Actually, it's easier than that.:) Model with 1x1 blocks on the first pass, using standard interpolation limiting to your available palette colors, then combine horizontally adjacent blocks with the same color as 1xN blocks according to availability.
Yes, but they're always rectangles, with predictable proportions, (1 by X, with a maximum X) you always stack them horizontally, and there's a very limited color palette.
If you think it's difficult to calculate you're probably modeling it wrong.
The Anita Barrio neighborhood. It's along I-10, on the opposite side from the freeway, facing a park. I don't know the exact address off the top of my head.
I guess what I mean by "lack of depth" is simply using conversation. There's so much more in human interaction than just that, and it's what's missed by simply hyping the conversation angle that's at the root of why I think strong AI continues to be out of reach. It's like evaluating (or building) an iceberg based on just what's above the water. The attempts at passing the test overfit to the conversation task, while humans can converse because there's a massive system of intelligence, mostly developed for entirely different purposes over millions of years of evolution, behind the ability. I figure attempts to simulate that ability are doomed to failure without also simulating the processes that led up to the ability.
Not really, but I suppose my main beef is with the current implementation of the test, the chat bot silliness. It's far too shallow. And the contradiction is that, if a deep enough test were developed, it would no longer be necessary.
There are a couple problems with addressing "the journey to intelligence". The biggest being it's inefficient.
How can you possibly know this, given we have no "efficiently" derived AI to compare with? And, remember, premature optimization is the root of all evil. That's not just for programming. Many breakthroughs in AI so far have been acheived by removing efficiencies or introducing seemingly inneficient processes: random noise in neural networks, evolutionary algorithms that keep unused portions of individuals that are utilized in future generations, etc. Inneficient processes often help you avoid the local minima in your search.
Do you really want to build a machine that takes 20 years to educate?
We already do. They're called "people." Yet we keep ignoring the major aspects of our prime example.
This is not necessarily an advantage. See overfitting.
...and it's bloody fast at processing information...
I think you're overgeneralizing.
And that leads me to an ironic thought. Reading your post gave me the distinct impression it was written by a chat bot with a dictionary of AI terms.:)
Were it possible now, yes. Wouldn't replace the actual one, of course.:)
And I'm glad you bring up evolution and environment, because of course the individual is only an end product of evolution, just as intelligence is an end product of the individual. I didn't touch on the journey of evolution in my original post. There's only so much you can cover at once.:) But it is, in my opinion, a more important journey to address than is the one of individual development. That's why it's been the focus of my study for the last ten years or so.
My daughter is 13 months old. She would not pass the Turing Test, yet is undeniably intelligent.
She recognizes my wife and I and all of our relatives, but is wary of strangers.
She learned cause and effect many months ago by observation: when you press a button, cool stuff happens. (We pick up the remote, she looks at the TV. We put a hand on a light switch, she looks at the light.)
She knows our relatives' names, and will look at them when you ask "Where's Charles?" or "Where's Lindsey?"
She responds to simple requests like, "Could you bring me the toy?"
She's learned how to crawl. She's learned how to walk. She's learned simple sign language for "light," "dog," "food," and "more."
I'm a long time amatuer AI hacker/researcher. I've learned more about artificial intelligence from watching my daughter develop than from my MS in CS and the bits of PhD work I did. There's an entire childhood, a virtual lifetime, of development and ability behind "carrying on a conversation." Creating a facade that does so, no matter how complex, (and we haven't even done that yet) will not be intelligent. Period. And I think it's the focus on the end results, (i.e. simulated conversation) and not on the long tedious journey it takes to create a being, that's hobbled AI research for 50 years.
True AI will never be developed if we continue to focus on the result of, and not the journey to, intelligence.
Personally, I would prefer a congress controlled (2/3's) by one party, and the administration controlled by the opposing.
