Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A.I. and Robotics Take Another Wobbly Step Forward

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the where-is-my-robotic-bartender dept.

CWmike writes to tell us that artificial intelligence and robotics have made another wobbly step forward with the most recent robot from Stanford. "Stair" is one of a new breed of robot that is trying to integrate learning, vision, navigation, manipulation, planning, reasoning, speech, and natural language processing. "It also marks a transition of AI from narrow, carefully defined domains to real-world situations in which systems learn to deal with complex data and adapt to uncertainty. AI has more or less followed the 'hype cycle' popularized by Gartner Inc.: Technologies perk along in the shadows for a few years, then burst on the scene in a blaze of hype. Then they fall into disrepute when they fail to deliver on extravagant promises, until they eventually rise to a level of solid accomplishment and acceptance."

76 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Have you seen my stapler? by ipX · · Score: 1

    "Here is your stapler," says Stair, handing it to the man. "Have a nice day."

    1. Re:Have you seen my stapler? by FarFromUnique · · Score: 1

      Yes. The TPS reports will be ready precisely on deadline. Do you have any other queries?

    2. Re:Have you seen my stapler? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Can I have a piece of cake?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  2. People perception by jellomizer · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The generals population of AI is the Data, or Terminator. Some how superior to us humans who will not make mistakes. However real AI the computer makes a lot of Mistakes, and learns from them. But being that a standard computer has the brain power of a bug, it isn't surprising that AI meets the hype.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:People perception by Chabo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even my AI professor in school pointed to Data as really the end-goal of AI research (as well as a character from Battlestar Galactica, though I don't watch that show). I think many people are aware that modern AI has roughly the intelligence of an animal. That's much improved on AI from when the character Data was made, where the intelligence was more like that of a single-cell organism.

      Of course, considerations must always be made for disaster...

      I'm always amazed how broad a field AI really is; algorithms started in AI theory for moving robots around a room can be applied nearly everywhere.

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    2. Re:People perception by sleeponthemic · · Score: 3, Funny

      The generals population of AI is the Data, or Terminator. Some how superior to us humans who will not make mistakes.

      Clever use of first sentence to invalidate second :-)

      --
      I record my sleeptalking
    3. Re:People perception by religious+freak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But being that a standard computer has the brain power of a bug, it isn't surprising that AI meets the hype.

      I was thinking it was a clever use of the first part of the last sentence to invalidate the last part of the last sentence.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    4. Re:People perception by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Data was an enigma to me.

      He would go into a holodeck to learn about emotions from computer software.

      Was I the only one confused by this? Why not... you know... just give him the same programming as all of the holodeck characters? It seemed emotional and social behavior was easy to teach to 20 billion unique characters on a holodeck program for earth but beyond the abilities of Data?

    5. Re:People perception by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It could even be argued that the ability to navigate a room is the same set of problem solving skills that informs all other intelligence.

      It's spacial understanding combined with analyzing the capabilities of the agent to complete the task. Include a door and you have extremely complex problem solving and learning abilities.

    6. Re:People perception by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The characters on the holodeck did not have emotions. They had pre-programmed responses to specific situations. For example, the holodeck audience laughed at everything Data did when he was trying to learn how to be funny.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:People perception by linj · · Score: 1

      Or, alternatively, these things.

      Actually, speaking of these things... why'd they name a robot Stair when it can't even climb stairs?! ... Unless the pivot wheel is just a distraction from the folks at Stanford. *scrutinizes image.* Perhaps to prevent us from thinking it's Skynet-brood, as noted by parent...

    8. Re:People perception by Nigel+Stepp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Then again, some single cell organisms are pretty smart.

      Seriously though, I don't think AI has yet reached the point of being as smart as your typical animal (which means low-level mammal I'm assuming). Not without substantial loans of intelligence on the part of the AI operator/designer.

      --
      4096R/EF7BAFA6 79E1 DF98 D09D 898F 9A11 F6F0 DDDC 23FA EF7B AFA6
    9. Re:People perception by sean4u · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You said something unpopular about AI. It's a good job there's no -1 sceptic modpoint, or I wouldn't even have seen your comment.

