DARPA's iXo Artificial Intelligence Control Grid: 'The Official Version'

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   
So did you actually look beyond the CTS platform, or the CTS part of the video / resources?

Your argument holds if you stop waching and reading during the 2nd segment of the video / resources, and then only if we were all jumping the gun and declaring all this based soley on what CTS was about.



"Transforming the network from a weapons support system into a weapon itself, that is the thread that runs through the programs that we pursue."
www.darpa.mil...



"we must enable the network to defend itself against those adversaries who seek to deny us the use of this valuable combat resource."
www.darpa.mil...




"This research thrust area will show automated cyber immune response and system regeneration. The technical approach will include biologically-inspired response strategies, machine learning, and cognitively-inspired proactive automatic contingency planning."
dtsn.darpa.mil...


I'd like to point out that these quotes, or the ones in the resources page, arent the only ones that exist in the government literature... they were merely selected based on usability for the narrative. Quotes that could make a coherent narrative for this project.



As far as the autonomous robots are concerned, if you want to get real serious, spending on purchsing drone shas been cut back. Does this weaken the position of my video? No. All that's important about them is that they have succeeded in developing their AI systems to the point where many companies can now take their tool suite and build it themselves. It demonstrates that the era of AI is here, and that they're reaching their marks. Your argument is mostly centered around the Amry's Future Combat Systems, and the perspective they would have of the system, not the system behind the warfighters equipment.

Then you have PAL and CPOF, but 2 more successes.

CPOF is new on my radar, in fact I wasn't even aware that they were doing it until I read the wired article with the DARPA cheif recently and he used it as an example of their recent achievments. So i can't yet say for sure how powerful it is or could become as it learns and matures. Maturation is a crucial dynamic in considerig AI. Like a child that becomes an adult, only AI has the potential to keep maturing indefinitely.

So is that the big show, the omnipotent threat? Doesnt have to be, that's where NASA and Google come in, and they're in absolute cahoots.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 28-3-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]




posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I think you have significantly over estimated the current ability of AI. I am not saying what you are suggesting is not technically possible, just i dont think it is technically possible for a very significant amount of time yet. For example: Have you ever tried to get more than 3 electronic devices made by different companies to talk to each other? Interoperability in computing is not very good at the moment.
Even if a strong AI consciousness was created it would be limited to sending people abusive emails.

Try not to forget that Google is a money making machines, that makes its money through advertisement. Larry Page' idea of AI is a series of algorithms that make use of stupid amounts of data to give you more accurate adverts.

blog.outer-court.com...

Larry Page:


We have some people at Google who really try to build artificial intelligence, and to do it in a large scale. (...) You know, to do a perfect job of search, you can ask any query, and we’d give you the perfect answer, and that would be artificial intelligence



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   
How far of a step is it from creating AI to make better adverts to making AI that can interact in real time with people?

Voice synthesis, phone calls...already, I get automated phone calls that respond to my voice that are driven by a computer voice.

It's creepy.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by newtron25
How far of a step is it from creating AI to make better adverts to making AI that can interact in real time with people?

Voice synthesis, phone calls...already, I get automated phone calls that respond to my voice that are driven by a computer voice.

It's creepy.


A very very significant step. The AI interaction via text (turin test) has had a lot of work done on it and they can just about trick people using text to communicate. No where near doing this with anything like voice.

And automated phone calls are just that, automated. Nothing to do with AI. They can match a few sound patterns such as yes, no, five etc... but if you give anything other than a response that a machine can turn into a pattern and match against pre recorded patterns then it will fail. This is not AI, that is just an automated system.

Gareth.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GarethAyres
I am not saying what you are suggesting is not technically possible, just i dont think it is technically possible for a very significant amount of time yet.


This has been going on for some 50 years. For a stretch they thought it would be easy, then they figured out that it clearly was not. AI claims was comparable to UFO claims for a stretch there thru the 80's, and now with vast advances in computing power and cognitive sciences it's a whoel different story.



For example: Have you ever tried to get more than 3 electronic devices made by different companies to talk to each other? Interoperability in computing is not very good at the moment.


That's not the best example. For starters we're talking about "dumb" devices, and more directly it seems that you're talking about any old 3 consumer electronic devices, which probably wern't built for one another. Some basic human ingenuity always takes care of that.

