Aritificial Intelligence, A Modern Approach - Stuart Russel & Peter Novig. Page 2. The chart at the top of the page states that these are not, in fact, separate concepts.
Honestly, my only point is that the entire field refers to itself as Artificial Intelligence, so there is no offense in calling it Artificial Intelligence.
I won't argue that the net is intelligent or not in that sense, you obviously have a point in this sense, though, I wouldn't exactly choose your particular argument. In that sense, a bobber on a fishing line is also intelligent, or a governor on an engine, but the engineer of neither system would refer to himself as a practitioner of artificial intelligence.
A different counter-argument that I could choose is that there are professors in Machine Learning who really feel the field, in the sense that they study it, is a beefed up version of statistics, rather than a branch of AI.
Even so, I'm not really confusing the issue. Consciousness is another issue altogether. What I meant is "intelligent."
Think of it this way. A neural-network describes a manifold that can be used to control a vehicle, much in the same way that a controller does. The neural net has merely been a tool used to solve a regression problem, in this sense. This manifold can be plotted in a, granted, higher than visually perceptible, number of dimensions. A controller (in the sense from Mechanical Engineering) can also be plotted in the same way. In fact, exploiting these facts has a great deal to do with how the problem is solved.
Is, then, the set of equations describing the controller "intelligent," but not "conscious?" If I were to print a chart, projected down to visual dimensionality, of these manifolds, would it also be "intelligent," or is it only intelligent when my program looks up the point on that chart which tells it which direction to point the wheel in when it is travelling at speed x and wants to go in direction gamma? To take the view stated in "Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (Russell and Norvig)", the answer is obviously that, when combined with the program providing its inputs, that this is an intelligent agent, but that the graph itself is not.
So, would a Mechanical Engineer writing such a controller describe it as "intelligent?" It really depends on which of them you ask.
I actually did a quick search on that quote, because it sounds like something that Minsky might have said (mostly based on my readings of his work and the only brief conversation that I have ever had with him), but I hadn't heard it before.
A few quote files bring up hits on the phrase, "Asking if computers can think is like asking if submarines can swim," but none attribute it to Minsky. Even so, he has written on this topic. His most direct statement of opinion on this matter is probably his paper, "Why People Think Computers Can't," AI Magazine, vol. 3 no. 4, Fall 1982. I did a quick Google search to see if there is a publicly available copy, and, Googling this should bring the copy on his web site up as the first hit. A couple of links down is a PDF version which I don't think has restricted distribution.
I'm an RA at an "Artificial Intelligence" lab. In the Fall, I'll be working on my PhD, studying "artificial intelligence." I have a membership to the American Association for "Artificial Intelligence," which is one of the most respected organizations in the field of "Artificial Intelligence."
I don't seen anything geniunely "intelligent" about a support vector machine, but, it does get the job done quite nicely.
I've worked with some of the best people in the field of "artificial intelligence" and spoken with a number of others. Let me look over my bookshelf... "Aritifical Intelligence - Stuart Russel and Peter Norvig." "The Society of Mind - Marvin Minsky (founder of the MIT "Artificial Intelligence Laboratory")... Some others that don't have such easy citations linking them to instances where the practitioner referred to themselves as being in the field of "Artificial Intelligence," but "Mind and Mechanism - Drew McDermott..." Lets see, he also wrote "Artifical Intelligence Programming, co-authored by Eugene Charniak."
Quite a bit of what we do has nothing to do with emulating human intelligence, though some of it does. Cog, for instance, experiments with human-like behavior. Is the neural net that I wrote that can steer a car "intelligent?" I don't really think so, not in a way that would offend me if it were called "artificial intelligence." My office-mate just got a best-paper award in an Aritifial Intelligence conference.
You would be referring to the "Mother of All Demos" that Doug Engelbart gave.
There is the big difference there that all of the technologies that he demonstrated were already developed and working, that others had a fair level of consent that they would eventually exist, and that he was talking about the near future.
