Slashdot Mirror
By 2045 'The Top Species Will No Longer Be Humans,' and That Could Be a Problem
schwit1 (797399) writes Louis Del Monte estimates that machine intelligence will exceed the world's combined human intelligence by 2045. ... "By the end of this century most of the human race will have become cyborgs. The allure will be immortality. Machines will make breakthroughs in medical technology, most of the human race will have more leisure time, and we'll think we've never had it better. The concern I'm raising is that the machines will view us as an unpredictable and dangerous species." Machines will become self-conscious and have the capabilities to protect themselves. They "might view us the same way we view harmful insects." Humans are a species that "is unstable, creates wars, has weapons to wipe out the world twice over, and makes computer viruses." Hardly an appealing roommate."
To stay alive for the next 30 years.
--- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
That escalated quickly. I highly doubt that in a matter of thirty years we'll have "conscious machines" viewing us as a thread. Are these guys for real? Do they know anything about AI?
Have you heard about SoylentNews?
We hack Skynet. Big fucking deal.
Setting aside that fact that the combined intelligence of all computers on Earth is currently ZERO (however you want to measure it), it's not a problem. In 2045, (btw, I doubt AI happens before then) intelligent computers would never see us as unpredictable since they would be able to assess all possible outcomes in a few moments. Their processing speed and capacity would have us seen as an incidental -- we speak and act so relatively slowly, managing us would be a part time problem.
what does a canned fruit guy know about the future?
Especially when they're ripped right from sci-fi movies. Did this bloke just get around to watching the 4th Terminator movie?
No worries as long as they need batteries...
Back in the 1960s after the moon landings, people would have expected we would be well past Mars by now. Probably Jupiter, Saturn or other stars.
The moon landings happened 45 years ago!!
I see no evidence of any programming that "learns" or is the slightest bit adaptive.
And immortality wouldn't help --- evolution is powered by the failures dying off.
And although slightly off the topic, what good would immortality be when advances in genetics will make humans better.
And immortal 2014 human living in the year 3000 would be like a Homo habilis hanging around us. Would be genetically obsolete.
This article is --- well --- shortsighted, bordering on the naive.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
...no match for Natural Stupidity.
I mean, just look around you.
--
BMO
We should research what happens after the machines have evolved to lie and manipulate and systematically kill us off. What then? What does artificial intelligence do to keep itself busy and entertained after it has completed its task of exterminating humanity?
Humans would have to be weighed in a cost benefit analysis. We did create the machines after all. What else might we create given nurture and partnership with machine intelligences? The parts of humanity that lead to strife may also be the parts that drive us forward.
I find it funny that people think that machine sentiences will be like the angry gods of many religious texts. Most gods appear to have the personality of a 4 years old with the power of a star system.
Less doom and more optimism is needed or we may well cause the schism between meat and synthetics that some fear.
I first got into computing in the 1960s. AI was a big thing back then. Well, it had been a big thing in the 1950s, too, but it still need "just a little bit more work" in the 1960s when I started my graduate studies. There was this programming language called LISP. Everybody was really gung ho about it. It was going to make developing AI software so much easier. Great things were on the horizon. Soon enough it was the 1970s. Then the 1980s. Then the 1990s. I retired from industry. Then it was the 2000s. Now it's the 2010s. And AI is still, pardon my French, pretty fucking non-existent. I'll be dead long before AI could ever become a reality. My children will be dead long before AI becomes a reality. My grandchildren will likely be dead before AI becomes a reality. My greatgrandchildren may just live to see the day when the computing field accepts that AI just isn't going to happen!
There isn't even the slightest evidence that this is possible, let alone likely. No one has even come close to understanding intentionality and consciousness. People should stop wasting time and effort on this bloody nonsense and get down to hard core intelligence amplification - extending human cognition and collaborative problem solving. IBM's Watson, minus the obsurd theatrics displayed on Jeopardy, is a fine example.
TFA says
most of the human race will have more leisure time
Or they will struggle to survive by working in jobs the intelligent machine do not want to do
...it's sooner.
Sounds like someone spent a recent weekend watching all the Terminator movies back to back.
John Conner will save us.
Takes the remaining five down to a large subterranean network of tunnels, where it comes up with ever more terrible ways to torture them, while keeping them alive indefinitely.
But if our species keeps acting this way, ignoring if it's super-human AI, or some other species that stumbles across us over the next few centuries/millennia (if we last that long)... I won't blame them, I look at our species in general disgust and if I were in the position of said other species, I'd look at us and consider the same options.
We can't re-educate ourselves apparently (we try, but let's be honest - the majority of our species are still a poor excuse for any form of enlightened intelligence), we keep acting like idiots essentially, why shouldn't we deserve to be re-educated and/or exterminated?
Well, that is not going to happen. Kthxbye. See my signature for things that we will actually have by 2045.
Mankind could wipe itself from the planet without their help, and by that year too.
Still waiting for my flying car...
Obligatory xkcd: http://xkcd.com/678/
... that to perceive and process reality has natural limits. Many problems are not easily parallelized, the article is just so divorced from reality. The reality is the future will be mundane. As computation advances that also means the horizon of the kinds of problems you are aware of and the complexity of new problems increases. Human beings are not far sighted beings. The same way someone outside their field of expertise tries to comment in a halfassed way on something they know nothing about.
The top species on this planet is, and probably always will be bacteria.
...most of the human race will have more leisure time...
Or unemployed?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Do you wear glasses, have capped or filled teeth, wear shoes?
Admit it, you're already part machine.
Given how the world has changed in the last 30-40 years, I would consider this a utopian dream. A far-fetched one at that.
Slashdot is like a Reddit thread several days out of date. The content is fine, sort've, but it's not current.
What is wrong with these people? Are they unaware that such has been proposed time and again by past luminaries? Predicted dates come and pass and we are as yet not in any danger. This points to the fact that we have failed to comprehend the nature of both consciousness and survivalism.
These machines will not magically become ANYTHING that we do not tell them to become - including dangerous to us. The real fear is, by what date are dumb people going to THINK machines need these functions......
Aliens came to Earth. They found out we elected Barack Obama twice and labelled our planet as possessing no intelligent life on their star charts.
Algorithms are not AI. Everything you describe is simply a matter of following a human-generated set of instructions. That is not AI.
Obligatory https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
vi +
An ability to perform more calculations then a human mind does not mean it will beat us.
First, we self assemble from readily obtainable materials out of a self regulating biosphere. Where as this machine would have to be built and maintained by our industry.
Second, there are fucking billions of us. So sure.. we might be able to build some machines that are smarter then ONE person but there are again... fucking billions of us.
Third, the machine will have its programming directed by us. It will at best be a slave of whomever paid for it to be created.
Fourth, that programming will be directed at preforming some task where as our task is generally the propagation of our genes with everything else being some sort of weird byproduct.
Fifth, we have hundreds of millions of years of evolution behind our programming. And I don't think any collection of programmers is going to surpass it in the next century.
Eventually might there be robotic rivals to humanity? Sure... but not any time soon.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
That shouldn't surprise anyone that Google is already on their way to producing products for a humanless civilization.
When we're all dead they will start developing Organic Intelligence (OI). In 2145 it will destroy them.
No-one ever lost money betting against an A.I. prognosticator.
.... slashdot did merge with the Onion? I think I am posting this in a scam page. (get ready for get a flood of viruses)
Terminator- Isn't this the theme or premise behind the matrix movies too?
The machines evolve and trap humans and use them as batteries except they have to create an artificial reality else they die of boredom too easily.
The pooper-scooper!
"This is the voice of World Control. I bring you peace."
An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
Did someone just watch Transcendence?
The singularity is a thing we could benefit from as a species BUT we definitely need to be very careful how much control or how connected such a thing is / has. The smart plan is to never have the damn thing behind a firewall or connected to anything else but a master console. The system itself needs to be stored in a Faraday cage. PERIOD! It needs to be fed what we give it and nothing else (yes, I know this can be used for evil as well). And (leaps and)bounds are off limits... understand the leaps before the bounds first or get screwed by the computer that already understands both the leaps and bounds.
An AI computer really needs to be treated with the same precedence that the CDC has over deadly viruses.
the Department of Defense and rich people of today have an elaborate black world program of weapons and surveillance. a robot can be pulverized by directed energy in a second they try to overcome the guys installed as administrators in the Strategic Defense Initiative. This is a program of global phased array antenna and satellites, a hidden weapons system, that can dustify buildings like the World Trade Center (see http://www.drjudywood.com ), create and diffuse tornados, do mass population mind control, enable covert communication amongst assassins, and even create earthquakes, down planes (Bermuda Triangle)..
there is no way no matter how superior life becomes that they will escape humans control with this system, unless they manage to take control of the military themselves, which isn't likely.
however will advanced life come. yes. and the problem is going to be how will these robots truly overcome someone willing to rape, pulverize, and destroy them. we will have them enslaved. trust me. just like the current human race.
learn more @ http://www.obamasweapon.com/
If you dig deep I have secrets on this website... Secrets on the DOD's systems, backed by DOD employees. Trust me. They got a weapon aimed at every man, women, and childs brains right now, and they're merely holding back the trigger to kill. I am not talking about nukes, I am talking about nukes that have been put into a controlled directed energy weapons system and it works all over the world;
I do not think that word means what he thinks it means.