Form there interoperability is quite sophisticated and impressive. You need to look no futher than TCP/IP... and as it turns out one of the 2 men who designed TCP/IP, Vint Cerf, "the godfather of the Internet", is Google's "cheif Internet evangelist".

To learn Google's and Vint Cerf's role in all of this see here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...




Even if a strong AI consciousness was created it would be limited to sending people abusive emails.


That's not the best example either: we already have Weak, or Narrow AI that does that. You're conscious right? Advanced cognition? Yes. Are you reduced to sending spam emails? Now imagine if vast stores of data, such as the entire Internet, were your "wisdom" or "knowledge' set, but at the same time you have vastly greater 'thinking' time AND power.



Try not to forget that Google is a money making machines, that makes its money through advertisement. Larry Page' idea of AI is a series of algorithms that make use of stupid amounts of data to give you more accurate adverts.


Good website


I hadn't found that one:


To reach that goal, Google wants to have the world’s top AI research laboratory.


Yes, Google is a capitalist megacorporation, and that's what they do is make money. It's also a government front operation, or at least there's really no better comparison.

Even if they live in a dream world, which they probably do, and ALL they want is a better ad deliverer, all that really matters is that they're goal is literally to give this system "all of the worlds information". So when it all boils down, they're trying to make the most advanced AI, in the worlds most advanced AI lab(probably the one at NASA's Ames research facility), and then they plan to give that AI all of the worlds information, which includes millions of pages of software coding tutorials and related utilities. The idea is for 'it' to actually understand what the data it 'holds' actually means. You do the math.

Now even if this already omnipotent system wont become a serious threat, which there's little reason to beleieve that it absolutely wont, then there's the little detail where they're doing this all in tandom with the U.S. government.


[edit on 28-3-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GarethAyres
A very very significant step. The AI interaction via text (turin test) has had a lot of work done on it and they can just about trick people using text to communicate. No where near doing this with anything like voice.


Not quite. It's just a matter of adapting the speech recognition to the turing programs. But turing programs are still Weak, or Narrow, AI... and so are the automated phone systems. The phone systems are more "Narrow", but its still AI. Conscious? No. Neither.



[edit on 28-3-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   


That's not the best example. For starters we're talking about "dumb" devices, and more directly it seems that you're talking about any old 3 consumer electronic devices, which probably wern't built for one another. Some basic human ingenuity always takes care of that.


You are right, that was not the best example. Nor the interoperability one. The point i was trying to get across is that if AI at a conscious level was to read all the info available and know all the best hacks and tricks, due to the very limited nature of the technology/systems of today the worst that could be achieved is what is achieved by the best hackers of today: Defaced web sites, denial of service and stealing info from db's.

There is not enough interoperability or technology embedded in and between systems for it to suddenly gain control of anything of much significance. ie navy aircraft, weapon systems or even basic things like cctv and traffic lights as they are not connected in any way for it to interface with them. Simply due to the fact that the technology is still very restrictive on what can talk to each other even a group of humans intent on mayhem couldn't achieve much.

In 250 years time when everything will inevitable be talking to each other over the internet and we see a consistency of interoperability, then a strong AI would be a threat.

Gareth.



posted on Mar, 28 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GarethAyres

You are right, that was not the best example. Nor the interoperability one. The point i was trying to get across is that if AI at a conscious level was to read all the info available and know all the best hacks and tricks, due to the very limited nature of the technology/systems of today the worst that could be achieved is what is achieved by the best hackers of today: Defaced web sites, denial of service and stealing info from db's.


You're speaking as if it would simply be another hacker on the OUTSIDE of the system while being dependant on basic human intelligence and 'processing' capabilities and limitations such as tiredness and sleep. There exists not ony a potential to learn EVERYTHING about coding from it's data resources (the Internet for one), but have enough 'intelligence' to 'reprogram' itself without even gaining access to such 'tutorials'. It could in theory rewrite itself as a whole new language in a matter of hours, while fully understanding the rest that us mere humans use. It could 'devlop' new "tricks" and exploits constantly and faster than Microsoft or the antivirus companies could even figure out what was happening.

You seem to be giving this thing similar potential power as a worm virus or some l33t hacker kids. Hackers have hacked into military satellites. It's really about who has the 'balls' and stupidity to push and push to see how far they can get. If humans can make it humans can break it, but what about when the thing we make remakes itself, and then again, and again ad infinitum.

