Artificial Intelligence

[[Syl]]

In which sense are we speaking of chaos?

In mathematics and physics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that under specific conditions exhibit dynamics that are sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random, because of an exponential growth of errors in the initial conditions. This happens even though these systems are deterministic in the sense that their future dynamics are well defined by their initial conditions, and there are no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

The Lorenz attractor is a 3-dimensional structure corresponding to the long-term behavior of a chaotic flow, noted for its butterfly shape. The map shows how the state of a dynamical system (the three variables of a three-dimensional system) evolves over time in a complex, non-repeating pattern.

The attractor itself, and the equations from which it is derived, were introduced by Edward Lorenz in 1963, who derived it from the simplified equations of convection rolls arising in the equations of the atmosphere.

From a technical standpoint, the system is nonlinear, three-dimensional and deterministic. In 2001 it was proven by Warwick Tucker that for a certain set of parameters the system exhibits chaotic behavior and displays what is today called a strange attractor. The strange attractor in this case is a fractal of Hausdorff dimension between 2 and 3. Grassberger (1983) has estimated the Hausdorff dimension to be 2.06 ± 0.01 and the correlation dimension to be 2.05 ± 0.01.

The system arises in lasers, dynamos, and specific waterwheels [1].

The equations that govern the Lorenz attractor are:

\frac{dx}{dt} = \sigma (y - x)

\frac{dy}{dt} = x (\rho - z) - y

\frac{dz}{dt} = xy - \beta z

[Prebe]

I'd be lying through my teeth if I claimed to understand ANYTHING in your second quote.

I was thinking of chaos as in the first example.

As for Maliks bringin in consciousnes, I don't think it would be much easier to emulate the processed in, say, a mouse brain than in a human one.

Or, let me put it in another way: If we could perfectly emulate a mouse brain, it would be only a short jump to emulating a human one. Which, in my view, leaves out consciousnes. It smacks a bit to much of religion if you don't mind Malik

[[Syl]]

Heh. I understand most it, but only because I did a term paper on quantum mechanics, chaos theory, and probability. The fractal dimension part is especially interesting, but that's for a different thread.

But the point was that it's very easy to introduce chaos into computing, and there is a set of equations for it. Now if you guys are talking about a random element, that's different. Still quite possible, and usually rooted at the quantum level, but different.

[Zarathustra]

I'm still reading Penrose's book which I referenced earlier in this thread, so I hope to continue updating this thread once I learn more.

I was wondering: why don't we consider computers conscious now? Why the emphasis on artificial intelligence rather than artificial consciousness? There are plenty of conscious organisms which aren't "intelligent." Thus, we wouldn't have to produce a machine which can pass the Turing Test (have a convincingly human conversation with it) in order for it to be conscious. Mice can't pass the Turing Test either, but they're conscious.

Computers take in information, process it, and churn out output of some form that is relevant to the input. Computers have hardware sophisticated enough to allow them to deal with information--the software--in such a way that there is a duality already going on within them analogous to the mind/body duality in humans. Why isn't my pocket calculator conscious? What is the dividing line between machines which aren't conscious, and machines which are? Does it really just come down to the Turing Test? Our ability to be convinced? Or is there some mathematical way to define consciousness? If, as some here say, consciousness can be produced by the appropriate computations, then we ought to be able to not only produce it, but to define it in such a way that we can definitively, mathematically say, "Here is the minimum level of complexity necessary for consciousness."

If you suspect an attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, you'd be right. I'm still trying to find a way to convey why I think it is incorrect to have faith in the idea that consciousness can be built up from purely mathematical constructs. I don't care if these equations are "running" on a machine. I don't think consciousness can be captured with an equation. I'm not sure what consciousness is, but I think it might deal with a level of physics we haven't yet discovered.

