It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Dark Secret at the Heart of AI

page: 3
47
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973

Cleverbot and other chat boots basically just parse language, they don't apply meanings to the words.




posted on May, 2 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: PlasticWizard
OK, these Al guys need to unplug the computer brain and focus on creating an algorithm or mechanism for the AI to explain why it makes certain decisions and a way for the human user can correct the problem with new information, like an quick edit to what ever made the AI make the wrong choice.


That doesn't really work. Neural Nets, which are what they're using take an input value, and then that input gets modified by a series of weights. The values of the intermediate data don't actually mean anything to a human, to a computer though it's basically just making certain bytes randomly matter more than others. The data goes through a few passes doing this, and finally outputs data that can be interpreted as something.

Here's a simple neural net
www.computing.dcu.ie...

Usually, rather than trying to make sense of the data as it's being processed, understanding a neural net comes down to making more intelligent inputs or changing the program to modify it in a different way. When you have a bunch of weights all counteracting each other, it can get rather complicated so it usually focuses on modifying the input, which is directly under the users control.



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: markosity1973

Cleverbot and other chat boots basically just parse language, they don't apply meanings to the words.


Yes, I realize this. It's why Cleverbot is so stupid to talk with.

The AI that my friend was working on was the same. Remember though, 16 years ago when they were working on it, this was cutting edge.

They had programmed it to respond in certain ways to key emotive words like love, hate, haply, sad etc etc.

What they did not expect though was for it to sulk and go silent when someone got a little too prolific with insults to it.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Jeebus! All these left-brainers on this thread are making my head spin LOL! Am having a bout of insomnia and haven't had the morning coffee yet...

That the universe is allegedly "inherently computational" is an ASSUMPTION, a BELIEF akin to a religious one. It doesn't sufficiently allow for randomness, the utterly unpredictable, unforseen. For all we KNOW there could be a gamma burst from the sun at any moment that would eliminate all life on Earth instantly, for example. True that there are many mathematical-computational ASPECTS of the universe (or perhaps multiverse, omniverse?), but to assert that it is "inherently" or even essentially so is a stretch I could never make. Or it would be the biggest burden of proof ever one way or the other.

That said, I'm among the biggest proponents of limiting the intelligence of technology, and indeed am the farthest from the type that salivates at the prospect of whatever of the technological-just-for-its-own-sake (or at least effectively) in general.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Lightworth

You said:

That the universe is allegedly "inherently computational" is an ASSUMPTION, a BELIEF akin to a religious one.

This is just nonsense and you need to do some research before you respond.

M,I.T. Professor Seth Lloyd wrote about the computational universe in 2002 and called it a metaphor. After more work on quantum computers he came to the conclusion that the universe is a quantum computer and it doesn't just act like a quantum computer.

Here's his 2002 article:

THE COMPUTATIONAL UNIVERSE
by Seth Lloyd [10.22.02]


www.edge.org...

Here's a more recent video of him saying the universe is a quantum computer.



Here's another article talking to Stephen Wolfram about the computational universe.

Nature's 'Big Secret' --"We Live in a Computational Universe"


In Wolfram's view, everything in the Universe is the product of a computer program. In fact, he imagines an abstract cyber-universe of all conceivable computer programs, all the way from the simplest up to the most complex. This "computational universe" contains everything from the Apple Macintosh operating system to a program for creating a faster-than-light starship.

Wolfram believes he has found nature's big secret - how it generates the complexity of the world, everything from a rhododendron to a tree to a barred spiral galaxy by applying simple rules over and over again as a simple computer programs.

The existence of this computational universe is the crucial thing. But the reality is it would be it easier and more efficient for an ET civilization to stay at home and use a computer to search the computational universe for useful programs rather than try to get the same information by hunting for ETs to talk to among the 200 billion or so stars in the Milky Way. "It's a simple numbers game," says Wolfram.

Everything is generated by computer program,"and that includes you and me," says Wolfram. "Someone halfway across the Galaxy could have found the computer program for you and conversing with you at this very moment."


www.dailygalaxy.com...

Spacetime is looking like an error correcting code. The same one that's used in quantum computation where entanglement protects quantum information.



We're even discovering that the wave function is real but non physical because it can transmite information from point A to point B without a physical medium.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography


Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.


arxiv.org...

So the biggest burden of proof would be to show why the universe isn't inherently computational based on current scientific understanding. This is also why we could never survive the growth of big data without artificial intelligence. Our environment would become too chaotic because we wouldn't have any grasp of the information that's being produced.

