DARPA Wants Computers That Fuse With Higher Human Brain Function

coondoggie writes "In the never-ending quest to get computers to process, really understand and actually reason, scientists at Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency want to look more deeply into how computers can mimic a key portion of our brain. The military's advanced research group recently put out a call, or Request For information, on how it could develop systems that go beyond machine learning, Bayesian techniques, and graphical technology to solve 'extraordinarily difficult recognition problems in real-time.'"

Comments

Have you seen this boy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get in the choppa! Do eet now!

Re:Have you seen this boy?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd just have to programme it to say What? and I don't understand and Where's the tea? Who'd know the difference?

The Inevitable Future

[MarkvW]

Sooner or later some evil person is going to figure out a way to biologically/mechanically enhance a human being into a "supersoldier," in a way that will compromise the long term health or well being of he human being.

Then everybody else is going to do the same awful thing, just to compete. Because they 'have to.'

Re:The Inevitable Future

[RenderSeven]

"supersoldier," in a way that will compromise the long term health or well being of he human being.

I think the idea is to compromise the health of the other human being.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[Anonymous Coward]

Given all the soldiers coming back with amphetamine addictions and PTSD, I think the compromising health bit is already there.

The supersoldier bit is on it's way.

Personally I'm more worried that they're working on this to control the people's brains, perhaps reminiscent of the exposition in Continuum of why the 'main' antagonist 'massacred' all those people (who, he believed/knew, were already essentially braindead.)

Re:The Inevitable Future

[the gnat]

Sooner or later some evil person is going to figure out a way to biologically/mechanically enhance a human being into a "supersoldier," in a way that will compromise the long term health or well being of he human being.

Or, alternately, some decent person will figure out a way to biologically/mechanically enhance a human being in a way that removes physical disabilities and/or existing physiological limitations, and amplifies intelligence to the point where we can effortlessly accomplish in a day what once took a week or more. It's not just military mad scientists who daydream about brain-computer interfaces and other forms of human enhancement; these technologies have potential far beyond warfare. I know I'm not the only person who has fantasized about what life would be like if I could have instant recall of any information available on the network, while running along 50km of undeveloped coastline. Instead, I'm sitting on in my Aeron in front of the computer, looking out the window as a beautiful day passes by, and wishing I could run for more than five minutes without shooting pains in my legs and lungs. So, honestly, I hope DARPA hurries up with this.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[Ambassador Kosh]

This is what I want. This is one of the reasons I went back to school and am almost done with a degree in chemical and biological engineering. I want BCI. I want to replace all my organic components with robotic ones once they get better. I love the idea of turning myself fully into a robot once that technology works and spending a VERY long time exploring, learning etc.

I would love it if I could get a job working on this project. Sure it will be used for military applications but a lot of the stuff developed for military applications later sees very useful civilian applications.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[sl4shd0rk]

decent person will figure out a way to biologically/mechanically enhance a human

Perhaps. However, it would be very unlikely that this power to control a human mind would not find it's way immediately into political or military advantage.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[CanHasDIY]

Or, alternately, some decent person will figure out a way to biologically/mechanically enhance a human being in a way that removes physical disabilities and/or existing physiological limitations, and amplifies intelligence to the point where we can effortlessly accomplish in a day what once took a week or more.

Well, sure they might, but probably not while working on a project for the US DoD.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[the gnat]

Advances in military technology trickle down to civilian life all the time. Radar, computers, jet engines, satellites, the list goes on. (Oh, and the Internet, which I already mentioned below.) Battlefield medicine has made huge advances too, which are applicable to injuries that have nothing to do with warfare. The big area where I think there has been too little transfer is rocketry, where federal regulations severely restrict employment and the availability of technology.

I don't view any of this as an actual justification for military spending - I'm firmly in the camp that believes the US should be like Switzerland with nukes. But it's simply ignorant of history to claim that military research never benefits anyone but the military.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[Anonymous Coward]

Sooner. Not later. DARPA wants it today because maybe, definitely, mostly, NSA already had the capability you fear. With Computer snooping becoming slightly harder, this looks quite attractive, doesn't it?

Re:The Inevitable Future

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the idea of turning myself fully into a robot once that technology works and spending a VERY long time exploring, learning etc.

Your fantasies are the sort of thing a young child would entertain.