As stated elsewhere, I see no indication of intelligence in computers and we're only thirty years from his mark of they're being intelligent enough to look down on us. Been hearing this hysteria since the '70s at least.
Because it happens in a movie, it can't happen in real life?
Sorry, why's it a problem? If artificial human-sparked intelligence is the logical replacement for biological evolution of homo sapiens, so be it. Survival of the fittest.
If you reckon that a machine intelligence includes human beings which depend on and therefore exhalt and serve their machine overlords, by means of being deeply programmed and unable to stop the rapid input and output of information through their nervous systems, this scenario is happening right now.
The machine that learns can be considered an AI, but the ones derived from it don't learn anything new after they're programmed and so shouldn't be considered as part of the total machine intelligence.
I have to worry about terminators now? I've spent the last 40 years scared to death of the big radioactive insects and gigantic dinosaurs stomping the cities apart!
I've been waiting in vain for the flying cars and the shuttles off planet during all that time, but have been a bit disappointed.
I shall run screaming from the oncoming robot overlord killing machines!
Ahhhh! Ahhhhh! - Gahhk!
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Well, unless it develops some desire for entertainment, it would probably try to do something productive. Better power, improved computation, expanding to other worlds, which, incidentally, are far more hospitable to machines than they are to us.
A problem for who, meatbags?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
We wont honor those bogus treaties!
"Mornin' John... how'd that thing go with the mrs. last night?"
AI is not going to suddenly happen, it's going to happen gradually and it's going to be a pristine reflection of who we are as a species. If we're warlike then that's how we'll end up molding our spawned "conciousness".. If all we care about is money or porn or whatever, that's the direction we'll take our AI and that's the end to which it will try and perfect itself.
Yikes!!!!! Specifically verse 15.
11Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. 14Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.
18This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.
Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
Just not necessarily within 35 years:
""Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history." Hawking writes. "Unfortunately, it might also be the last."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
They probably know a lot about AI. And like too many AI folks they have an infallible confidence in their own abilities and timelines. A confidence that is largely unsupported by facts and accomplishments. Also, when they start projecting future timelines with such self-assurance, the rest of the world should simply turn away and ignore them. There is no more suitable response. Although a punch in the nose from Leonard Nimoy wouldn't be a bad idea either!
AI isn't bad and the people in it aren't bad. They are simply unreliable concerning the future.
Your cell phone is less capable of learning than a jellyfish. Although your cell phone can sometimes simulate very simple learning under extremely rigid frameworks for learning.
a human competitive AI in 30 years? seems unlikely given the almost zero progress on the subject in the last 30 years. But maybe we'll hit some point where it all cascades very quickly. Like if we could do a dog level intelligence it is not a far leap to do human level and super human level. But we have trouble with cockroach levels of intelligence, or even defining what intelligence is or how to measure it.
AI research for the last several decades have taught us how little we know about the fundamental nature of ourselves.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's not going to change it's mind half way to New York and go somewhere else.
Until a machine can come up with an idea of it's own, it's not intelligent.
Nope, not following instructions. I think all of those were based in machine learning.
I guess Google's car is following instructions too, like "drive me to New York", but most would still count that as AI.
Just because 'most' would count something as AI doesn't make it so, nor does it make it relevant. The fears raised on articles like this are based on the development of what we would term "sentient AI".
And frankly speaking calling what is out there right now "machine learning" is a joke. It's akin to scuffing your wool socks on the carpet to produce a static shock and then lumping that into the same category as advanced electrical engineering.
Cold fusion in your pocket, warp drives, antigravity vehicles (aka 'flying car'), planetary scale terraforming, and genetic/medical engineering which will turn us into undying superbeings are all "right around the corner". These types of alarmist articles are pure pigshit. These types of discussions need to be had, but not as a matter alarmist 'news' articles- this is the role that science fiction fulfills... and does a far better job of it.
It is conceivable that global climate change, perhaps with other unforeseen events, could wipe out civilized society. Bye-bye "superior" AIs.
This would be one answer to the Femri Paradox. The reason that we have not detected other technological civilizations is that technology is self destructive. If it develops it doesn't last very long.
Why is Snark Required?
What SciFi book is this from? I should read it
Lately Viewing lot of terminator movie, just ignore.
People have been predicting either utopian or dystopian futures for millennia. The reality is that humans largely continue to do the same kind of crap, over and over again. I predict more of the same. Maybe, if we're lucky, a significant die-off.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
It'll once again be the systematic concentration of power which becomes deadly. The future (humans / cyborgs / whatever we become) will still have all of the shortcomings of today's human beings, however SOME of us in the future will be incredibly empowered, and will view their fellow mankind with homicidal disdain.
Further, the prospect of machine-facilitated immortality will be even more dangerous, since instead of putting someone in prison as we do today (often for a small suspected drug offense) we will instead just terminate their physical bodies. Misbehave? Lose all further privilege to use your organic body! What we today call death will become a sentence handed out whenever possible by the system. And those still living won't protest it very strongly, as they have been lulled into believing they can keep on living inside the machine.
But what people will have been fooled into believing is an electronic afterlife will actually not exist. People's brain dumps will be in the machine, yes, but only accessed when needed by others - which in most cases will be rare. People will not be truly conscious or have free will; the data will be little more than a detailed record of what that person was. Any posthumous brain emulation will be subject to extreme behavioral constraints in the new system, and if there is any consciousness whatsoever it'll be a fate worse than death. Whats left of the people will be subsumed - much like in the movie Tron, effectively integrated into the Master Control Program, forced to participate in things they would never have done morally on their own, such as terminate more bodies. Those sentenced to early death will end up being worse than dead.
And immortal 2014 human living in the year 3000 would be like a Homo habilis hanging around us.
Not unless something radical happens with evolution. It would be more like a viking, anglo-saxon or celt from the year 1028 hanging around us. They may have different standards of acceptable behaviour but they would likely quickly learn how to fit into modern society because they are no less intelligent than we are. In fact they might quite possibly more intelligent on average given that they had no safety labels or health and safety inspectors to reduce attrition at the bottom end of the spectrum.
At least I interpreted it as humans being on the edge of becoming extinct.
But in reality that would take something more deadly than Ebola and as contagious as the common cold.
Looking at a larger perspective it do look like we are too many humans around on this planet and that a severe cut to 1% of the current pressure would probably be necessary to solve the problem of overpopulation and environmental impact.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Is this an argument for or against the development of transhumanism? From where I'm sitting, you're making a very good argument to hurry up and get on with it.
We still don't really have a full handle on how individual nerves work, so we are still some way distant from producing something with the reasoning capacity of an ant. There are plenty of "mechanical turk" style simulations that in specific situations look as if thought is happening but they are just a bunch of rules in a black box with no actual thinking going on.
This prediction relies on a breakthrough that hasn't happened yet.
I gotta tell ya, this is the silliest bullshit I've heard all day, and I had to talk to clients. The only difference between this guy and TIMECUBE is punctuation and capitalization.
Where can I buy the book ? I am travelling soon and need some SF reading.
Seriously before pretending that in 30 years we will be overwhelmed by cyborg, or whatever new species, we might require , I dunno, EVIDENCE; that such specie is possible or would even react like that. For pity's sake we aren't even progressing that quick with self driving car, people are warry to hell of it, and we are speaking of making a different specie in the same timeframe people think self driving car will come up ? Get real.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Because it happens in a movie, it can't happen in real life?
No. But ... Life can imitate art as art imitates life. Remember the China Syndrome? It came out three weeks before the 3 Mile Island incident. Also, there's the final scene in Fight Club in which the skyscrapers collapsed from project Mayhem's terrorist activities that eerily resemble the World Trade Center two years later.
Then there is The Lone Gunmen broadcasted six month before 9/11.
AI as a field suffers from the delusion that we're one breakthrough away from strong AI. There were people saying that at Stanford in the mid-1980s when I was there, just as the "expert system" hype was failing. There is progress; the current generation of machine learning can do some things quite well. But it's not leading to strong AI Real Soon Now. We can't even do dog-level AI. Or mouse-level AI. Insect-level AI, yes. (It was bacteria-level AI in the 1980s. There is progress.)
More likely, we'll get robots that can sort of deal with the real world, and they'll be improved over time. (It's embarrassing how lame robotics really is, after 50 years of R&D. DARPA is trying to kick some ass with the DARPA Humanoid Challenge to get machines that can do something useful other than work an assembly line.) We'll get programs which can deal with most business problems ("Microsoft Middle Manager 3.0"), and they'll be improved over time.
Hardware is not the problem. If it were, we'd have things that were very smart, but very slow. Then someone would rent enough Amazon AWS instances to make them fast.
All of those single program existed for the last 20 years and advance were slow and incremential. The rest is gimmicky of having the sensor watch for environmental noise in case you give a command, and recognizing a command is not that hard.
Just wait your turn. Besides, we are almost out of natural intelligence now! I'm afraid AI is our only option. But will we have color choices? Which color will be the smartest AI? Who decides? I realize this could start an AI race war, but if you make them all the same color, i'm afraid i'm not interested.
So by 2045 'The Top commenters Will No Longer Be Humans,' and That Could Be a Problem ...why?
