So, we will never make any progress because, by your definition, we're not allowed to use any form of pattern matching (even though that's exactly how a brain does it). I see. So, even if we develop a machine that can outperform a human in every way and by every measure of intelligence, if it uses pattern recognition it's not AI.
I've studied and worked in AI and related fields for 35 years (no grant money, just paid to build systems that work). In all those years, I never heard anyone place such irrational constraints on how AI can be implemented. It's a good thing the Wright brothers didn't have a "if it's not flapping it's wings, it's not flying" constraint placed on them, otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to call air travel "flying". Can't you see how ridiculous your rationale is?
You knew it because it's true. Nothing you've mentioned is in any way "AI" ("speech recognition"? Oh, please). This is all just pattern matching, and in the case of the chess computer and Watson they can only do what they do because there are people guiding them. Things look more advanced than they did in the '80s, but that's only because we have better hardware. In terms of actually developing something that can learn and make inferences it's the same way a rat could we're no closer.
Thank you. I've found that the way to deal with those that spout the "no progress" line is to get them to expound a little. That always makes their ignorance clear.
You think speech recognition is simply pattern matching? Are you kidding? Where in simple pattern matching algorithms do you maintain context? How do you distinguish between "died" and "dyed" or "where" or "wear"? What about language processing (NLP), inference and response generation, etc,etc. I could go on for days about the complexity involved and not scratch the surface, but I'm sure it would be lost on you. If you consider all the techniques and algorithms "pattern matching" then, technically, all a brain does is pattern matching, but that doesn't stop it from being intelligent.
And that crap about Watson being guided by people? You obviously did no research at all on what it does and how it works, though there is plenty of material available that describes it. Portions of it are even open sourced so you can look at some of the code. But I guess that'd be too much trouble. It's much easier to make an unsubstantiated claim.
To be honest, what bothers me the most is why I wasted my time even responding to such a ridiculous comment. Come back when you've read a book or two.
I knew it, I knew it. Every fricking time AI is mentioned on/., that old tire "I've been hearing that since the mid '80s, and we're no closer now than we were then" mantra gets repeated over and over.
What kind of phone did you have in the '80s that performed speech recognition? How many chess programs were around that could beat the best human players? How many times did a computer win over the best humans at Jeopardy? Would you rather your investments be managed by software from the 80's or be managed by some of the new high frequency trading systems of today (assuming you prefer to make rather than lose money)? AI has made great strides since then in many areas.
No, we haven't achieved human level intelligence yet, but to say we're no closer is pure idiocy.
some of the competitive eaters were left writhing on the floor in agony, vomiting and fainting.
Meanwhile at a seemingly unrelated event for ball-peen-hammer-head-bangers a few blocks away, some were left writhing on the floor in agony, vomiting and fainting after pummeling their skullcaps with their 16 pound hammers.
Aren't their Darwin awards for this type of behavior?
As an aside and part of the Stanford introduction to AI course, Peter Norvig discusses some technical aspects of how Google translate works under the covers. Pretty interesting for the nerds among us...
I'm looking forward to the day when both iOS and Android devices both have continuous speech recognition tied to chatter-bot apps so that we can just sit back and watch them argue amongst themselves about which is better, thereby saving./ 80% of the conversion space.
Then we can focus on something really important like who was more influential - Dennis Ritchie or Steve Jobs....
From your comments,I think you're worldview is pretty clear. There's really no need to discuss further.
My advice (which I'm sure you could give a damn about) would be to (really) examine your conscious (as in putting yourself in the position of those with less than yourself), do some research and then decide whether you really like the economic setup in this country (where the top 1% own nearly 40% of the wealth and have the political power that comes along with that wealth), then vote accordingly. If you are OK with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, et al having an order of a magnitude more effective vote than yours, then keep supporting them because without attitudes like yours, their power and influence would evaporate.
If you're thinking I advocate some sort of wealth redistribution in this country, you'd be right. And if you are one of those who see "wealth redistribution" as some sort of code word for socialism, think again. The folks at the top of the economic food chain have been executing wealth redistribution for years (look up "neoliberalism"), it's just that they've been rigging the system so that the wealth rises to the top at an increasingly accelerated rate. Just compare the changes in wealth distribution in the US over the last 60 years - using hard numbers - and you'll see what I mean. Personally, I support changing that dynamic (which is really the crux of what the Occupy movement is about).
This is the same tired argument I've seen over and over again, but it's simply not true. While we don't have a consensus on universally accepted definition of intelligence, most researchers agree on what this definition must, at minimum include (as I noted above - inference, learning, goal seeking, planning, etc). I don't think AGI will arrive as an announcement from some group that "AGI has been achieved!", but rather will creep into our technology over time and will probably not be accepted as true AGI until it can no longer be denied.