Penrose makes the point that both classical and quantum physics involve phenomena which are entirely computational. In fact, we know of no physical processes which defy computational modeling. Except consciousness. The fact that consciousness defies computational modeling can be proven by the fact that we can come up with Godel's proof, while this is impossible--even in principle--for any computer to do. So either consciousness isn't physical, or there are extremely subtle, difficult-to-detect noncomputational processes which occur in the physical world. And our brain makes use of these processes to produce consciousness.

That's where I'm currently at in the book: the possible physical processes and a possible branch of science we haven't discovered yet. I'll keep you all updated!

[Avatar]

Damn good post Malik. Consciousness is a whole other question. What about self-awareness?

I certainly agree that consciousness doesn't appear computational.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

I was wondering: why don't we consider computers conscious now? Why the emphasis on artificial intelligence rather than artificial consciousness?

Because when we say "AI," we all know what we're talking about. But if we said "AC," a lot of people would be wondering what air conditioners have to do with intelligence and consciousness.

.......


.......


I know you're out there, folks. I can hear you breathing!



*ahem*


OK, I'm of no help here. Gödel is important to the current point of the thread, and I don't know enough about that. I'd like to, but I don't want to turn this thread into a Gödel thread, so I started one. But here's the thoughts I have that I do understand.

1) The "stepping outside the system" that Malik is talking about does seem to be the key to me.

2) I believe any conscious brain is the result of evolution, and that it began as a thing that was not able to step outside the system. Therefore, it's possible that we can help computers grow to the point where they can also step outside.

3) How we are able to be outside the system is beyond me. Maybe we are in the system in a way that we simply cannot yet even glimpse, much less understand. Getting more philosophical/religious, maybe there is a "soul" of some sort that is using the brain.

4) As I've said a few times, I am convinced that we are outside the system by direct experience. I do not feel that my love for my children; my preference for Bach's music, chocolate, the color blue; and any number of other things is a choice. I do not feel that I can choose to not feel as I do about any of them. But I do feel my own consciousness/awareness, and my ability to make choices in other matters. One very basic example is choosing what to have for breakfast when I'm done with this. I do not believe what I end up having is something I must, because of past experiences and computation, have.

5) I don't believe writing 1 + 1 = 2 on paper demonstrates your point, Malik. The statement written on paper is not the computational process. The process is in our head or in the computer's programming, and either can write the statement onto a piece of paper. We could even have the computer write it on paper with a robotic arm using a pencil, so we couldn't tell if it was written by a person or the computer.


Um... I guess that's it for now. I don't think this is a well-organized post, but I'm joining late, and trying to get it all down.

[Zarathustra]

Very good post, FF.

1) The "stepping outside the system" that Malik is talking about does seem to be the key to me.

The "stepping out of the system" does seem to be crucial to me, too. (Though Penrose doesn't use those exact words, I don't think. That was my paraphrase.) Penrose described the crucial element of being able to solve Godel's theorem as understanding itself, the property of our consciousness when we understand mathematical truths. The feeling of understanding, the knowing what the symbols mean beyond simply how to manipulate them, is what gives us the ability to "step out of the system." We can stand outside the computation process itself and prove things like Godel's Theorem.

Computation is only the manipulation of symbols according to a rule. Manipulation of symbols according to specific rules does indeed provide the correct symbol (i.e. "the answer"), but that process of manipulation of symbols doesn't in itself produce any understanding of what the symbols mean. That's why we can make unconscious, unthinking machines do calculations in the first place, because it doesn't require consciousness to blindly run a calculation. It's a mechanical process.

We can understand the implications of a particular mathematical or logical computation because we know what the symbols mean, and we can extrapolate their implications to the whole of mathematics.

2) I believe any conscious brain is the result of evolution, and that it began as a thing that was not able to step outside the system. Therefore, it's possible that we can help computers grow to the point where they can also step outside.