Yeah, that's another problem. Who the hell wants to dump $10,000 on an ad in the Metro. That's going to be your version of the Firefox NYT ad? An ugly ad in the Metro?
No. OO.O doesn't have a lot of the things that FireFox had in place when they did this.
People forget a lot about FireFox. For one, everyone, 10 years ago, was using Netscape... which begat Mozilla... which begat FireFox.
People are comparing this to FireFox, because FireFox has a lot of support. People view FireFox as an open source victory. There's a lot different about FireFox though. For one, it was competing against IE, which wasn't as feature-rich and didn't work as well (sorry MS). Compare to MS Office, which OO.O actually has a tough time competing against (Yes, let the flamewar begin. There's nothing like 1000 posts saying, "but I don't use those features!").
Anyway, by the time FireFox was dumping out newspaper ads, IT pros were already recommending their users install it rather than IE, and people were listening. I don't think that that is remotely true of OO.O.
Also, the ad isn't going to resonate with anybody. 99.95% of the population doesn't believe that all software needs to be free, and certainly even less understand what that means, since most people who discuss the matter and clamor to the call don't actually understand what it means.
The ad just isn't going to work on the general public, and it's too soon, there isn't the grassroots support for it. They should wait a year or two until they have their own head of steam, and don't have to ride FireFox's coattails.
Maybe the purpose of the lawsuit was to allow SCO to develop enhancements to Linux without fear of people using their code. Afterall, who the hell wants to deal with anything that SCO has ever touched these days?
There is no real reason to go electric of hydrogen. In order for that to help the environment at all, you need to have the alternative power infastructure in place. The only stuff that you're going to do efficiently without trashing the environment at this point is nuclear, and that's been pretty much regulated and protested out of existence.
If anything, the best point at this point would be the possibility that your plant uses a domestically produced fuel, so we don't have to trash our economy any more handing our dough over to people who want to blow us up.
Anyway, it's a pointless argument, The video strikes me as a sensationalist look at a product that just failed. It's hard to sell people on cars that require special infastructure, perform poorly... and that Occam's Razor indicates are only minimally going to help the environment in the end... not that the majority of motorists care. The market is not thinking, "I can't wait to pass up that badass Corvette for a commensurately priced economy style vehicle that caps out at 55 and can't be filled up at a regular station. Sign me up!" The market is purchasing even larger SUVs, despite soaring gas prices. Do you think they care that the car promises to improve the environment?
That's actually kind of where I was going with the three laws thought... even in the stories, they go horribly awry. I could see where this would springboard discussion and thought experiments though.
That effect is discussed in the same thesis that I read about the Smarties bit from. The Smarties bit was really just to demonstrate the importance of reasoning about oneself conceptually in a manner that is related to self-awareness. Interestingly, robots did this in experiments last year, and its importance has been discussed for a while.
Actually, there are very good reasons to make a robot aware of its own existence. Certain types of reasoning and learning are helped significantly by the ability to reason about the existence of oneself.
Consider the following experiment, which toddlers have difficulty performing prior to 4 years, but are able to after. A tube is presented to them, with the logo of a candy company on it, "smarties," not the American ones, but the British ones. The child is asked, what is in this tube? At this point, the child invariably says, "smarties!" The conductor of the experiment then opens the tube, revealing pencils. The experimenter asks again, "what is in this tube?" The child says, "pencils." Now, "if I ask another child what is in this tube, what do you think they will say?" Before 4, the kid will say, "pencils." After, they will say, "smarties."
This reasoning task requires the kid to model themselves prior to the revelation that there are pencils in the tube. It requires a model of what happened after. It, further, requires a model of the other child, of what they will be like without this knowledge. This is actually part of a model of self-awareness, but it's not the entire model. You might ask, "why would a robot need to know this?" Well, actually, it's quite important if the robot is to interract with people, because people will expect the robot to behave in an appropriate manner. Dangerous scenarios could arise because the robot does not understand that things that are in its field of view, for instance, are not in the field of view of a person. An example might be a robot handling dangerous materials, during a construction task. Perhaps the person can't see that it's handling hot metal. A person would warn the other person, avoiding danger.
