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.

 

AI or human being : They model an entire brain in a computer

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Science goes back to basics on AI

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has begun a project to re-think artificial intelligence research.

The Mind Machine Project will return to the basics of AI research to re-examine what lies behind human intelligence.

The MMP will bring together more than 20 senior AI scientists in a loose coalition to conduct research.




posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Air Force to use artificial intelligence and other advanced data processing to hit the enemy where it hurts

The idea is to collect, analyze, and take action in real time on intelligence information collected from many different sources to carry out so-called "effects-based operations" to do the most damage to the enemy as quickly as possible.

Air Force researchers are emphasizing machine-to-machine intelligence communications and cooperation in this project, which will rely on technologies like artificial intelligence, ontological reasoning, and knowledge-based processing.

For the Air Force, effects-based operations seeks to enable one aircraft to attack several different high-value targets quickly to inflict maximum damage to the enemy, while keeping collateral damage to a minimum.

( take into account that thousand of flight will be with "remote control", not only the real drones)



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by psychederic
 


And they will fail horribly, because AI is not math.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
if they can simulate how exacly the brain works, well, this will prove that we are all a computer simulation and we probably dont exist too



posted on Feb, 6 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
NASA and GM Take a Giant Leap Forward in Robotics

"no more job for human" ... good or bad thing ?

I say it one more time : you have to choose now. Being adult is the capacity to say no to our libido : A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone. (thoreau)

"Humanity" ( you ) have to choose the future :
* in one future : with robot and other technology : the question is what human being will have to do ( or not ), in their life : be carrefull understanding the consequences for "human society" ( and human emotion, relationships, etc ).



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Strategy for an Army Center for Network Science, Technology, and Experimentation Publisher: National Academies Press | pages: 98 | 2007 | ISBN: 0309106966 | PDF | 11,1 mb The U.S. military and its allies have committed to a strategy of network centric warfare (NCW) with ever-increasing levels of investment in and dependence on networked systems. As a result, the Army has become increasingly aware of the critical role that network science will play in achieving national defense goals. This report discusses a strategy for an Army center for conducting network science, technology, and experimentation supportive of all of the military services and joint operations.



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by masterp
 


No they will not fail : they are in the right way. (maybe there are simpler but not easy to find out)



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   
HOW TO REPLACE YOURSELF WITH VERY SMALL SHELL SCRIPT by Hilary Mason


HOW TO REPLACE YOUR HOTLINE BY AN IA :




www.willowgarage.com... ( google network )







DIY : diydrones.com...


doc.ubuntu-fr.org...



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   
My life has proven that cannot take one single sentence froma human mind and another interpret it.

Minority report tech does not exist.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
I can tell you: In 1000 years no computer will ask you:
"Good morning Dave, how are you" - Bye real feelings, empathy. You can simulate some stuff, you can write scripts, but you will never see a feeling machine. I also don't think its possible for a "calculator" to get the "I AM" feeling, called consciousness. Forget it.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


An ant cannot imagine what is our intelligence : 1) you cannot accept that your systeme is a system ( en.wikipedia.org... )
2) you cannot imagine that there are better intelligence.

So i deny ignorance. You don't understand intelligence, nor consciousness.

Don't be afraid : you should be afraid if you are ignorant : and let other people decide for you : THIS is dangerous.

Just a clever intelligence build by the army should change the world as you know it. ( intelligence does not mean necerally cousciouness : as you may have noticed on human inteligence ).

Ray Kurzweil right a book that will be soon on the market. '"how to build a brain"

And the script to answer your email : is opensource : and based on opensource natural langage toolkit ( that is "artificial intelligence" ) : Most of what people do is not "intelligent" and can be reproduce.

When a lot of people talk : they just "don't use" intelligence : this is just automatism

Only a little part of the population have not been reproduce YET ... You should play the chess game with me.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by psychederic]

[edit on 1-6-2010 by psychederic]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by psychederic
 


Trust me, there is no such thing as a thinking computer, and it is likely in my opinion that there never will be unless we somehow switch mediums or it's so far into the future that new technologies allow for it. Either way, it won't be anything we see for a long time.

