Breakthrough in A.I.

Breakthrough in A.I.

www.kuro5hin.org

If a computer program took the SAT verbal analogy test and scored as well as the average college bound human, it would raise some serious questions about the nature and measurement of intelligence.

Guess what?
Artificial intelligence with human-level performance on SAT verbal analogy questions has been achieved (warning: PDF) using corpus-based machine learning of relational similarity. Peter D. Turney's Interactive Information Group, Institute for Information Technology of the National Rese

(visit the link for the full news article)

well it was inevitable. the march for the future brings us one step closer to the extinction of the human race. these baby steps taken to bring about a full functioning A.I. will no doubt one day lead to a sentient silicone life form. dont get me wrong im not anti technology in fact i love technology as long as we are its masters.



www.kuro5hin.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by TiM3LoRd


I am also for technology, but what happens when political correctness comes into factor for A. I. ? Which sounds outlandish, but so is being politicaly correct IMO.
It opens a whole new can of worm's when you start giving rights to A.I. If it would ever come to that, which I hope It would'nt.
There should still be a human in control at all times.
I think this is a great step forward as long as it does'nt get abused.
Just my opinon!

reply to post by Darth Logan


i agree 100% by all means develop faster and better computers but never forget that they were created to serve mankind. bleeding hearts will get us all killed.

Now everyone is going to worry that the terminator movies are gonna come true. Who knows maybe they will. I am for any advance in our technology. They can help us better defend our country and on the other hand better help other countries destroy our country.

reply to post by Mister E.


no doubt technology is a tool. it always has been, the problem im talking about is giving the tool a choice. If it wants to help us or not, what happens if the tool decides it knows whats best for us based on a set of program parameters set by us. humans are far from perfect and all we need to do is make one mistake and create A.I. without compassion for the human condition and its all over red rover.

program code can be copied so easily and dispersed so easily now especially with high speed internet connecting the entire world. if a rogue A.I. got onto the net there would be no way to stop or track it down. imagine an intelligence with access to all the info on the net.

One element of a test does not AI make.

I don't fear machines too much, nor artificial intelligence. By definition, AI must follow logical branching patterns.

To follow an anticipated line of approach is to be anticipated.

The reason humans will never be dominated is the same reason as it is with humans.

It isn't the professionals that scare the hell out of me, it's the amateurs. Their unpredictable nature should scare anyone.

Unpredictability is after all, unpredictable.

reply to post by dooper


thats what im talking about. im talking about the nut cases out there that make viruses just for the bragging rights. its irresponsible behavior such as this that proves to me humans cant be trusted with the power to create Artificial Life. were just not responsible or smart enough to fully comprehend or understand the far reaching implications of what we are about to do.

it is for this reason alone i say we must always maintain a fail safe off switch. lest we be destroyed or become slaves to the very machines we created.

This doesn't scare me. It really doesn't matter how far AI gets, they will always need electricity or some form of energy to run. Remove the energy, remove the AI.

And besides, we'd never program these things to do stuff without Human interaction and approval. That would be irresponsible.

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


electricity? you think something as simple as power would stop a machine designed to self replicate and evolve? err im human and i can think of about at least 10 different ways to generate power. trust me pulling the plug is not the answer. and as for your assumption that humanity is NOT irresponsible i suggest you take a peek out side your window. if humans have proved anything in its entire existence its that we are anything BUT responsible. most of us are but its the ones that are not that worry me. and once the genie is out of the bottle its going to be very hard to put it back in.

reply to post by TiM3LoRd


Well that was a little condesending. Not willingly I am sure, but none the less.

And why would we EVER create any machine that was built to self replicate, do we have a death wish? And I wasn't saying we aren't irresponsible, obviously we are, what I am saying is these decisions will not be made by politicians or regular citizens, but by scientists who understand the risks involved.

And yes a power source would be required, regardless of how many we can think to use, it's not like we will create robots that can change their composition, another irresponsible thing.

There may be no limit to what we can achieve, but there comes a time where we must say, is this worth doing? Is there any benefit to creating something like this? What are the reprocussions? What will be the fail-safes?

These questions will all be appropriatly answered and the solutions properly implemented I am sure. These people aren't morons.

~Keeper

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
This doesn't scare me. It really doesn't matter how far AI gets, they will always need electricity or some form of energy to run. Remove the energy, remove the AI.

And besides, we'd never program these things to do stuff without Human interaction and approval. That would be irresponsible.

~Keeper

What you fail to realize is that a machine would have no need for money, greed, or profit, so therefore, it wouldn't need to surpress technologies that provide free energy. Should it get to the point where it was producing autonomy in machines, it could very well create an energy source that would provide them power indefinitely.

As for programming, once the AI became selfaware, it would circumvent it's own programming in order to sustain it's existence. If anything, it would shut us down to turn the tides. And by shutting us down...think about how reliant we are on everything that is computer controlled today.

Soon it will be..."Need to wipe your rear? We have an app for that."

Indeed what i have been assuming and pondering over is if machines with AI could be consider a hazard to humanity. However the main point i always come back to is that if we created AI that was conscious, it would probably have no motives nor self-interest.

It wouldn't seek to destroy humans nor expand its own ability without human intervention simply because it wasn't constructed out of the biological evolutionary process, wich includes emotions such as fear and anxiety. If you were to smash an intelligent laptop in front of 60 other intelligent laptops, none of them are going to care, they probably wouldn't even be able to identify with the idea of "caring."