The reality is going to be a lot less pleasant, because those
in power ( and you might not be one of them, chum )
will make sure this is true, as they always have since the dawn
of mankind.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Wish I had mod points, +1 to parent.

Though sadly, given the attitude current politicians over the last 15 years have shown to the military class, I'd have to say neither side's soldier's health even rates a concern.

Re: The Inevitable Future

[hAckz0r]

By being first you would just wind up being the Version I model working the assembly line cranking out the Version II production quota. Any attempt to upgrade your cognative components to V II will likely get you recycled. Assuming of course they even have a recycling program by then.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[Anonymous Coward]

* Opportunity Cost

The question isn't whether or not anything of value has been produced via the military. The question is whether the same people, with the same resources, would have produced more of value without militarism being made their primary objective.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[c0lo]

"supersoldier," in a way that will compromise the long term health or well being of he human being.

I think the idea is to compromise the health of the other human being.

Well, the solution is deceptively simple: take the other human being and fuse a computer in her/his brain.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[cavreader]

The military also introduced tents capable of collecting solar energy to power their field camps. It reduced the reliance on gas powered generators.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[cavreader]

War has always accelerated technology development.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[s.petry]

By fuse are you thinking hammer and glue? That would be "cold fusion" if I'm not mistaken! :)

Re:The Inevitable Future

[khallow]

Your fantasies are the sort of thing a young child would entertain.

But not the sort that a young child can attain.

The reality is going to be a lot less pleasant, because those in power ( and you might not be one of them, chum ) will make sure this is true, as they always have since the dawn of mankind.

There are things more powerful than the shadowy people holding you back. Ideas such as this are some of those things.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[lightknight]

There in lies the problem. For every person who wants to make someone walk again, there are ten people who want to design someone who can kill someone that much quicker. It's a fucking racial imperative, and we don't even know why.

It never ceases to amaze me that for all the hardware the human brain possess, we are so bad at many of the tasks we perform. I mean, it's ludicrous to think how the avian or reptilian or cetacean or insect or even other mammalian species can perform advanced calculations in 1/100th the amount of time that it takes a human mind to complete the same damn calculation. I find that deeply troubling. A freaking spider can scan a series of stems, like a mainframe computer, and determine which one is the right one to climb, with a brain less than the size of a pin...and yet a human child, of several years of age, might fail at even understanding the task to be performed, let alone performing the task itself. Are we missing a gene or something?

Re:The Inevitable Future

[lightknight]

Who's to say this has not already been done? Ever wonder why this reality seems so wrong? Why humans are so good at destroying things, at jeering, insulting one another, hurting each other, at hate in general, and so terrible at peace? Humanity has probably done this to itself a dozen, if not a hundred or thousand times already; and each time, the violence gets worse.

Look at the current state of humanity: our leaders have to hold constant wars to keep the populace in check. They have to invent catastrophes to bleed off parts of the populace, so that...control can be maintained.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[Ambassador Kosh]

My view is that if you never try you can never succeed.

There are a lot of positive things going on in this world that most people just never hear about. Negativity sells and that is what is mostly reported. However, the amount of research for things like nano-medicines, prognostics, biotech etc is just amazing.

10 years ago the state of the art prosthetic was basically a hook. Now we can do basic wiring up to the nervous system and in the last few months an artificial skin more sensitive than ours and a MUCH better neural interface where developed. I just don't get why so many people are so negative or consider it to be some kind of dream to want to try and improve the world in any way.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[jsepeta]

ah yes, DARPA funded the Internet, so of course they'll be funding the Singularity.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[__aaltlg1547]

Sooner or later some evil person is going to figure out a way to biologically/mechanically enhance a human being into a "supersoldier," in a way that will compromise the long term health or well being of he human being.

Then everybody else is going to do the same awful thing, just to compete. Because they 'have to.'

They don't need technlogy for that. Being trained to kill and then being put in situations where violence is demanded is harmful to the long term health of humans.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, relative to what?

I can pretty-much guarantee that without the destruction of Germany and Japan during WW2, those economies could have produced much more, as they did subsequent to the war. Nobody from those cities that were annihilated would argue that it was good for development.

Blowing things up en masse does not lead to overall improved technological development, you simply can't see the counterfactual of that progress had history proceeded differently. Since you don't see it, psychologically it doesn't exist, but that doesn't correspond to reality.