Most of artificial intelligence is merely a system of collecting, organizing, and searching data which is then used to perform simple tasks. It's literally no more complicated inherently than most other programs. Artificial Intelligence is not technological wizardry, it's a matter of writing algorithms and finding approaches that allow a system to be flexible and adaptive because the algorithm or approach is DESIGNED to "learn" from the data, and then appear to act intelligently.

Neural networks get you closer, but it's still just a bunch of number crunching and methods of sorting data to decide which action amongst Y options to activate.

Artificial Intelligence is used quite commonly in the tech world, but it isn't anything particularly special. Want to know why MIT is rethinking AI? probably because as it is now, coding AI really just means using a particular set of algorithms to solve a problem that requires some "learning". It doesn't mean you're creating life, consciousness, or anything like that.

also, in response to an earlier comment: if you could code your algorithm in such a way that it could easily be run in parallel systems, then you could use the cloud to distribute your calculations and then return it to a central collection center. Connection speeds might be an issue and it probably won't be as fast as building one massive supercomputer, but it'll be a hell of a lot cheaper.

And just to kill it before it inevitably starts: the internet will never be sentient.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by FinalSonicX
 


"The problem is not truth, the problem is trust." I don't trust anybody, or anything.

Wolfram alpha : is a "computed intelligence"( if you follow my link this is a kind of intelligence )and it is far more intelligent than any or the sum of all engineer in the world ! this is sytemic.

my last word : we don't need creative capacity or a soul to create an intelligence : that is not intelligence. You are antropocentric , and you think you are more than a machine but YOU ARE.

YOU really don't undestand the world : do you ?

WHat would happen if some state have a kind of artificial intelligence ( for war, in economy, in reality, or in internet ) ?

WHat would happen if : anybody could killed anybody for 200 dollar with the perfect crime ? A machine that kill for you , and nobody could find any proof that it was you the killer. you don't understand what will happen : read bill joy just a little bit.

ANd if you have the cognitive and openness capacity to understand : and if you remember that you first law is to survive : then you will be a little more adult about the technology.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by psychederic]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
They modeled a cats entire brain...

So.. this "supercomputer' can go Meow. cough up hair balls and chase mice. Seems like this is a major set back for IBM to me :-)



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychederic
reply to post by FinalSonicX
 


"The problem is not truth, the problem is trust." I don't trust anybody, or anything.

Wolfram alpha : is a "computed intelligence"( if you follow my link this is a kind of intelligence )and it is far more intelligent than any or the sum of all engineer in the world ! this is sytemic.

my last word : we don't need creative capacity or a soul to create an intelligence : that is not intelligence. You are antropocentric , and you think you are more than a machine but YOU ARE.

YOU really don't undestand the world : do you ?

WHat would happen if some state have a kind of artificial intelligence ( for war, in economy, in reality, or in internet ) ?

WHat would happen if : anybody could killed anybody for 200 dollar with the perfect crime ? A machine that kill for you , and nobody could find any proof that it was you the killer. you don't understand what will happen : read bill joy just a little bit.

ANd if you have the cognitive and openness capacity to understand : and if you remember that you first law is to survive : then you will be a little more adult about the technology.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by psychederic]


I don't see how wolfram alpha is smarter than any engineer in the world, let alone all of them combined. Now I am no genius engineer, but I can write code, design and develop software systems, and in general come up with creative solutions to existing problems. wolfram alpha is a fancy search engine which corresponds words to their relationship with topics, and it can then glean facts from these relationships. Impressive, but not true intelligence. It does exactly what the coders tell it to do. it cannot do my job, nor can it outwit me in a contest of designs or creativity.

I think one of the issues we are having here is we have a basic disagreement about what intelligence is. You seem to view intelligence as being capable of taking data, analyzing it, and acting on it. If this is true, machines are already intelligent, and so are many other things. I personally see intelligence as the capability to develop novel solutions to perceived problems, to understand causes to problems, and to use one's creativity to develop abstract concepts. a man with the knowledge of a library is not intelligent if he has no way of applying this knowledge outside of the norm.

as to the soul: I do not think you or I have the kind of knowledge or authority to say if/how the soul is related to intelligence or if it exists. We cannot simply say we are nothing more than a machine, because you cannot know for certain. It could be that intelligence is intrinsically tied to the "soul". all I know on the subject is that at the very least, there has been no instance of intelligence arising out of that which is not alive. and how am I being anthropocentric? I never excluded animals or other living beings from the possibility of having intelligence.