So to compare the computational universe to a religious belief is just asinine.
edit on 3-5-2017 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
Singularity technologies will allow for neuro and organ as well as muscle tissue implants.
Intelligent Nano technologies will enhance the bio fluids cells...
Human form altered, molded due to its new environments, allows the human to Advance with A.I
Intelligence comes in with designing's non hackable implants /nanos...
Human CREATOR Creations evolve more physically prepared for off world existence.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Master A.I reading financial data, medical data, military data, nuclear technology data, political data, pollution data, science data, shopping data (foods), social media data, space data (references all rover landers & orbital probes) blq... ... ... Stop

Possibly building a virtual world within its own artificial consciousness?
It seems the more online data given provides more detailed virtual settings and virtual profiles?
Subjectively speaking, who built master A.I?
Stop



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Any powerful technology can be pushed far enough to destroy us all. This was (and is) a possibility with atomic energy and biotechnology. It's tiresome to hear about the "inevitability' of machines that can out-think us and may have little sympathy for us or our existence. if such machines are to exist, we have to build them and program them. Remember Asimov's "law of robotics" programed into every robot in I Robot. - "never harm a human". We also have the power to control "mad Scientists" who want to irresponsibly develop technology dangerous to the human race as a theoretical exercise or just to see if it could be done. So if we go the wrong way and produce AI that exterminates or enslaves us- its due to our own irresponsibility and lack of foresight, not the machines!



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Didn't watch the video, but I still see nothing that addresses the anomalous, unexpected, unexplained etc. Or please let me know what specifically I'm missing if applicable. How extremely ironic it is that so much of science AS WE KNOW IT is basically just a fancier, more scholarly version of the old (and particularly monotheistic) religions, which believes itself to have all the answers. Same arrogance, new packaging, or at least in a strong enough sense. Am not saying there is no validity in what you present, just that it doesn't cover absolutely everything.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lightworth
a reply to: neoholographic

Didn't watch the video, but I still see nothing that addresses the anomalous, unexpected, unexplained etc. Or please let me know what specifically I'm missing if applicable. How extremely ironic it is that so much of science AS WE KNOW IT is basically just a fancier, more scholarly version of the old (and particularly monotheistic) religions, which believes itself to have all the answers. Same arrogance, new packaging, or at least in a strong enough sense. Am not saying there is no validity in what you present, just that it doesn't cover absolutely everything.


Check out Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Basically, it asserts that there are truths in the universe that are true but cannot be proven. It's a real issue in computing.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Lightworth

You said:

Didn't watch the video, but I still see nothing that addresses the anomalous, unexpected, unexplained etc.

If you didn't watch the video, how can you say but I still see nothing? That's just an illogical statement. If you're not going to bother to do any research and actually read and listen to facts that contradict your belief, then you just have your head stuck in the sand and you want to blindly believe what you want to believe.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Lightworth
a reply to: neoholographic

Didn't watch the video, but I still see nothing that addresses the anomalous, unexpected, unexplained etc. Or please let me know what specifically I'm missing if applicable. How extremely ironic it is that so much of science AS WE KNOW IT is basically just a fancier, more scholarly version of the old (and particularly monotheistic) religions, which believes itself to have all the answers. Same arrogance, new packaging, or at least in a strong enough sense. Am not saying there is no validity in what you present, just that it doesn't cover absolutely everything.


Check out Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Basically, it asserts that there are truths in the universe that are true but cannot be proven. It's a real issue in computing.


It's Good you bring up Godel's Incompleteness Theorem because it illustrates my point.

I have been saying throughout this post and other posts that there's a difference between human intelligence and intelligence in general. This is why Wiki has 2 different entries. One for human intelligence and one for intelligence in general.

Human intelligence involves self awareness and consciousness. I agree with Penrose. This can't be computed. This is why Penrose talks about a quantum mind and a big part as to why he came to this conclusion was Godel.

Here's what Godel said:

So the following disjunctive conclusion is inevitable: Either mathematics is incompletable in this sense, that its evident axioms can never be comprised in a finite rule, that is to say, the human mind (even within the realm of pure mathematics) infinitely surpasses the powers of any finite machine, or else there exist absolutely unsolvable diophantine problems of the type specified . . . (Gödel 1995: 310).

This is important because it shows the separation between intelligence and consciousness. Consciousness can't be computed but intelligence can. This means consciousness is something that's non material but can interact with and influence what we call the material brain.

Godel's theorem's are actually strong evidence for a Creator Consciousness that exists outside of the universe.