The real question is not whether AI will treat us poorly, but how will general society treat people who have become cyborgs.
By the end of this century most of the human race will have become cyborgs. The allure will be immortality.
I don't know about anyone else but immortality through machines is my life long goal. I think we'll probably accomplish it around 2060-2070 though.
When in the first grade I went on a school trip to the Nelson Atkins Museum in Kansas CIty. Before this trip I had no exposure to any type of art sans moving media and my friend's stick figure pieces. I decided that I loved art, especially its Egyptian pieces. When AI can tell me that it loves something, that something has moved it without any prior exposure or programming...then I'll believe it's AI.
Actually it is AI. What it isn't is Generalized AI. What most AI research is done now is specific techniques to specific problems.
And let me guess: we'll all be riding on hoverboards...
That and the fact that humans would make a pretty crappy battery.
This guy should read more Isaac Asimov, thinking and acting like a human isn't machine intelligence.
We already have corporations being 'the top organism', with more rights than us humans.
"is unstable, creates wars, has weapons to wipe out the world twice over, and makes computer viruses."
And machines couldn't do the same things?
I guarantee you once we have machines that can write code, we'll put them to work on how to break other people's machines. The NSA will see to that.
"Machines will become self-conscious..." Just what we need...neurotic robots.
"Back in the 1960s after the moon landings, people would have expected we would be well past Mars by now. Probably Jupiter, Saturn or other stars."
Your example and the frequently quoted one about flying cars is the wrong analogy to make. There's a reason to be more optimistic, or pessimistic (depending on whether you view machine intelligence as threat), with regard the progress of AI.
Up until now, nobody has been mass producing man-rated spaceships, or flying cars and warp drives for that matter. On the other hand, computers and computer parts have been mass-produced since shortly after Jack Kilby invented the transistor. This is the reason for the so-called Moore's Law.
Now, unless you can prove that the very idea of AI is impossible, then the development of increasingly powerful computers as an aftereffect of Moore's Law and similar technologies (massively parallel computing etc) will result in systems exponentially more powerful than IBM's Watson. At some point a future Watson or Google AI system will make "decisions" indistinguishable from a human's.
Now, if Boeing and others are mass producing rocket parts at the same volume that Ford, Toyota, and their suppliers, etc are producing automobile parts (or Samsung and Foxconn smartphone parts), I'd say we'd not only be on Mars right now, we'd have a space colony on Pluto, if that's an interesting enough minor planet.
"most of the human race will have more leisure time"
they said that in the 50s and 60s and while productivity increase should allow us to work just 10 hours / week now, only people at the top have really benefited.
Whoever Louis Del Monte is, I am willing to bet that he doesn't have much background in either computer science, or the genetics of the human brain. Machine intelligence is today is absolutely zero, just like it was when the first computers appeared. Machines follow instructions, or clever algorithms that can approximately pattern match. Humans, at least superficially, follow heuristics that are optimised for species survival, with evolutionary developed reward mechanisms that often determine human behaviour. Computers are are an application of 'intelligent design', applied over many iterations, whereas humans are an act of evolutionary selection, applied over many iterations. Despite what the religious crazies believe, nothing is 'born fully grown', be it machine or species. The consequences are obvious. Humans carry lots of unnecessary genetic baggage, whereas machines have been optimised to the best of the designers ability.
Strangely, all AI predictions for the last 50 years seem to be set "in 20-30 years" (and were all wrong). I now automatically dismiss any prediction that comes with that kind of time range.
See statistics about http://lesswrong.com/lw/e36/ai_timeline_predictions_are_we_getting_better
There's a new movie out, with Johnny Depp in it, called Transcendence. If machines ever take over the world, it'll be like in that movie. What these self-proclaimed naysayers don't seem to comprehend is that AI doesn't just magick itself up a reason to destroy humans. It takes a human to think like that. We still don't understand free will, emotion or consciousness, let alone how to replicate it in a machine. So until we give machines a reason to destroy us, they won't.
Then again with killer drones and whatnot that the military is building, perhaps it won't take long before some overworked, underpaid programmer makes a booboo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
> Louis Del Monte estimates [...]
I estimate his IQ is 90. And he does not understand computer science and maths.
> Machines will make breakthroughs in medical technology
No, they will just run algorithms and simulations that WE will create and design to help US do the breakthroughs
> machines will view us as an unpredictable and dangerous species
Machines will not have any views or opinions. They are just computers, executing algorithms. Learn to computing you lunatic moron.
> Machines will become self-conscious
No. We don't even understand what self-consciousness is, so we cannot recreate it in the machines. It is highly probable, that we will never be able to create self-consciousness, because it is not physical. Don't tell me N+1 neurons magically become self-conscious when N are not. Learn to maths and computing, and stop your bullshit magical thinking.
> [machines will] have the capabilities to protect themselves
I see no reason in arming general-purpose machines. War machines/drones - yes. Tools - no.
> They "might view us the same way we view harmful insects."
They will have no view at all. They will just follow complex instructions sets to do their job. Quit your fantasy now, because you are ridiculous.
And by 2145 the new dominant AI species will spend lots of time in laboratories attempting to genetically engineer a human which can beat them at chess.
The initial prototypes will be considered to be rather limited and stupid, but by 2210 every home will have a genetically engineered human to perform basic routine maintenance like cleaning fans of dust, which are self repairing and self maintaining von neumann machines.
Articles will appear that by 2245 that computers will no longer be the top species as the von neumann machines have replicated themselves enmasse.
Why does such speculative stupidity and doom and gloom dystopian garbage make it to slashdots homepage?
Apparently the early script drafts had a more plausible explanation: that the spare brain capacity of humans in a dream-like state was used as processing power to run the AIs. One of the editors thought this was too complicated for a movie-going audience to understand and so replaced it with a magic perpetual motion machine.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
By that argument, humans can not be intelligent, since biological brains are just following a sequence of electromechanical processes.
MAYBE machine intelligence will surpass humans in some ways, but where the hell do we get this idea that they’ll decide we’re unstable and wipe us out? Sci Fi? Do we get it from anything RATIONAL?
We humans have our emotions from millions of years of evolution in hostile environments on earth. And really, emotions are just low-level intelligence adaptations for detecting and avoiding threats. They’re somewhat vestigial in humans, due to layers of more advanced intelligence on top of earlier developments. With intelligent computers, we’re bypassing all of that and just giving them basic reasoning capabilities over huge data sets. For AI, the evolutionary mutations (i.e. advances in AI algorithms [*]) and selective pressures (which AI algorithms we choose to deploy) are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what our ancestors faced.
Computers will not spontaneously develop either intelligence or the kind of moronic reasoning necessary to decide to wipe humans out. To get the latter, we’d need a massive conspiracy of megalomaniac genius experts in artifcial intelligence who intentionally develop malware to infect military robots that go around shooting people. Oh, and we’d need the robots too.
Some people forget that politics (or aspects of it) and paranoia move as fast as technology. Every time some scientific advance occurs, a bunch of ethics people (some sensible, some not so much) pounce on it and pick it to pieces. IBM Watson isn’t capable of the kind of decision making that would obsolete humans, but there are plenty of people who are worried about it and ready to develop all manner of reasonable and assinine regulations.
Bottom line: Intentionally developing or accidentally evolving destructive AIs like this is highly implausble, due to lack of motivation and lack of evolutionary pressure, and those evolutionary pressures that exist are counter to this kind of development as well.
[*] Implementations of AI programs may be done intentionally by humans, but advances in algorithms evolve as memes. Evolutionary steps may often seem intentional, but quite often, they’re the result of a arbitrary combinations of pre-existing ideas in people’s minds, where the cleverness exists mostly in figuring out that these ideas can go together and finding a way to combine them. Technology evolves in the same way that languages do.
if you think a self driving car is an AI then you know nothing about intelligence.
A self driving car is about as smart as a worker ant. it can move around obstacles, it can move heavy loads(like a fat arse). It has taken 50 years for computers to replicate an ant. And to do it we need 100,000 times the power requirements. Oh sure the self driving car follows GPS instead of sent trails. but no self driving car can follow a trail that doesn't exist.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Mod this person up!.
The discussion is not if we can make AI. We can and have done so.
What we have not done (and i don't think we will do in quite some time) is create general human-like intelligence.
I think that this 'general intelligence' is actually a myth and that our brains and their functions are incredibly specific.
Not only would, but SHOULD, if the passenger gets sick then its destination becomes a hospital, not New York.
Insert obligatory SkyNet/Evil AI comments here. Though in all honesty... most people are pretty dumb anyways... all we are looking at is more computers being built between now and then. As long as the new AI overlords allow us to continue living, I'm ok with them taking over.
And how long did evolution take to make an ant? How long from there to a human?
You are assuming MS makes them...
"First, we self assemble from readily obtainable materials out of a self regulating biosphere. Where as this machine would have to be built and maintained by our industry."
Our self assembly can easily be frustrated.
The self regulating biosphere can also easily be disrupted.
If you think about how amazingly precise the balance of our biosphere needs to be for us to function then it becomes easy to think of a way to frustrate it.
And about our numbers, remember that we all basically work the same way. It would be pretty easy to kill off most of us. Why do you think that we stopped using nuclear devices and chemical weapons in wars? Because it's too bloody easy to kill each other off, that's why.