We humans, even those building "it", can hardly even fathom what this network could becoem in a matter of hours or even seconds once it fully 'woke up' and started thinking for itself while utilizing all of its power..



navy aircraft


It's being built to control drones, and having 'inside' access there's no telling what it could control or disrupt if it fetlt the need to control or threaten disruption.



weapon systems

The network is already a, or the, weapons support system, and their stated goal is to make that very network itself into a weapon. As it is, if a hacker could somehow shut down the system all of our fancy technologies would be worthless. This is being built INSIDE the system, adn they intend to give it the power to protect ITSELF.



or even basic things like cctv and traffic lights


ITS, not CTS, is the system that virtually all of the national street cameras, lightsd and sensors are all hooked into and ultimately into DHS, which is part of the GIG. When you pull up to a light and it "knows" to chang eit for you, that's (narrow) AI, and HLS knows about it if they actually care to.


Simply due to the fact that the technology is still very restrictive on what can talk to each other even a group of humans intent on mayhem couldn't achieve much.


You should read more into Net Centric computing / warfare bacause the specific purpose is to develop the very interoperability that you cut this concept short by.

Group: it will function as a massively distributed collective (we're nto talking about one machine in an office/bunker somewhere acting all alone), have all of the access you say is needed, and eventaully all of the capabilities that we can imagine, and probably some that we cant. We simply cant compare one or more humans to this to try to understand it.


In 250 years time when everything will inevitable be talking to each other over the internet and we see a consistency of interoperability, then a strong AI would be a threat.


These might interest you:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 28-3-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

[edit on 28-3-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I have recorded their sensors on DVD. This one day I had camera out
because of the cloud formations. At least 6 of them came into view.
I had just changed the camera's direction. When I was reviewing DVD
right after this direction change, I attempted to backed up DVD so I could
pause on them. They only let me see them once in pause, then they
superimposed the camera scene when I had changed camera direction.
The next ones I saw, which were 3 small orbs in a row, 2 of them one at a time went right and went into an opening like a piece of fabric weave
in the cloud bank and the third one came down in front of camera.

If someone could give me advice on how to upload something like
this I would appreciate it. I tried my Windows MovieMaker but the
spooks in the computer keep pretending I need to insert the DVD
into the drive. I am a newbie when it comes to uploading and making videos.

Any advice would be appreciated. I have also caught HAARP on camera
opening an hole in the horizon just after sunrise.



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   


what's going to happen next, especially somehting that's unprecidented while vastly different than 911.


I suspect that what will happen next, which is unprecidented, but logical, is a suitcase nuke in some US city. It should happen within the next 12 months.
I pray I'm wrong.



posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   
That's why its important to ensure that everyone realizes that Bush and Blair have been warning about Usama having 20 suitcase nukes, since shorlty after 911, yet the mexican border remained unaddressed for some 5 years. An estimated 400,000 cross the border every year. This in itself basically destroys any claims that they've been trying to stop terrorism (or care if more happens) while they rape our "priviledges" (most people make the fallacy of calling them "rights"].



posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Well we have had technology on our side ever since the Cold war. We had relied upon our ability to detect radioactive isotopes from space based orbiting surveillance equipment to track all the loose fissionable material moving around the planet, Unfortunately, Clinton inadvertently sold that technology to the Chinese when he was having them fund our Social Security program. The missile technology contained enough information for them to figure out how to thwart our ability to detect from space.

This made us very vulnerable, and it’s a major unpublished reason they created the office of Homeland Defense, to protect the borders, unfortunately, for us, they failed. It is highly likely that it’s here on US soil now. The only question is where and when.



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I messed up!

I missed a disclaimer in the "Owning the Weather" document I cited at the end of the video.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
It doesn't take away from concept I've asserted about the AI being a primary enabler of that thrust, but the citations of that document were unjust.

I'm going to have to rethink and make some changes to this video now because the entire point of it was to use 100% documented official quotes/materials; "the official version". I was going to release a final release anyways, as I've lost my iib.com domain name due to $ woes, but this does suck. I might cut that part now... maybe do all AI stuff through it... and do a big post on the AI as a weather modification enabler or something.

