Artificial Intelligence

[Avatar]

What? The processes which prompt the required state-changes?

Fair enough. But what starts it off? wouldn't you need a plan for it to make the first changes by? After that, the feedback generated by those changes would be enough, but those first thoughts would have to be prompted in a machine, unless you think (as may be possible) that they'll be spontaneous once a certain number of connection are made?

--A

[Loredoctor]

The brain has chemical signals as well as electrical so there are more states than just on and off.

I should correct this. There are no electrical signals in the brain. It's a common mistake that people think the brain sends electrical signals along its networks. The membranes of neurons change polarity due to differentiation of ions in and outside of the neuron (ie. the membrane is more negative if more calcium ions inside and increased potassium ions outside). This state triggers the opening of ionotropic pores which allow certains +ve or -ve ions into or out of the neuron. If enough types of pores open a spreading activation of pores starts and flows down the axon of the neuron. If this reaches the axon terminal, chemicals are released that affect the likelihood of pores opening in another neuron (that the terminal 'contacts'). Neurons only communicate through the use of chemicals (though some neurons actually connect and allow for the activation to spread), but it is not an electrical signal; it's electrical in that certains pores open when a certain charge on the membrane is reached.

[Loredoctor]

What? The processes which prompt the required state-changes?

Fair enough. But what starts it off? wouldn't you need a plan for it to make the first changes by? After that, the feedback generated by those changes would be enough, but those first thoughts would have to be prompted in a machine, unless you think (as may be possible) that they'll be spontaneous once a certain number of connection are made?

--A

Think of it this way - the system starts with massive amounts of error and noise. The networks stabilise by learning efficiency (like the way our brains develop), but it is the constant adjustment that is due to feedback.

[Avatar]

Very interesting...so if all communiccation is chemical, (which is sensible I guess) what implications could that have for AI? Make it impossible? Unless we mimic the action of the chemical mechanically? I dunno.

And as I asked above, how does it start?

--A

[Loredoctor]

Very interesting...so if all communiccation is chemical, (which is sensible I guess) what implications could that have for AI? Make it impossible? Unless we mimic the action of the chemical mechanically? I dunno.

And as I asked above, how does it start?

--A

I honestly think we either mimic it by making a program, or simply have organic computers - but isnt that life?

It starts by chaos - the neural networks learn to stabilise. Understand that when we are born we have about 10 times the connections between neurons now. Through learning and growth, we lose those connections; the brain becomes efficient. Perhaps the system starts by being inefficient and chaotic.

[Avatar]

So you're positing a spontaneous beginning, from a mass of connections? That's sort of the way I've always assumed it myself. i.e. The true AI will be more of an accident than anything else.

That a vast number of connections will eventually order themselves into the pattern that we call intelligence.

If we go the organic route, can we still call it "artificial"? Although, I suppose it will be in the sense that we design and build organic components and "install" them. But yeah, wouldn't that be life?

--A

[Fist and Faith]

It starts by chaos - the neural networks learn to stabilise. Understand that when we are born we have about 10 times the connections between neurons now. Through learning and growth, we lose those connections; the brain becomes efficient. Perhaps the system starts by being inefficient and chaotic.

I thought I'd always heard that our brains develop new pathways as we grow from infancy to some age or other. You're saying we actually weed out pathways that achieve something, and the others, what, atrophy?

So you're positing a spontaneous beginning, from a mass of connections? That's sort of the way I've always assumed it myself. i.e. The true AI will be more of an accident than anything else.

I agree, as my first paragraph of this thread said. I'm not sure when we might know how to manufacture intelligence, but I don't think we're currently anywhere near.

If we go the organic route, can we still call it "artificial"? Although, I suppose it will be in the sense that we design and build organic components and "install" them. But yeah, wouldn't that be life?

I think this is getting back to a debate from long ago about what natural means. I was saying that humans seem to be outside of nature in some ways, and we can make things that nature never would on its own. Others said that we cannot be considered anything other than natural, and, so, anything we do is done by nature.

According to my definition, any intelligence we manufacture, whether organically or mechanically based, would be AI. I guess others would say that any intelligence we manufacture would have been done through a process of nature - us - and there can't really be any AI.

[Avatar]

An interesting distinction Fist. Are beavers natural? How about beaver dams? Are men natural? What about man-made dams?

--A

[Loredoctor]

I thought I'd always heard that our brains develop new pathways as we grow from infancy to some age or other. You're saying we actually weed out pathways that achieve something, and the others, what, atrophy?

We dont weed out pathways that achieve something; we weed out pathyways that are not as efficient. A system with 10 pathways to remember the letter 'l' is not as efficient as a system with 5 pathways to remember 'l'.

I was saying that humans seem to be outside of nature in some ways, and we can make things that nature never would on its own. Others said that we cannot be considered anything other than natural, and, so, anything we do is done by nature.

According to my definition, any intelligence we manufacture, whether organically or mechanically based, would be AI. I guess others would say that any intelligence we manufacture would have been done through a process of nature - us - and there can't really be any AI.