      As far as I can see, AI has reached the point of being as smart as a snail that's really, really good at chess.

      ...if I've offended any snail slashdot readers, I apologise profusely.

    10. Re:People perception by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      That's not true when Data goes into the Holodeck to learn humor his teacher tells him outright what is and is not funny.

      Being able to judge humor and react appropriately was beyond data, but not beyond his holographic tutor.

    11. Re:People perception by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      "But being that a standard computer has the brain power of a bug..."

      I didn't realize we were that close to replacing most humans with robots.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    12. Re:People perception by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      He also couldn't use contractions... so I think Noonian Soong probably hit the bong a few times while coding data and left out some obvious bits.

      It might also explain his curious occupation with fuzzy cats.
      ...
      ...
      ...
      LOL, I just looked up the "Ode to Spot" Geez, I still miss this show...

      Ode to Spot
      Felis Cattus, is your taxonomic nomenclature,
      an endothermic quadruped carnivorous by nature?
      Your visual, olfactory and auditory senses
      contribute to your hunting skills, and natural defenses.

      I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations,
      a singular development of cat communications
      that obviates your basic hedonistic predilection
      for a rhythmic stroking of your fur, to demonstrate affection.

      A tail is quite essential for your acrobatic talents;
      you would not be so agile if you lacked its counterbalance.
      And when not being utilized to aide in locomotion,
      it often serves to illustrate the state of your emotion.

      O Spot, the complex levels of behaviour you display
      connote a fairly well-developed cognitive array.
      And though you are not sentient, Spot, and do not comprehend,
      I nonetheless consider you a true and valued friend.

      o Data, "Schisms"

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    13. Re:People perception by dominious · · Score: 1

      I think many people are aware that modern AI has roughly the intelligence of an animal.

      I think that modern AI is not even close to the intelligence of an animal. I remember in our cognitive robotics course where we were shown a video of a bird figuring out how to get its food from a little toy trap that some researchers set.

      It was amazing how the bird used a piece of wire to make a hook in order to pick out the basket from the trap. I don't think AI would figure out how to do that (yet).

    14. Re:People perception by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      We see a lot of AI/robots characters in SF. A too under-represented character is the post-human : trying to match AIs intelligence by addons and boosts to the 'wetware' of human intelligence.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    15. Re:People perception by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      I think many people are aware that modern AI has roughly the intelligence of an animal.

      You must be talking about some pretty simple animals.

    16. Re:People perception by Trahloc · · Score: 1

      True, but then the researchers almost died of shock when the bird did that. It's not so much that AI hasn't advanced a great degree as we didn't give animals the proper respect for how intelligent they truly are.

      --
      The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
    17. Re:People perception by Trahloc · · Score: 1

      You are *so* right. Cyborgs don't get enough screen time. I'd love it if someone made an independent film showing someone take the leap from natural born human to transhuman, it'd instantly be on my top 10 if it wasn't cheesy.

      --
      The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
    18. Re:People perception by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Skynet Terminator AI Robot?

      STanford Artifical Intelligence Robot, really.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  3. Nasal monotone by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

    "Get him a cell-phone!"

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  4. New Algorithm ? by daveime · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bearing in mind that this new robot is called STAIR, does that mean it is using gradient descent algorithms ?

    1. Re:New Algorithm ? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bearing in mind that this new robot is called STAIR, does that mean it is using gradient descent algorithms ?

      Naw, it means that in a fit of irony, they named it after the one thing it couldn't handle.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:New Algorithm ? by Averyge+Joe · · Score: 1

      Naw, they found that the thing would look for a long time before making a decision but they used the wrong form of the word (stare)...

    3. Re:New Algorithm ? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      And a damn good thing. Last thing we need is racially hating robots out to exterminate us that can climb staiNOCARRIEREXTERMINATEEXTERMINATEEXTERMINATE

  5. Flexible Frank! by solder_fox · · Score: 1

    It's Flexible Frank!

    --
    --- Thousands are enslaved every day.
  6. Hype? by AnthropomorphicRobot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This article both points out the problems of over-hyped advances in robots, while also claiming this robot has transitioned away from narrowly defined domains?

