Advanced AI

This is a discussion on Advanced AI within the General AI Programming forums, part of the Cprogramming.com and AIHorizon.com's Artificial Intelligence Boards category; Originally Posted by @nthony As natural as genetically enhanced offspring, or shall we call them "artificial babies" now too? While ...

  1. #16
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by @nthony View Post
    As natural as genetically enhanced offspring, or shall we call them "artificial babies" now too?
    While this is a technically correct term, I think the use of GM offspring is the preferred specification since they are not (yet) completely artificial. In contrast, current AI is completely of human manufacture. Aside from the fact that current GM babies are rather limited to gene therapy, which does not enter the genome, and to offspring that most people would not call babies.

    Just because a term makes you uncomfortable does not make it incorrect. You are trying to force two classifications under a single broad term when they in fact have very little in common. What we refer to as artificial intelligence has no more in common with human or animal intelligence than the fact that it is a decision making process. The similarities end there. It is not self aware on any level whatsoever. It is ONLY an algorithm that models optimal behavior. Current and forseeable methods of AI have absolutely no potential to achieve conciousness by any but the broadest and most useless definition.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  2. #17
    Registered Abuser
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    It is ONLY an algorithm that models optimal behavior.
    And what exactly is the human thought process then, if not exactly that? So if we can deem a human's algorithm "intelligence" yet a computer's "artificial" at which point exactly does the algorithm become just that? When it is run on neurons instead of semi-conductors? You are attempting to split an abstract category such as intelligence merely on whether or not its implemented in flesh or flash.
    And just for the record, I currently have in my possesion an AI algorithm that will not only match but exceed the "optimizing" ability of a human... I just need the hardware to run it ;)

  3. #18
    - - - - - - - - oogabooga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,808

    "Computational" not "Artificial"

    The term "artificial intelligence" is meaningless. "Computational intelligence" is better since it indicates the central assumption being made, that intelligence is computable.

    Of course, people brainwashed by popular pandering junk like "The Emperor's New Mind" (for example) will remain in a perpetual state of denial.

  4. #19
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by @nthony View Post
    So if we can deem a human's algorithm "intelligence" yet a computer's "artificial" at which point exactly does the algorithm become just that?
    At the point where it is created by the hand of a natural being, that is what detrmines its state of being artificial. It is an artifact. That makes it artificial.

    Artificial

    The adjective artificial in artificial intelligence refers to the primary (first) definition, not the connotative definition.
    Last edited by abachler; 02-07-2008 at 08:17 AM.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  5. #20
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,467
    And what exactly is the human thought process then, if not exactly that? So if we can deem a human's algorithm "intelligence" yet a computer's "artificial" at which point exactly does the algorithm become just that? When it is run on neurons instead of semi-conductors?
    Just because the term AI is vague, it doesn't mean we can't make assumptions about what it is not. What is probably difficult is defining what it is.

    AI is not a cup of tea. AI is not a chicken. AI is not the human brain capabilities. Consequently, I think it is pretty safe to assume that computers aren't intelligent.

    At least not for now.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  6. #21
    Registered User bradszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    114
    You guys make my head asplode.

  7. #22
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    In which way -

    1. A mind expanding experience without limit

    2. Deconstructive expansion due to built up pressure.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  8. #23
    Captain - Lover of the C
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    341
    Might as well define artificial intelligence in 4 different ways:

    Humanly:
    1. Thinking like humans. - The thought process to arrive at a conclusion should be like a human's thought process. The conclusion may be different. Ex. if the thought process is picking a random number between 1 and 5, the conclusion could be different but both used the same thought process

    2. Acting like humans - Thought process is not as important. It is important that the intelligent "agent" arrives at the same conclusion as a human.

    Rationally:
    3. Thinking rationally - the thought process must be ration or in otherwords try to produce the best conclusion based on the given information. This generally means that the agent uses logic and reasoning to get to the conclusion.

    4. Acting rationally - The agent must arrive at the rational conclusion. The thought process to get to the most rational conclusion doesn't matter.