I must disgree. That's like saying intelligence and tool use is unnatural. If evolution is successful adaption with increased likelihood to pass on genes and keep our offspring alive then humanity is natural.

[Fist and Faith]

I thought I'd always heard that our brains develop new pathways as we grow from infancy to some age or other. You're saying we actually weed out pathways that achieve something, and the others, what, atrophy?

We dont weed out pathways that achieve something; we weed out pathyways that are not as efficient. A system with 10 pathways to remember the letter 'l' is not as efficient as a system with 5 pathways to remember 'l'.

Yeah, I worded that the wrong way. heh I meant to ask if we keep the pathways that achieve something. But I guess it's even more complicated than that, if we keep 5 pathways that do the same thing instead of 10. Redundant systems, but not as many as there could be?

I must disgree. That's like saying intelligence and tool use is unnatural. If evolution is successful adaption with increased likelihood to pass on genes and keep our offspring alive then humanity is natural.

I understand that side of things, but I just can't think of the pollution we've pumped into every part of the ecosystem - pollution that makes it difficult or impossible for many species, including us, to live - as natural. If humans had never come along (assuming no other species developed the type of intelligence and awareness we have), nature never would have done many of the things we have done. Is Einsteinium natural? Would nature have made it without us?

[Loredoctor]

I understand that side of things, but I just can't think of the pollution we've pumped into every part of the ecosystem - pollution that makes it difficult or impossible for many species, including us, to live - as natural. If humans had never come along (assuming no other species developed the type of intelligence and awareness we have), nature never would have done many of the things we have done. Is Einsteinium natural? Would nature have made it without us?

Fist, I agree with you there somewhat. I follow your reasoning to a degree But there are actually species of trees that poison the environment around them to prevent the growth of competition.

I think the court is out until we run into other intelligent life that damages the environment; then we know that it is natural.

Environmental damage still sickens me. I love nature.

[Avatar]

Yeah, I agree with Fist. It is, after all, not in our rational self-interest to damage it to such an extent that it won't even support us.

See, the thing is, there are very few natural checks on human expansion. No other organism that we know of destroys it's own environment.

Even the trees that LoreMaster mentions only alter their environment so that nothing else can grow there (or at least, nothing that hasn't adapted to the increased acidity or alkalinity).

There is, as far as I know, only one thing that replicates until it's environment is so destroyed that it can't be sustained, and then dies. A virus. (Where's MatrixMan?)

--A

[Fist and Faith]

And, of course, there's no confusion as to what the title of this thread means. Or what artificial flavoring, artificial lighting, or artificial insemination are. Artificial always means the same thing; Something happens without humans, but we found a different way to make it happen. And natural means it happens without human help/interference/input.

[Prebe]

There is, as far as I know, only one thing that replicates until it's environment is so destroyed that it can't be sustained, and then dies. A virus. (Where's MatrixMan?)

What about the stupid pandas eating all the bamboo?

[[Syl]]

Poker Pros to Face Off With Computer

Poker champion Phil Laak has a good chance of winning when he sits down this week to play 2,000 hands of Texas Hold'em — against a computer. It may be the last chance he gets. Computers have gotten a lot better at poker in recent years; they're good enough now to challenge top professionals like Laak, who won the World Poker Tour invitational in 2004. But it's only a matter of time before the machines take a commanding lead in the war for poker supremacy.

Just as they already have in backgammon, checkers and chess, computers are expected to surpass even the best human poker players within a decade. They can already beat virtually any amateur player.

And here's an article about a computer solving checkers.

[Queeaqueg]

I machines are capible of a form of Weak AI but I don't think they will achieve full self-awareness.
I am one of those spiritual people and I don't think everything can be reduced to 'The Brain'. Consciousness(self-awareness) is seperate or different... but that is just my opinion.

[Avatar]

Just as they already have in backgammon, checkers and chess, computers are expected to surpass even the best human poker players within a decade.

But not Go.

Say Prebe, sorry I missed your post before...is the problem down to the fact that they're eating too much? Or that their habitat has shrunk so that there's not enough for them to eat?

--A

[Prebe]

Before??? It's 20 months ago!

Anyway, you need a certain population size to be sure that survival is guaranteed. The slower your reproductive cycle is and the more narrow your niche is, the more likely you are to exterminate yourself. And pandas have a very narrow niche and a slow reproduction cycle, hence the population size needs to be very big to maintain a survival guarantee. Taken to sufficiently small extremes I'm sure you see what I mean: Take two humans in a corn-field big enough to support three people. I'm sure that you will agree that these two will not necessarily survive, much less reproduce.

[Avatar]

(Even I miss a thread every now and then. )

Of course. That niche was what I was talking about. In other words, would the Panda still be eating its resources faster than they could replenish themselves if it wasn't for the limited range in which they can currently flourish?

--A

[Prebe]

No, I don't think they would.