Can People Please Just Stop With The AI Threads!: An Open Competition

Originally posted by kaleshchand
Please answer this question.

Since we cannot create anything "more intelligent" than us, yet we are here, that then means that whatever made us had to be more intelligent than us, so what made us?

By assumption yeah, I'd say human beings were created but that's only my personal opinion, who really knows the answer to that question?

reply to post by malcr


Interesting points there

Originally posted by Death_Kron
All,

So as a challenge for those who believe, If someone can write some code that displays completely Autonomic behaviour, that isn't pseudo-random then I'll eat my shoe, any takers?

It can't be done.

Can you show us the shoe that you will eat..?

reply to post by ctdannyd


Brilliant post that one, glad your enjoying the thread.

At the end of the day I'm a little confrontational at times but so far a wealth of information, viewpoints and opinions on the subject have been the result.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by daskakik

 

To be honest, I thought it was quite clear at the start of the thread I'm aiming this towards people who seem to believe that in the next ten years we will have computer systems/AI constructs that have the ability to surpass human intelligence

Yes but what that means wasn't made clear. A program that learns without further input from its programer is artificially inteligent. Doesn't have to be as smart as or smarter than its programmer to be inteligent.

I guess that the big deal is that the programs exist but the hardware wasn't there. The IBM brain chip probably means that the programs will have a better chance of showing what they are capable of.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Originally posted by CriticalCK
clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about. learning algorythms. how did you get the idea that intelligent behavior or thinking is random or pseudorandom. this is a vast paradigm, educate yourself.

Firstly, learn how to spell

Secondly, you haven't really said anything of value or anything to disprove my point.

So once again, show me you can create autonomic behaviour via algorithms?

Firstly, learn how to use proper grammar.

You are quoted saying:

"Think you answered your own question there
This ain't no movie"

Double negative.... unless of course you literally did mean to say that this IS a movie.

To keep this on topic, however....
It is wrong for you to say with any certainty that something cannot be done. End of argument.
Prove it can't be done and I will eat my shoe.

Cheers.

reply to post by Qemyst


It's not an English class pal, do you actually anything to say regarding the topic?

I think you have all missed his point. It is not about the speed that something happens or the amount of memory it can hold. It is about the machine doing something it was not specifically told how to do. Computers can play chess as Humans program them and tell them how to do it. Then with very high speed they can look at all the possible moves the game can take all the way to the last move of the game in just a few minutes and make decisions based on probability and developing patterns. However if you then take this same computer and ask it to play checkers it can’t even make one move as nobody has programmed the rules for checkers and an algorithm to calculate possibilities and patterns.

Or take the IBM “Watson” computer it can play Jeopardy very well, but ask it to play chess and it will not know a thing about it as the programmers did not tell it how to play. It can’t just sit and watch a chess game and then teach itself to play, a human must program this information. However once this is done it will very likely beat most humans as computers are very good at this sort of thing. Not because it is smarter but because it can calculate the odds faster and more turns ahead than a human can. If the human was given unlimited time for turns he could make notes in his notebook, and make all the same calculations over the course of a few hours and come to the same conclusions. The computer is therefore not smarter, just faster. It can still only do exactly what it is told. It does not apply reason to the problem it just follows an exact set of instructions that a human tells it. Outlining exactly every step it must take to get to the conclusion it arrives at. Thus the human writing this program must have known these steps to take and therefore it is his intelligence the computer is mimicking.

The point the OP is making is the computer will never be smarter than the human, as the human has to tell it what to do. Therefore it only has the same intelligence as the person who wrote the program. All it will ever do is make those same calculations and decisions faster, giving it an appearance of intelligence. Well never is a bad choice of words. As even the OP does not claim “never”, his statement was “with current technology.” He has not said that at some point in the future some new breakthrough will not happen to allow this. As computer technology progresses we may very well come up with a design that is a true learning computer. But it is not in the foreseeable future. Not necessarily limited by time, but by current technology. The breakthrough may come in the next 50 or 100 years, but certainly not in the next 5.

If processing and storage limits were to continue to follow Moors law which states basically that computing power will double every two years, we may indeed reach a point where the needed speed and storage could be capable of a very exacting simulation of human intelligence. But will this device ever be truly self aware? Will it ever be able to come up with an original thought? Or will it still rely solely on a human made algorithm to mimic intelligence. This becomes a philosophical debate as to what is intelligence, and what does self aware mean. Is human life any different? Are we just following a program written by some other intelligent beings?

How about a computer virus that slightly modifies itself on each copy, then via the internet communicates with the other variants of itself and determines which is more effective at infecting systems and creates variants similar to that from then on for the specific cells that have been contacted. Inside the virus would of course be a database of successful variations, it would grow and grow in size but could self compress I suppose and only keep the most prolific aspects of itself stored.

If anyone was genius enough to program something like this successfully, it could mutate much like biological evolution and may eventually appear to mimic biological intelligence. Hell, I think some viruses already do something like this, except with encryption (to stay hidden) instead of "reproduction". No telling how many variations might be failed copies, if not all, but isn't that pretty much how nature does it?

