Ai

This is a discussion on Ai within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; >>Already, there is an AI which can fly an F-15 as good as any military pilot No there isn't. The ...

  1. #16
    _B-L-U-E_ Betazep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,412
    >>Already, there is an AI which can fly an F-15 as good as any military pilot

    No there isn't.

    The military has no fully automated F-15s. They have been unable to program 'hunches' and 'desires' into a computer. Many of the 'good' pilots operate with a lot of 'feeling'. The planes are computer aided and have autopilot, but that isn't for dogfights.

    This all reminds me of an Isaac Asimov story about a supercomputer. But I do not want to get into that.

    AI becomes life when it realizes the existence of itself to its entirety. This is the whole tree falling in the woods approach.

    We put faces in clouds and on the ceilings of our rooms. We look for life where life doesn't exist. Put a robot in front of me that is covered in skin and shakes my hand and says 'how do you do?' and I will just assume it is human life.

    But it isn't life until it 'realizes' (realization is definitely a steadier construct than intelligence) to itself, without the external simuli of someone already alive, that it is life and therefore a him/her and no longer an it.
    Blue

  2. #17
    It's full of stars adrianxw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    4,831
    I believe a mistake that many that have contributed to this thread are making is the thinking "Artificial Intelligence" = "Human Intelligence".

    I am quite sure that there must be other intelligent beings in the universe, these will not "see" like humans, will not react like humans and probably will have a totally different thought process, but would undeniably be intelligent.

    Another question is would we recognise artificial intelligence? It may well be that the machine in front of you is totally self aware but unable to communicate that fact to you.
    Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.

  3. #18
    _B-L-U-E_ Betazep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,412
    >>>I am quite sure that there must be other intelligent beings in the universe, these will not "see" like humans, will not react like humans and probably will have a totally different thought process, but would undeniably be intelligent.


    True. But we were talking about artificialy 'man made' intelligence, and not alien intelligent beings.

    And the second post led us into AI as human. That is where the discussion went.... that is where I continued.

    >>Another question is would we recognise artificial intelligence? It may well be that the machine in front of you is totally self aware but unable to communicate that fact to you.

    Well said. Some people talk to rocks. They might find it intelligent whether or not it can communicate.
    Blue

  4. #19
    It's full of stars adrianxw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    4,831
    >>> and not alien intelligent beings.

    Yes, I know. The point I was making is that artificial intelligence != human intelligence.

    >>> into AI as human

    Yes it did I suppose, but why? It seems to limit the scope of AI more than necessary. A simple analogy I thought of was convergent evolution, fishes are well adapted to swimming in water, so are whales but they are completely different. Why should an AI be like a human?
    Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.

  5. #20
    _B-L-U-E_ Betazep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,412
    >>Why should an AI be like a human?

    It certainly shouldn't.

    Another question I pose to you is... what determines 'advanced life' besides intelligence, self-realization, and reason?

    The boundries of 'life-force' span past reasonable understanding and into the realm of faith. We 'believe' we are life, and define other forces to be as such, through our own reasoning. So the two intertwine into the perception of existence.

    "I exist... therfore I am." Expounded, if I 'am', so too are you. With searching, other beings that 'feel' like they have life 'are' as well.

    Metaphorically, my computer is alive with action and thought. Yet it doesn't constitute life. Why?

    Perhaps the defining line is presently set in faith. That which was created not by us, is life... as long as it excretes the properties of life, but that which is created by us and external to us, is not.

    This brings a possible creator over us into a definite perspective. A governing body... a set universal rule that brings life into perception of life. "I think therfore I am."

    Science is an expanding balloon that pushes steadfast into the realm of faith. Perhaps it will break-through some day... or perhaps we will all sufficate on the stale air within... or at least those that cannot live with any faith of any kind (even if that faith is to believe in nothing at all).