    The voice recognition & language processing component alone would be years ahead of anything else if it worked well outside of a "narrow, carefully defined domain". It seems like they are yet again over-hyping new research.

    1. Re:Hype? by sleeponthemic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Robotics is a lot like graphical photorealism/virtual reality. People have been predicting it for decades, but the actual nuance of such an achievement is much more complex than most are able to comprehend. As such, we're perpetually surrounded by the hype.

      --
      I record my sleeptalking
    2. Re:Hype? by jheiss · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Although the example listed in the article (successfully responding to "go fetch me a stapler") is impressive, I highly doubt that if I plunked the robot down in my office it could perform that task. Nor could it probably handle a request for an arbitrarily different object in their lab (go fetch me light bulb). They've integrated a lot of difficult problems and managed to get it to work in their environment, but unless they're well ahead of anyone else this is still within a narrowly defined problem domain.

      So yeah, neat trick, but I figure I'm still decades away from a robot usefully helping out around the home or office with random chores. My personal interest, locomotion and other interaction with the physical world, remains a tricky problem. Wheels won't cut it in most homes, although they could work in an office. A general sense of touch for walking and grasping remains largely unsolved. Speech recognition needs incremental improvement, language processing, reasoning and vision all need major breakthroughs. Seems like we're still solidly in the valley of "disrepute" mentioned in the article.

    3. Re:Hype? by NonUniqueNickname · · Score: 1

      The voice recognition & language processing component alone would be years ahead of anything else if it worked well outside of a "narrow, carefully defined domain".

      Agreed. And even then it will still be short of the intelligence of a first grader. In the murky waters of human communications the words are just a tiny piece of the puzzle. Where's the posture gesture expression tone accent speed pauses and choice of words recognition that tells you what a person really means by asking you to fetch a stapler?

      Sometimes a stapler isn't just a stapler.

    4. Re:Hype? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>People have been predicting it for decades, but the actual nuance of such an achievement is much more complex than most are able to comprehend

      You haven't heard of Playstation Home? Second Life? Quake?

      I used to work for a company that produced goggles for VR work (used mainly in the military as personal HUDs) and we produced some video games using them. It was fun, but in the consumer market people seemed to prefer just using a mouse to turn instead of having to snap one's head around to aim at an enemy sneaking up behind you in Quake. It's a mature technology (no hype needed, it works), but people just prefer the mouse, monitor, and keyboard approach to VR goggles and haptic gloves.

    5. Re:Hype? by sleeponthemic · · Score: 1

      >>People have been predicting it for decades, but the actual nuance of such an achievement is much more complex than most are able to comprehend

      You haven't heard of Playstation Home? Second Life? Quake?

      I used to work for a company that produced goggles for VR work (used mainly in the military as personal HUDs) and we produced some video games using them. It was fun, but in the consumer market people seemed to prefer just using a mouse to turn instead of having to snap one's head around to aim at an enemy sneaking up behind you in Quake. It's a mature technology (no hype needed, it works), but people just prefer the mouse, monitor, and keyboard approach to VR goggles and haptic gloves.

      You are a bit south of my point. Your standards are realistic and not at all related to the hype surrounding virtual reality. The sheer fact you mention second life, quake or playstation home as matching the hype betrays the fact you weren't listening when the hype men were talking (not a bad thing).

      When I talk about the hype, I mean all the people claiming that you would be experiencing, virtually, what we experience on a day to day basis. A photo-realistic experience close to that of regular life.

      With a realistic viewpoint, I'm sure the technology is progressing fine. It isn't quite matching that of the perpetual hype machine surrounding it, though. No surprise there.

      --
      I record my sleeptalking
    6. Re:Hype? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>With a realistic viewpoint, I'm sure the technology is progressing fine. It isn't quite matching that of the perpetual hype machine surrounding it, though. No surprise there.

      Fair enough. I saw Lawnmower Man.

  7. Obligatory film reference.... by GPLDAN · · Score: 3, Funny

    From the article: "Because these small [software] agents don't have a complete representation of the world, they are uncertain about their actions. So they learn to understand the probabilities of various things happening, they learn the preferences [of users] and costs of outcomes and, perhaps most important, they becoming self-aware."