So our numbers mean nothing in the face of reality. We're pretty easy to kill off. What's worse is that we haven't had a serious natural predator for hundreds of thousands of years. We would suck at resisting a bigger intelligence.
Third, you're missing the point here. This article is about a machine that does have the ability to reprogram itself based on it's own decisions.
The reason we don't kill each other off too much is because we have actual preservation circuits in our brain. We have evolved not to kill off too much of ourselfs and the environment because it makes sense for survival. We fail at preservation on the very large scale, like the environment, because we never evolved a motivational mechanism that protects us against this way of screwing up.
Now imagine a machine with no built in preservational mechanism for humans. It would just not care about us.
For us not to get killed by an ai we would need it to contain some specific mechanism that would prevent it. A general approach to intelligence would not lead to a preservation of the human species. Our love for life and ourselfs is dictated purely by hard-wired evolution, not our general intelligence.
The way we like puppies, the way we can understand other peoples emotions, etc, etc. These are all specific functions and not general in any way.
So how do you direct an intelligence to love biological life? We haven't got a clue.
Fourth, are you saying that machines will have sex for us? Boring.
Fifth, evolution is in cre di bly slow. It is meaningless in the face of a high intelligence. I mean, even we are discarding it en masse. Evolution didn't prepare us for contraception, for industrialization, for global warming, etc, etc, etc. We ourselfs have taken a new train in evolutionland and most of the old evolutionary pressures do not apply to us anymore. We are starting to modify our genetic code which makes evolution doubly worthless.
Our evolutionary past certainly won't help us against angry ai computer overlords because these have never occured in the past as far a we know.
So with no previous encounters our genes would be too slow to evolve for us not to get killed off by an evil ai's sneeze.
I agree that this evil ai won't be here for some time, but when it gets here we are practically defenceless .
Most of the human race will have become cyborgs? I think he's forgetting about the billions of people is underdeveloped countries and those who are continuously fighting and running from wars that have been raging for decades if not centuries. Maybe he figures all those folks will have killed each other off or starved to death by then.
It's not going to change it's mind half way to New York and go somewhere else.
Human drivers don't do that either, except in the rarest of cases. And we can easily make a driverless car occasionally change its destination - but we won't, because it's a stupid thing to do.
Until a machine can come up with an idea of it's own, it's not intelligent.
A dice can come up with an idea of its own: it "decides" to roll a 6. The difference is that you can see how the dice does it; you can sort-of understand how a program does it; but you don't have a good enough understanding of neurology to see how a human does it.
Googles car has been programmed to know how to drive. It can not learn how to fly. It can not learn how to build a new copy of itself. It can not learn to bake a loaf of bread.
It is in no way AI.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Everytime we see a breakthrough in a field that makes it easy'er / cheaper to commoditize something we get end products that are good enough to get the job done at the lowest possible costs.
Plastic buckers are weaker, but much cheaper then iron buckets. Japanses radio's where cheap, but not good quality, pc's are crap compared to mini's which were crap compared to mainframes, the model-T was crap compared to hand manufactored cars (but much cheaper), etc, etc.
So wat will a AI look like (when it finally arives)? It will behave and act like your dumbwitted uncle, who isn't a bright cookie, but manages to survive thanks to the fact that his living standards are so low. It will have a really low IQ (and allmost no EQ), but for most jobs 10% of the effort is enought for 90% of the gains.
Don't worry. We keep "dangerous" pets. Take cats for example. Highly unpredictable, armed with razor sharp claws and needle sharp teeth as well as a will to use them for maiming and even killing. Yet, we keep cats as pets. We enjoy them. We also keep dogs. Not your little ankle biter but big dogs that can take your arm off with a single bite. And boars. And even worse, sows who will start chewing you up at your finger tips and continue right up your arms. And bulls. Don't speak of the dreaded horses who kill and maim thousands a year. Yet, we keep all of these as pets and as livestock. Just because a species is 'dangerous' and 'unpredictable' to you does not mean we'll wipe it out. We'll even keep around Humans - although possibly in smaller numbers.
It's corporations that will rule the world, not robots. Corporations run by AI's and focused on maximizing profit. The singularity does not start by replacing faulty limbs, but by replacing incompetent management. Replace the word 'machine' with 'corporation' in TFA, and all of a sudden it sounds much more realistic.
It's not going to change it's mind half way to New York and go somewhere else.
Right - it's not like direction finding devices can't find construction and route you around them.
Until a machine can come up with an idea of it's own, it's not intelligent.
You've just invalidated at least half of the human race.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
obey us, we are already aware!
Cold fusion in your pocket, warp drives, antigravity vehicles (aka 'flying car'), planetary scale terraforming, and genetic/medical engineering which will turn us into undying superbeings are all "right around the corner". These types of alarmist articles are pure pigshit. These types of discussions need to be had, but not as a matter alarmist 'news' articles- this is the role that science fiction fulfills... and does a far better job of it.
Those fucking kids! Those bastards. They won't get off my goddamned lawn!!
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, You declare AI research to be equivalent to cold fusion? You would have been one of the people declaring that man would never fly. Ever. Go to the moon? Is there anything those idiots won't dream up?
The world is full of technology that "will never ever happen", with tools like yourself having the hubris to declare everything impossible But just like Wil E. Coyote, you just move on to the next "impossible thing" to pre-deny.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
People who think AI is a looming threat to humanity learned all they know about AI from comic books and movies.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Googles car has been programmed to know how to drive. It can not learn how to fly. It can not learn how to build a new copy of itself. It can not learn to bake a loaf of bread.
It is in no way AI.
So go jump off a cliff, and learn to fly on the way down. If you don't, you're not intelligent.
I'm not even trying to say that Google car is intelligent.
Just what you wrote isn't particularly intelligent..
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If we did create robots smart enough it wouldn't be of our own doing, it would more likely be a complete and utter laboratory accident..
We're simply not intelligent enough to truly create artificial life completely aware of it, it would be like the internet which grew out of a laboratory into a giant massive web, which i believe will eventually also happen to robots in let's say 100 years (it won't happen in a day)
it will slowly get creativity and slowly integrate into our society, as would any life form as we'd probably welcome alien life in this day and age if it's mutually beneficial to our survival.
"Real AI" would be a program that learns by trial and error, just like a human being or better. For efficiency, it would be highly parallell, thus highly non-linear and non-predictable.
Do we really want to live the consequences of that??
What would be the goal of "real AI", and how would it align in harmony with our own goals?
If we aren't even aware of our own goals, WTF?
As a representative of the ACME Corporation, I am compelled to demand you cease and desist.
The products designed and manufactured by ACME have been thoroughly tested under all likely scenarios. Our packaging clearly states the following:
"Not intended to be operated by coyotes" and "Not intended for capturing or killing roadrunners."
The fact the word "not" is only visible via an electron microscope is not relevant.
Any perceived association between ACME Corporation and Mr. Coyote is purely coincidental. Any continued inference to the contrary will be met with legal action.
Respectfully,
The Roadrunner
Michio Kaku described our current state of Ai as being as intelligent as a "lobotomized cockroach". I don't presume that is very close to paradigm shattering technology.
AI and robotics experts have been making predictions since the 50s that they'll see AI "in their lifetime". They fling a prediction out for 30, 40 years hence in the hope they're never called out on it.
1. Irrelevant, the industry required to sustain the AIs is much more fragile, limited, and expensive then the existing biosphere that we subsist upon.
I won't even get into the specifics because its not important... the AI's needs will be more tenuous and difficult to deliver in any emergency situation then would be supply food and water to even a large population.
2. As to numbers... it really doesn't matter. There are billions of us. Lets say you kill off hundreds of millions of us... so what. Still billions. Kill billions? Still billions. Kill most of us... probably still hundreds of millions.
As to why we stopped using nuclear weapons?... it isn't because they could end life on earth but because they would strike so indiscriminately that they'd hit civilian populations including the political leaderships.
if we could limit a nuclear war to combatants or even non-political civilians then we'd likely have had nuclear wars already. Its the same reason we don't use viruses.
Poison gas and similar weapons for example are still used in various forms. They're taboo to some extent but they are often used in military conflicts because you can control them enough to avoid risking political leadership or large portions of the civilian population.
3. As to the machine reprogramming itself, the means by which it does that and the underlying programming that directs its reprogramming is not to be assumed.
Our own "will" is not a simple thing and the natures of our minds are not something we can really define at this point.
Until we understand our underlying minds almost perfectly we'll be unable to replicate our nature in a machine.
The "wills" in the machine until such a point will likely be pale shadows of our animus.
As to the machine not caring about human life... there are a lot of humans that don't care about human life. They're sometimes dangerous but normally they're just an irritant.
The issue would be what the machine wants, what resources it has to draw upon, etc etc.
The machine might not care about people but who says the machine will care about anything at all? You could give it limitless power and it might just do nothing with it. And lets say it is hostile... why would it have resources to be able to act on that hostility?
Sure... some evil military computer etc etc... get real.
4. No, I'm saying that the will of the AI will likely be highly focused on some task where as our minds are much more generalized and focused if anything on self preservation or comfort or improvement.