As for the three laws, they were written in a body of fiction. I think that too much attention is paid to them.
I don't really see why this is curious. When I think of robots, I don't think of daemons, web crawlers, spamming programs, and other such things. Those are an overloaded use of the word "robot," and most people just say 'bot (robot would sound awkward in this usage).
When I was touring around robotics programs, figuring out where to do my PhD, nobody showed me their 'bot net, or discussed distributed denial of service. These things just have nothing to do with robotics.
The story is about a student telling off his school in his blog. He got expelled. Expelling him on this account is a violation of his free speech.
Sure, the school could have used evidence found in his blog against him in court, in a trial, if he admitted to breaking the law in his blog, it could be considered a confession. That grey area is being explored.
This, however, hasn't anything to do with that grey area. The freedom to open your mouth and state your opinion is protected by the Bill of Rights, and the school is attempting to not only silence his protected speech, but to punish him and make him an example to others. This is exactly what that law was written to protect him from, and I hope that his constitutional rights are upheld, that he prosecutes the school for this infringment, followed by a private suit.
If it's reported to the Joliet Police and has to do with infringing on freedom of speech, you can be sure that ManCow will have the details this morning.
Slashdot Mirror
Aritificial Intelligence, A Modern Approach - Stuart Russel & Peter Novig. Page 2. The chart at the top of the page states that these are not, in fact, separate concepts.
Honestly, my only point is that the entire field refers to itself as Artificial Intelligence, so there is no offense in calling it Artificial Intelligence.
I won't argue that the net is intelligent or not in that sense, you obviously have a point in this sense, though, I wouldn't exactly choose your particular argument. In that sense, a bobber on a fishing line is also intelligent, or a governor on an engine, but the engineer of neither system would refer to himself as a practitioner of artificial intelligence.
A different counter-argument that I could choose is that there are professors in Machine Learning who really feel the field, in the sense that they study it, is a beefed up version of statistics, rather than a branch of AI.
Even so, I'm not really confusing the issue. Consciousness is another issue altogether. What I meant is "intelligent."
Think of it this way. A neural-network describes a manifold that can be used to control a vehicle, much in the same way that a controller does. The neural net has merely been a tool used to solve a regression problem, in this sense. This manifold can be plotted in a, granted, higher than visually perceptible, number of dimensions. A controller (in the sense from Mechanical Engineering) can also be plotted in the same way. In fact, exploiting these facts has a great deal to do with how the problem is solved.
Is, then, the set of equations describing the controller "intelligent," but not "conscious?" If I were to print a chart, projected down to visual dimensionality, of these manifolds, would it also be "intelligent," or is it only intelligent when my program looks up the point on that chart which tells it which direction to point the wheel in when it is travelling at speed x and wants to go in direction gamma? To take the view stated in "Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (Russell and Norvig)", the answer is obviously that, when combined with the program providing its inputs, that this is an intelligent agent, but that the graph itself is not.
So, would a Mechanical Engineer writing such a controller describe it as "intelligent?" It really depends on which of them you ask.
Neat quote, btw. I'm definitely sticking that one into my quote file.
I actually did a quick search on that quote, because it sounds like something that Minsky might have said (mostly based on my readings of his work and the only brief conversation that I have ever had with him), but I hadn't heard it before.
A few quote files bring up hits on the phrase, "Asking if computers can think is like asking if submarines can swim," but none attribute it to Minsky. Even so, he has written on this topic. His most direct statement of opinion on this matter is probably his paper, "Why People Think Computers Can't," AI Magazine, vol. 3 no. 4, Fall 1982. I did a quick Google search to see if there is a publicly available copy, and, Googling this should bring the copy on his web site up as the first hit. A couple of links down is a PDF version which I don't think has restricted distribution.