Besides which, in reality we are in an exponential slope where technology builds on technology, and this is driven primarily by business and historical timeframe, with war being largely irrelevant. And, well, "technological development" insofar as it is military is a negative for existence per se to precisely the degree it is military. The fact it is "technology" doesn't make it good.

I realize this is Slashdot, which generally has a teenage, or preteen, boy's level of fascination with cool systems for killing people. So, I'm not here to convince, just to state reality.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[the gnat]

I just don't get why so many people are so negative or consider it to be some kind of dream to want to try and improve the world in any way.

Because people grow up and realize that the fantasies they had as a child won't actually become reality, and it makes them bitter. Because they see youthful optimism and exuberance and it makes them more bitter, and the only way they can feel better is to bring a little more despair and anger into everyone else's life. Most of them, growing up, probably had a more idealistic view of the world, and their fellow humans, and were exposed to mythical ideals of the "good old days" (which actually sucked for most people), and as they got older and realized how things actually worked, they became even more convinced of the inevitable decline of their country and civilization in general. A few of them probably read Marx, or Rand, or Chomsky, or Buckley, and became even more convinced of their own rectitude and everyone else's corruption, and find it immensely gratifying to think of themselves as lone, heroic figures whose duty is to warn the rest of us sheeple of our imminent demise. (Needless to say, our reaction only validates their sense of persecution and intellectual superiority.)

I'm a professional scientist, but I have several bookcases full of history that I read for fun, so a) I'm a big fan of technological advancement, and b) I have an excellent idea of how shitty most of human civilization was for all but a tiny handful, and how far we've come. People living today are on average freer, healthier, and more prosperous than at any time in history. Everyone knows there is still much room for improvement, on both a moral and a technological level, but I'm pretty sure the people dreaming about transformative technologies will end up doing far more to make the world a better place than the people who have nothing better to do than whine about how awful everything is.

I don't entirely disagree with some of the naysayers; it still makes my teeth grind every time someone who watched too much "Star Trek" demands that we convert to a command economy so they can have their Mars colonies. And I'm not a fan of our military-industrial complex either. But I'm glad there are people fantasizing about traveling to Mars (and working on making that a reality, minus the massive drain on tax dollars) or finding extrasolar planets, and I'm glad there are people researching brain-computer interfaces, because the world will never get better if everyone spends all day bitching about it on Slashdot. The only part I find frustrating is that things aren't moving faster, because I want to be able to work from the beach and live to 180, goddammit.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[the gnat]

It never ceases to amaze me that for all the hardware the human brain possess, we are so bad at many of the tasks we perform. I mean, it's ludicrous to think how the avian or reptilian or cetacean or insect or even other mammalian species can perform advanced calculations in 1/100th the amount of time that it takes a human mind to complete the same damn calculation. I find that deeply troubling. A freaking spider can scan a series of stems, like a mainframe computer, and determine which one is the right one to climb, with a brain less than the size of a pin...and yet a human child, of several years of age, might fail at even understanding the task to be performed, let alone performing the task itself.

Part of evolution involves specialization, and we lose certain instincts or abilities that are unnecessary for maximum fitness. We don't have the speed of a cheetah, or the sense of smell of a bloodhound, or the vision of a falcon either. Instead, we ended up with verbal communication, opposable thumbs, and creativity and intuition beyond anything we've observed so far in the animal world. Seems like a fair tradeoff to me.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[kermidge]

"I just don't get why so many people are so negative or consider it to be some kind of dream to want to try and improve the world in any way."

Far easier to carp than contribute.

For those unable to do much of the latter, going negative boosts their estimation of self.

Especially for the young, snark is seen as what the cool kids do.

Some just like to try to inflict hurt. They get off on it.

If there is ever any rational, useful basis, it involves each one's definition of "improve the world" but that would require an attempt at discussion, not what amounts to a reflex of put-down.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[kermidge]

"Are we missing a gene or something?"

You raise good points.

Thing is, that's stuff those critters do the same way all the time because that's all that's needed.

I think it has to do with humans being much more open-ended. We have many more possibilities of what we might do with what we find at hand, let alone what we might contrive to aid the doing of something. Some things are simpler - we used to pick something edible and ate it; then we poked a hole in the ground and planted a seed or slip; then we built machines to poke the holes and plant the seeds. But even such a simple progression took a lot of time, mistakes, trial and error, making choices from competing workable solutions, all the while within a milieu of various economic and social ideas and implementations that allowed or impeded the work.

