Computers can already pass the Turing test.
Computers can already pass the Turing test.
sadly, i cant...Originally posted by Clyde
Computers can already pass the Turing test.
I think the biggest obsticle in computer AI is abstract thinking. sure a computer can recognize patterns, but one being able to create new ideas would be very difficult.
it will be a long time before we see computers with a sense of humor.
Last edited by ...; 12-10-2002 at 11:51 AM.
I came up with a cool phrase to put down here, but i forgot it...
I'd have to agree with you there. I tend to see most of our abstract thinking stemming ultimately from emotions, something I'm not sure a computer could emulate very well, if at all.I think the biggest obsticle in computer AI is abstract thinking. sure a computer can recognize patterns, but one being able to create new ideas would be very difficult.
it will be a long time before we see computers with a sense of humor
The learning that takes place in video games isn't true learning. The "AI" is just reacting. Its adaption is just its reaction to something. It isn't reacting because it has learned to react, it is reacting because someone programmed it to.They have already made AI that can learn, theres even some basic 'learning' in video games where the computer adapts to the way you play. (I cant name any off the top of my head, but i'm certain ive seen it mentioned in some games).
I was just discussing this last night. Abstract thinking can but doesn't have to stem from emotion. The learning of concepts is truly a key to it all.abstract thinking stemming ultimately from emotions
Last edited by bob20; 12-10-2002 at 12:46 PM.
"The learning that takes place in video games isn't true learning. The "AI" is just reacting. Its adaption is just its reaction to something. It isn't reacting because it has learned to react, it is reacting because someone programmed it to."
What makes you think there is a distinction?
- I'm not saying there isn't, i'm just interested to hear why you think there is:
When i am playing my opponent at a computer game and i notice he is using x-tactics over and over, i adjust to compensate, as far as i can see AI can basically do the same thing albeit with poorer pattern recognition, the difference is with computers we can see the internal working whereas with humans we can't.
Last edited by Clyde; 12-10-2002 at 12:58 PM.
Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by abstract thinking. For me I'm talking about things like sense of humor, love, hatred, desire, curiosity, etc and all the thoughts stemming from these. A computer would have a very hard time with them. What non-emotion based abstract thinking do you feel comps would still have a very hard time with? All the things I can think of at the moment are either at least partially emotional or are just a much broader example of pattern recognition.I was just discussing this last night. Abstract thinking can but doesn't have to stem from emotion. The learning of concepts is truly a key to it all.
I can't think how many times I've made this point on this and other boards, but again...
>>>
things like sense of humor, love, hatred, desire, curiosity, etc and all the thoughts stemming from these.
<<<
... these are indications of HUMAN intelligence. Why does an AI need to exhibit human intelligence - it is not human.
Ask the average alien who has crossed interstellar space a typical human joke, and he/she/it/they don't get it - are they not intelligent?
Correctly define intelligent and you'll be on the way to solving this problem.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.
I say it will take maybe another 10-20 years. Technogoly and scientifical information are increased at an exponential rate. We will discover more in the next 10 years than we probably have in the past 50 years. This is why I think any sort of huge, technological leap is very well possible in the coming decades.But i think it will take another 100 or 200 years. THis may sound too long in the era of computers..
Hmmm, for a computer to think like a human it would need a HUGE database of information that constantly effects and molds the current process. Computers are so "non-human" because they have very little knowledge (or experience) so even with the right programming you still won't have real AI.
When an AI computer looks at something like: "1+1=?" he will (after identifying the sting) will give an answer of two.
A human, on the other hand, might start thinking back when he was a child looking at his first math book that has a picture of one apple, a plus sign, and another apple. the result being two.
Now as you can see the end result is the same, two, but the human has more in his mind and therfor can think in diffrent ways. For example, the computer will go on, not thinking another thing about "1+1=?" but the human might go away thinking of various childhood events, or about food.
Although in retrospect of what I have just said I soppose that a computer also needs the ability to pull out items from memory that have little to do with the current thought (like the numbers being associated with apples), but were somehow related through some experience (like the math book with the one apple+one apple=two apples illustration). Although I have doubts that a huge database of information, the association of unrelated ideas, and anything else I just said will help very much with this subject but I figured I should get my two cents in.