No offense, but I'm not sure that I buy that.
I'm an RA at an "Artificial Intelligence" lab. In the Fall, I'll be working on my PhD, studying "artificial intelligence." I have a membership to the American Association for "Artificial Intelligence," which is one of the most respected organizations in the field of "Artificial Intelligence."
I don't seen anything geniunely "intelligent" about a support vector machine, but, it does get the job done quite nicely.
I've worked with some of the best people in the field of "artificial intelligence" and spoken with a number of others. Let me look over my bookshelf... "Aritifical Intelligence - Stuart Russel and Peter Norvig." "The Society of Mind - Marvin Minsky (founder of the MIT "Artificial Intelligence Laboratory")... Some others that don't have such easy citations linking them to instances where the practitioner referred to themselves as being in the field of "Artificial Intelligence," but "Mind and Mechanism - Drew McDermott..." Lets see, he also wrote "Artifical Intelligence Programming, co-authored by Eugene Charniak."
Quite a bit of what we do has nothing to do with emulating human intelligence, though some of it does. Cog, for instance, experiments with human-like behavior. Is the neural net that I wrote that can steer a car "intelligent?" I don't really think so, not in a way that would offend me if it were called "artificial intelligence." My office-mate just got a best-paper award in an Aritifial Intelligence conference.
So, anyway, I guess to be brief, I disagree.
You would be referring to the "Mother of All Demos" that Doug Engelbart gave.
There is the big difference there that all of the technologies that he demonstrated were already developed and working, that others had a fair level of consent that they would eventually exist, and that he was talking about the near future.
Ohhh, ok.
Pirating fonts for use in for-profit activities falls under YRO?
I didn't realize that this was a right.
I don't want to be a grammar Nazi, but I think that what you meant was "you'd would."
Yeah, that's another problem. Who the hell wants to dump $10,000 on an ad in the Metro. That's going to be your version of the Firefox NYT ad? An ugly ad in the Metro?
No. OO.O doesn't have a lot of the things that FireFox had in place when they did this.
People forget a lot about FireFox. For one, everyone, 10 years ago, was using Netscape... which begat Mozilla... which begat FireFox.
People are comparing this to FireFox, because FireFox has a lot of support. People view FireFox as an open source victory. There's a lot different about FireFox though. For one, it was competing against IE, which wasn't as feature-rich and didn't work as well (sorry MS). Compare to MS Office, which OO.O actually has a tough time competing against (Yes, let the flamewar begin. There's nothing like 1000 posts saying, "but I don't use those features!").
Anyway, by the time FireFox was dumping out newspaper ads, IT pros were already recommending their users install it rather than IE, and people were listening. I don't think that that is remotely true of OO.O.
Also, the ad isn't going to resonate with anybody. 99.95% of the population doesn't believe that all software needs to be free, and certainly even less understand what that means, since most people who discuss the matter and clamor to the call don't actually understand what it means.
The ad just isn't going to work on the general public, and it's too soon, there isn't the grassroots support for it. They should wait a year or two until they have their own head of steam, and don't have to ride FireFox's coattails.
Maybe the purpose of the lawsuit was to allow SCO to develop enhancements to Linux without fear of people using their code. Afterall, who the hell wants to deal with anything that SCO has ever touched these days?
Now, that is a proper conspiracy theory.
or is this just a short phase to gain publicity?
I'm pretty sure that most ads are made in an effort to gain publicity.
There is no real reason to go electric of hydrogen. In order for that to help the environment at all, you need to have the alternative power infastructure in place. The only stuff that you're going to do efficiently without trashing the environment at this point is nuclear, and that's been pretty much regulated and protested out of existence.
If anything, the best point at this point would be the possibility that your plant uses a domestically produced fuel, so we don't have to trash our economy any more handing our dough over to people who want to blow us up.