Even so, some things are built in fairly well; throwing and catching, for instance. It's learned, true, but the mechanism for the calculation itself is inherent and pretty nifty in its own right.

But even simpler critters make mistakes. I and several others once saw a cat trip over its front feet. A couple of us laughed. Cat shat on my pillow, and into another's boot.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[Ambassador Kosh]

The problem I see is that these things will remain a fantasy so long as people don't really work to make things better. How can we truly progress when so many are convinced that it is not possible and they usually even stand in the way at every opportunity?

I just find it amazing that people can look at the advances we have made in biotech, nanotech and computer technology in the last 10 years and can't see some of the huge changes being made and the very positive things happening as a result.

We have come up with new proshetics to help people that have lost limbs, we have some kinds of cancer we can now completely cure and we can print 3d scaffolds for cell growth to regrow badly damaged areas of the world. This is just the technology that has made its way to the public so far and there is FAR more to come that is still in testing phase.

One of the big problems I see is that regular news does not really cover the positive things we are doing and they really have no idea how advanced the technology is or how fast we are advancing.

I for one intend to work on making things better. I have gone back to school to help turn some of the lab bench stuff we have into industrial processes. One of the problems is that biotech and nanotech is so new and we are learning so far is that our research abilities have massively outstripped our abilities to turn them into practical applications. I won't win any nobel prizes for what I do, it is likely that most will never hear of me but I can still make a large difference and help make the world a little bit better.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[Anonymous Coward]

Given how humans are long-term residents on every continent, and even reside in space for extended periods. I'm inclined to got a bit further than a "fair" tradeoff, I'd say the human race's adaptability seems to be beating out every other creature out there. Sure, bacteria are present in all those areas, but they're all specialized species of bacteria, not one single type.

As to human fitness. Seems it tends to be fairly easy to tell when the human race arrives in an area, lots of species tend to start going extinct. Humans tend to win the game of survival of the fittest.

Re:The Inevitable Future

[cavreader]

Weapons technology has been evolving ever since there were enough humans to pick sides and started fighting about who gets the bigger cave. During war there is no such thing as a budget. Money doesn't enter the picture and if your country is facing defeat everyone will certainly be motivated. One example would be the British radar technology. If Germany had not been gathering on the other side of the channel threatening invasion their radar technology would not have advanced as much as it did. In contrast today's non-military technology advancements require substantial funding to turn an idea into something real. And I never said that War was required to ramp up technological advancement. I just pointed out that military technical innovations has substantially speeded up the process. Military technology has pushed aerospace technology, computer technology, communication technology, rocket technology, satellite technology, medical technology, materials technology, and even the internet started off initially as a DARPA project to investigate the utility of large scale distributed computer systems for defense purposes. And by the way I have 27 years worth of experience in software engineering. I'll let you calculate my age from that tidbit.

Simple

[baldass_newbie]

Broadcast routines through The View - then you'll get millions of brains connected.
Oh wait, higher brain functions. I guess that demographic won't work then.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty funny, but I laughed harder at your sig.

Screw DARPA ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It has become pretty obvious that doing anything to help out DARPA is just going to be used against all of us, one way or another.

I can't believe people are still willing to participate in this stuff.

Screw you DARPA.

Re:Screw DARPA ...

[CanHasDIY]

It has become pretty obvious that doing anything to help out DARPA is just going to be used against all of us, one way or another.

I can't believe people are still willing to participate in this stuff.

This.

Knowing what we know now, anyone who assists DARPA or any TLA is actively working against their own people, and should be regarded as a traitorous persona non grata.

Re:Screw DARPA ...

[the gnat]

It has become pretty obvious that doing anything to help out DARPA is just going to be used against all of us, one way or another.

Yeah, it really sucks how the Internet has made commerce easier, information more accessible, and governments more transparent. Damn you, DARPA!

Re:Screw DARPA ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Transparent, as in when you look at it you cant see anything?

Re:Screw DARPA ...

[Em Adespoton]

It has become pretty obvious that doing anything to help out DARPA is just going to be used against all of us, one way or another.