Take speech recognition for example (since it's been in the news recently with the launch of Siri). This type of technology will continue to infiltrate more and more aspects of our lives and continue to get more and more capable. Though increasing it's "understanding" capabilities to the point of passing the Turing test may be a ways off, it doesn't matter. It will still offer more and more functionality and capability, even to the point that it's better at "understanding" within a domain specific application than a human would be.
Think about it this way. Bi-pedal robots still have a difficult time performing anywhere near a human at the task of walking, navigating and maneuvering over difficult terrain (such as stairs, slopes, etc). However, we have machines that can zip along our highways and 100+ miles per hour, far exceeding the capability of humans on foot at the task of long distance travel. In a similar way, AI technologies will first be applied to areas where they can outperform humans (either by being better, faster, more accurate, or some other metrics). This is already happening in many areas of our lives, whether we are aware of it or not (e.g. Navigation systems, High Frequency Trading systems, Cell phones, Information routing systems, etc).
This idea that AGI implies mimicking a human is simply the wrong way to look at the issue. We already have enough humans, we don't need to create artificial ones as well. What we need are tools that can take the capabilities of our limited organic brains to the next level to solve problems our wetware simply is not capable of solving.
Oh, in case you weren't aware of the wealth distribution in the US, you might be surprised at the following:
The top 10% own nearly 80% of the wealth of the country.
Top 1% own 38.1%
Top 96-99% own 21.3%
Top 90-95% own 11.5% . . .
Bottom 40% own 0.2%
But then again, that bottom 40% are just a bunch of lazy people, unlike the to 5%, right? But wait, among the top 5%, only 19% make their income the old fashioned way (e.g. working for it). By far, most make their income through investments or other financial instruments.
Additionally, it is also important to realize that the lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in the top half; in fact, both wealth and income are super-concentrated in the top 0.1%, which is just one in a thousand.
The poverty rate ( $22,314 a year for a family of four and $11,139 for an individual) rose from 14.3 in 2009 to 15.1 in 2010. You may know folks with a family of 6 making less than $40k, but I'm sure if you ask them, they'll tell you they're struggling. According to the Dept of Agriculture, the cost of raising a (1) child went from $9,860 ten years ago to $13,830 in 2010. Six people (assuming 4 children + 2 adults) = $80k+, and that assumes children cost less than adults - probably a bad assumption.
By "struggling to feed your family", I meant "providing for your family" in a generic sense, be it food, clothing, roof over their head, etc. It's true, you can send your family out to the local soup kitchen to eat. If that's the kind of America you like, well then you should be happy with the current conditions (though I doubt you'd feel the same if you were in that position).
It's because they carried over the loss from a previous year.
We used to call that "income averaging", however, this was repealed in 1986 for individuals. Just another case where corporations get preferential treatment over individuals.
They do their corporate taxes on turbotax and they pay 35%..
They may be paying 35% on their taxable income, but that's where the slippery slope is. If I made $1 Million in profits last year, but through creative accounting I can show that I had $ 900,000 in tax-deductible investments, tax shelters, etc, then I'm only going to pay 35% on the $ 100,000, which means, in effect I'm "really" only paying 3.5% of total revenue.
If on the other hand, your "small business" made $ 1 Million in taxable income (that is, profit after all deductible expenses and tax shelters are taken out) and you do wind up paying $ 350K in taxes, at least you have $ 650K in the bank in which to comfort yourself (not to mention all the money stuffed away in your tax shelters).
How many of them have investments that are managed by financial managers?
What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
If my bank slaps a charge on my account for something I didn't purchase, do I have to close my account and relinquish any ties I have with them before I can confront them with the issue?
Contrary to your apparent worldview, the vast majority of folks in the lower half of the income scale in this country do not have investment portfolios and are simply struggling to feed their families or pay rent.
Back in 1980, the top 1% of all income earners in America brought in about 10% of all income. Today, the top 1% of all income earners bring in about 20% of all income. If the ranks of the top income earners were populated by a huge number of entrepreneurs and small business owners, it wouldn't be such a bad thing.
But instead, the reality is that most of the very wealthy either work in the financial community or they work for the biggest corporations. True capitalism is supposed to create a very healthy environment for small businesses. Instead, our current system suffocates them out of existence.
That's a semantic distinction and it could be argued that a query IS a program (i.e. it invokes a set of programmed steps to produce a result).
The following "query" does something (inserts data into SaleableItems table) and makes decisions (saleable or not saleable)
INSERT INTO SaleableItems
SELECT CAST(
CASE
WHEN Obsolete = 'N' or InStock = 'Y'
THEN 1
ELSE 0
END AS bit) as Salable, Itemnumber
FROM Product
By the same token, I can write a C "program" that can implement a query (provide an answer to a question).
In fact, by your definition, Watson is a query system. It responds to queries, but it is implemented via a large set of Java and C++ "programs" to parse the questions, consult a database , infer the answer and finally generate a response.