Not to mention that the way information is entered into a computer shouldn't be as strict, for example:
1+1=2 is a very basic math statement, a computer would take such "absolute facts" as an absolute fact, when really it should be treated more like an idea. That might lead the computer to think thoughts like "does 1+1 really equal to two?", and may lead to more human thoughts, like doubting entered information EVEN if he has no conflicting information.
Well, thats my two cents. I now have to go and get some cookies from my governers mansion.
"The most overlooked advantage of owning a computer is that if they foul up there's no law against whacking them around a bit."
Eric Porterfield.
The human mind is complex but, in theory, not beyond replication with computer technology. If you think about it, abstract thinking and creative thought is really a more complicated mix of reactions to emotions, environmental input, and instinct. Humans have been given the distinct advantage of having a millennia-evolved genome; however, I do not doubt the possibility of a computer program someday in effect emulating many of the built-in characteristics and instincts present in it.
A computer could develop a sense of humor like a human: by finding a pattern behind what other objects in the environment label funny. A computer might then learn that statements about President Bush and his simple mind invoke a positive reaction (defined by coded "instinct" and past experience) in other interactive objects (real human beings) in the environment.
New ideas, anyway, are most often syntheses of old ideas combined in new ways. I see no reason why a computer could not eventually think critically and independently, weighing ideas according to the stimulation system programmed into it.
The challenge is, as previously stated, for the computer to obtain the experience so that it can make informed decisions. It would likely take a long period of exposure to the environment until it obtains sufficient experience.
It's not the difference in actions, it's the difference in the cause of the action. A person can compensate, and can program a computer to do the same. But, how does the computer learn to compensate by itself, without human intervention?When i am playing my opponent at a computer game and i notice he is using x-tactics over and over, i adjust to compensate, as far as i can see AI can basically do the same thing albeit with poorer pattern recognition, the difference is with computers we can see the internal working whereas with humans we can't.
When I talk of abstract thinking I am talking more about concepts, over emotions.Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by abstract thinking. For me I'm talking about things like sense of humor, love, hatred, desire, curiosity, etc and all the thoughts stemming from these.
It doesn't need to exibit human intelligence(emotion), it needs to be able to fuction on its own.... these are indications of HUMAN intelligence. Why does an AI need to exhibit human intelligence - it is not human.
"It's not the difference in actions, it's the difference in the cause of the action. A person can compensate, and can program a computer to do the same. But, how does the computer learn to compensate by itself, without human intervention?"
In which case the only difference is that computers are programmed by people, whereas people are programmed via genetics.
Of course our genetic programs are amazingly adaptable and change hugely with input. Whereas computer code is currently quite limited. But thats not a fundamental problem.
I'm 100% absolutely, positively certain that one can create a computer which can "learn."
Why? Because, if you really wanted to get down with it on the extreme lowest level, you can use a computer to simulate movement of subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, organs, etc. When broken down, it is conceivable, though obviously incredibly complex -- but that's not to say impossible. The fact is that anything in nature can be broken down to simple parts and everything in nature has to follow rules. This is exactly what a computer is great at doing -- breaking things down and gradually building up into a complex object. The only major difference that separates computers from purely simulating the real world is that computers are digital and the world is analog.
With a strong understanding of the brains of even very simple life-forms, it's very possible that a computer can be made to simulate thinking. A brain, while is not fully understood by humans, is still a real object -- and by real, I mean that it's not "magical." Once again, it can be broken down into simple parts with rules just like anything else. Once we understand the human brain enough to fully understand learning (and we already understand it quite a lot more than many people know), you can bet your life that one of the first things that will be done is a computer simulation of it. It's already being attempted in some forms, it's just a matter of time and humans' ability to learn...
I have spent my life (since 14 years old) trying to answer this question. I don't know what the answer is, and I don't think there is anyone who does. I do know the following, however.
Before the 19th Century people defined water as a colourless, odorless, tasteless liquid. A definition which served some uses, but offered no insight into what water is. Definitions for 'learning' & 'intelligence' are of a similar nature today.
I believe it will take a paradigm shift in order to gain a deper insight into intelligence, after which, every thing will seem obvious (at least to those who can understand it).
>Hmmm, for a computer to think like a human it would need a HUGE database of information that constantly effects and molds the current process.
Guess what? Have a look at www.cyc.com . A project which aims to give a computer all the common sense knowledge it needs and has been running for around 15 years now. Guess who's funding it? Here's a clue - begins with M.
I don't think cyc will lead to a truely 'intelligent' computer though.