Not to give anyone any ideas of course, but either way nothing is running on my computer I don't want. The whole idea of a computer virus itself seems based on natural life (i.e. intelligence of varying degrees).

reply to post by RSF77


What your describing would be classed as a computer worm, but either way that's actually a really interesting idea, fantastic post, star from me.

reply to post by byeluvolk


You also got a star from me because you seem to grasp the exact angle I'm looking at the topic, lots of interesting things coming out in this thread, I'm by no means well versed in the subject of AI but it's an amazing topic when you really start to delve into it and this thread has been an eye opener for myself.

you should really watch that video that i linked a few days ago in this thread....

I think it would answer alot of questions you might still have. Its a presentation at stanford on artificial intelligence.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
you should really watch that video that i linked a few days ago in this thread....

I think it would answer alot of questions you might still have. Its a presentation at stanford on artificial intelligence.

I will my friend, just got lots of things to do at the minute, but I promise I'll view it and come back with my opinions

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Originally posted by kaleshchand
Please answer this question.

Since we cannot create anything "more intelligent" than us, yet we are here, that then means that whatever made us had to be more intelligent than us, so what made us?

By assumption yeah, I'd say human beings were created but that's only my personal opinion, who really knows the answer to that question?

By assumption yes, the same assumptions you are using. So what about the next question, where the creator makes a computer more intelligent than us and gives it to us.

reply to post by byeluvolk


about the chess and checkers part, If you take a human who is an expert at chess but has never seen a checkers board or game, and you send him to a checkers game will he be able to play? no he wont.

How do humans learn to play chess (or checkers or whatever)? First they read or hear the rules from someone. Then they watch a few games, then they try it and with experience get very good at it. A computer could do the same if provided with the framework to do so. (Humans have the brain for their framework).

reply to post by kaleshchand


Well the human is able to sit down at the checkers board and watch a few games and learn what to do. While on the part of the computer it would still have to have the human write the program. The point I made about advances in computing was to address this issue. With infinitely better processing and storage you could write an algorithm that could "learn” but it could still only learn things that fell into your predetermined set of inputs. It could not walk into a totally new situation and learn. Thus you would need the infinitely powerful computer to run the myriad of complex programs and data analysis routines for this computer to pick up the new game with no human intervention. Not impossible theoretically but practically yes. With computer advances in 50 or 100 years?… maybe.

However you still have the question is it “intelligence” or the simulation of intelligence? And this is where the philosophy comes in. You would have to define exactly what “intelligence” is, does it need to be self aware? As in; can it come up with a new idea all on its own with no outside input? Does it have to be “creative”, meaning does it have to be able to come up with music or a painting all by itself? LOL does it mean it has to develop its own “AI” to try and get a new machine to replicate what it thinks of as “Intelligence”? This is a fun line of thought, hits on philosophy and religion, as well as hard science. But in the end will it ever surpass the person who wrote the algorithms that drive the AI engine? Or will it still be limited to those predefined set of “If…Then…Else” statements?

Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by kaleshchand

 

However you still have the question is it “intelligence” or the simulation of intelligence?

Well it is called "Artifical" intelligence so that question is answered. At least for the current technology.

The OP doesn't like the phrase "AI will soon surpass human intelligence". I think they are mainly talking about problem solving. The OP said that isn't intelligence. I'd call that an impass.

Your right, what intelligence is hasn't been defined. I like the question about self awareness but, how would that be measured?

reply to post by Char-Lee


Skyline FTW
2nd

reply to post by Death_Kron


Right. It's NOT and English class, "pal".
Hence, I had to point out that your instructing someone to learn how to spell was quite hypocritical when you couldn't be bothered to use proper grammar in a post IMMEDIATELY prior to telling them to learn how to spell.
Thanks.

As for your post, you say "it can't be done" in regards to someone programming autonomous behavior.
The fact is, it very well could become a reality in the next decade. Conversely, it may not. Who are we, those who know nothing about it, to say? Even those who DO know about it can only speculate. IBM / DARPA just developed their new "neurosynaptic chip". It's able to remember and learn from it's own actions. It's by no means "autonomous" though....yet. It will be making decisions based on different levels of detail from many different inputs. Modern computers can't achieve that.
The fact remains that I cannot offer a "solution" to programming autonomous behavior. One can't say that autonomous behavior couldn't come into existence through a mistake of programming simply because "that's how it happens in the movies" and because movies aren't real. AI isn't real yet, and some ways that it COULD become real, regardless of how slim, are probably the last ways we would consider. Maybe a curious janitor goes to a 'test' computer one night while cleaning, having heard rumors that they were working on AI at that station. The janitor types in some dumb questions and the computer reacts in a way the scientists hadn't anticipated. They come in the next morning and it's behaving far differently... I don't know. Nor do you. I'd love to see a real artificial intelligence just as much as the next guy, and I'm just as fascinated by the idea. However, I won't say that it can't be done in the next decade.

Cheers.

reply to post by daskakik


Exactly, this becomes a very philosophical conversation at this point. When you have to start to answer questions like “What is intelligence?” or “What is self aware?”, you then have to ask does our idea of intelligence then revolve around a human “soul” does it have to be “alive” to be truly self aware? Are we as humans just a complex computer simulation of some alien race, making what they consider to be a good simulation of “intelligence?” Are we indeed just AI machines ourselves, built using an organic computer designed by these aliens? At some point the simulation of intelligence will be indiscernible from what we consider living intelligence. However the fact that it is all based on code we created, will it ever be able to surpass us? That is the root of the issue, and a question that I am afraid will not be answered any time soon.