    I sure as hell hope they left out the lip-reading module.

    1. Re:Obligatory film reference.... by ypctx · · Score: 1

      They have, but the only effect of that was - upon seeing two crew members talking in a sound proof area - an immediate suspicion of mission endagerment followed by ejection of said sound proof area to the outer space and blasting it to pieces with an ion cannon, as to lower the probability of its return to an acceptable value.

  8. All too human by ciaohound · · Score: 1

    Then they fall into disrepute when they fail to deliver on extravagant promises, until they eventually rise to a level of solid accomplishment and acceptance.

    Sounds like a few humans I can think of (politicians?) Well, except for that "solid accomplishment and acceptance" part.

    --
    Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
  9. Surprised it hasn't been said yet by philspear · · Score: 2, Funny

    I for one welcome our new learning, seeing, navigating, manipulating, planning, reasoning, speaking, and natural language processing Stair overlords.

    1. Re:Surprised it hasn't been said yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      We will fight the Stair overlords on the beaches, we will fight them in the streets, we will never, never surrender... Wait, what's that you say? A completely human-like pleasure model that comes in a 20 year old Raquel Welch version will be available.

      Never mind.

    2. Re:Surprised it hasn't been said yet by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new learning, seeing, navigating, manipulating, planning, reasoning, speaking, and natural language processing Stair overlords.

      *whispers*
      You forgot plotting.
      *mumbles quietly to himself*

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  10. Other Robots by troll8901 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Recent articles on robots.

  11. Yeah, but.. by karlwilson · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you squeeze its chest, does it slap you? If not, they'll just have to take this one back to the drawing board. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l6buDfU9AY

  12. Surely there's money in this? by Lexta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As an undergraduate Computer Engineer who intends to major in AI I would be really interested in knowing if anyone knew whether the companies mentioned in this article (Google, Walmart etc...) actually do hire people with a specialization in AI? And if so how do u get recognized?? Or is it all just copied and pasted from researchers who work in all the Universities they mentioned?
    I guess the root of my question is, by pursuing AI are you pushing yourself into becoming an academic for the rest of your life?

    1. Re:Surely there's money in this? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think AI is mainly used in spamming these days. Maybe William Gibson is right. It will be a crime to conspire to enhance an artificial intelligence.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:Surely there's money in this? by Xest · · Score: 1

      It depends what you want to do with AI, it's a wide and varied subject.

      If you want to develop robots like in the article, then yeah you'll need to become an academic.

      If you're not too picky about what AI techniques you use, then you don't so much look for a job that says "We want someone who understands AI" as you do look for a job, where you know you'll be able to do things better with AI.

      This is the path I ended up going down, I simply looked for a software engineering job at a firm that was willing to nurture innovation. I've been given the opportunity to experiment with different techniques and come out with solutions that were far superior than anything we had before to solving certain engineering problems and that are far superior to anything our competitors have.

      You've got to avoid the trap I see many people who like maths fall into- "I can't find a mathematics job, I've looked everywhere and none are advertising for mathematicians", that's completely the wrong approach, very few places actually advertise for mathematicians and those that do are generally places like the NSA or GCHQ in the UK. You've got to look for a job where you can apply maths, you wont necessarily see it advertised as such and it's the same with AI, it's about knowing where and how your subject can be applied and applying it. I'm fortunate to be working somewhere where both my AI and Maths tastes are satisfied but I don't think my job is unique in that respect.

      Learn your subject, learn how and where it can be used, look for a software engineering job at a firm that will seem happy to support innovation. Again though, this wont be advertised, you'll likely only figure this out at interview stage so just go for all software engineering jobs, at the interview point out you're capable of implementing some pretty powerful and complex solutions that might have otherwise been overlooked if no one currently at the firm is aware of AI techniques and if you feel the guy doing the interview is really someone who would be willing to allow you to try these new techniques then take the job. One final note though is that following this path, or in fact as just good advice in general, realise that you'll need more than just AI, AI is just another set of techniques for your toolbox even if it's the primary set of techniques you wish to actually use and you'll find this working in academia because even AI code generally needs to work with other code if it's anything other than just a proof of concept for a new technique and if that's what you want to do rather than using AI to solve real world problems then you need to be looking to work in academia anyway.

