins, believe that if we build a sufficiently complex artificial neural network we will necessarily get intelligence. Searle and Penrose have very convincing arguments to suggest that this is not the right path to artificial intelligence.
Realistically, how could one build an artificial brain without first understanding how the real one works? And I don't mean how neural networks function; I mean how the configuration of neural networks in the brain (and whatever other relevant structures and processes that might be necessary) accomplish the feat of intelligence. We still do not have a scientific theory for what causes intelligence. Without that, anything we build will just be a bigger artificial neural network.
Also, the thing that Strong AI'ers always seem to forget... An artificial neural net only exhibits intelligence by virtue of some human brain that interprets the inputs and outputs of the system to decide whether the results match expectation (i.e. it takes "real" intelligence to determine when artificial intelligence has occured). Contrast this with the way your brain works and how you recognize intelligence from within, then you'll realize just how far from producing artificial brains we really are...
I'm not saying that artificial intelligence is impossible, and neither is Searle (Penrose is still on the fence). I'm just saying, don't think you can slap a bunch of artificial neurons together and expect intelligence to happen.