I agree. It's a product of evolution. Therefore, it seems plausible and likely that we could evolve a sentient computer. Penrose addresses this in his book, too, the idea of computer programs that evolve through some process of natural selection. But this confuses a fundamental distinction between the evolution of computer software--which is nothing more than computations--and the evolution of naturally occurring molecular clusters. The evolution of matter, and the selective factors it faces, is nothing at all like the evolution of algorithms according to mathematically selective formulas. Sure, we can simulate the evolution of matter in a computer, but the ways in which it develops, the shapes it takes, is dictated by the contingent properties of matter, not the necessity of logic.

Perhaps you mean the evolution of computer hardware, as well as the software. However, we build our hardware explicitly as machines to carry out these computations. Thus, the evolution of their physical structures is dictated by the needs of computational facility. They don't change what they do, only how fast they can do it. No matter how complex they become, they'll still be machines that simulate computations in the structure of their operation.

To assume that computations, and the machines which are specifically designed to carry out those computations, can ever evolve into conscious creatures simply because natural organisms evolved into conscious creatures, is to beg the question. You're assuming exactly what is at issue: that consciousness is nothing more than a sufficiently complex computation, rather than (as I'm proposing) the "effect" or "product" of a sufficiently complex physical organism. We have no reason to assume that hardware within a computer is complex enough--and complex in the right way--to produce consciousness simply because that hardware is complex enough to do very large computations.

3) How we are able to be outside the system is beyond me. Maybe we are in the system in a way that we simply cannot yet even glimpse, much less understand. Getting more philosophical/religious, maybe there is a "soul" of some sort that is using the brain.

Yeah, this kind of stuff makes me wonder about some kind of "soul," too. But I can't accept something that is super-natural. It would have to be something that did indeed evolve out of matter, but which is no longer material. I guess you could just call that "consciousness." But I think that consciousness is completely misunderstood, that it runs so deep into the foundations of reality, that you might as well call it "supernatural." Something pretty weird is going on here.

5) I don't believe writing 1 + 1 = 2 on paper demonstrates your point, Malik. The statement written on paper is not the computational process. The process is in our head or in the computer's programming, and either can write the statement onto a piece of paper. We could even have the computer write it on paper with a robotic arm using a pencil, so we couldn't tell if it was written by a person or the computer.

You say the process of the computation is different from the writing of the computation. But computation is nothing more than symbol manipulation. Writing is a form of symbol manipulation. And computer programming is nothing more than writing with electric currents. Whether you write down the computations with graphite on wood pulp, or if you "write" them into the copper wiring of electrical circuits, you are doing virtually the same thing. The current running through the wires--the "process," as you say--is no different than if we kept running our pencil over the shapes of the numbers.

But you're right about there being a difference from writing and what's going on in our heads. There is something extra here.

[Fist and Faith]

You're assuming exactly what is at issue: that consciousness is nothing more than a sufficiently complex computation, rather than (as I'm proposing) the "effect" or "product" of a sufficiently complex physical organism. We have no reason to assume that hardware within a computer is complex enough--and complex in the right way--to produce consciousness simply because that hardware is complex enough to do very large computations.

No, that's not what I have in mind. I don't think we are conscious because our brain's ability to compute became sufficiently powerful. I think our brain has millions of functions, none of which, by itself, gives us consciousness. I think that somehow, there is an interaction between many of them that adds up to more than the sum of its parts. The ability to perceive surroundings; combined with the ability to remember past events; combined with the ability to X; combined with the ability to Y... The brain became so complex that its component "programs" came to interact in a seemingly impossible way.

But it's all the physical brain. Wire anyone up to sensors that detect brain activity, and we would not have any thought or feeling that didn't register as brain activity. If we did simple math in our head, it would register. If we did not do simple math, but thought about doing simple math, it would register. If we thought about what simple math means, it would show up. There's no level of "stepping outside" the system that would not show up in the system. We just don't yet understand the system. Jack the Bodiless speaks of genetic engineering. Change a gene or two to change eye color, or whatever. But modifying a personality proved impossible, because personality comes from the interaction of something like 116 different genes. I think it's the same with consciousness. We can't find it anywhere, because it's in a spread-out form that we can't recognize. Or at least we can't understand it in any detail.