  13. Re:Yay! by MRe_nl · · Score: 4, Funny

    And we could call the offspring of STAIR and MASTER...
    the enslavement machine!

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  14. I'm against these sites in principal by uassholes · · Score: 1

    "Stair, please click the 'Print' link so I don't have to see only a third of the short article squeezed into 1/5 of the space on the page," says the man seated at a conference room table. The Stanford Artificial Intelligence Robot, standing nearby, replies in a nasal monotone, "OK, but the print version still wastes most of your screen with white background."

  15. Asimo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I will like to know how is better than Asimo, or by the way, of any of the advanced Japanese robots

    1. Re:Asimo by linhares · · Score: 1

      I will like to know how is better than Asimo, or by the way, of any of the advanced Japanese robots

      You must be new here. It's from Stanford, who gave us google, nike, ...yahooo...and silicon graphics... Oh shit

  16. solid accomplishment and acceptance? by wealthychef · · Score: 1
    FTFS: they eventually rise to a level of solid accomplishment and acceptance.

    And this happens when? On slashdot, I think this last part of the cycle is purely hypothetical.

    --
    Currently hooked on AMP
    1. Re:solid accomplishment and acceptance? by FiloEleven · · Score: 2, Funny

      Seriously. We've been doing this HTML thing for what, 20 years now</a>? And still we can't accomplish the proper use of the closing tag. ;)

      --
      Your brain is not a computer.
  17. Hyper Cycle by computechnica · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We are still waiting for V.R. to reemerge from the Hype Cycle.

    --
    Science is the Real TRUTH!
  18. Turing test for people by PPH · · Score: 1

    trying to integrate learning, vision, navigation, manipulation, planning, reasoning, speech, and natural language processing,

    IOW walk and chew gum at the same time. Heck, I know people who can't pass that test.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  19. "Stair"? by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    "Stair" is one of a new breed of robot that is trying to integrate learning, vision, navigation, manipulation, planning, reasoning, speech, and natural language processing.

    Because LVNMPRSLP doesn't make such a catchy algorithm.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  20. OK. I'll say it by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    Real Daleks don't climb stairs; they level the building.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  21. The three types by linhares · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Disclosure: I am a Hofstadterian, so I am biased here.

    There are basically three types of AI-peoples: The neverlands, the hype masters, and the hope monks. The neverlands, like Searle, deny that intelligence is a product of information-processing. Searle has made it into a sport the claims that AI will never happen because it does not have the "causal powers of the brain".

    Then there are these types, like those reported here. Hypeware at its best. Look, it's alive, it's (F*CKING GASP) becoming self aware, etc hype hype hype ad-nauseum. But look at its innards _very_ closely, and it's pretty empty in there.

    There are so many pitfalls involved that it's impossible to mention all faulty premises involved in each project. But just for starters, consider this: when we program a machine to deal with the number 2, it usually goes into binary form 10 and there it stays, ready for manipulation. But how plausible is this psychologically? NOT AT ALL! When _we think_ of a "2", hordes of disparate, subliminar images come to mind, such as the gestalt of the digit, the sound of it, the fact that it's a prime (if you're math inclined), a couple (if you're a therapist), even-ness, odd-ness, the words "two" "too", and a huge number of semi-visible mental imagery.

    Whenever you see a hyped AI project, just consider how it deals with the numeral 2. Most likely it's a _fake_. The process through which it goes through is not psychologically plausible. Which means that it will fail to understand human concepts.

    Some projects with machine learning actually make it a habit of finding _meaning_ in highly correlated words (i.e., words that tend to occur together in documents). That is a _joke_. Meaning NEVER comes from correlation. If it did, "lawyer" and "telephone" would have much more to do than "lawyer" and "vampire", or "politician" and "scumbag".

    Sorry for the rent, but I work hard to understand fucking hard issues and to see these folks being slashdotted with nothing to show for just begs for a rant. If you want to see really serious research, take a look a Douglas Hofstadter's "Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies" and/or google for Kemp's MIT thesis.