    "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." --Rush
    Blue

  6. #21
    Registered User C_Coder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    523
    What you need to realise is that the machines of the future(say 200 years) will be beyond our comprehention, they will use technology that dosen't exist today, that hasn't even been dreamed of yet.
    Imagine you went back in time 200 years with todays best machine, you couldn't explain how the machine worked to anyone and they'd probably burn you at the stake for being a witch.
    Even in the last 30 years machines have evolved at a fantastic rate, so imagine another 200 years of the same evolution
    All spelling mistakes, syntatical errors and stupid comments are intentional.

  7. #22
    _B-L-U-E_ Betazep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,412
    I agree... but does that earn them the right to constitue as life? They were man-made, but then again... so are babies.

    I am sure that better philosophical minds than mine will discuss these issues. As a matter of fact, I imagine they arlready are and already have.
    Blue

  8. #23
    Registered User C_Coder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    523
    The current advances in science we keep reading in the news led me to belive that organic material will be used in a machine's brain very soon, would it then constitute life?
    And how about you program a robot to build copies of itself and pass on it's knowledge to them, although a different method from us(and not as enjoyable I'm sure) would it still be procreation?
    I am sure that better philosophical minds than mine will discuss these issues. As a matter of fact, I imagine they arlready are and already have.
    Your right, nuff said lets sit back and watch the progress
    All spelling mistakes, syntatical errors and stupid comments are intentional.

  9. #24
    _B-L-U-E_ Betazep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,412
    >>Your right, nuff said lets sit back and watch the progress

    Cool! Wanna have a beer while we wait?
    Blue

  10. #25
    Registered User C_Coder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    523
    Beer, you just said the magic word. *drooling* I'm off to the refridgerator right now
    All spelling mistakes, syntatical errors and stupid comments are intentional.

  11. #26
    31173 h4x0r gnu-ehacks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    556
    A life has feelings. A robot can't truly feel as a person feels. If I go up to someone and punch them, then they feel true pain. If I go up to a really good robot and punch it, it will detect a pressure, and it may hold its shoulder, but that's how it is programmed...

    If you think of life without human terms, it would not be made by a human. Human's tend to either emulate themselves or the environment around them, or make life easier for themselves. As a case in point, people designed planes after birds, and emulated the way birds flied. People designed cars to make it faster and easier to move around.
    What will people say if they hear that I'm a Jesus freak?
    What will people do if they find that it's true?
    I don't really care if they label me a Jesus freak, there is no disguising the truth!

    Jesus Freak, D.C. Talk

    -gnu-ehacks

  12. #27
    It's full of stars adrianxw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    4,831
    >>>
    A life has feelings. A robot can't truly feel as a person feels. If I go up to someone and punch them, then they feel true pain. If I go up to a really good robot and punch it, it will detect a pressure, and it may hold its shoulder, but that's how it is programmed...
    <<<

    You punch someone and they feel real pain. You punch a robot, it detects a point pressure and raises a real interrupt. When the person receives the pain stimulii, they react in certain ways, when the robot receives the point pressure stimulii, it reacts in certain ways. What is the difference here? That is how it, and you, are programmed.

    The problem is that "intelligence" is not really defined. One can point to something like a Turing test, but could a dolphin pass the Turing test? No. Why? Is it not intelligent enough, or are we not intelligent enough to be able to tell it what it needs to do?
    Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.

  13. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    412
    Originally posted by Betazep
    >>Already, there is an AI which can fly an F-15 as good as any military pilot

    No there isn't.

    The military has no fully automated F-15s. They have been unable to program 'hunches' and 'desires' into a computer. Many of the 'good' pilots operate with a lot of 'feeling'. The planes are computer aided and have autopilot, but that isn't for dogfights.

    This all reminds me of an Isaac Asimov story about a supercomputer. But I do not want to get into that.

    AI becomes life when it realizes the existence of itself to its entirety. This is the whole tree falling in the woods approach.

    We put faces in clouds and on the ceilings of our rooms. We look for life where life doesn't exist. Put a robot in front of me that is covered in skin and shakes my hand and says 'how do you do?' and I will just assume it is human life.