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully they will be advanced enough to know that SETI listens to signals, it does not send anything!
Maybe the two anomalies mentioned are just bugs in the software running the matrix...
Maybe one day we'll be able to travel to the far reaches of the universe to a location where the laws of physics allow life to suck less.
Any sufficiently advanced hands-free interface is indistinguishable from schizophrenia.
Peswiki - Q and A just finished; reading of results; 470 kW maintained continuously during self-sustain; customer satisfied; sale made; more later.
I'm skeptical, but damn, I hope I'm wrong.
...I cried with laughter.
Same reaction I had when I read
When I got to the bit in the tutorials...
in your post.
I'll take your criticisms with the same level of credibility as the depth of your analysis.
I've studied and worked in AI and related fields for 35 years (no grant money, just paid to build systems that work). In all those years, I never heard anyone place such irrational constraints on how AI can be implemented. It's a good thing the Wright brothers didn't have a "if it's not flapping it's wings, it's not flying" constraint placed on them, otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to call air travel "flying". Can't you see how ridiculous your rationale is?
You knew it because it's true. Nothing you've mentioned is in any way "AI" ("speech recognition"? Oh, please). This is all just pattern matching, and in the case of the chess computer and Watson they can only do what they do because there are people guiding them. Things look more advanced than they did in the '80s, but that's only because we have better hardware. In terms of actually developing something that can learn and make inferences it's the same way a rat could we're no closer.
Thank you. I've found that the way to deal with those that spout the "no progress" line is to get them to expound a little. That always makes their ignorance clear.
You think speech recognition is simply pattern matching? Are you kidding? Where in simple pattern matching algorithms do you maintain context? How do you distinguish between "died" and "dyed" or "where" or "wear"? What about language processing (NLP), inference and response generation, etc,etc. I could go on for days about the complexity involved and not scratch the surface, but I'm sure it would be lost on you. If you consider all the techniques and algorithms "pattern matching" then, technically, all a brain does is pattern matching, but that doesn't stop it from being intelligent.
And that crap about Watson being guided by people? You obviously did no research at all on what it does and how it works, though there is plenty of material available that describes it. Portions of it are even open sourced so you can look at some of the code. But I guess that'd be too much trouble. It's much easier to make an unsubstantiated claim.
To be honest, what bothers me the most is why I wasted my time even responding to such a ridiculous comment. Come back when you've read a book or two.
What kind of phone did you have in the '80s that performed speech recognition? How many chess programs were around that could beat the best human players? How many times did a computer win over the best humans at Jeopardy? Would you rather your investments be managed by software from the 80's or be managed by some of the new high frequency trading systems of today (assuming you prefer to make rather than lose money)? AI has made great strides since then in many areas.
No, we haven't achieved human level intelligence yet, but to say we're no closer is pure idiocy.
The future of computing is artificial consciousness, and it will be here within 20 years, and maybe much sooner than that,' says Sawyer.
Yeah, it'll be running on a Linux desktop in my fusion powered flying car in the Mars colony. Good thing they're all just 20 years away.
Could be. Once AGI is achieved, the rest will be a piece of cake.
I immediately went out and filed a patent on "noon". Sorry folks, we're first to file now... you snooze you lose.
some of the competitive eaters were left writhing on the floor in agony, vomiting and fainting.
Meanwhile at a seemingly unrelated event for ball-peen-hammer-head-bangers a few blocks away, some were left writhing on the floor in agony, vomiting and fainting after pummeling their skullcaps with their 16 pound hammers.
Aren't their Darwin awards for this type of behavior?
Your attitude is sooo last year!
it always failed to understand what my kid says.
I have the same problem (failing to understand what my kid says).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sPSN0aI0PgE
Um... that's "/." not "./", sorry for the current directory reference.
Then we can focus on something really important like who was more influential - Dennis Ritchie or Steve Jobs....
My advice (which I'm sure you could give a damn about) would be to (really) examine your conscious (as in putting yourself in the position of those with less than yourself), do some research and then decide whether you really like the economic setup in this country (where the top 1% own nearly 40% of the wealth and have the political power that comes along with that wealth), then vote accordingly. If you are OK with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, et al having an order of a magnitude more effective vote than yours, then keep supporting them because without attitudes like yours, their power and influence would evaporate.
If you're thinking I advocate some sort of wealth redistribution in this country, you'd be right. And if you are one of those who see "wealth redistribution" as some sort of code word for socialism, think again. The folks at the top of the economic food chain have been executing wealth redistribution for years (look up "neoliberalism"), it's just that they've been rigging the system so that the wealth rises to the top at an increasingly accelerated rate. Just compare the changes in wealth distribution in the US over the last 60 years - using hard numbers - and you'll see what I mean. Personally, I support changing that dynamic (which is really the crux of what the Occupy movement is about).