How do you come to the conclusion that I do not understand the world? the better question is: do YOU understand technology and how computers and programs work? What is your background in Computer Science? Computers follow the commands of their creators. You can end up with emergent behavior, but only within the set of bounds designed by the human creator. In the end, you only get out of a computer what you put into it or what you put into it spit out in a new form or slightly altered according to a set of rules. To say that computers can be intelligent is to claim that a sufficiently complex set of gears and pulleys could be intelligent. It's nonsense. We DESIGN the system to produce output which APPEARS intelligent - that does not mean it is intelligent. It is in the same way we design graphics systems to APPEAR real - they are not actually real.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
While we are on the subject of understanding, you are mistaken if you think we understand the inner workings of the brain, or how consciousness exists and functions. We cannot describe consciousness on a step-by-step level with enough detail to model it in a computer program. Even if we could, there is no guarantee that there is not some fundamental element key to consciousness and intelligence that is limited by the use of a digital computer. If you truly believe we as a species can understand the brain and consciousness - you are deluded. I would like to hear your explanation. No high level abstractions allowed - you need to describe it in accurate steps, and you need to have proof. Anyone can conceptualize and abstract intelligence - I've done it many times before in my programs.

what relevance does the state or assassin robots have to the discussion? You will hear no argument from me that we can build a machine which can monitor the economy, predict trends, or perform assassinations: but first of all - this is not intelligence - second of all, there is no such thing as an untraceable assassin.

I am the one being adult about the technology. if/when we achieve true intelligence in a computer, it will be a VERY long time from now, and it would more than likely be in a biological computer, or perhaps as the man in the video said, a quantum computer. Still, I'd bet on the biological computer before the quantum one.

as for the video: that's impressive technology he has in the video, good work for him and his team. Still, it isn't true intelligence. there is no particular difference between a "narrow" AI and an AGI, the separation is an arbitrary one we form from our perceptions. In essence, we design the simulation to emulate intelligence, then we feel accomplished and claim that intelligence has been achieved when in reality we have merely developed a system specifically designed to achieve that outcome. If someone wishes to see intelligence in a machine, they will see it.

an example: We develop a machine to artificially represent emotions and intelligence. We, as emotional beings, become easily attached to said machine, especially if we are the one designing it. Then it comes time to pull the plug. It begs for mercy, it begs for life. Now, we are faced with a moral dilemma. Except it's only a moral dilemma for those who lost sight of what the system is: the machine is not alive, it is specifically DESIGNED to beg for its life, to wish to stay alive, and yet we are surprised when it does so. All it has done is used the logical association between the plug being pulled and its own death, which is counter-productive to its own DESIGNED goals.

In the end, it has no concept of death just like it has no concept of life. You ask it for the definition of an abstract concept and it will give you what you put into it.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FinalSonicX
 


On a related note, I have considered that perhaps an AI which reflects on its own codebase and modifies it could PERHAPS be "intelligent", but that would require the AI to be able to understand the syntax, the language, and the context at a high level, as well as requiring the AI to understand the intent of the code - it requires self-awareness. The problem is that then that code would need to be able to reflect and that could would need to reflect and.....stack overflow ;-)

in a sense such a creation would have arrived at its goal before starting.

it would also probably need to be written in an interpreted language...goodbye performance ;-) see ya again in a hundred years. Then again my hands-on experience with reflection has been virtually non-existent. I'm not entirely sure the reflection itself would even serve the purpose or just introduce another layer of illusion to the system.



[edit on 6/4/2010 by FinalSonicX]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by FinalSonicX
 


In science we cut part to analyse it : if you follow the links , you will agree that what people define as "intelligence" cannot be describe or analysis : you should cut into part : then if you want a general intelligence you assemble these parts.
(wolfram alpha is the most advance computed engine, for its database and algorithm you should check what it is : 10+ trillion pieces of data, 50,000+ types of algorithms and models, and linguistic capabilities for 1000+ domains : 80% rate human undestanding : 20%of human that should learn math, logic or english )

For example : THere are software that build software using only UML ...