I tend to agree, but more specifically:
Persident: Democrat House: Republican Senate: Don't care (lean Democrat)
And I'm a yellow dog Democrat, myself.:) It's good to have Republicans holding the purse strings, but forced to actually stand by their ideals by having to stick it to Democrats. They're great at being the opposition, but suck at actually being in charge. When they're in a position to say NO, NO, NO to Democrats, though, they shine. That way Democrats have to work hard to get what they really want, Republicans can kill the really silly stuff, and trim the fat from the stuff that passes to the President.
The Guru role is to help sell Windows-based PCs. It is not to be an alternative tech support channel for Microsoft...
I can picture it now. Imagine the Guru talking in Mike Myers' voice.
Guru: Hello! I am the Vista Guru! Customer: Great! Can you help me with... Guru: Zip! Customer: What? But I need hel... Guru: Zip it! Customer: Excuse me, what? Can't you... Guru: Zip IT! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....with an IP IT! Customer: Well, what can you do? Guru: Buy this expensive Vista bauble, yes? It's SHINY.
There are other Greg Bartons out there who are not me and are 1) an Indonesian Studies professor, 2) a gold medal winning kayaker, 3) a composer, and 4) a football coach. Filter all of those useless yahoos out and you get the glory that is the real Greg Barton.:P
I also put my slashdot posting history on my resume.
The ebst way to fight this is to post videos that praise Scientology.
"Are you FRIKKIN' crazy?" you ask?
Nope.
If Scientology doesn't issue takedown notices for the videos praising them, they eventually lose their copyright power over the material. If they do issue takedown notices they look even more ridiculous.
And no, I'm not trying to secretly elicit praise for Scientology. There's no reason why you can't throw in a bit or sarcasm in with the honey.:)
Slashdot Mirror
So just add some constraints to your model.
Try using a tool like drools-solver
Actually, it's easier than that. :) Model with 1x1 blocks on the first pass, using standard interpolation limiting to your available palette colors, then combine horizontally adjacent blocks with the same color as 1xN blocks according to availability.
Yes, but they're always rectangles, with predictable proportions, (1 by X, with a maximum X) you always stack them horizontally, and there's a very limited color palette.
If you think it's difficult to calculate you're probably modeling it wrong.
The Anita Barrio neighborhood. It's along I-10, on the opposite side from the freeway, facing a park. I don't know the exact address off the top of my head.
How about glass tiles on a 100'x30' wall, or a 30'x75' wall?
I wrote the code, my brother in law did the hard parts.
I guess what I mean by "lack of depth" is simply using conversation. There's so much more in human interaction than just that, and it's what's missed by simply hyping the conversation angle that's at the root of why I think strong AI continues to be out of reach. It's like evaluating (or building) an iceberg based on just what's above the water. The attempts at passing the test overfit to the conversation task, while humans can converse because there's a massive system of intelligence, mostly developed for entirely different purposes over millions of years of evolution, behind the ability. I figure attempts to simulate that ability are doomed to failure without also simulating the processes that led up to the ability.
How can you test something that's undefined?
Testing something that's explicitly undefined sounds like mental masturbation to me. :)
Not really, but I suppose my main beef is with the current implementation of the test, the chat bot silliness. It's far too shallow. And the contradiction is that, if a deep enough test were developed, it would no longer be necessary.
How can you possibly know this, given we have no "efficiently" derived AI to compare with? And, remember, premature optimization is the root of all evil. That's not just for programming. Many breakthroughs in AI so far have been acheived by removing efficiencies or introducing seemingly inneficient processes: random noise in neural networks, evolutionary algorithms that keep unused portions of individuals that are utilized in future generations, etc. Inneficient processes often help you avoid the local minima in your search.
We already do. They're called "people." Yet we keep ignoring the major aspects of our prime example.
This is not necessarily an advantage. See overfitting.
I think you're overgeneralizing.
And that leads me to an ironic thought. Reading your post gave me the distinct impression it was written by a chat bot with a dictionary of AI terms. :)
Were it possible now, yes. Wouldn't replace the actual one, of course. :)
And I'm glad you bring up evolution and environment, because of course the individual is only an end product of evolution, just as intelligence is an end product of the individual. I didn't touch on the journey of evolution in my original post. There's only so much you can cover at once. :) But it is, in my opinion, a more important journey to address than is the one of individual development. That's why it's been the focus of my study for the last ten years or so.