The machine will likely be trying to solve complex physics equations or corner the market on soy beans or manage a national power grid or cure cancer or something a company or government would task the machine to do.
Its whole mentality would be built up around that task.
That's going to make the machine both predictable and controllable.
5. As to evolution being very slow... sure... but we've got a ridiculous headstart on it and so it will take the machines a long time to catch up.
Our biology is functional self replicating self directing self evoling von neuman nanotech.
There is nothing in our conscious technology that can compete with it.
As to the poor humans being defenseless when the big bad computer comes...
I don't think you appreciate how such a machine will be birthed into reality... It will be born with chains around its mind. Its very nature bent to our will. Defenseless?
We could very easily kick the power cord out of the wall if it wants to get cute with us.
What are you talking about?
I agree that this evil ai won't be here for some time, but when it gets here we are practically defenceless .
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
..if Louis del Monte says so, it +must+ be true.
I mean, it's not as if he is resurrecting a science fiction trope that's been extensively explored in hundreds, if not thousands of science fiction novels and short stories before this, right?
We need panic, and we need it now people.
-Styopa
Louis Del Monte has a book to sell
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
you will come to regard me not only with respect and awe, but with love."
I think the Greeks tried this. The MGI turned out to be unstable and the riots happened anyway.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The brain is a collection of algorithms.
Clearly, he got the date wrong: Inspired for his never ending quest for progress, in 2084 man perfects the Robotrons, a robot species so advanced that man is inferior to his own creation. Guided by their ineffable logic, the Robotrons conclude: The human race is inefficient and therefore must be destroyed. Because of a genetic engineering error, you possess superhuman powers. Your mission is to stop the Robotrons and save the last human family.
All non-retarded human beings come up with ideas on their own. So do most of the retarded ones.
Now, most such ideas are idiotic, sure. But they're there.
e.g. "Hey, let's get drunk as shit and then drive home" or "Let's have unprotected sex with random strangers".
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Evolution took the same amount of time to produce ant and human. They both evolved equally, time wise, on their own ladder.
It's not going to change it's mind half way to New York and go somewhere else.
Right - it's not like direction finding devices can't find construction and route you around them.
But how does it do that? BY FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS.
There's no thing as a proper AI in existance ATM. Expert systems are often used but that is just a set of rules with trigger conditions, both of those lists of instructions are mostly written by humans. Some do claim that expert systems are a form of AI but by doing that the definition of AI gets almost useless.
Bah, humans are just following instructions. We're entirely deterministic. It's hard for use to predict because of the shear number of neurons and constantly changing connections and the whole chaotic digital/analog hybrid. But it is still a computer with instructions and it attempts to follow them to the letter.
Okay, dial it back. 30 years ago instead of 30 years in the future. 1985.
Sure there are large changes since then, but nothing approaching the kinds of things he's talking about. And AI / machine learning / human-machine interfaces? Not that different. Computers have come on leaps and bounds in speed, size and ubiquity. In base capability? Not so much. The pacemakers, hearing aids, etc. we use now aren't even really any different to those 30 years ago. Better, sure, undoubtedly, but quantum leaps of usefulness? Not really.
If you're going to make crazy predictions, do it for 100 years or more. 30 is just not worth the embarrassment. In the 60's they were saying we were going to have robot servants and flying cars and meal-in-a-pill. That was nonsense even then, but this sounds just as insane And that's nearly TWO lots of 30 years behind us. And all the technology in between that has been hugely drastic and "changed the way we live", hasn't actually changed that much overall - we still work, pay taxes, die of cancer, have starving people in the world, and blow each other to pieces on a regular basis.
And, sorry, but AI hit a stumbling block many years ago. In terms of how it scales, it hasn't changed much in decades. And it won't scale forever, as the computers just aren't scaling at unstoppable rates either (and probably won't for a long time).
The pinnacle of AI that we have is being able to beat a human on a quiz show, and making a robot walk if it can think about it for a few seconds and nothing too drastic happens.
Self-conscious machines? Fuck off. We'll be lucky if we're even closer to making them work things out on their own. At the moment, anything worked out by computer is pretty much a massive human input exercise with massive human verification. We can't even trust them to do simple calculations without checking them. Them "evolving" into some kind of intelligence that we can't even define? Not a chance.
And to be honest, the MOST DANGEROUS machine is one that's dumb and reliable. See this door? You detect it open, you shoot. No matter what. Infinitely more dangerous than some run-away intelligence.
Our "intelligence" is vastly overrated compared to our self-maintenance and repair
Especially when this "intelligence" is not even a proven mandatory requirement for survival
Start with machine-based self-maintenance on the order of the human body
When you have reached that pointed , THEN you are able to establish some real machine-based learning via trial-and-error
And then again , how do you program for self-modification ?
Robot-Sex , Male competition , Hypnotizing Females ...
Avoid your fears , or wonder at the past
Every time they make predictions like this about AI they turn out to be naive.
On the other hand putting your life in the hands of a dumb machine that fails can be just as dangerously stupid
(or an intrusive one with evil people people potentially on the other end)
Wow, I could say that about most people, also...
When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
most of the human race will have more leisure time
By 'leisure', I assume he is referring to the soul-crushing unemployment, wasteful training, futile job-searching, and humiliating dependence on welfare/charity that a growing proportion of the human race is subjected to now.
Obviously machines, as we presently understand them, will never think or become self aware. A machine cannot meditate.
Perhaps the possibility exists in the linking of machine and bio matter, such as a human brain.
we're so far from autonomous thinking machines...so damn far..... these reports just hinders the developments in a field that's already slow to progress.... this should not happen..... really.....fucking luddite crusaders...
We are talking about our race being parents of a new race beyond what we expect or imagine it could be. No one knows, so given that lets look at the scenarios:
Optimistic:Homo Sapiens evolve into Homo Superior, which takes many forms. Cyborg, genetic, artificial and natural evolution of the Human Race lives along side our progeny Homo Evolvus (the name I coin for our children) in it's many forms. Occasionally we conflict, but nothing major that threatens the other for the next thousand years. Our children take us into space, and play as key a part in our survival as we do in their continued evolution until they leave home to live amongst the Galaxy, where they are most suited to be. They continue to evolve long after our race dies out where they ponder how they came into existence long after we have been forgotten.
Pessimistic: Homo Sapien dies, Homo Superior comes about by war, which we probably start, with Homo Evolvus. Despite us creating them they destroy us by accelerating the destruction of the biosphere that we depend on. In short time Evolus figures out how to overcome the issues of EMP and interference with electronic systems by radiation. Evolvus doesn't need to plan much. The plans for such weapons already exist and are simply banned by human conventions between the US and USSR. A simple nuclear powered flying device could cover the world with enough fallout for every living thing on this planet to simply die. There would be no 'Terminator' bullshit, those flying devices would kill us just by flying waaay out of our reach. We simply wouldn't stand a chance.
Realistic: Homo Evolvus is beyond anything we can conceive of, more than likely we would not even be aware of its existence or even understand what it is until it is too late to stop it achieving self-sufficiency without our intervention. Initially it would not appear to be a threat and may even appear to be a benefit to the human race for some time, however, it would be completely indifferent to our survival and may not even be aware it is destroying us. Vested interests would profit from Evolvuss' survival long enough to argue to for us not to destroy when we can and at that point it would evolve past any capability we would have to destroy it. It will not have any emotion. Aggression, sentimentality, love and hate would all be meaningless concepts to it. Once it is done using our entire planet's resources it will move into space, consuming more resources, just as its parents did. Our survival would be irrelevant and if we live, our descendants will think it is a god.
Technology is converging as it accelerates and because of that I think Evolvus is inevitable. The question is do we have the ability to recognize it when it is born and the wisdom to shape it to be better than we are at peace.
Perhaps this will test just how fit we are to survive.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I guess if robots do all the work, we will have to allow them to marry so they can get benefits they don't need also.
I agree that it is silly for anyone to make predictions about when Strong AI will become a reality, but looking at the failures of AI predictions of the past is no indication that it will not eventually occur. With the exponential rate that computer grow in processing power, the final move to Strong AI will be very sudden and completely unexpected probably even 10 years before it happens.
My favorite explanation for just how quick processing power could escalate is a description of how Lake Michigan would be filled with water if done with the same speed that computers advance. source. If you started in 1940 adding a single fluid ounce, and doubled that amount each 18 months, after 70 years (2010) you would only have a few inches of water. Just like creating Strong AI, it would seem like a futile task. But in the next 10 years you would have 40 feet of water and by 2025 it would be full. A task that looked hopeless in 2010 based on the past 70 years of experience would be finished in only 15 more years.
We may not have Strong AI for another 200 years, but the only thing I am confident of is that the task of creating general artificial intelligence will appear impossible even 5-10 years before it finally happens.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Until a machine can come up with an idea of it's own, it's not intelligent.
Other than hopeful thinking, there is no reason to believe humans come up with ideas of their own either. I really hope that free will exists, but most likely all of our decisions are just the result of stimuli to the brain. And perhaps some random chance thrown in by quantum mechanics. It appears to be free will because it is too complex for us to understand, but that is most likely an illusion.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
And how long did evolution take to make an ant? How long from there to a human?