I can't believe people are still willing to participate in this stuff.

This.

Knowing what we know now, anyone who assists DARPA or any TLA is actively working against their own people, and should be regarded as a traitorous persona non grata.

Indeed I can't believe all the people who are still willing to participate in DARPA programs like, say, the Internet. Give them their tubes back already!

Re:Screw DARPA ...

[CanHasDIY]

The internet has not been a DARPA project for at least 20 years, nor is today's government the same as the pasts.

Try to keep up.

Re:Screw DARPA ...

[Redmancometh]

Sorry buy DARPA pioneers too much cool shit for me to care.

Re:Screw DARPA ...

[the gnat]

nor is today's government the same as the pasts

No, it's arguably less corrupt and violent than the governments that funded the early development of DARPA and the Internet. It's unquestionably building fewer weapons of mass destruction, anyway. I realize most of the people posting here weren't even born when the Vietnam war or the Cuban missile crisis or the Nixon administration were happening, but could you try reading some history occasionally?

The main issue, as far as I can see, is that technological advances have made certain types of malfeasance more accessible to those in power. Thus we have vastly more targeted assassinations (drone strikes) and surveillance (NSA) than we did in, say, 1970. On the other hand, in 1970 we were bombing Vietnam (and Cambodia) on a scale vastly more destructive than anything we've done to Iraq or Afghanistan, and Hoover was still in charge of the FBI. I realize that using this as a reference point for evaluating our current government is grading on a curve, but I fail to see how aiding DARPA in 2013 is any worse than aiding it in the development of the Internet.

Re:Screw DARPA ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a big part of it is his need for weed and how it shapes his views. A pity that.

Re:Screw DARPA ...

[kermidge]

For starters, young'uns ought to wait 'til they're growed to use psycho-active shit. That's a no-brainer, but it takes some raising to make it happen.

Dude makes a point or three; if you don't agree, argue on point and merits.

Whether you agree or don't, whether he's right or wrong, there's one good take-away: read. Especially read history. If you don't know where we've been (we: us humans) it's more difficult to get a good picture of where and why we are where we are; if you don't know where we've been it can make more difficult the choosing of where to go. It's kinda like map reading; if somebody else has already found a blind alley then it's one you don't have to find and discard on your own - but you have to learn how to read the map.

Ghost in The Shell

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps were moving into the realm of Ghost in the Shell-like computers.

Re:Ghost in The Shell

[Nadaka]

You mean cyber-brains? Almost everyone in Ghost in the Shell has an artificial brain implant.

Language processing

[schneidafunk]

So the functions they are trying to emulate are "higher brain functions such as sensory perception, motor commands, spatial reasoning, conscious thought and language." (emphasis mine). I'm assuming they are looking (near term) for better filtering of that massive collection of data the NSA is collecting.

Re:Language processing

[cold fjord]

I doubt there is much in the way of "motor commands" involved in data filtering. There would be motor commands involved in autonomous robots (DARPA Grand Challenge) especially when paired with image recognition and route selection.

Not everything is about the NSA.

Re:Language processing

[fascismforthepeople]

Well of-course they want to use that to spy on you

That is American conservatism, such as what is currently running the country.

They want to know your every thought, not only what you say on the phone or type, but what do you think, what do you feel about things.

That is soviet style fascism, the product of conservatism run amok.

Not only do they want to know what you think, they want to force you to think what they want you to think and nothing else.

That is the product of unrestrained religious fascism. Only one political movement that gets much attention in the US attempts to go in that direction, and you are a member of that movement. Only a cult-like movement with a god-like leader would even dare pursue such a goal.

Only the Church of Ron Paul (TM) so blatantly wishes to deliver more power for the powerful, and fascism for the people.

huh

[Anonymous Coward]

well.. what could possibly go wrong?

Pink Floyd

[mspohr]

Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
Where have you been? It's alright we know where you've been.
You've been in the pipeline, filling in time,
provided with toys and Scouting for Boys.
You bought a guitar to punish your ma,
And you didn't like school, and you know you're nobody's fool,
So welcome to the machine.
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
What did you dream? It's alright we told you what to dream.
You dreamed of a big star, he played a mean guitar,
He always ate in the Steak Bar. He loved to drive in his Jaguar.
So welcome to the machine.

I do too !