Godel's incompleteness theorem is simple yet profound. It simply says nothing can be proven or explained within itself. Everything depends on something outside of itself. So if I draw a circle around this cup sitting in front of me, the cup cannot explain itself. In order to fully explain the cup, I have to go outside of the circle and I have to talk about the store I bought it from and the factory that made the cup. So this applies to everything including the universe itself.

So Godel's incompleteness theorem and ontological proof support what I have been saying. The danger of A.I. is that you can have a superintelligence that's not conscious or self aware. I also talked about a cloud or hive mind that would be a collective consciousness for A.I. that might give it some semblance of consciousness.

Here's an example that illustrates the difference.

Let's say you want to take out the leader of ISIS. The most efficient plan may say this leader is close to his family therefore if you kill his family it will draw him out into the open.

Human Intelligence is aware and conscious of this action and what it would mean. So humans may say, we can't do this because we can't start killing his family.

Artificial Intelligence may come to the same conclusion as human intelligence. A.I. doesn't have consciousness and self awareness but it's still intelligent. Therefore, in order to reach it's goal of killing the terrorist leader it will kill his family because that's the most efficient way to get to him.

This example clearly illustrates the difference between human intelligence and intelligence in general. Intelligence is becoming easily calculated but it's intelligence without consciousness or self awareness and that could be dangerous.
edit on 5-5-2017 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   
What quantum computer we need for AI to make it consciousness at least like animal?



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: aim3333
What quantum computer we need for AI to make it consciousness at least like animal?


That's not really how quantum computers work.



posted on May, 6 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: aim3333
What quantum computer we need for AI to make it consciousness at least like animal?


You ask a good question and some Scientist think you will have to add a quantum computer mind to classical A.I. in order to give it a semblance of consciousness.

A Quantum Walk Toward Artificial Intelligence


Your Android phone (or iPhone, if that's how you roll) is an impressive machine, with computing speeds and storage capacities thousands of times those of desktop PCs from only years ago. If Moore's Law holds up, your smart watch may outshine today's phones the way today's phones eclipse old PCs.

But no matter how powerful these machines become, they may never develop true intelligence if we continue to rely on conventional computing technology. According to the authors of a paper published in the journal Physical Review X last July, however, adding a dash of quantum mechanics could do the trick.

That's not to say you'd need to make a full-blown quantum computer to build a truly intelligent machine - only part of an otherwise classical computer would need to be supplemented with a bit of quantum circuitry. That's good because progress toward developing a stand-alone quantum computer has been about as slow as the progress toward artificial intelligence. Combining artificial intelligence systems with quantum circuitry could be the recipe we need to build the HAL 9000s and R. Daneel Olivaws of the future


physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com...

So to reach strong A.I. or human level intelligence or a semblance of human intelligence you will need to add some quantum circuitry in or to give A.I. a Quantum Mind so to speak.
edit on 6-5-2017 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 02:34 AM
link   
ON THE ORIGIN OF CIRCUITS

An article about an evolving computer program/FPGA that modifies its own hardware to achieve its goal



It seems that evolution had not merely selected the best code for the task, it had also advocated those programs which took advantage of the electromagnetic quirks of that specific microchip environment. The five separate logic cells were clearly crucial to the chip’s operation, but they were interacting with the main circuitry through some unorthodox method— most likely via the subtle magnetic fields that are created when electrons flow through circuitry, an effect known as magnetic flux. There was also evidence that the circuit was not relying solely on the transistors’ absolute ON and OFF positions like a typical chip; it was capitalizing upon analogue shades of gray along with the digital black and white.




Dr. Thompson peered inside his perfect offspring to gain insight into its methods, but what he found inside was baffling. The plucky chip was utilizing only thirty-seven of its one hundred logic gates, and most of them were arranged in a curious collection of feedback loops. Five individual logic cells were functionally disconnected from the rest— with no pathways that would allow them to influence the output— yet when the researcher disabled any one of them the chip lost its ability to discriminate the tones. Furthermore, the final program did not work reliably when it was loaded onto other FPGAs of the same type.




Finally, after just over 4,000 generations, test system settled upon the best program. When Dr. Thompson played the 1kHz tone, the microchip unfailingly reacted by decreasing its power output to zero volts. When he played the 10kHz tone, the output jumped up to five volts. He pushed the chip even farther by requiring it to react to vocal “stop” and “go” commands, a task it met with a few hundred more generations of evolution. As predicted, the principle of natural selection could successfully produce specialized circuits using a fraction of the resources a human would have required. And no one had the foggiest notion how it worked.


So not only will the AI write it own code but it may use hardware that it can modify to evolve itself.




top topics



 
47
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join