And I think we could do the same with computers to make AI. Unfortunately, at the moment, we can't understand how. The best we can do is add program after program, and see if AI ever pops up. We wouldn't even have to improve the things computers can already do, because, as you said, they already do those things better than we can. (Which is why, if a computer does become conscious, it will be better than us. Smarter. More able to calculate possible futures. Whatever.)

5) I don't believe writing 1 + 1 = 2 on paper demonstrates your point, Malik. The statement written on paper is not the computational process. The process is in our head or in the computer's programming, and either can write the statement onto a piece of paper. We could even have the computer write it on paper with a robotic arm using a pencil, so we couldn't tell if it was written by a person or the computer.

You say the process of the computation is different from the writing of the computation. But computation is nothing more than symbol manipulation. Writing is a form of symbol manipulation. And computer programming is nothing more than writing with electric currents. Whether you write down the computations with graphite on wood pulp, or if you "write" them into the copper wiring of electrical circuits, you are doing virtually the same thing. The current running through the wires--the "process," as you say--is no different than if we kept running our pencil over the shapes of the numbers.

But you're right about there being a difference from writing and what's going on in our heads. There is something extra here.

It seems to me you're saying the piece of paper with the symbols is as conscious, or as capable of performing calculations, as the brain or computer that causes the symbols to be put onto the paper.

[emotional leper]

I think we're designed to have conciousness.

[Zarathustra]

Fist and Faith:

Ok, we agree that brains didn't become conscious due to developing a sufficient level of computational ability. Given that agreement, perhaps you can see why I insist that there's no reason to expect a sufficiently complex computer should also develop this mysterious quality, when computation had nothing to do with the development of every single instance of consciousness in the history of our planet. It's never happened before, so there's no reason to expect it now. [And in fact, Penrose gives a good argument why it's impossible even in principle.]

But it's all the physical brain. Wire anyone up to sensors that detect brain activity, and we would not have any thought or feeling that didn't register as brain activity.

I have no idea how we are conscious, so all I can do is play devil's advocate here. What if our thoughts and consciousness arise due to quantum effects, and our brain is a particular kind of material which can amplify quantum effects to macro scales? What if our thoughts and consciousness "happen" in the same "realm" in which an electron exists prior to measuring it and collapsing its wave function? Sure, the measurement will appear on our instruments. But prior to the measurement, the electron existed in an entirely different way. So when we measure the activity of consciousness in the brain, we're doing something similar. We're looking at the effect consciousness has upon matter, rather than the cause of consciousness.

Now, there's no reason to suppose that we can't build a machine which amplifies quantum effects to macro scales just like our brain does (or whatever process is actually going on in our brain to produce consciousness), but there's also no reason to think that whatever process is actually going on in our brain is anything at all like computation, or that computation can mimic that process in such a way that it, too, produces consciousness. We don't know what that process is. So why do we assume that computation is equivalent to it? That's exactly what we have to assume in order to entertain the possibility that a computer can be made conscious.

There's no level of "stepping outside" the system that would not show up in the system. We just don't yet understand the system. Jack the Bodiless speaks of genetic engineering. Change a gene or two to change eye color, or whatever. But modifying a personality proved impossible, because personality comes from the interaction of something like 116 different genes. I think it's the same with consciousness. We can't find it anywhere, because it's in a spread-out form that we can't recognize. Or at least we can't understand it in any detail.