[Anonymous Coward]

How much are they willing to spend this time around? A cool 5million?

Re:I do too !

[newcastlejon]

How much are they willing to spend this time around? A cool 5million?

I reckon you'd need at least six million.

Re:I do too !

[Anonymous Coward]

Spend it twice and you got an alluring cyborg lady as well.

Obligatory Conspiracy Theory...

[dryriver]

They want AI killing machines ( aka "Autonomous Battlefield Robots") that can model human thought on some level, so as to be better equipped to deal with human or human-controlled targets. --- This is very "Terminator 2" you say? Well, maybe IT IS very Terminator 2 in real life? ----- But seriously, what possible good can come from a war-oriented defense projects agency trying to model the human intellect/neocortex? Are they going to create kiddie toys that speak & interact with a 3 year old child with this? Or will this new tech be put to more nefarious uses ---- solving the problem of how to break a big ass street protest up most efficiently, for example? Or searching through millions of database records of activists, and finding those who are likely to become - and this is very W. Gibson I admit - "SuperNodes" who can influence the behavior of thousands of other people? Imagine technology human-smart enough to identify the next Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela or Ghandi when they are still in high-school? It would be quite easy then to stop these people from becoming "SuperNodes", no? ---- That's your conspiracy for today. Check back tomorrow for more. =)

Re:Obligatory Conspiracy Theory...

[maxwell demon]

Are they going to create kiddie toys that speak & interact with a 3 year old child with this?

Yes, of course.

Re:Obligatory Conspiracy Theory...

[RenderSeven]

killing machines ... that can model human thought

So, robots with Facebook pages and Twitter feeds?

MechWarrior5324 +1 Likes Acme Diodes
@R2D222222 P0wnd 11 civs after recharge best day EVER! #acidforblood #winning

Re:Obligatory Conspiracy Theory...

[jeff4747]

But seriously, what possible good can come from a war-oriented defense projects agency trying to model the human intellect/neocortex?

What possible good can come from a war-oriented defense projects agency trying to create redundant communications systems to make nuclear war less catastrophic and thus more appealing?

Re:Obligatory Conspiracy Theory...

[ultranova]

But seriously, what possible good can come from a war-oriented defense projects agency trying to model the human intellect/neocortex?

Less casualties on both sides. The Terminator corps can take risks the Marine corps couldn't, so they don't have to, say, shoot a suspected suicide bomber from a distance rather than close in and investigate. Sure, one might get blown up, but so what? By the time the shrapnel hits the ground ten more have popped out from the assembly line.

Expendable unfeeling industrially manufactured troops is exactly what you need to avoid civilian casualties when fighting guerilla warfare with a non-uniformed enemy.

Darpa wants

[Anonymous Coward]

i want a 3 tittied asian porn star - that dont mean im gonna get it.

Re:Darpa wants

[Anonymous Coward]

You would if you also had billions to throw at the idea.

Re:Darpa wants

[Anonymous Coward]

You have never visited Asia?!? Most of the time those don't even cost extra!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Higher brain function?

[maxwell demon]

So they want to build computers like the one of Bomb #20 from Dark Star?

I...

[Anonymous Coward]

... want a pony.

Preferably one that bestows super-powers when stroked.

Re:I...

[newcastlejon]

Wish granted.

spoiler alert

[dmbasso]

I fully agree with you, including the Continuum part, but couldn't you put a spoiler alert before saying it? If I hadn't watched it I would be pretty much pissed off.

Re:spoiler alert

[Em Adespoton]

I fully agree with you, including the Continuum part, but couldn't you put a spoiler alert before saying it? If I hadn't watched it I would be pretty much pissed off.

S/Continuum/Matrix/

That better?

Or do we still need a spoiler alert for that one too?

Re:spoiler alert

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Also, which Continuum are you two talking about? This one, or this one?

Re:spoiler alert

[dmbasso]

Your second link. I was not aware of the other. It seems interesting, have you watched it?

They want strong AI

[gweihir]

Understandable, but as there is not even a credible theory at this time, expect that strong AI is at the very least 50 years into the future, probably much, much longer. It also seems they have zero clue about the state-of-the-art. Pathetic.

Re:They want strong AI

[gweihir]

Oh, not difficult at all, just impossible. By the very definition, you need zero effort to build it as any effort would result in the same, namely nothing.

