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.

 

Google engineer is developing an AI god

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Of course, it can but how much time it will take? CPU could render complex 3D graphics but GPU with multiple parallel cores do it faster.




posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Kukasz

And the propagation delay of NANDs gates is in nanoseconds. I think you are missing my point or maybe I did not explain it in a good way. Parallelism buys you nothing when it comes to creating hard AI. MPU speeds buys you nothing. Bus and memory speeds buy you nothing. See my longer post about hard AI.

I'm not trying to sound like a know-it-all or I'm-smart-than-you at all. It's just that if you study the get-fetch-execute cycle and the Von Neumann architecture then you become tempered with your expectations.

The problem is Hollywood mythologizes everything. Commander Data of Star Trek is a great example. You do realize Commander Data is a human actor reading lines from a script authored by humans. I once read Marvin Minsky claim in the 1980s in short time we will have computers writing great works for fiction equal to Shakespeare. That was 30 years ago. Now as I've said, you can't prove a negative. But there are certain intuitions you have from studying a problem that have to do with limitations you find.

I just think with all my understand and experience working with computers and their limitations, hard AI is not going to come from the get-fetch-execute cycle and the Von Neumann architecture. Maybe some DNA based grown brain computer cyborg type thing. But that's not really a computer at this point.


edit on 3-10-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
But that's not really a computer at that point.

Well, certainly, that's a semantic issue, since at this point we have yet to create a sentient machine. Kind of makes you wonder what it really means for something to "live."



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kukasz
a reply to: Templeton

Mathematically speaking being creative is reversed classification process with some randomness and merging with expertise coming from different fields. Musk thinks about controlling multiple narrow specialized intelligences with a biological controller (a human brain) which may work for some period of time. But with specialized 3d-stacked neuromorphic processors, it is possible to achieve human brain power in the mobile phone even in few years. Specialized processors dedicated to certain tasks (like AI for example) could be few orders of magnitude more powerful than general architecture used in modern computers. Today artificial intelligence exists and is used for optimization and discovery in many fields like medicine and different forms of engineering. Average people don't understand its power or even now that AI exists today because it looks like advanced statistics or some sort of optimization algorithm.
Actually, human intelligence emerging from complex interaction of multiple specialized modules. Interactions we don't understand today but in future probably we will.


The funny thing about computer programs is they are only as smart as the people who author them. So my question to you would be the computer programs making up today's artificial intelligence were they written by a computer program or human being? My next question would be are the programs so powerful that the human programmers have no way to know if the computer program is actually working correctly?

It seems to me you are mythologizing the unknown in your post with ideas that are divorced from reality.


edit on 3-10-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: dfnj2015
But that's not really a computer at that point.

Well, certainly, that's a semantic issue, since at this point we have yet to create a sentient machine. Kind of makes you wonder what it really means for something to "live."


Life is like a ball rolling down a hill. We are set of processes in motion in biofeedback mechanism having a moving flow. This includes the ability to procreate with a replication mechanism allowing for improvements. And we have the amazing ability to learn and create ideas and things that have never been thought of or existed before.

I think our ability to be creative comes from quantum randomness bubbling up from the smallest parts of reality's fabric. This bubbling causes all kinds of errors and mistakes in our thinking through a series of rogue wave converges resulting in ideas we've never thought of before. Occasionally, when these new ideas surface, we come to a conclusion based on experience we found something "good". Lot's of times we have amazingly profound ideas that we classifying as pure BS because we lack the experience or understanding to appreciate finer thoughts.


edit on 3-10-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

You think in a pure computer guy way. Computers do what you program them to do but I'd say matter in ours brains do what physics make it to do. So physics is like computer program. Computers can simulate matter based on FEM (finite element method). Is it like the same thing. The reality is in some compressed way computable. You think about you can fit in your mind and coded on computer but functions could be much more complicated and abstract when system evolves itself. Making hard AI (or AGI) with unlimited resources is a simple problem but our brains build quite good models of outside world with small resources available. If you a coder and want develop intuition in AI field you can play with some software like this keras.io... With little code you can do things that people consider impossible today. If you run some processes on GPU it will be much faster than on CPU. For mathematics read Jurgen Schmidhuber works. I know perfectly what computer is and how it works but I also know more.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kukasz
a reply to: dfnj2015

You think in a pure computer guy way. Computers do what you program them to do but I'd say matter in ours brains do what physics make it to do. So physics is like computer program. Computers can simulate matter based on FEM (finite element method). Is it like the same thing. The reality is in some compressed way computable. You think about you can fit in your mind and coded on computer but functions could be much more complicated and abstract when system evolves itself. Making hard AI (or AGI) with unlimited resources is a simple problem but our brains build quite good models of outside world with small resources available. If you a coder and want develop intuition in AI field you can play with some software like this keras.io... With little code you can do things that people consider impossible today. If you run some processes on GPU it will be much faster than on CPU. For mathematics read Jurgen Schmidhuber works. I know perfectly what computer is and how it works but I also know more.