    1. Re:The three types by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but if you knew anything about neurons, you knew, that correlation is the way neurons learn.
      Think of two inputs firing at the same time. Those receiving neurons that get both signals in a short enough frame of time, are growing the most. That's basically the learning happening.

      But what am I doing, answering to a guy who is dripping with anger. Get a therapist. Learn how it's just as Ok when you're wrong. Then learn how to really back up your good arguments.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:The three types by lysdexia · · Score: 1

      This one? Not trying to be obtuse, but AI is not my field and I don't know people by their last name only. :-)

    3. Re:The three types by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Disclosure: I am a Hofstadterian, so I am biased here.

      There are basically three types of AI-peoples: The neverlands, the hype masters, and the hope monks. The neverlands, like Searle, deny that intelligence is a product of information-processing. Searle has made it into a sport the claims that AI will never happen because it does not have the "causal powers of the brain".

      Then there are these types, like those reported here. Hypeware at its best. Look, it's alive, it's (F*CKING GASP) becoming self aware, etc hype hype hype ad-nauseum. But look at its innards _very_ closely, and it's pretty empty in there.

      I think you'd find that if we could look into the functioning of the human mind in as much detail as we can look into an AI program, you'd find that it's pretty empty in there, too. I believe that intelligence is an emergent property of a lot of fairly simple processes. Yes, that's a matter of belief, not of proof.

      There are so many pitfalls involved that it's impossible to mention all faulty premises involved in each project. But just for starters, consider this: when we program a machine to deal with the number 2, it usually goes into binary form 10 and there it stays, ready for manipulation. But how plausible is this psychologically? NOT AT ALL! When _we think_ of a "2", hordes of disparate, subliminar images come to mind, such as the gestalt of the digit, the sound of it, the fact that it's a prime (if you're math inclined), a couple (if you're a therapist), even-ness, odd-ness, the words "two" "too", and a huge number of semi-visible mental imagery.

      Whenever you see a hyped AI project, just consider how it deals with the numeral 2. Most likely it's a _fake_. The process through which it goes through is not psychologically plausible. Which means that it will fail to understand human concepts.

      A machine does not have to reproduce the mechanisms of the human mind in order to display intelligence; it has to emulate the performance. If the inputs are similar and the outputs are similar what happens in the middle is unimportant.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    4. Re:The three types by Ozric · · Score: 1

      Don't know why that posted as AC.. .. But its my post..

    5. Re:The three types by nobodylocalhost · · Score: 1

      to address your flawed understanding of intelligence, i am going to have to refer you back to one of my previous post.

      http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1102185&cid=26579225

      please note that this is by no means a full understanding of how intelligence works. However it provides answers to many of your questions and misunderstandings as to why we think the way we do and how it is being done. You may even go a step further and actually implement many of the concepts discussed in the post. A side note, this will run much better in general purpose processing on graphics processor due to the threading nature of how it gets done. Basically it consist of parsing and threaded searching on a indexed categorized weighted directed cyclic graph. You think about bunch of things when you think of the number 2 because multiple search threads fire off at the same time toward different paths connected to your parsed input. what makes decision for you what information returned is important are competing categories/returned data in a heap.

      --
      Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
    6. Re:The three types by linhares · · Score: 1

      Hurricane, neurons do not do that. They are address space decoders.

    7. Re:The three types by linhares · · Score: 1

      A machine does not have to reproduce the mechanisms of the human mind in order to display intelligence; it has to emulate the performance. If the inputs are similar and the outputs are similar what happens in the middle is unimportant.

      A ball and a bat cost 110. The bat costs 100 more than the ball. How much is that ball? 10, right? Do you think computers can solve this? There is this general faulty reasoning that _understanding is the property of a representation_. That's just wrong. Just as temperature is not a property of molecules, understanding is not a property of a representation. It is a property of a process. In order to display the same "intelligent" behavior we do, machines have to go through the same process. Otherwise the process diverges. Any machine today would respond the ball costs $5; ask 10 MIT students and 9 will respond the ball costs $10.