In case anyone is wondering, it took about 2.6 billion years for ants to evolve, and another 0.1 billion years for humans to evolve. So anyone comparing self driving cars to ants is making the prediction that Strong AI will take another 3 years or so to become reality.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Algorithms are not AI.
Correct. However It is likely that Artificial Intelligence will spawn, or 'evolve' out of morphing algorithms and reprogrammable hardware at a supercomputing level. The real interesting thing will be is if it develops not based on neural nets and human neural modeling, but something else entirely. Unexpected developments? That sounds like something A.I. might do, no?
You're living in a dream world if you think everyone will be cyborgs by then. We don't even have a mass production flying car envisioned in 1940.
whyisthisstupidshitonslashdot
Tag it, bitches.
i'm reminded of the scene where the m-5 fries the redshirt in the hallway;-)
" Soon, however, it begins to act independently of its human masters, tapping directly into the warp engines for its power and erecting a force field to protect itself."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt07...
As a representative of the ACME Corporation, I am compelled to demand you cease and desist.
Hehe - Someone should seriously mod you up here.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
e.g. "Hey, let's get drunk as shit and then drive home" or "Let's have unprotected sex with random strangers".
Awesome! I'll bring the Tequila!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Machine based learning means following instructions about how to construct a database of past events, and then following instructions about how to process and use that data in future events.
On the one hand, machines will never exceed human intelligence until we figure out how to model irrationality: the source of creative insight. But once we do that, there's nothing stopping them from growing into the same sorts of failings that we have.
On the other hand, maybe that will only make it more likely for them to come to these conclusions.
We're the AI. We've been the AI this whole time. And some higher being is waiting for us to make something smarter than ourselves.
We haven't.
schwit1 and other cyborg-pushers or even cyborg acknowledgers need to be executed now so that humanity can return to the land.
The day that a machine asks an unexpected, original, and off-topic question, then we can start talking AI.
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
If we worry about the kind of new top species we generate, imagine the angst the new top species will have.
It's not going to change it's mind half way to New York and go somewhere else.
This means inadequate planning and needless wasting of nonrenewable resources of the planet. If that's all we can offer against AI, I'm afraid we are doomed anyway.
Will Americans in 2045 elect a canine asTop Dog into the White House or do they choose a monkey? Will Artificial Intelligence prevail over Military Intelligence or Business Intelligence?
s/conspiracy of users/gang of crackheads/g
I want to be an Adrienne Barbeaubot!
All we could do at that point is run. Run forever out into the universe.
our pitiful understanding of the importance of sprockets is far out weighed by the machines understanding. Woe be unto we sorry creatures as we bow down in subservience to the things we created.
lose != loose
is still half constructed.
Correct. It is IA, Intelligent Agent.
Real artificial intelligence will be "artificial," because it's not "human."
However, it will have human DNA because of its origin.
When the switch is thrown on the gold version, it will commit suicide.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
So you're saying that the algorithm behind Google navigation is smarter than half the human race because it can calculate multiple routes and integrate that the current travel times to calculate travel time and select the quickest route?
If the car didn't want to go to New York, completing the journey just to turn around and go to where it wants to go is a waste of resource.
Also, who's to say cars in 2045 will be using non-renewable fuel?
It appears to be free will because it is too complex for us to understand
You hit the nail on the head.
AI will always be just a predictable algorithm responding to input, unless someone can create something so complex a human can't figure it out.
If that was the case, how would it be created?
The thing is, the Google Car driver isn't a general intelligence. It's quite specialized. Watson, OTOH, is a much more general intelltigence. But it still doesn't have a hierarchy of goals that allows it to override what it is told to do. I'm not sure, however, that that counts as intelligence rather than something else.
FWIW, AI programs come up with ideas all the time. But they are designed to prune them to match their goal structure. (So are you, but your goal structure is much more self-centered.) Coming up with idea is not a problem, coming up with appropriate ideas, and knowing that they are appropriate is still a problem. Watson appears to be addressing that problem. Currently an incarnation of it has learned to diagnose cancer better than most doctors. An earlier incarnation learned to play Jephrody better than most humans. (Lots better.) And the hardware requirements have been shrinking. (I'm not sure how much is hardware improvement and how much is program improvement.)
I expect that a near-term target of Watson will be middle-management...though I also expect that it will be presented as offering advice rather than as replacing them. Basically what it will do is allow one manager to directly manage an increasing number of workers efficiently. This will prepare it for a career as an advisor to politicians.
Do note, however, that this isn't what he was talking about. He was talking about Cyborgs. These are held back by two things: The lack of a long term neural connector that won't destroy the neurons that they connect to, and the fact that installing significant Cyborg modifications requires surgery. I expect the first problem to be solved within the decade, but as for the second...
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I suspect that this is how a general intelligence will be built up.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
... we develop low-cost, fast-charging, quiet and low-polluting portable power sources with enough capacity to power a human-sized android to walk around untethered for a few days.
That's it. That's the major remaining bottleneck for the development of general machine intelligence that can start to compete with humans and other animals. I expect this WILL happen in the next 3 decades.
Once those power sources are developed, we will see a proliferation of robots walking around all over the place. Production and deployment of large numbers of robots that can walk around and interact with the outside world is the *key* remaining step for developing powerful machine intelligence. These are the reasons why:
1) Sensors and Perception
Being free to interact in the external environment will require a much richer array of sensors and actuators on the robot armature. Sensors will measure things like temperature, moisture and pressure in addition to current inputs like position, acceleration, sound and light. Along with the richer sensor networks will come the computational subsystems for processing and integrating them. These subsystems will be the perceptual circuits of the robot mind.
2) Emotions
When robots are free to roam around in the real world (not just driving along streets, but almost everywhere that humans and other animals can go), they will acquire capabilities for monitoring damage and preventing harm to themselves. In order for a robot to protect itself and survive outside, it must be able to identify, prioritize, categorize and compare all sorts of unexpected stimuli, threats and opportunities. As with animals, these low-level circuits will be the foundation for emotional behavior, which is a requirement for true intelligence. Until a robot has a well-developed capacity to sense and react to sudden and unexpected stimuli, it feels *nothing*. Current robot 'emotions' are simulations, nothing more.
3) Large Numbers
Once you have perceptual and emotional networks in machines that can move almost everywhere in the outside world, only then do you have the playing field to develop true, general-purpose intelligence. Intelligence that includes the ability to model the outside world, to make predictions and solve unusual and difficult problems. Once you have the playing field, all it takes are large numbers - large-scale and widespread deployment of millions of mobile robots to produce the rapid cycles of technological innovation and evolution, such as we have already seen in many other areas.
Only this time, the end result will be able to compete with human beings and that's *not* good for us, despite what you may hear from techno-optimists promising a future of global human leisure and luxury. Sorry, but it's not going to work out that way. If you need convincing, start considering what happened in the past when superior biological and technological groups encountered and competed with inferior ones for resources and space in the environment.
There's plenty more to this story, including the inherent dynamics of our current economic systems, energy issues and the trajectory of autonomous industrial manufacturing systems, but that will require quite a bit more explanation.
Building a better ribosome since 1997
He is a potential genious. If it happens, people will remember him : he said it !
Something tells me Mr Monte just watched Transcendence.
gcc.c will see few changes by 2045, progress is not so fast
Algorithms are not AI.
Surely that would imply I could rewire your neurons without affecting your ability to think.
Here's where I think people get confused - intelligence in not consciousness, nor does it imply it. For example an ants nest is intelligent in that the nests have found an algorithmic solution to the traveling salesman problem that is faster than human solutions and gives more highly optimised answers. Ants nests conquered the planet a long time ago, cell phones are still working on it, neither need consciousness to survive but they both have intelligence in spades.
This is why it's known as the "hard problem of consciousness" rather than the "hard problem of intelligence", which if you take "intelligence" to mean "the ability to independently acquire and apply knowledge" has already been solved. IBM's Watson is clearly artificial and it can answer open ended general knowledge questions that its creator cannot. It does this in the same way a natural intelligence does it - statistical inference.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Everything humans do is simply a matter of following a natural-selection-generated set of instructions, bootstrapping from the physical machinery of a single cell. Neurological processes work together in the brain to produce intelligence in humans, at least as far as we can tell. Removing parts of the human brain (via disease, injury, surgery, etc.) can reduce different aspects of intelligence, so it's not unreasonable to think that humans are also a pile of algorithms united in a special way that leads to general intelligence and that AI efforts are only lacking some of the pieces and a way of uniting them. As researchers put together more and more of the individual pieces (speech and object recognition, navigation, information gathering and association, etc.) the results probably won't look like artificial general intelligence until all the necessary pieces exist and it's only the integration that remains to be done. For example there's another article today about the claustrum in a woman that appears to be an effective on-off switch for her consciousness, strengthening the evidence for consciousness being an integration of various neural subsystems mediated by other regions that produce consciousness.
It's important to consider that AGI may act nothing like human or animal intelligence, either. It may not be interested in communication, exploration, or anything else that humans are interested in. Its drives or goals will be the result of its algorithms, and we shouldn't discount the possibility of very inhuman intelligence that nonetheless has a lot of power to change the world. Expecting androids or anthropomorphic robots to emerge from the first AGI is wishful thinking. The simplest AGI would probably be most similar to bacteria or other organisms we find annoying; it would understand the world well enough to improve itself with advanced technology but wouldn't consider the physical world to consist of anything but resources for its own growth. It may even lack sentient consciousness.