These are all assumptions based on experience with objects that aren't conscious. There's no reason to assume that a conscious organism operates like a machine, where every effect is the result of a previous material cause (see above). Our genes control the hardware of our brain, but we control the software. We can do/think/feel/perceive whatever is possible. If every thought was the result of a strictly material cause (rather than one thought causing another thought, or a memory causing an emotion, etc.), then one could plot out the course of one's consciousness strictly by knowing one's genes and all input from the environment. Every possible feeling or reaction to any stimuli would already be encoded in the structure of our brain. You'd be able to predict with absolute accuracy not only what a person would do, but what they'd think/feel/remember. If this were truly how we're built, there'd be no place for choice or freewill. Hell, you wouldn't even need consciousness. There'd be no reason for evolution to have produced this "illusory" quality, because our bodies would function exactly the same without it. Indeed--what external factor of natural selection could select the existence of a completely immaterial sensation of consciousness? If everything we do happens because of material causes in our brains, then consciousness is completely superfluous and unneeded. If we merely take in stimuli (input) and react according to physical rules hardwired in our brains (output), then we're already nothing more than computers . . . and consciousness still hasn't been explained. It sits completely outside of that loop.

In addition, consciousness isn't merely "spread out" in space like a gas in the brain. Nor is it spread out like information in RAM. (Each bit of info in RAM has a memory address, a specific point in space.) Consciousness isn't spatial in the sense of being located in space or having a shape (e.g. "spread out"). It isn't a phenomenon that can be tracked through space. Instead, it is a phenomenon of spatiality itself--the quality of being spatial. Our awareness of the world is only possible as of a spatial "realm." We can't know it otherwise. Thus, spatiality constitutes consciousness as one of its foundational parameters, one of its necessary ways of being. It doesn't have a shape. It is the possibility of shape. No description from the "outside" of consciousness, from the perspective of the neurons themselves, will ever capture the phenomenon of consciousness itself, because it isn't "in" neurons (even if they produce it). From the perspective of consciousness itself, neurons are in it.

It seems to me you're saying the piece of paper with the symbols is as conscious, or as capable of performing calculations, as the brain or computer that causes the symbols to be put onto the paper.

Computers don't cause symbols to be put onto paper. Humans do. Computers + printers are just fancy pencils. They are tools humans use to "write," i.e. manipulate symbols. Now whether you manipulate these symbols according to rules you store in your head, or with rules you store in a computer, it makes no difference. The rules came from us. The computer didn't invent them. Figuring out the rules is the calculation. Having the computer apply those rules is just like having our hand apply those rules. It's a mechanical process (that's why a machine can do it).

Symbols on paper are just as capable of performing calculations as a computer. Sure, the input device (pencil) and output device (paper) needs some instructions in order to interact correctly. But so does a computer. Its input and output won't make sense or perform any calculation without explicitly written rules. In both cases, those instructions come from us. Conscious beings. We told the computer how to manipulate the symbols, just like we "tell" the pencil and paper how to manipulate the symbols. Both machines are different ways to store these symbols. The only difference with computers is that we can also store the rules of how to manipulate the symbols in the same medium as the symbols themselves. Granted, that's an amazing difference. It frees us from having to constantly apply the rules ourselves. But since these rules are themselves only more symbols, they are no different from the symbols they manipulate. The "computation" which is happening in the computer is just another form of humans writing. It's like writing with dominos that you've pre-arranged to spell words. You don't actually write the words yourself, you just push the first domino. But since you're pre-arranged it to write a certain output through this mechanical process, it appears like the message is writing itself. Another way to say it: you could build a domino computer.

[Fist and Faith]

Ok, we agree that brains didn't become conscious due to developing a sufficient level of computational ability. Given that agreement, perhaps you can see why I insist that there's no reason to expect a sufficiently complex computer should also develop this mysterious quality, when computation had nothing to do with the development of every single instance of consciousness in the history of our planet. It's never happened before, so there's no reason to expect it now. [And in fact, Penrose gives a good argument why it's impossible even in principle.]

Yes, I agree with all this. A computer is not the answer to AI because it can compute. But I think it is possibly the answer because it can compute, and do so many other things we can do. What do our brains do? Like I said before, they compute; remember; preceive; etc. What else can be made to do these things? Other than the brains of other species, which we are not capable of changing - i.e., forcing them to evolve - computers is the best thing that comes to mind. We can already make computers do the things I just listed, and already better than we can do them. The more we learn about ourselves, the more things we can program computers to do. And maybe one day we'll have happened upon the (or a) combination that gives the computer awareness.