    All these definitions have pros and cons. All have areas of thinking where they are most helpful. In this situation, I think the 3rd definition is most applicable because the O.P. is concerned not with whether the computer makes the correct moves, but that it learns from them. Other people might like the 1st definition because they like to compare the algorithm to how humans think.
    Don't quote me on that... ...seriously

  9. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    14
    Personally, I think we can define "intelligence" as the being performing actions that it's original programming did not tell it to do. So, if you program a robot with a camera to get from point A to point B without hitting anything, you put it on a track with some obstacles, and it weaves in and out of the objects, that's autonomy, not intelligence. However, if that robot decides to get off the track and go around to the other side, that's intelligence. Feel free to debate me on this.

  10. #25
    Captain - Lover of the C
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by daltore View Post
    Personally, I think we can define "intelligence" as the being performing actions that it's original programming did not tell it to do. So, if you program a robot with a camera to get from point A to point B without hitting anything, you put it on a track with some obstacles, and it weaves in and out of the objects, that's autonomy, not intelligence. However, if that robot decides to get off the track and go around to the other side, that's intelligence. Feel free to debate me on this.
    I think what you're describing is free will. And I also think that there's a difference between free will. If a chess player plays a great game of chess, we would call him intelligent. It doesn't matter whether he chose to play chess or was forced to play. On the other hand, I know some people that do some pretty dumb things on their own free will.

    Also, I think it takes at least a small amount of intelligence to avoid obstacles. It has to make "decisions" about its path to get from A to B. The more intelligent it is the better decisions it will make.

    And if it's programmed goal is to get from A to B then we could say it "wants" to get to B. One definition of free will is a second order desire. Which is to say whether it wants to want to get to B. If the robot has second order desires (or goals), then it could chose to not want to want to get to B. It could chose to want to want to go off course. In other words, it could want to set a new goal. It may or may not be capable of changing its own goals. Of course, this type of desire would have to be programmed into the robot.

    Which leads me to my final challenge to your argument. Robots never disobey their programming. So a robot could never perform an action that its original programming did not tell it to do. And by that definition, no computer could ever be intelligent. I hope that's not the case because someday, robots will outperform humans in every aspect of our "intelligence". And I won't be able to say that I can do anything that can't be done by a "stupid" robot except walk off course and fail.
    Don't quote me on that... ...seriously

  11. #26
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    The concept youa re both dancing around is called emergent behavior. Discussing things like free will with regard to AI is like discussing the origin of the universe when you haven't mastered fire yet. But of course historically that is exactly what humans do, so my hope is that sentient AI will definately not think like humans.

    AI is not sentient, it has no free will, it's creation and destruction carries no greater moral dilemna than buying a new lawnmower or throwing the old one away. If you don't believe me then I suggest you actually read books on the subject, and not the holier than thou philosphy of AI crap, the real ones that get into the math and science of AI. You will quickly realize that there is no 'intelligence' involved.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  12. #27
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    Perhaps you could discuss free will in humans before bothering with free will in machines. Or you could argue whether humans aren't a sort of machine, too.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  13. #28
    Captain - Lover of the C
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    341
    To abachler:
    I think everyone agrees that AI has no free will and some people think that humans don't have free will (hard determinism). What are you arguing? I'm sorry, your post just seems off topic and your logic is scattered. Last time I checked, we were talking about the definition of intelligence. What is your definition of it?

    To: CornedBee
    My point was that robots don't need to have free will to be intelligent. Sounds to me like you think humans might not have free-will either(which is definitely possible). So if humans don't have free-will but humans are definitely intelligent, then would you agree that free-will isn't necessary for intelligence?
    Don't quote me on that... ...seriously

  14. #29
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    The OP was arguing against the term aritifical as applied to artifical intelligence, not whether machines are intelligent. Now you seem to want to argue a different point, perhaps you should start a new thread. In any case, unless your definition of intelligence is so broad as to include anything that has mass and takes up space, AI is not intelligence. The term started as a misnomer. Unfortunately it has become prevalent and changing it now just seems a trite exercise in political correctness. I don't have to define intelligence in order to say that machines are not intelligent any more than I have to define a computer to say that a rock isn't a computer. For anyone that works with AI professionally (as I do) it is so blatantly obvious that AI is not intelligence that when fanboy's argue about free will etc etc blah blah ad nausium, it just makes me question the future of the human gene pool. Its liek tryign to argue that a calulator is intelligent because it can mimic human behavior by adding two numbers together.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  15. #30
    Captain - Lover of the C
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    341
    Calm down there, buddy. I see your point. There are 2 main objections that I have but I can see where you're coming from. It's not a big deal anyways.
    Don't quote me on that... ...seriously

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