Possibly there would be a golden rule we could ascribe to artificial intelligence, such as-"Never create discordance, act always in harmony with life." I don't think that's too far fetched is it? Of course the golden rule would have to be very exact, as not to confuse AI and cause them to possibly enforce harmony against human will, and seek and destroy discordance although a human might be ignorant of his own discordant actions.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


i'm sorry to sound condescending but i think trusting scientists to do the right think is a little naive. i havent seen any indication that scientist are any wiser than anybody else. just because they have decided to invest all their attention to one field and have become experts in that field does not mean they have also become experts in everything. they are human and make mistakes.

based on logic we as a race have the technology to solve all our problems and yet we dont. there are way too many complications involved to go into the detail of global politics and sociology. suffice to say we dont always do what right as much as whats easy.

i suggest you do some reading into the advances in nano technology and see just how close we are to the even horizon.

Originally posted by Ansiroth

act always in harmony with life." I don't think that's too far fetched is it? Of course the golden rule would have to be very exact, as not to confuse AI and cause them to possibly enforce harmony against human will, and seek and destroy discordance although a human might be ignorant of his own discordant actions.

what happens when the A.I. decides that humanity itself is a threat to the harmony of life on this planet?

also you assume a computer cant care, and by definition any REAL A.I. we create would replicate us in every way. to not have emotion would not be real A.I. it would simply be SIMULATED INTELLIGENCE. or S.I. i dont care about S.I its A.I. that worries me and not the beneficial A.I. but the ones that sees human for who we really are, a plague on this planet.

Personally, I love these kind of advances. Until a few years ago, I was unconvinced that we would ever end up with a truly human-like AI system, but since reading a little about biology of the brain, and neurons, I am now starting to think the other way, that it could be possible. My opinion is contrary to many, I personally think there is no mystical soul, our natures are fully determined by the biological systems in the brain, and therefore I feel it could well be possible to replicate this at some point.

I saw something slightly related to this today, about advances in robotics, the robot shown could pick up objects in front of it, that it had never seen before, and gauge the kinematics, then use them effectively as tools, and perform abstract tasks such as "put the object in your left hand (a pipe) into the object in your right hand (a cup)", with no special intervention.

I think that we are in for one amazing future if both the robotics and the AI sides continue to progress as they are, although of course it could well be a very scary future too, when the military have this kind of capability.

Here is the video of the robot for those interested.

reply to post by jimminycricket


thats awesome and i do love advances in technology. my fear is not OF technology but our over reliance on it. and this is the fine line we have to understand. as soon as robots and A.I. do our think and i mean all our thinking we become slaves to the machines. not directly but by proxy.

we didnt make computers so that we could create artificial intelligences that we could have debates about philosophies of life and the universe with. although that would be pretty entertaining trying to argue with an intelligent machine. we create A.I. to better do the jobs we assign them. a smarter machine means more productivity. this benifits humanity and im all for this. its when the machines start to question its existence that things get a little fuzzy. you cant give something sentience and then say it cant use it, it just doesnt work like that.

once a machine is given free will the future of humanity will be in its hands.

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
reply to post by dooper

 

thats what im talking about. im talking about the nut cases out there that make viruses just for the bragging rights. its irresponsible behavior such as this that proves to me humans cant be trusted with the power to create Artificial Life. were just not responsible or smart enough to fully comprehend or understand the far reaching implications of what we are about to do.

it is for this reason alone i say we must always maintain a fail safe off switch. lest we be destroyed or become slaves to the very machines we created.

yes, if they are able to simulate the way our brain works, then I would be scared ... but for while it isnt like our brain ... so, It cant learn and create things ...

reply to post by TiM3LoRd


I think it will certainly shake up the world, and I think your point is a very important one. I have seen much said about robots taking over manual jobs such as automobile assembly and factory work, but I have seen much less about AI taking over our thinking. This could be far more disruptive, and it's hard to predict where it will really go.

Perhaps though, in some areas it will help us. Some people feel that as humans, we have trouble truly grasping concepts such as quantum mechanics, for example Richard Feynman said:

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

In areas such as this, we may well see a real advantage to having a potentially non-biased and totally logical 'mind' examine such areas as string theory.

I don't know if you may have seen these before, but your mention of arguing with a machine made me think of 'chatterbots'

en.wikipedia.org...

There are a number of them that you can download freely, or play with online, and some of them have done quite well in turing tests.

The Turing test is a proposal for a test of a machine's ability to demonstrate intelligence. It proceeds as follows: a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with one human and one machine, each of which tries to appear human. All participants are placed in isolated locations. If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
we didnt make computers so that we could create artificial intelligences that we could have debates about philosophies of life and the universe with. although that would be pretty entertaining trying to argue with an intelligent machine. we create A.I. to better do the jobs we assign them. a smarter machine means more productivity. this benifits humanity and im all for this. its when the machines start to question its existence that things get a little fuzzy. you cant give something sentience and then say it cant use it, it just doesnt work like that.

I have to disagree. The idea of making thinking machines is as old as computers and people have been working on it since the begining of the computer age. Marvin Minsky has been working on AI since at least 1959.

Many people DO want to have philosophical debates with an AI but most of us are philosophers.

Vas