Or not. Just an idea.

But it's all the physical brain. Wire anyone up to sensors that detect brain activity, and we would not have any thought or feeling that didn't register as brain activity.

I have no idea how we are conscious, so all I can do is play devil's advocate here. What if our thoughts and consciousness arise due to quantum effects, and our brain is a particular kind of material which can amplify quantum effects to macro scales? What if our thoughts and consciousness "happen" in the same "realm" in which an electron exists prior to measuring it and collapsing its wave function? Sure, the measurement will appear on our instruments. But prior to the measurement, the electron existed in an entirely different way. So when we measure the activity of consciousness in the brain, we're doing something similar. We're looking at the effect consciousness has upon matter, rather than the cause of consciousness.

Is there anything to back up this theory? It seems like asking too much, imo. I'm not even sure how to word my objection... How the heck would my perception of chocolate ice cream near me translate down to the quantum level, at which point a bunch of quantum events would occur, which would translate back to macro-level, making my brain tell my hand to grab the ice cream? What I mean is - why would there be a correlation between quantum events and ice cream? What does the quantum reality care about macro stuff?

But I realize I may be completely misunderstanding your line of thought.

If this were truly how we're built, there'd be no place for choice or freewill. Hell, you wouldn't even need consciousness. There'd be no reason for evolution to have produced this "illusory" quality, because our bodies would function exactly the same without it. Indeed--what external factor of natural selection could select the existence of a completely immaterial sensation of consciousness? If everything we do happens because of material causes in our brains, then consciousness is completely superfluous and unneeded. If we merely take in stimuli (input) and react according to physical rules hardwired in our brains (output), then we're already nothing more than computers . . . and consciousness still hasn't been explained. It sits completely outside of that loop.

I agree that free will is not illusory. The illusion is not easier to explain. And if free will is not necessary, why have an illusion of it? Seems silly to me. No, until I have reason to do otherwise, I'll assume it is what it seems to be.

In addition, consciousness isn't merely "spread out" in space like a gas in the brain. Nor is it spread out like information in RAM. (Each bit of info in RAM has a memory address, a specific point in space.) Consciousness isn't spatial in the sense of being located in space or having a shape (e.g. "spread out"). It isn't a phenomenon that can be tracked through space.

I agree. What I'm suggesting is that consciousness is not a specific function of the brain. Nor even something that can be found in any particular area of the brain. I don't think consciousness is a phenomenon that looks at memory, perception, etc, and combines them in whatever ways it wants. I think consciousness is the interaction of memory, perception, etc. Hey, I know nothing about how the brain works, so I could be entirely wrong. And I don't even have a half-baked theory about how these things came to interact at all. I just think many different abilities developed in the mass of goo that was the primitive brain; and that the right combination eventually came about, so that they became a unit in more ways than simply:
Perceive something in the environment --> Remember what happened last time that thing was perceived --> React.
They were now a unit that was aware of the process. Then, they became a unit that was aware of itself.

Computers don't cause symbols to be put onto paper. Humans do. Computers + printers are just fancy pencils. They are tools humans use to "write," i.e. manipulate symbols. Now whether you manipulate these symbols according to rules you store in your head, or with rules you store in a computer, it makes no difference. The rules came from us. The computer didn't invent them. Figuring out the rules is the calculation. Having the computer apply those rules is just like having our hand apply those rules. It's a mechanical process (that's why a machine can do it).