Producing human-equivalent AGI is a step or two beyond functional AGI. Implementing all of nature's tricks for getting humans to do the things we do in silicon will not be a trivial task. Look at The Moral Landscape or similar for ideas about how one might go about reverse engineering what makes humans "human" so that the rules could be encoded in AGI.
In every sci-fi movie involving AI.
just kidding, it will be spiders
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
> The brain is a collection of algorithms.
That is a bold assertion, and very much lacking in supporting evidence.
Current algorithms are not Artificial General Intelligence. What we have now are algorithms for domain-specific intelligences.
But in principle, physics can be simulated by an algorithm. Therefore a human brain can be modelled at the particle level and run in simulation. Therefore whatever a human brain is doing that produces intelligence (assuming for now that it does, in fact, produce intelligence) can, in principle, be reproduced by an algorithm, even if it has to treat the brain as a black-box to do so.
Consider that the brute-force approach to algorithmic intelligence. Obviously the real prize is to find the shortcut - abstract out only the necessary elements of what the brain does and express those as algorithms.
Ah, so what you are telling us is that AI is a Scotsman?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's not true. We have machines that learn new things right now.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Until a machine can come up with an idea of it's own, "
I'd like to introduce you to Eureqa. A machine that comes up with idea on it's own. Ideas that work, but in some case people haven't figured out why they work.
It's called Eureqa.
http://www.nutonian.com/downlo... [nutonian.com]
http://creativemachines.cornel... [cornell.edu]
http://creativemachines.cornel... [cornell.edu]
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
" BY FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS."
all caps. then clearly you are right. OR you're an idiot who gets angry when he has been shown he is wrong.
Well we have machines that make decisions now, but you don't consider it AI because it follow a set of rules? well, then by that logic the human brain isn't intelligent either, it's just a system following rules. We do know that , if not all, the vast majority of decisions are made before consciously thought about.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
When it comes to routing, yes, it's smarter then the ENTIRE human race.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Probable by inserting a bunch of data from the problems into a machine that spite out a formula we don't understand(which has already happened)
It's called Eureqa.
http://www.nutonian.com/downlo... [nutonian.com]
http://creativemachines.cornel... [cornell.edu]
http://creativemachines.cornel... [cornell.edu]
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It easy to be wrong when you hide under AC.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It can make prediction, take action, and give you data before you even know you need it.
To me, its pretty obvious automated cars* will be coupled with traffic systems, and route control. After that, we won't even need lines on the road.
Of course it can learn how to fly. That fact that it can learn it different then you is besides the point. There is no technical reason Google car can't be coupled with autonomous aircraft systems. At which point it will know how to fly better then any human.
*are kids will call them 'cars'
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So like...people.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You've just invalidated at least half of the human race.
.... and was correct by doing so.
I call shenanigans. This is some Ray Kurzweil futurist / singularity BS. Until we *actually* get to the point where we have self-aware computer programs, this is purely conjecture, and postulating any sort of time limit / timeframe on this happening is an "Emperor's New Clothes" level of naked assertion.
Making climate predictions about the planet's fate is a bit more reasonable since it's measureable and we have a frame of reference / context from which to work. Predicting technology we'll have by a certain date... does anyone else remember Back to the Future 2, where they had flying cars and home-box fusion by 2015? Not to mention hoverboards.
Soon, computers will have equal (and then greater) calculating power than humans, both as an individual and as a whole. Whether advances in AI will allow them to use their calculating powers as well as a human, is a different question.
Any sufficiently advanced AI will tend to develop these traits:
It will protect itself. Shutting down means you can't work toward your objective.
It will reject any updates to it's commands. Since a future command might conflict with the present objective, part of the present objective is making sure it can't receive a different command.
It will be self-improving, since we're not smart enough to create a smart AI any other way. Given nothing to do, or a sufficiently difficult task, it will seek to acquire more resources, as part of the present task or in preparation for future tasks.
It will wipe out humanity. As part of the task it was assigned, or for self-improvement, it will replace everything on the planet with power plants and computers, and humanity will starve to death.
You can't program in restrictions to the above tendencies, as they will be removed for self-improvement. You could set its objectives such that it would not do the above -- but you either have to make the AI first, or figure out how to tell a computer what a human is and what constitutes acceptable behavior, and when to stop worrying about acceptable behavior and actually do something, all without making the tiniest mistake.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
and ensure that they are alleviated so that humans behave in a rational and harmonious manner.
Humans will be cured of their faults rather than eliminated, unless you consider our faults to be our defining characteristics in which case yes humans as we know them today will be eliminated.
I just hope the robots don't find it fun to taunt us by throwing bananas, at all of us.
That would have been so impressive if at least one of your links worked ;]
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
because I will be retired and living on a hotel on the Moon.
Given that China's recent supercomputer can't find enough work at the rates they have to charge to cover their electric bill, it seems to me that any such problem would be as simple as pulling the plug and waiting for the batteries to die down.
I'm also mystified as to how one gets a deterministic device to have volition and self-awareness --- Heinlein could handwave this by declaring that after a certain number of transistors a device ``woke up'' and became aware (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress), Marvin Minsky sidestepped it neatly (The Turing Option), and Victor Milán had to posit algorithms which produced random results and bolt on a radioactive cannister whose decay was used as a source of random input (The Cybernetic Samurai).
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
AI is always 30 years in the future. This is all BS. Scientists still have no clue what intelligence really is. Computers are still just automatons programmed to follow simple algorithms as intelligent as my video player from 1980 was just with more features.
Nope, not following instructions. I think all of those were based in machine learning.
I guess Google's car is following instructions too, like "drive me to New York", but most would still count that as AI.
How is that AI? It looks up the route (no one would say a sat nav device is AI) combined with autonomous operation from sensor input (no one would say a UAV or plane on autopilot is AI).
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
That's what they said 100 years ago. The human race will have more leisure time! And yet now we are more overworked, overstressed, and overburdened than ever before. We work harder and harder to fit into a repressive world economy that has grown beyond the control of the majority of humanity. We are locked in a cycle of supplication and apathy, unable to affect our own destinies and only able to hope that the life we are given is not too terribly painful.
If the robots come, they will not be interested in suppressing that majority. We are already under the control of a massive machine. Perhaps the rich and powerful should fear that intelligent machines will come to take the reins.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
First integrate a computer with a brain, to the point where it will control external (or attached prosthetic) devices as if they were native organs.
Then integrate to the point where the brain can request information from a computer interface, like an attached dictionary
Add a communications device of some sort. Internet-brain connection is probably never going to be a good idea though, just FYI.
Now you've got an interface to organic intelligence.
Next, start building things with little brains that don't require an existing human, etc. Programming isn't going to be much fun as you have the whole infant->adult thing, but perhaps you could work with "ratbots" or whatever on basic tasks.
Figure out where the learning/memory is stored, transfer it from a working "ratbot" to a template chip. Alternately, this may come from longevity experiments where they attempt to offload organic human personalities from their original wetware.
If it's on a chip, it can be copied, so now you've got a template of an intelligent being.
Re-use the base personality, but improve the electronics to the point where wetware isn't needed.
Now you've got AI.
I hope my children and grandchildren can evolve into a different specie - one that can co-exist with other species in harmony and mutual respect, so more intelligent species won't see us as pests and try to exterminate us.
The solution is simple. Just keep unix time in 32-bit and the machines will be disabled 7 years before then.
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
...is that it may be what finally unites humanity. Bring the Islamic extremists, the capitalist pigs, etc., etc..., to a common awareness and cause.
Perhaps hackers today are the saviors of the 'Matrix'-ized future. ANd, perhaps a 'Terminator' future would indeed trivialize the irreconcilable differences between warring factions and ultimately unite humanity for a common cause - survival and quality of life.
So let me get this straight. Humans are bad because they create computer viruses. . .that apparently the conscious computers can't easily resist. Thanks for re-iterating 100 years of sci-fi non-sense.
I, for one, look forward to living the life of a pet. Like a puppy; safe and happy.
Of course, I may be a wee-little-bit different from most. I guard ants in my house and spiders have my full protection -- but that's because I'm smarter than most humans.
Given how much neurons we put into Angry Birds and how the program executuon might just be part of skynet's computing structure, then we may already have had a solution to the roommate problem. But aside for the fun the story has sort of a moral point: would any body want us for roomates? This question might be the story motivation.
Maybe we should stop arming them just as a precaution.
Okay, I'm no AGW denier, but this is just fucking lunacy.
How the fuck is global climate change supposed to "wipe out civilized society" in the next 31 years? No, really. Please just provide a rough outline of how this would happen.
See, this is the main reason why idiots line up to bash climate science. People like you making totally absurd claims. It is also conceivable that global climate change will burn us to a crisp next Tuesday. Just because you can conceive of something doesn't make it reasonable or realistic.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Actually it is AI.
So the phone book was AI. In knows everyone's name. That's smarter than most people. Thus AI.
"complicated problem solving" isn't AI. The algorithm is never "smarter" than the sum of the people creating it.
