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 519812
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Memetics
by kwan_e on Tue 29th May 2012 05:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Memetics"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

"Can we prove humans have independent decision making?

Individual level - yes, limited in scope. (Proof lies in the fact that a person can evaluate and select an appropriate food source, without prior knowledge of said food source)
As species - yes, unlimited in scope.

No AI can boast either, to my knowledge.
"

Then how do you explain our "independent decision making" when neuroscientists can reproduce the experiment that allows them to predict a person's choice before it was made?

Even forgetting neuroscientific facts, it is clear from sociological studies that most humans don't use the full scope, individually or as a species, of what we consider to be the Ideal Independent Decision Making.

This goes right back to the link one of the other commenters included: the AI effect. All you really provide is a shifting goalpost of what you define as independent decision making, the end result being a definition that not even most humans can claim any significant accomplishment.

What I can say, is that the human brain is the ultimate pattern matching engine.


Actually, the evidence is that we're quite bad at it. We match patterns where there is none often to detrimental effect. Pattern matching is probably something we'll see computers being a lot better at than us in the next 1000 years.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Memetics
by JAlexoid on Tue 29th May 2012 06:11 in reply to "RE[6]: Memetics"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Then how do you explain our "independent decision making" when neuroscientists can reproduce the experiment that allows them to predict a person's choice before it was made?

Not all choices are independent. These is also analytical and "spontaneous" decision making. I'm referring to the analytical part, not the spontaneous. People also share some essential "built-in logic"(aka instincts) that predefine even some very non-trivial decisions.
(I can't say much about neuroscience and am not familiar with that research you seem to be referring to. My knowledge in that area is limited to sleep and EEG)

Actually, the evidence is that we're quite bad at it. We match patterns where there is none often to detrimental effect. Pattern matching is probably something we'll see computers being a lot better at than us in the next 1000 years.

I didn't say that it wasn't detrimental. It is the best possible pattern matching engine. And the fact that we can find patterns where there are none is only proof that it's the ultimate.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Memetics
by kwan_e on Tue 29th May 2012 06:37 in reply to "RE[7]: Memetics"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"Then how do you explain our "independent decision making" when neuroscientists can reproduce the experiment that allows them to predict a person's choice before it was made?

Not all choices are independent. These is also analytical and "spontaneous" decision making. I'm referring to the analytical part, not the spontaneous. People also share some essential "built-in logic"(aka instincts) that predefine even some very non-trivial decisions.
"

Are we sure that computers can't make an analytical decisions? It would seem that's what they were meant to do. You could argue that "yeah, but they don't decide without being prompted to", to which I will respond "neither do most humans...".

And surely, "built-in logic" is opposed to independent decision making? "Built-in logic" is an evolutionary gift that surely we can't choose to opt out of, thereby destroying any notion of independence (in the sense that matters, anyway).

(I can't say much about neuroscience and am not familiar with that research you seem to be referring to. My knowledge in that area is limited to sleep and EEG)


Sam Harris describes one where the participants are told to use a specific hand for a specific task. I can't remember the exact details. Using brain scanning, they can tell which hand a person was going to choose before anything had happened.

More vaguely in my memory, I remember there was a study which showed that we make decisions up to 10 or so seconds before we're conscious of them. While I freely admit that doesn't destroy "free will", it still puts a great doubt on where our decision making really comes from.

But again, I say we can even forget about all that. Advertisers have known since forever how much power they can affect people's choices. The most effective is when they can make people think they are making independent choices when they are actually being played.

And the fact that we can find patterns where there are none is only proof that it's the ultimate.


You've lost me there. Certainly, any objective measure must include accuracy? Inaccurate is inaccurate. There is no "inaccurate in a good way" that I'm aware of.

Reply Parent Score: 2