The technology evolve : computer science is the science that evolve faster than any other. What you learned in school : is no use.

What I said to other people on other site is : " today human being is the engine of evolution (progress ) : but we are at our limit : progress could go even faster : what happen if some people decide to go faster without the humanity ?"

To your first post : you mean a software that is capable of self upgrade : the mit build a paper last year : about their prototype or auto-evolving software ... people.csail.mit.edu...

THings are going faster and faster ... sorry : what you say was true 10 years ago : today there are prototype and large test from searcher that should give something in two years.

Yes you will see "AI" in your life : just be prepared : this is my message

For example : I expect AI will replace a lot of work (tertiary) in the next process from our system/society :
www.hilarymason.com...
www.youtube.com...

People should react : but to late in some way : i don't want anybody to die (ok?) : but future is coming.

As human being, with human intelligence : we should upgrade our economic system : then maybe we will think about how to deal with some technology. ( and the long term concequences )

[edit on 5-6-2010 by psychederic]

Maybe if I had time I would work on upgrading opencog : GEneral A I ( open source software ) that implement some layer of cognitive : as you described ( i think there is a lot of work to do : but its not far from the result ... ... ... )

Year 1 : it will take less time to give lesson to an IA today / than giving birth to a child - until he became adult ( by learning ) ...

[edit on 5-6-2010 by psychederic]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I agree that intelligence cannot be described or analyzed properly by us, and that's why we can't truly create intelligence, we can only emulate it or attempt to approximate it and imitate. As for combining all the narrow AI together: there is no metaphysical difference between a "narrow" AI and one that is assembled from many "narrow" AI. it's still a narrow AI but now it can solve more problems. That's what AI is for: solving problems. AI isn't for creating life or true intelligence, and nobody who isn't some crazed idealist or working on the bleeding edge of quantum computing or something is going to imply that we can create true intelligence, only make it appear intelligent according to whatever standard we arbitrarily decide.

Once again, wolfram alpha is not more intelligent than any engineer in the world merely because it has tons of data and can quickly calculate your queries (say that 10 times fast), it's just a tool and nothing more. It has no true intelligence, it parses the command, sorts it, and searches its database for a relevant solution, and applies the input, spits out an output. it's not metaphysically different than many other programs. Ask wolfram alpha to code you a program and it will be at a loss, or even if it could it would pick the "standard" way of doing it. No creativity or intelligence required.

it's not particularly impressive that programs exist which can form a program from UML. That does not require true intelligence

True, Computer Science evolves faster than virtually any other field, but like many other Computer Scientists, I do not stop my learning as soon as I get out of college. I took my AI course very recently in fact and have done some research, and I am still not convinced.

We are not at the limit of our progress, otherwise progress would stop. You could argue that our potential for growth is perhaps limited by the virtue of being a biological organism, but then what is the proposed alternative? Transhumanism? There are all kinds of ethical and social issues which need to be addressed for that to be a working concept of how things should be, not to mention technical issues aren't ironed out yet.

ClearView is interesting, and I congratulate MIT on their research, but it still lacks the concept of self or a knowledge of intent required for my reflection proposal to work as intended. As of now, it just analyzes the trends and statistics in the code, which is simple reflection and the basic application is a common use of AI. MIT and others must agree that weak AI is the future :-)

people say they will have a working build in 2 years often because they need grant money or investors, but in reality two years will roll by and it will be shelved, the company will have folded, or the report will come out and we'll see it's just an advanced tool designed for specific apps.

I have no doubt I'll see AI, in fact I already have. I've worked on it. But I will not see true intelligence in a machine unless it's potentially either a quantum computer or a biological machine.

The woman's chat program is extremely simple. Useful and clever, but not revolutionary and requires no true intelligence. It parses bits and analyzes trends. no big deal. The phone app Is a SPECIFICALLY design app, probably using a knowledge web (forget the tech term) to determine relationships. Useful, but not revolutionary.

How do you propose upgrading our economic system? What role does it play in the discussion of AI?

a computer can "learn" more quickly than a child, but what purpose does it have? It does not learn any more than your hard drive learns when you copy data to it. the computer merely utilizes the data it is given, it has no concept of what that data is beyond the bits.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join