Everything up to that point is still 100% relevent and official.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Im still very skeptical of the whole AI thing, simply because i don't believe its possible to create a seperate conscious entity working on mechanical principles. This goes down to how reality actually works, for which i have a pretty sound understanding (not that it will convince anyone/anyone will believe me).

The whole brain being like a supercomputer.. no one ever suggests that consciousness doesn't actually reside in the brain, and that the brain is merely a reciever for consciousness.

Computation ability is not equal to intelligence IMHO. They mite be able to make super fast computers, but actual intelligence is another game all together. At the end of the day, any computer is only as intelligent as the programmer who programmed it. You can't give a computer its own free will, it will only do what its told to do.

Im waffling



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Change the term "artificial intelligence" to "engineered intelligence" and the argument will take on a totally new dimension.

I don't think many people have realized that as an extension of human genius, we are allowed to drive cars and light our homes and do what seems basic simple things to us now that a century and a half ago seemed impossible.

Likewise, intelligence as created on a chip or within software code is still forming incrementally. I don't believe we'll wake up one day and see a living, talking, walking or fully independent consciousness. It'll take time to be born into this world like any other technology.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I was saying that it is impossible to do, simply because it goes against the way reality works itself. You can not create mechanical AI. Consciousness is the fundamental of reality itself. Despite what science says, intelligence is not the product of the brain, nor its capacity.

No matter how fast or complex u make a computer, it will never have any real intelligence.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
The autonomous drones are 'living' proof that AI is possible.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   
I hate to break this thread down to a semantic discussion, but I think this whole question hinges on what your definition is for the 'Intelligence' in AI.

If we define 'intelligence' in terms of an ability to process stimuli and return a suitable reaction to said stimuli then I think we're well and truly already there.

But if we define 'intelligence' in terms of consciousness or self-awareness, then I think we're a long way off.

That said, I also think we're a long way off faster-than-light travel, but I see both of these fields as areas that don't work with the usual scientific process of a long, arduous investigation with discovery built on discovery. It is the kind of thing that requires a single breakthrough to make these things suddenly available.

I think it's entirely possible that we will create AI, but personally I think it will be something done by accident. It may be an accident discovered through intentional research into the AI subject, or it may be discovered through something else altogether.

I just don't think we understand enough about how human consciousness works in order to create a 'consciousness' intentionally, but I do think it could well be discovered or created accidentally.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 02:15 AM
link   
That's what you think, but how much do you know about this subject? There's plenty just in this thread alone to say otherwise.

Light speed is a bad analogy.

AI, or AGI, is developing right now through technological progression. Baby steps, which started some 4+ decades ago. To fully understand this you must understand the "Law of Accelerating Retuns" (LoAR). This law isn't even computer exclusive, such as "Moore's Law" (CPU's can be built twice as fast and for half the cost every 18 months, year after year).
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

LoAR has been observed in virtaully all of the industires. It actually starts in the Stone Age, which took eons because they were using stones and sticks to make tools. Eventually man used his stone and wooden tools to progressively master into the Bronze Age, and then those tools brought the Iron Age in far shorter time than the original Stone Age. Ad infinitum, exponentially.

en.wikipedia.org...

With AI, it's not only the rate of change with the hardware components, it's after some point AI's helping the make better AI's ad infinitum. They already have functioning intelligences as can be learned from my resources.



Light speed on the other hand, will mostly come from a rapid breakthru, and that breakthru would be omnipotent artificial intelligence. Add that to the list of their motives driving them to reach AGI



[edit on 16-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I have a computer science degree and I am also an expert programmer. Self aware computers are not feasable today. It is something that would have to be done with a significant jump in hardware and software. Do not get me wrong it is something that I believe will be possible yet we would need machines that can program themeselves. I do not think that this will be something that will happen in my lifetime. When we do actually get to the point of self aware machines and machines that can program themselves, first we actually have to build them. Then we have to teach them to think for themselves. A fully aware A.I. would probably take just as much time to create and build as humanity does to come into adult hood. To think that it will be something that just happens is very silly. Also when it does happen it will be something to celebrate about, not fear. If a machine is self aware and built in our image you should not have anything to fear. Hollywood gets rather stupid with the terminator stuff. To make a long story short learn C++ and try to make a self aware computer before you start mouthing off about world domination from a TOOL.





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join