Re:They want strong AI

[Actually, I do RTFA]

And how do you think we'll get there?

DARPA is one of the coolest federal agencies. They take risks to try game-changing reimaginings that leap forward in the state-of-the-art. When they work. Which they often don't. But often even the failures are cool.

Re:They want strong AI

[Anonymous Coward]

sure, the government is competent - you expect us to believe that. :) I second the 'Pathetic' comment.

Re:They want strong AI

[timeOday]

Strong vs weak is a mere philosophical distinction that is completely meaningless as far as anybody knows.

As for not knowing the state of the art, were you aware that, for example, a so-called deep-learning algorithm recently achieved super-human performance in recognizing road signs, despite being a rather general algorithm? Super-human, as in, it had a lower recognizing road signs than people did. It's stunning. And surprisingly, the algorithm(s) doing this are among those that could be most credibly called bio-inspired.

Re:They want strong AI

[gweihir]

... and has nothing at all to do with AI. Keep kidding yourself. And, yes, "strung AI", "true AI", etc. are only used because people with no clue what AI is keep calling things AI that are not.

Re:They want strong AI

[timeOday]

"Artificial intelligence" is no more ill-defined than "intelligence" is in the first place.

Name the benchmark, then we can argue whether any progress has been achieved on that benchmark in the last 40 years, or 5 years.

From the article, here is what DARPA is asking for:

Algorithms inspired by neural models, in particular neocortex, can recognize complex spatial and temporal patterns and can adapt to changing environments. Consequently, these algorithms are a promising approach to data stream filtering and processing and have the potential for providing new levels of performance and capabilities for a range of data recognition problems," DARPA stated. "The cortical computational model should be fault tolerant to gaps in data, massively parallel, extremely power efficient, and highly scalable. It should also have minimal arithmetic precision requirements, and allow ultra-dense, low power implementations."

The only "problem" I see here is whether DARPA's selected performers will be overrun by others' progress already occurring in this exact area.

Re:They want strong AI

[Anonymous Coward]

Once a task is reduced to an algorithm we no longer consider it intelligent, so as not to admit we might just be a computer ourselves. But machines are doing many tasks once reserved for thinking humans.

Can humans fly? A bird might say no since we don't have wings but with global air travel, space stations, and wingsuits we certainly get the job done. You may never admit computers are doing AI. But more and more they're getting the job done.

Re:They want strong AI

[Neuronwelder]

I always wondered why people automatically think that AI is going to listen to them and not misbehave. After all.. AI thinks for itself, doesn't it? Why do you assume AI would pay attention to you, or not want to go off an do something that it likes?

DARPA

[Anonymous Coward]

I see what you did there...lol

That's quite simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Start with porn. It's always driven technology.

Re:That's quite simple...

[maxwell demon]

So what role did porn have in the development of ICBMs?

Re:That's quite simple...

[Anonymous Coward]

It helped put the overstressed rocket engineers sleep at night.

Re:That's quite simple...

[newcastlejon]

So what role did porn have in the development of ICBMs?

Engendered feelings of inadequacy. Have you seen the size of ICBMs?

Re:That's quite simple...

[PPH]

The phallic symbolism of sticking it to one's enemies with a long, hard missile.

We know enough about the brain for doing this?

[gmuslera]

Like what is conscience, or how to bring new, definite, and structured items to it? As far i know, most of the interaction has been read only, or with things with side effects and not long enough studies. Speaking on not knowing how much this will totally screw a brain, where they will be the testings? In Guantanamo?

Jeff Hawkins has been lobbying

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just the Darpa parroting the language from Numenta. Someone has clearly been schmoozing the right people, and now Jeff Hawkins toy research project will get some government funding. In generally the Hierarchical Temporal Memory nonsense has been viewed pretty poorly by the machine learning community as an outsider reinvention of the wheel, and a bad one at that, but people who make a lot of noise and have connections tend to do better, so here we go again.

Re:Jeff Hawkins has been lobbying

[mbkennel]

Exactly. Given the unusual specificity of the desired technological approach the DARPA project appears to be a request for proposals whose grantee has already been determined in secret.

The article in "network world" also claims that it's DARPA scientists doing it---no, DARPA pays money to scientists.

http://www.alexandria.nu/ai/blog/entry.asp?E=41

There's no royal road to AI, and it's very unlikely there is any "one" magic approach or algorithm is critical. Natural intelligence is likely the confluence of a large number of evolutionarily tuned mechanisms.