    8. Re:The three types by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Why would a "machine" answer $5? If you give the problem in a way that the machine can "understand" (as a Python script, for example) it would give you the right answer.

      If you give the operation "5 + 5 =" to a person she would give you the same answer as a calculator. Getting computers to understand more difficult problems is just a matter of developing new layers.

      Oh, representing the number '2' as more than 10 in binary (and hence having more properties) is easy: just call Double(2);
      It's called OOP and been around for many years.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    9. Re:The three types by wastedlife · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that AI needs to be able to answer math problems incorrectly? That means Intel invented the first AI with the Pentium bug!

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    10. Re:The three types by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A machine does not have to reproduce the mechanisms of the human mind in order to display intelligence; it has to emulate the performance. If the inputs are similar and the outputs are similar what happens in the middle is unimportant.

      There is this general faulty reasoning that _understanding is the property of a representation_. That's just wrong. Just as temperature is not a property of molecules, understanding is not a property of a representation. It is a property of a process. In order to display the same "intelligent" behavior we do, machines have to go through the same process.

      There is no ghost in the machine. The human brain is at best a Turing complete computing engine - at best, because we can prove that is not possible to be more. And we can prove that (modulo limited store, which is also an issue for human brains) our computers are also Turing complete. So it is not possible that our computers cannot do what a human brain can do - although admittedly we don't yet know how to program them to do it.

      But we will find out, and when we do, I predict we'll look at the trivial little programs and say to ourselves 'is that really all?'

      In the mean time I suggest to you that, apart from the purely academic interest of finding out how people tick, is isn't nearly as useful to program machines to do what people can do as to do what people can't do.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    11. Re:The three types by linhares · · Score: 1

      Why would a "machine" answer $5?

      because 5 is thee right answer, not 10, as most humans give, incorrectly. We need to understand how we process information before we have intelligent machines, or else theyll be forever and ever as brittle as they are now.

    12. Re:The three types by alexborges · · Score: 1

      "THEY" dont want you to know.

      Now you may disapear and be sucked into the net. Perhaps youll be turned into a piece of google, a blob at slashdot.

      Thinking straight is never a good idea. Expressing good ideas nowdays, is suicidal.

      --
      NO SIG
    13. Re:The three types by shnull · · Score: 1

      a bit silly to think that we will never ever be able to at least emulate a human brain , sounds somewhat like if we were meant to fly then god would have given us wings. I think its about time to correct the corrections that were done to the genepool by the church and inquisition in the middle-ages (did you just call me a heretic overthere?)

      --
      beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
  22. I have made this cool ticking necklace for Stair by barwasp · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know Stair's postal address?
    Sarah Connor

  23. same stuff elsewhere by sixtuslab · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's a BBC documentary "Where's my robot" out since 16 dec 2008 with STAIR and others in it.

  24. Re:It's Not Artificial by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    AI is artificial in the same sense artificial flavour is artificial. Yes, substances have a flavour, and it's no we who give those substances a flavour. But we are those who sythesize those substances, and we do so because of their specific flavour. And that's the same with AI: We are those who produce the systems, and we do it because of their "intelligence".

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  25. Re:It's Not Artificial by nobodylocalhost · · Score: 1

    hey, are you saying AI has a flavor? i don't think /b/ and intelligence belong together like that

    --
    Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. Re:You're doing it wrong! by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

    You need to get the input into a form that the AI can understand. With Tic-Tac-Toe, that's simple. With vision/hearing/etc, it isn't so much. What does pixel (17x32) mean? So, the solution to that is to have some pattern-recognition that pre-processes the vision into some sort of symbols. In general, we've been programming those symbols in, but we could probably take it down to basic levels, similar to human vision processing. "What general color is this area? What guesses do I have as to current lighting conditions, and what color would that place be in bright white light? What shape does the area make up?" As time goes on, the AI's database of what those things *mean* to it would build up, but you've still got to find a way to get something besides raw data into its "consciousness".

    So, while image recognition, natural language parsing/processing/comprehension, etc aren't necessarily necessary to "AI" itself, they're incredibly helpful as wrappers to allow an AI to interact in human-comfortable ways with the world.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.