I think there is a hidden delusion in your way of thinking. It's not clear that physics is like a computer program at all. There is really no evidence that reality has a clock or information bus. There are some physicists who think "time" doesn't exist in reality and is just a human construct:

There Is No Such Thing As Time



"If you try to get your hands on time, it's always slipping through your fingers," says Barbour. "People are sure time is there, but they can't get hold of it. My feeling is that they can't get hold of it because it isn't there at all." Barbour speaks with a disarming English charm that belies an iron resolve and confidence in his science. His extreme perspective comes from years of looking into the heart of both classical and quantum physics. Isaac Newton thought of time as a river flowing at the same rate everywhere. Einstein changed this picture by unifying space and time into a single 4-D entity. But even Einstein failed to challenge the concept of time as a measure of change. In Barbour's view, the question must be turned on its head. It is change that provides the illusion of time. Channeling the ghost of Parmenides, Barbour sees each individual moment as a whole, complete and existing in its own right. He calls these moments "Nows."


Also, the Universe is not simply particles but also has a wave nature to it that is very different than anything within a computer. So unless you take into account the wave nature of reality, I think you are missing 1/2 the evidence about what reality actually IS.

And then there is a problem with our words and thoughts. Words and thoughts are discrete representations of a nature. Our thoughts are NOT the nature they represent. So there is a built-in delusion when it comes to talking about reality just by the limitations found in our language. When I use the word "reality" you don't really understand fully what that word means. This type of word delusion I think exists when we have discussions about hard AI. The words sound right but in reality there is no mapping.

P.S. "Keras: The Python Deep Learning library" is known as soft AI. Soft AI has been around for years and is frankly very boring.


edit on 3-10-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Kukasz

You seem like a really smart guy. Other than the boring dictionary definition of intelligence, how would you define the word "intelligent" as it applies to computer software? For example, what does a computer program do that you would claim that program is more intelligent than say another program?



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

You think your thinking level is high but is not or maybe it is but you not articulate it well as do I. I have a lot to say and words have very small resolution and efficient linearization of an extremely abstract concept is computationally expensive and take much time. Of course, words are a very compressed approximation and I see you understand that well. Of course, the outer reality isn't like our brain models. But I think if you think that thought is original you don't know much about cognitive sciences. Actually, since 2016 "soft" AI do amazing things and numbers of amazing applications grows rapidly. For mind expanding theories I recommend to read Ben Goertzel books about patternism.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

I'd say like Ben Goertzel that intelligence is an ability to achieve complex tasks in a complex environment. More intelligent program perform better in given task. If I am making program based on AI which primary task is to predict stock prices and make money in automated trading more intelligent is the program which makes more money from transactions.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

A few questions for you:



Have you ever thought about what your brain is doing between thoughts?

No. Why would I think about that? What purpose does the question, or answer, serve?



Actually, a brain is not a huge parallel computer. All parallelism can be simulated with a single thread.

In looking at the computer-to-brain analogy, how does a threading model disprove the notion that the human brain functions like a parallel computer?

-dex



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MandyRichardson

From your source:

AI couldn’t be any further away from religion and and the idea of these amoral people are trying to develop systems which could effectively control your thoughts and who you are as a person deeply worries me.
(Emphasis mine)

A lot of people would make the argument that organized religion does exactly that. Namely that it is a human-made construct the is used to effectively control your thoughts and actions.

-dex



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: DpatC

But that only came after God developing a google engineer..