Symbols on paper are just as capable of performing calculations as a computer. Sure, the input device (pencil) and output device (paper) needs some instructions in order to interact correctly. But so does a computer. Its input and output won't make sense or perform any calculation without explicitly written rules. In both cases, those instructions come from us. Conscious beings. We told the computer how to manipulate the symbols, just like we "tell" the pencil and paper how to manipulate the symbols. Both machines are different ways to store these symbols. The only difference with computers is that we can also store the rules of how to manipulate the symbols in the same medium as the symbols themselves. Granted, that's an amazing difference. It frees us from having to constantly apply the rules ourselves. But since these rules are themselves only more symbols, they are no different from the symbols they manipulate. The "computation" which is happening in the computer is just another form of humans writing. It's like writing with dominos that you've pre-arranged to spell words. You don't actually write the words yourself, you just push the first domino. But since you're pre-arranged it to write a certain output through this mechanical process, it appears like the message is writing itself. Another way to say it: you could build a domino computer.

Nope, I don't buy it. Write "2 + 2 =" on a piece of paper, leave the pencil right on the piece of paper, and the two items will never write the answer. Nor will they ever calculate the answer, but be unable to write it.

I can program a computer to add whatever numbers I give it. And I can program it to display the answer in any number of ways, including writing it on a piece of paper.

I can even program it to find its own addends, and add them up. Or I can give it the ability to do more than add. Heck, it can choose to count the number of leaves on a tree, count the number of trees, and calculate the number of leaves in the whole forest.

No, no computer would be able to do anything without having been programmed by people. But once it is programmed by people, it can do its task without our input. So we program it to be capable of more and more things.

[The Laughing Man]

No, no computer would be able to do anything without having been programmed by people.

sounds like Intelligent Design.

In 2,000 years are robots going to be arguing over this?

I can see the forums now.....

"Is there really such thing as 2?"

"The 01 Commandments"

[emotional leper]

01010100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100111 01110011 00100000 00110001 00110000 00110001 00110000 00100000 01000011 01101111 01101101 01101101 01100001 01101110 01100100 01101101 01100101 01101110 01110100 01110011 00101100 00100000 01001000 01100101 01100001 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101110 00100001

[Raen]

www.sciammind.com/article.cfm?articleID ... 414B7F0000

My favorite magazine had an article about artificial intelligence- pretty cool. I found the link to it interestingly enough. The robots were extremely realistic as well.

[Avatar]

01010100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100111 01110011 00100000 00110001 00110000 00110001 00110000 00100000 01000011 01101111 01101101 01101101 01100001 01101110 01100100 01101101 01100101 01101110 01110100 01110011 00101100 00100000 01001000 01100101 01100001 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101110 00100001

Who you calling heathen?

--A

[Raen]

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3085614107935440681&q=Hiroshi+Ishiguro&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


Here is a youtube video of his androids. Pretty cool!

[Fist and Faith]

Holy cow! I look for a thread to post this, and the last post in the thread was 17 years ago, but my wife.

The reason I wanted to post isn't quite as cool. Not really a science thing, but it's about AI.
OpenAI as we knew it is dead

[Savor Dam]

Since the thread has been exhumed...

They took the credit for your Second Symphony
Rewritten by machine and new technology
And now I understand the problems you can see…

The first video ever played on MTV...way back on August 1, 1981

[Fist and Faith]

Since the thread has been exhumed...

Once decreased, that's not easily done.



The first video ever played on MTV...way back on August 1, 1981Such a classic. I played it for my kids a few years ago. My son was maybe 25. I saw him a couple weeks later, and he was singing every word. He said, "It's oddly compelling." Lol

[Avatar]

Haha, I'm pretty sure we have a more recent thread about AI...might be in Gen Disc.

Ah, reading back, how innocent we were. Not that we have AI really yet though, but we certainly seem a lot closer, and as far as the general public is concerned, the current imitation is close enough...

And 9 years after i posted about the challenges it posed, Google's DeepMind program, AlphaGo, defeated Lee Sedol, the world champion human Go player in 4 out of 5 matches. (I watched them play...it was terrifying. )

And we're barely even scratching the surface of non-binary "quantum" computing, let alone applying it (publicly) to (publicly available) ("narrow") AI.

--A