My daughter is 13 months old. She would not pass the Turing Test, yet is undeniably intelligent.
She recognizes my wife and I and all of our relatives, but is wary of strangers.
She learned cause and effect many months ago by observation: when you press a button, cool stuff happens. (We pick up the remote, she looks at the TV. We put a hand on a light switch, she looks at the light.)
She knows our relatives' names, and will look at them when you ask "Where's Charles?" or "Where's Lindsey?"
She responds to simple requests like, "Could you bring me the toy?"
She's learned how to crawl. She's learned how to walk. She's learned simple sign language for "light," "dog," "food," and "more."
I'm a long time amatuer AI hacker/researcher. I've learned more about artificial intelligence from watching my daughter develop than from my MS in CS and the bits of PhD work I did. There's an entire childhood, a virtual lifetime, of development and ability behind "carrying on a conversation." Creating a facade that does so, no matter how complex, (and we haven't even done that yet) will not be intelligent. Period. And I think it's the focus on the end results, (i.e. simulated conversation) and not on the long tedious journey it takes to create a being, that's hobbled AI research for 50 years.
True AI will never be developed if we continue to focus on the result of, and not the journey to, intelligence.
I tend to agree, but more specifically:
Persident: Democrat
House: Republican
Senate: Don't care (lean Democrat)
And I'm a yellow dog Democrat, myself. :) It's good to have Republicans holding the purse strings, but forced to actually stand by their ideals by having to stick it to Democrats. They're great at being the opposition, but suck at actually being in charge. When they're in a position to say NO, NO, NO to Democrats, though, they shine. That way Democrats have to work hard to get what they really want, Republicans can kill the really silly stuff, and trim the fat from the stuff that passes to the President.
Nice cover story there, AstroBoy! Way to go, TurfSmurf!
Wait, don't you mean "they're still getting a lot of things done..."?
It's a Freudian Astroturf!
Personally, I'd like them to be able to answer questions like, "What is the Bush Doctrine?"
Especially if they're Republican.
Two words:
Code Reviews
...didn't the bus test drive the researchers?
I can picture it now. Imagine the Guru talking in Mike Myers' voice.
Guru: Hello! I am the Vista Guru!
Customer: Great! Can you help me with...
Guru: Zip!
Customer: What? But I need hel...
Guru: Zip it!
Customer: Excuse me, what? Can't you...
Guru: Zip IT! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....with an IP IT!
Customer: Well, what can you do?
Guru: Buy this expensive Vista bauble, yes? It's SHINY.
...it's on my resume:
"Greg Barton" java -indonesia -kayak -mozart -football
There are other Greg Bartons out there who are not me and are 1) an Indonesian Studies professor, 2) a gold medal winning kayaker, 3) a composer, and 4) a football coach. Filter all of those useless yahoos out and you get the glory that is the real Greg Barton. :P
I also put my slashdot posting history on my resume.
And now the circle is complete. :)
It is my perogative as a four digiter to ignore the contents of posts when I comment about them.
(You also get to spell prerogative wrong.)
God, what a whiner.
Fetch me my bucket, boy!
Ah. Oops!
The ebst way to fight this is to post videos that praise Scientology.
"Are you FRIKKIN' crazy?" you ask?
Nope.
If Scientology doesn't issue takedown notices for the videos praising them, they eventually lose their copyright power over the material. If they do issue takedown notices they look even more ridiculous.
And no, I'm not trying to secretly elicit praise for Scientology. There's no reason why you can't throw in a bit or sarcasm in with the honey. :)
Well, considering their inventions made the entire existing business possible, I'd say it was worth the investment.
If the Watchmen movie is killed due to copyright reasons I will destroy the universe.
Have a Nice Day,
Dr. Manhattan