Anyway, it's a pointless argument, The video strikes me as a sensationalist look at a product that just failed. It's hard to sell people on cars that require special infastructure, perform poorly... and that Occam's Razor indicates are only minimally going to help the environment in the end... not that the majority of motorists care. The market is not thinking, "I can't wait to pass up that badass Corvette for a commensurately priced economy style vehicle that caps out at 55 and can't be filled up at a regular station. Sign me up!" The market is purchasing even larger SUVs, despite soaring gas prices. Do you think they care that the car promises to improve the environment?
It wouldn't make as good a conspiracy theory the way that you say it.
Now, ssssh, or the oil industry will cut the funding for my computer science research on the rapidly dropping price of gasoline.
Thanks.
That's actually kind of where I was going with the three laws thought... even in the stories, they go horribly awry. I could see where this would springboard discussion and thought experiments though.
That effect is discussed in the same thesis that I read about the Smarties bit from. The Smarties bit was really just to demonstrate the importance of reasoning about oneself conceptually in a manner that is related to self-awareness. Interestingly, robots did this in experiments last year, and its importance has been discussed for a while.
Mmmmph. Such a standard would be openly published, for anybody to inspect. It would, in fact, be an open standard. That's why we have standards.
Ahh. You've hit the nail on the head, and I thank you for it!
Actually, there are very good reasons to make a robot aware of its own existence. Certain types of reasoning and learning are helped significantly by the ability to reason about the existence of oneself.
Consider the following experiment, which toddlers have difficulty performing prior to 4 years, but are able to after. A tube is presented to them, with the logo of a candy company on it, "smarties," not the American ones, but the British ones. The child is asked, what is in this tube? At this point, the child invariably says, "smarties!" The conductor of the experiment then opens the tube, revealing pencils. The experimenter asks again, "what is in this tube?" The child says, "pencils." Now, "if I ask another child what is in this tube, what do you think they will say?" Before 4, the kid will say, "pencils." After, they will say, "smarties."
This reasoning task requires the kid to model themselves prior to the revelation that there are pencils in the tube. It requires a model of what happened after. It, further, requires a model of the other child, of what they will be like without this knowledge. This is actually part of a model of self-awareness, but it's not the entire model. You might ask, "why would a robot need to know this?" Well, actually, it's quite important if the robot is to interract with people, because people will expect the robot to behave in an appropriate manner. Dangerous scenarios could arise because the robot does not understand that things that are in its field of view, for instance, are not in the field of view of a person. An example might be a robot handling dangerous materials, during a construction task. Perhaps the person can't see that it's handling hot metal. A person would warn the other person, avoiding danger.
As for the three laws, they were written in a body of fiction. I think that too much attention is paid to them.
I don't really see why this is curious. When I think of robots, I don't think of daemons, web crawlers, spamming programs, and other such things. Those are an overloaded use of the word "robot," and most people just say 'bot (robot would sound awkward in this usage).
When I was touring around robotics programs, figuring out where to do my PhD, nobody showed me their 'bot net, or discussed distributed denial of service. These things just have nothing to do with robotics.
That's out of context, and he shouldn't be facing anything for this.
You shouldn't "face" punishment for a constitutionally protected right.
You'll speak when you're spoken to mister!
*slaps you across the room*
Certainly. That is true.
The point is that that's completely non-germaine.
The story is about a student telling off his school in his blog. He got expelled. Expelling him on this account is a violation of his free speech.
Sure, the school could have used evidence found in his blog against him in court, in a trial, if he admitted to breaking the law in his blog, it could be considered a confession. That grey area is being explored.
This, however, hasn't anything to do with that grey area. The freedom to open your mouth and state your opinion is protected by the Bill of Rights, and the school is attempting to not only silence his protected speech, but to punish him and make him an example to others. This is exactly what that law was written to protect him from, and I hope that his constitutional rights are upheld, that he prosecutes the school for this infringment, followed by a private suit.
If it's reported to the Joliet Police and has to do with infringing on freedom of speech, you can be sure that ManCow will have the details this morning.