Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 28th May 2012 03:53 UTC
General Development FuriousFanBoys interviews Ben Goertzel regarding Artificial Intelligence. Ben started the OpenCog project (an open sourced AI non-profit), acts as an adviser to the Singularity University, and currently bounces back between Hong Kong and Maryland building in-game AI.
Thread beginning with comment 519657
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Memetics
by kwan_e on Mon 28th May 2012 05:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Memetics"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

"* I use "consciousness" and not "intelligence" deliberately, because what is traditionally considered "intelligent" has already been achieved in machines.

What people mean by AI is thinking like a human. Computers can't think like a human yet.
"

That's why I go on to say that I don't think the term represents accurately what we actually mean and that it's a misnomer and a shifting goalpost and a whole lot of other unfavourable things.

Computers can't think like a human yet. But I would argue humans don't think like a human yet either. I've never met any people in significant numbers that uses the whole of human experience in their "intelligence". They mostly use a very rigid subset that they don't change because that's how they were raised, or they haven't considered other ways of thinking.*

And a higher intelligence would say we're not intelligent because we don't think like them.

It brings up another question: why on earth would we consider an AI to be insufficient if it doesn't match a human? They exceed humans in many other tasks already.

This is why I would like to differentiate between consciousness and intelligence. Otherwise it's just playing tennis without the net.

* One interesting thing I found, when learning the basic search algorithms, is how many people actually do just restrict themselves to one kind of search in their attempt to think. And mostly they go for greedy depth first search. They go right for the line of thinking they think will get them results quickest. Whatever their internal algorithm churns up must be the correct thought because it took them a lot of effort and a lot of statements of subsequents. Even people who consider themselves "geeks" or "nerds" often think in a quasi-greedy-depth-first-search.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Memetics
by zima on Mon 28th May 2012 06:09 in reply to "RE[2]: Memetics"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

But I would argue humans don't think like a human yet either. I've never met any people in significant numbers that uses the whole of human experience in their "intelligence". They mostly use a very rigid subset [...]
It brings up another question: why on earth would we consider an AI to be insufficient if it doesn't match a human? They exceed humans in many other tasks already.

I think people go even further - they tend to expect from an AI to beat exceptional human, maybe even "the best" one...

...while AI is really more about being better than average human, inexpensively mass-producing and distributing its expertise. That is sufficient to bring improvement to the world.

Sure, AI defeated chess world champion only in 1997 - but I suspect it could beat most humans quite a bit before that.
(heck, I remember that for me, then a small kid, some C64 chess program was a challenge ;) )

Edited 2012-05-28 06:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Memetics
by kwan_e on Mon 28th May 2012 06:14 in reply to "RE[3]: Memetics"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

...while AI is really more about being better than average human, inexpensively mass-producing and distributing its expertise.


This is kind of why I think artificial intelligence has already been achieved. It was already achieved the first time ELIZA successfully trolled the participants. The rest is just people making excuses to hide away from the fact that most people are stupid (in the best sense of the word) and people just vary in their abilities and their proficiency in those abilities.

Intelligence is not the holy grail here. It is consciousness that we're really chasing. We've had the benefit of having physical bodies, and I don't think artificial consciousness can really proceed unless it has physical bodies with which to evolve along with.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Memetics
by MOS6510 on Mon 28th May 2012 08:17 in reply to "RE[3]: Memetics"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

(heck, I remember that for me, then a small kid, some C64 chess program was a challenge ;) )


Not the C64 chess program I had, it didn't check for illegal moves from the user and you could add pieces whenever you liked.

There also was a chess program for the ZX81 that ran in 1 kB of memory.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~uzdm0006/scans/1kchess/

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Memetics
by JAlexoid on Mon 28th May 2012 10:01 in reply to "RE[2]: Memetics"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Independent decision making and deduction are not yet achieved by AI; and are definitely not described by consciousness.

Though if AI acquires consciousness then it might be easier to get to independent decision making and deduction.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Memetics
by orfanum on Mon 28th May 2012 10:33 in reply to "RE[3]: Memetics"
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

I think you have nailed it - very succinctly and forensically put. I wasn't able to get there myself but I think your distinction here is the most helpful one yet.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Memetics
by kwan_e on Mon 28th May 2012 15:18 in reply to "RE[3]: Memetics"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Independent decision making and deduction are not yet achieved by AI; and are definitely not described by consciousness.

Though if AI acquires consciousness then it might be easier to get to independent decision making and deduction.


Can we prove humans have independent decision making? Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, doesn't seem to think so. In fact, using fMRIs (or some other brain scanning I forget), scientists can predict the choices people make seconds before they make them.

Deduction, yes, but are we even sure how humans "deduce"? And human "deduction" is scientifically proven to be very error prone. Are we sure we want to judge AC?I by a provably bad intelligence?

Reply Parent Score: 2