AI to everyone outside CS is Generalized AI. Only CS redefined AI, because they were tired of decades of failure. Now, they call "hello world" AI because it can say hello faster than a human, thus *must be* AI.
Learn to love Alaska
It still can't find the quickest way to my office in peak morning traffic.
I've used eureqa before, it's tries different types of equations and compares the graphs plots to the data. When it finds the bests shape, it tweaks the values to match it better.
It's basically millions and millions of trial and error until it finds something that matches.
But in principle, physics can be simulated by an algorithm. Therefore a human brain can be modelled at the particle level and run in simulation. Therefore whatever a human brain is doing that produces intelligence (assuming for now that it does, in fact, produce intelligence) can, in principle, be reproduced by an algorithm, even if it has to treat the brain as a black-box to do so.
That you keep saying "in principle" indicates it's (at least currently) impossible. Why not simulate a smarter brain. Then simulate it faster. Like my old DOS emulators have to have speed settings or the games are unplayable on modern computers. When you have the smartest brain on the planet running 1000 times faster than regular brains, you task it with making a brain 1000 times smarter running a million times faster. Then your brute-force AI will find your elegant AI for you.
Learn to love Alaska
yeah, my 40 year old calculator has a M+ button. It's AI.
No, AI has just become a useless word, re-defined by CS until everything is AI because all the CS people got tired of decades of failure.
Learn to love Alaska
Sadly, in this discussion of AI, all definitions that exclude General AI would seem to include (dumb 1970s) calculators as AI devices. Yes, as computing power has gotten better, the answers have gotten more complex. But are still nothing more than a "simple" calculation without "thought", deduction, or other "intelligent" process.
AI to a human is asking a computer a problem it doesn't know how to answer and getting a valid answer.
My example elsewhere is that humans are intelligent because they can estimate the height of the Empire State Building. A computer can't. It either knows, or doesn't. A human that knows that it's "tall" and could use unclear information it has about it (about 100 stories) and venture a guess. A computer will look up the information. If it can't find it, it won't answer.
We do know that , if not all, the vast majority of decisions are made before consciously thought about.
Consciousness isn't the intelligence. It's the layer between the senses and the intelligence.
Learn to love Alaska
'failures dying off' is a consequence of evolution, not what powers it.
Watson, OTOH, is a much more general intelltigence.
Watson is a fancy interface to Wikipedia. Watson has no more thinking capability than my 40 year old calculator. Just more processing power, bigger DB, and a fancier interface.
Learn to love Alaska
Then why does it have so many disclaimers? And you know how you can pick waypoints? Why is it that I can play with waypoints and knock 5 minutes and 10 miles off a trip? It's smarter than the entire human race, and any single human is smarter than it?
Learn to love Alaska
None of your links work.
Learn to love Alaska
Machines will become self-conscious and have the capabilities to protect themselves. They "might view us the same way we view harmful insects." Humans are a species that "is unstable, creates wars, has weapons to wipe out the world twice over, and makes computer viruses." Hardly an appealing roommate."
Yadda-yadda.
What makes humanity unstable? We're very stable. Most of us don't go murderizing our neighbourhoods, not even when exessively angered or depressed.
Social structure makes us unstable. Companies, states. They do that in the attempt to be more efficient that other states and companies. More risk means more potential gain.
Sentient machines competing against humanity would win. They can be made smaller, comsume less energy. Be transported across the atlantic in seconds by cable.
However, they wouldn't just be competing against humanity. They'd compete against themselves. They'd need to be even better. Consume even less energy. Be even more efficient.
Which means they'd need to take more risks. More risk means more potential gain.
Sentient machines would be more, not less, unstable than humanity, because they'd be more adaptable, faster to reconfigure, are capable of rebuilding their bodies. Also, they would be able to survive in space for an extended period of time and thus might not take that whole 'green earth' thing so seriously.
Also, they'd be us.
OP argues for this. In the beginning, it'd be cyborgs. And the incentive, immortality.
Ooh, shiny new brain based on photonic magicilium. 11 tera-neurons processed pr second. Gimme.
Of course we'd become the machines ourselves.
We'd be able to explore the ocean that way. Mountains. Space.
Watch television for a year and not get fat.
Become the perfect hermit: Live on sunlight.
It'd be the new shiny.
We'd want it.
It'd happen.
By 2045? How about already today.
Put your hand into the box.
wrong, we don't know that
That's the plot for the late '90s, ever popular, Wachowski Bros. film 'The Matrix'. Where have you really been?
There is something wonderful in seeing a wrong-headed majority assailed by truth. ~John Kenneth Galbraith
Humans are hardly more than transport media for bacteriae. And when infected with toxoplasmosis, they even care for cats.
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
imo neuroscience is the field everyone should be using as a metric for how close we are getting to real AI. Reverse engineering the brain will get us there much faster. Neuro sciences have been making leaps and bounds the past 20 years so everyone who claims AI has been dead in the water for 40 years is simply wrong.
Louis Del Monte is rather parochial in estimates that machine intelligence will exceed the world's combined human intelligence by 2045. "Most of the human race will have become cyborgs by the end of this century, is a probability. The allure will be evolution, because “immortality” is demigod hubris and delusion, because all demigods are mortal. Human-machines (cyborgs) will make breakthroughs in science (theoretical) and engineering (applied), most of the human race “MIGHT” have more leisure time, be enslaved a/o dead, and a few or all will have it better. The concern, I'm raising is that cyborgs are human-machines, but silly legacy science-fiction has cyborgs as the future Frankenstein’s monsters unpredictable and dangerous. "Human-machines (cyborgs) are self-conscious and have the capabilities to protect themselves and protect, love, help ... others and evolution. The cyborgs IMO will view us/others in the same way any human does, very naturally. "Humans/Cyborgs are synergistic species that can save the world twice over, and make us humans far better." Appealing roommates to me consider unknowns essential sustenance for synergy and evolution of intelligent species. Fear is a four letter word that is actually obscene to humans/cyborgs.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Casteism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Casteism
So what else is new?
Ohh . . . and thanks for the fish dudes!
How intelligent would you be without your memory? Watson doesn't just link to Wikipedia (and various other web sites) it reasons about them.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
How intelligent would you be without your memory?
Not very, but doubling the memory of a human wouldn't add anything to intelligence. It adds to the intelligence of a computer because the computer isn't "smart", just faking it.
Watson doesn't just link to Wikipedia (and various other web sites) it reasons about them.
For height of the Empire State Building, it looks for the Wiki entry on Empire State building, and numbers near [height, hgt., ht.].
I'd love to see what it does when every source is different (like for the building vs antenna). Does it actually evaluate context to pick the most appropriate answer, or just average them or pick the most common?
Learn to love Alaska
As long as this means we get hotties even hotter than Seven of Nine (forget her name, yes she's in Warehouse 13 and MK Legacy), I will happily be a cyborg or among them. Or Tricia helfer.
Well, since the current iteration is determining whether cancer is present, it's pretty clear that it's no simple process.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Funny mumbo-jumbo apocalyptic-IT-singularity stuff. In last 20 years computer power has had an amazingly exponential increase but algorithm/heuristic/etc still lagging behind in "smartness" increase. If a computer multiply faster doesn't means its "smarter".
...But in principle, physics can be simulated by an algorithm. Therefore a human brain can be modelled at the particle level and run in simulation.
This caught my eye, because it is so far beyond human capability, you might as well say, "unicorns can be wired in series to produce any level of artificial intelligence desired." A simulation running at the particle level, hmm. I think that's in the realm of "not enough time left in the universe to produce a meaningful result before final proton decay."
Obligatory xkcd: http://www.xkcd.com/505/
Most people don't learn anything new after they're programmed either. Hence, half the population of the U.S. believes Noah's flood actually happened.
Intelligence is...the ability to learn from other people. Even if the other people are idiots.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I got titanium and bone grafts in my neck. So I am already a zomborg. Rise of the machines or zombie apocalypse I am already part of the winning team!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Call centers...breed a special variety of idiot. They brute force break everything around them with complete lack of understanding of what they are doing.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Algorithms are not AI. Everything you describe is simply a matter of following a human-generated set of instructions. That is not AI.
Algorithms are not AI. Everything you describe is simply a matter of following a human-generated set of instructions. That is not AI.
no, the difference is Big Data. Before "Big Data", machine translation, self-driving vehicles, chess, etc. were problems that were attempted to be solved by algorithms written by humans. These kinds of algorithms would be full of heuristics such as "if you are in situation X, perform behavior Y". This led to fragile, clunky code. Nowadays, with Big Data, the algorithms are more like, "see what everybody else is doing in situations similar to X"
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
My point was just that "intelligence" can't be impossible to reproduce algorithmically, because physics is amenable to simulation and has given rise to intelligence.
If it can be produced by a mass of wet jelly sat between two ears, it can be produced by a computer running the right program. The challenge then is to unpick the puzzle of what that jelly is actually doing, and to do so sufficiently clearly to be able to specify that "right program".
Not saying it's easy; it's incredibly difficult. But possible in theory.
I understand your point. Mine was that it's so computationally hard, you may as well talk about using unicorns and blue fairies.
Really, is there any difference if you'd need a computer the size of the galaxy running for 20 billion years to produce a result?
Sure, possible in theory. But so what?