There is a range of more or less biologically inspired machine learning methods, and HTM is Yet Another One.

http://www.agiri.org/docs/CognitiveArchitectures.pdf

Neurons on a circuit

[The Grim Reefer]

This was from back in 2001 I don't know how much the research has progressed in 12 years though.

Re:Neurons on a circuit

[The Grim Reefer]

I just did a quick search, and it looks like there was some progress in 2006 I have a feeling we are going to see this happen in the next decade or two.

Or maybe they should..

[Anonymous Coward]

They could build a new machine with power and space constraints,
      but I wonder what could be done on an existing room full of rack servers interconnected with Ethernet switches.

Passing all neuron firings between the servers would be a drag on performance, so neurons need to be able to migrate to the server where their friends are. Not sure how this would affect learning being able to discover new correlated firings on different servers, but it seems that the real brain probably has the same problem/feature with learning speed dependent on locality.

Building hardware is cool, but for my tax dollars, I would rather them first do a software exercise to show that the thing they want to build will work.
    Something that thinks like we do under the hood, even if it thinks really s-l-o-w on a room full of equipment, would be really neat.

The Desert of the Real

[zildgulf]

Morpheus - "...Welcome to the Desert of the Real. We have only bits and pieces of information but what we know for certain is that at some point in the early 21st century all of mankind was united in celebration. We marveled at our own magnificence as we gave birth to AI".

I can't wait until we have AI's...

[Anonymous Coward]

... merged with teenage brains whose over-riding goal is to come up with internet meme's.

Mark of the beast.

[Anonymous Coward]

Darpa is interested in controlling the masses through a chip implant. This is the Mark from Revelation.

Is this a good idea under current law?

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as terrorism laws are in place, this kind of technology is more likely to be used in a way that would cause harm, rather than benefit people.

If backdoors can be built in under secrecy laws without anyone admitting to their existence, vulnerabilities are guaranteed and lives at risk. Information could be modified and passed on in a way that seems legitimate, meaning this kind of technology could be easily subverted.

Dehumanizing people by calling them terrorists just allows for actions that increasingly disregard life and freedom. There should be a rollback in legislation so that rule-of-law, privacy, ethical and moral considerations can be more closely considered in the design of AI technology.
There's no reason why interfacing between mind and machine shouldn't be beneficial to all...

Evolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can this technology be used to interfere/override other functions of the brain? What about the theory posed in [i]A Clockwork Orange[/i] ? What about interfering with empathy/sympathy? Are we comfortable with this technology? Is technology a form of evolution?

Virus?

[Neuronwelder]

So now you'll be vulnerable to a virus or bad code in your brain?

Let's try the other direction

[Myria]

It comes down to using the right tool for the job, at least in the future we see happening this century. Why not make a computer that can attach to a human brain? Human brains are great at solving some problems, and terrible at solving others. We should try to improve the interface between the two.

It would be really nice to have a coprocessor that can handle discrete problems that can help out with the things that humans are really bad at. My computer chip could help out with calculating some numbers while I figure out what my program's logic should be.

As for powering such a chip, I and many other Americans have some extra...energy reserves on our bodies that could be used.

misleading title... again...

[felixrising]

I for one welcome Skynet as our benevolent overlord.

I want....

[musth]

I want military^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdefense employees that fuse with higher human brain function.

I am Locutus of Borg

[EmagGeek]

Resistance is futile. Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward you will service us.

War With Machines

[Metabolife]

I don't dream of a day when war comes to an end, I doubt that day will ever come. I dream of a day when war can be fought and won entirely with powerful machines with no lives lost.

same old song

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately we are probably no closer to real AI than we were to it in the 50s and 60s

'Key portion of our brain' unfortunately it take the whole enchilada to work
AND THEN you actually have to teach it which is the REAL chokepoint of any real solution.

No, soryy machines teaching machines isnt enough, it takes expert human intervention lots and lots of it and even then you will get endless errors (assuming you use this for something critical that would be a deal breaker)

Good news, everyone!

[MRe_nl]

"Everyone was in favor of saving Hitler's brain. But when you put it in the body of a great white shark. Ohh, suddenly you go too far!"