    But it isn't life until it 'realizes' (realization is definitely a steadier construct than intelligence) to itself, without the external simuli of someone already alive, that it is life and therefore a him/her and no longer an it.
    This hasn't seen military use, yet, but the neural network has been tested; it's still experimental.

    The heart of the issue is that artificial intelligence doesn't need to use the human paradigm. Yes, a HUMAN F-15 pilot will use feelings, hunches, etc. to pilot; a computer will use the sensory data it is given, summed and integrated, and will make decisions.

    Simply the fact that it doesn't emulate the MODE of operation doesn't mean it can't accomplish the same goal equally well. The goals are to minimize the risk of getting your plane destroyed while simultaneously taking out targets. ANY mode of operation which consistently meets the objectives is a good one. The fact that the computer does it with matrix algebra, and the human with a combination of skill and intuition, is irrelevant.

    The goal is not really to emulate a human, it is to accomplish a task. Deep Blue 2, the computer that beat Kasparov at chess, certainly isn't thinking like a human opponent, yet it still meets the goals (winning in chess) incredibly well.

    An automobile is VASTLY different from a horse, yet both may serve the same need for transportation. A computer pilot and a human pilot can be completely different in how they fly; it's really how effective the program is, not how it accomplishes the task.

    A lot of the failings of AI is that people focus too strongly on making it *like a human* when it doesn't NEED to be like a human. Machines will never have intuition -- the closest they have is expectation-maximization, which is a process by which you take known data and extrapolate the most probable values of unknown parameters.

    Trying to apply human-like thought patterns to a machine is the "hard way" of doing things. The same end result can be achieved much easier if people use paradigms that translate much more readily into machine terminology.
    Last edited by The V.; 12-04-2001 at 01:21 PM.

  14. #29
    31173 h4x0r gnu-ehacks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    556
    The V., everything you said is true...But does this all describe true intelligence. The name of this thread proves that AI will never be like human intelligence, because it is "ARTIFICIAL". Also, I'm pretty sure there have been no predefined points to this board? Are we trying to emulate human thought? If so, we have already. Are we trying to CREATE human thought in a non-human object? If so, the answer is no, we never will be able to.
    What will people say if they hear that I'm a Jesus freak?
    What will people do if they find that it's true?
    I don't really care if they label me a Jesus freak, there is no disguising the truth!

    Jesus Freak, D.C. Talk

    -gnu-ehacks

  15. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    412
    Originally posted by gnu-ehacks
    The V., everything you said is true...But does this all describe true intelligence. The name of this thread proves that AI will never be like human intelligence, because it is "ARTIFICIAL". Also, I'm pretty sure there have been no predefined points to this board? Are we trying to emulate human thought? If so, we have already. Are we trying to CREATE human thought in a non-human object? If so, the answer is no, we never will be able to.
    Well, for me, when I do neural net programming, my goal is to simply emulate a system, be it a human response, a control system, etc.

    I think the true engineer would say that the results are the goal. I, personally, see learning programs like neural nets as tools to accomplish some type of goal. Creating human-like intelligence is not something I think we'll see in my lifetime. Creating machines that can EMULATE human-like intelligence, or superhuman intelligence, is being done even now. Of course, every machine out there is only an approximation IN CERTAIN REGARDS. If the goal was to make a machine that approximated every possible type of human activity, we'd fail. To make a machine for a specific task can be done.

    Do I think machines will ever "think" in the way a human doe? No. Do I think they can accomplish even the most complicated tasks that a person can do? Yes.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Simple space combat AI
    By VirtualAce in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-05-2009, 11:54 PM
  2. chess ai contest
    By Raven Arkadon in forum Contests Board
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-09-2005, 06:38 AM
  3. AI Contest Proposal
    By MadCow257 in forum Contests Board
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-13-2005, 02:27 PM
  4. Game Design Topic #1 - AI Behavior
    By TechWins in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-11-2002, 10:35 AM
  5. Technique of all board-like games?
    By Nutshell in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-24-2002, 08:19 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21