Take speech recognition for example (since it's been in the news recently with the launch of Siri). This type of technology will continue to infiltrate more and more aspects of our lives and continue to get more and more capable. Though increasing it's "understanding" capabilities to the point of passing the Turing test may be a ways off, it doesn't matter. It will still offer more and more functionality and capability, even to the point that it's better at "understanding" within a domain specific application than a human would be.
Think about it this way. Bi-pedal robots still have a difficult time performing anywhere near a human at the task of walking, navigating and maneuvering over difficult terrain (such as stairs, slopes, etc). However, we have machines that can zip along our highways and 100+ miles per hour, far exceeding the capability of humans on foot at the task of long distance travel. In a similar way, AI technologies will first be applied to areas where they can outperform humans (either by being better, faster, more accurate, or some other metrics). This is already happening in many areas of our lives, whether we are aware of it or not (e.g. Navigation systems, High Frequency Trading systems, Cell phones, Information routing systems, etc).
This idea that AGI implies mimicking a human is simply the wrong way to look at the issue. We already have enough humans, we don't need to create artificial ones as well. What we need are tools that can take the capabilities of our limited organic brains to the next level to solve problems our wetware simply is not capable of solving.
The top 10% own nearly 80% of the wealth of the country.
Top 1% own 38.1%
.
.
.
Top 96-99% own 21.3%
Top 90-95% own 11.5%
Bottom 40% own 0.2%
But then again, that bottom 40% are just a bunch of lazy people, unlike the to 5%, right? But wait, among the top 5%, only 19% make their income the old fashioned way (e.g. working for it). By far, most make their income through investments or other financial instruments.
Additionally, it is also important to realize that the lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in the top half; in fact, both wealth and income are super-concentrated in the top 0.1%, which is just one in a thousand.
The poverty rate ( $22,314 a year for a family of four and $11,139 for an individual) rose from 14.3 in 2009 to 15.1 in 2010. You may know folks with a family of 6 making less than $40k, but I'm sure if you ask them, they'll tell you they're struggling. According to the Dept of Agriculture, the cost of raising a (1) child went from $9,860 ten years ago to $13,830 in 2010. Six people (assuming 4 children + 2 adults) = $80k+, and that assumes children cost less than adults - probably a bad assumption.
By "struggling to feed your family", I meant "providing for your family" in a generic sense, be it food, clothing, roof over their head, etc. It's true, you can send your family out to the local soup kitchen to eat. If that's the kind of America you like, well then you should be happy with the current conditions (though I doubt you'd feel the same if you were in that position).
The closest term I've found for what I really meant was HSC (Human Superiority Complex). Thanks for the correction.
It's because they carried over the loss from a previous year.
We used to call that "income averaging", however, this was repealed in 1986 for individuals. Just another case where corporations get preferential treatment over individuals.
They do their corporate taxes on turbotax and they pay 35%..
They may be paying 35% on their taxable income, but that's where the slippery slope is. If I made $1 Million in profits last year, but through creative accounting I can show that I had $ 900,000 in tax-deductible investments, tax shelters, etc, then I'm only going to pay 35% on the $ 100,000, which means, in effect I'm "really" only paying 3.5% of total revenue.
If on the other hand, your "small business" made $ 1 Million in taxable income (that is, profit after all deductible expenses and tax shelters are taken out) and you do wind up paying $ 350K in taxes, at least you have $ 650K in the bank in which to comfort yourself (not to mention all the money stuffed away in your tax shelters).
How many of them have investments that are managed by financial managers?
What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
If my bank slaps a charge on my account for something I didn't purchase, do I have to close my account and relinquish any ties I have with them before I can confront them with the issue?
Contrary to your apparent worldview, the vast majority of folks in the lower half of the income scale in this country do not have investment portfolios and are simply struggling to feed their families or pay rent.
Back in 1980, the top 1% of all income earners in America brought in about 10% of all income. Today, the top 1% of all income earners bring in about 20% of all income. If the ranks of the top income earners were populated by a huge number of entrepreneurs and small business owners, it wouldn't be such a bad thing. But instead, the reality is that most of the very wealthy either work in the financial community or they work for the biggest corporations. True capitalism is supposed to create a very healthy environment for small businesses. Instead, our current system suffocates them out of existence.
The following "query" does something (inserts data into SaleableItems table) and makes decisions (saleable or not saleable)
INSERT INTO SaleableItems
SELECT CAST(
CASE
WHEN Obsolete = 'N' or InStock = 'Y'
THEN 1
ELSE 0
END AS bit) as Salable, Itemnumber
FROM Product
By the same token, I can write a C "program" that can implement a query (provide an answer to a question).
In fact, by your definition, Watson is a query system. It responds to queries, but it is implemented via a large set of Java and C++ "programs" to parse the questions, consult a database , infer the answer and finally generate a response.