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: DpatC

Let me throw something else into the debate, First though I'm going to light a joint snort out a line of coke, open a can of magners Irish cider and put following music track on the Cd player - Joe Smooth - Promised land - when the angels from above fall down and spread their wings like doves - great song
www.youtube.com...
OKay now that's sorted where was I? okay so. In her book the case for God, Karen Armstrong says that "We are taking far too much about God these days and what we say is often facile. In our democratic society, we think that the concept of God should be easy and that religion ought to be readily accessible to anybody. Surely everybody knows what God is: The Supreme Being, a divine personality who created the world and everything in it. People of faith know in theory that God is utterly transcendent, but they seem sometimes to assume that they know exactly who "he" is and what he thinks, loves and expects. We tend to tame and domesticate God's "otherness".Despite our scientific and technological brilliance, our religious thinking is remarkably undeveloped even primative"
I believe that AI will throw up alot of stuff that will rock the fundamentals of current belief, Is humanity ready to open this can of worms? -
edit on 3-10-2017 by DpatC because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-10-2017 by DpatC because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-10-2017 by DpatC because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-10-2017 by DpatC because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-10-2017 by DpatC because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: one4all
LOl.....lol....its never gonna happen.....you know why?......lol......you cannot teach a computer to lie and it cannot teach itself either...you can program it to intentionally make errors to throw up smokescreens which seem like lie....however a machine cannot manifest anything only playback what is put into it.


You're wrong about this. Google's deep learning platform is taught to "self educate." They give it "goals" and it, through the process of trial and error, figures out how to reach the objective.

If that objective includes lying, it will lie.

In fact, here's an example: qz.com...



Big Blue was taught to lie as well....taught.....IMHO until AI can imagine everything every human can imagine it cannot think creatively.....you are discussing an attempt by designers to quantyify incoroprate and express emotions using algorithms....."they give it goals"....this is the crux...AI cannot "manifest reality"........anything cutting edge will have to be associated with bio-computing....interfacing biologiclly with AI....humans are designed to be telepathic geneticlly......we are designed to be a part of a collective....everything we are working on is a bare-bones framework attempt to replicate this connection.....this imense groupspeak dynamic.......imagine a network of 7 billion human minds all sharing data freely......you cannot concieve of AI with this much potential.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: hombero
a reply to: one4all

What do you think your brain is? It's a huge parallel computer. Scoff all you like, but that you are even able to read this proves intelligence has occurred at least once. Unless you believe that God created everything, in which case it would be quite ironic since then that would make your own intelligence an AI.

Lol.


My brain is a reciever and a transmitter.....chemical reactions create emotions within by body......I am designed to be a part of a collective consciousness of unlimited paraameters.

Computers are based on numbers and numbers are an attempt by disconnected humanity to replicate nature...to copy nature....AI is an attempt to find a way to return to our natural state of being....which is together as one humanitarian collective connected 24/7/365.

You might as well simply drop the hardware and go straight to crystals in your research.....you are missing the biological transition point and at least working with crystals will get you closer to where you need to be.....



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 06:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: DpatC
a reply to: DpatC


I believe that AI will throw up alot of stuff that will rock the fundamentals of current belief, Is humanity ready to open this can of worms? -


Humanity is not ready and will not be until it is too late. Progress in advanced AI is just inevitable. Average people think it could take centuries but in reality, it will take few or several years. Some people think narrow/soft AI is boring but in fact with a combination of few narrow/soft AI working together is possible to automate 95% of today jobs. Current knowledge suggests that general/hard intelligence is a complex combination of narrow artificial intelligence modules. But look how powerful is even narrow/soft Ai algorithms today. If you combine CNN(not TV channel but convolutional neural networks) with RNN(recurrent neural networks) like LSTM (long/short term memory) together you can teach this system to drive a car from scratch in VR environment transmitting only raw pixels on input and showing when turn wheel or push pedals. Actor-critics methods evolved from q-learning mixed with other soft/narrow algorithms learn to play more and more complicated games. A mix of soft/narrow algorithms showing more and more general learning ability every day.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: one4all

Thinking about the brain as transceiver is popular among people who believe in reincarnation. Even if reincarnation exists there are better theories explaining how eventually reincarnation is possible with brain fully responsible for human behavior and personality.
Look for example at this simple concept goertzel.org... This simple concept could modify quantum mechanics in a way which could explain reincarnation. I think in reality this theory isn't accurate but could motivate thinking in a certain way. Personally, I don't know if reincarnation exists. I don't remember any events before my life or at least events possible to prove to be real.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Not me! But maybe that's why my heart is not in what I do all day... sigh.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: wtbengineer
a reply to: intrptr

Not me! But maybe that's why my heart is not in what I do all day... sigh.

Take heart. You know the difference. One day you'll be free, just be careful what you wish for.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join