Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 23rd Jun 2012 20:18 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Artificial intelligence is still a long way from delivering the human intelligence in robot form that has long been common in science fiction.
Thread beginning with comment 523659
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Tron
by thavith_osn on Mon 25th Jun 2012 00:08 UTC
thavith_osn
Member since:
2005-07-11

I watched Tron in the early 80's (I still love it (not the new one however, what was that???)).

There is a scene where Alan (the guy that writes Tron) mentions that computers will be thinking "soon".

It's now beyond the future that Marty McFly stepped into, and we still have no "thinking" machines.

I personally believe that like time travel, both technologies will never truly exist.

I believe we can mimic intelligence, but I don't believe computers will be able to grasp "though" as we do, not now, not in another 30 years, not ever. Again, this is just based on observations over the past 30 years of living in the industry.

I think the problem is that we underestimate the brain somewhat. I think we are only now beginning to get an idea of what we can actually do.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Tron
by Alfman on Mon 25th Jun 2012 02:36 in reply to "Tron"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

thavith_osn,

"I personally believe that like time travel, both technologies will never truly exist."

Well there's a pretty big difference between the two. Technology for time travel cannot exist because the rules of nature as we understand them don't permit it. I don't think anybody would claim that physics rules out artificial intelligence in the same way.


"I believe we can mimic intelligence, but I don't believe computers will be able to grasp 'though' as we do, not now, not in another 30 years, not ever."

I'd like you to define precisely what you consider to be "intelligent". It seems there's a strong tendency to shift goalposts in the field of AI.

Like zima already said, there's a risk of setting the bar so high as to rule out animals and humans. If we're to be objective, our litmus tests shouldn't focus around humans proficiencies but instead be inclusive of any intelligent life in the universe.

Here's a challenge: come up with a satisfactory litmus test that animals and humans can pass but ultimately computers cannot.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Tron
by ilovebeer on Mon 25th Jun 2012 04:36 in reply to "RE: Tron"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Technology for time travel cannot exist because the rules of nature as we understand them don't permit it. I don't think anybody would claim that physics rules out artificial intelligence in the same way.

No quite. Many theories support the ability to travel through time in one form or another, directly or as a byproduct of other processes. Regardless of what the true answer is, nature itself is not the governing body.

Our knowledge in general is still very immature. Because of that, our ability to comprehend vast and complex subjects like these is severely limited. Simply put, humanity is sucking its thumb and wearing diapers. And even that may be giving us too much credit.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Tron
by zima on Sat 30th Jun 2012 23:19 in reply to "RE: Tron"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

It seems there's a strong tendency to shift goalposts in the field of AI.

Like zima already said, there's a risk of setting the bar so high as to rule out animals and humans. If we're to be objective, our litmus tests shouldn't focus around humans proficiencies but instead be inclusive of any intelligent life in the universe.

Here's a challenge: come up with a satisfactory litmus test that animals and humans can pass but ultimately computers cannot.

Conversely, and most tellingly: if we would be able to demonstrate even quite basic AI (like the fairly old chess programs that I mention in the previous discussion about AI, linked in my 1st comment in this one) to the people few generations back, I'm fairly certain they would be mighty impressed (...at least, at first), if not outright suspecting divine influence (vide cargo cults). I believe chess was held to be a good test of AI 50 years ago...

It even has a term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect

People seem to expect from AI to be at least on par with the best humans, in all "higher" fields. While... to be worth it, it needs only to be better than an average human practising only its one particular discipline or activity (AI flying airplanes doesn't have to now anything about poetry, for example; it even shouldn't have too much in common with AI flying highly manoeuvrable, highly evasive / survivable cruise missiles, beyond similar "understanding" of aerodynamics)

There's one perhaps even more curious term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec's_paradox ...it seems that "animal traits" are harder.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Tron
by zima on Mon 25th Jun 2012 08:20 in reply to "Tron"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I watched Tron in the early 80's (I still love it (not the new one however, what was that???)).

Nostalgia?

The first Tron is a bit... dreadful, as a movie (and among the people I know, I'm not nearly the only with such view; but we didn't watch it in our youth / when it came out). The second is also, really, but at least it's an awesome visual porn of sorts (what the 1st was also, back then, I imagine), one big Daft Punk music video (geniuses, really, tricking producers and so on into making something like this for them :> )

edit: oh yeah, two intelligent robots right there! ;)


I believe we can mimic intelligence, but I don't believe computers will be able to grasp "though" as we do, not now, not in another 30 years, not ever. Again, this is just based on observations over the past 30 years of living in the industry.

How do you know we are not merely "mimicking" it? (what tells you that you're intelligent and concious in the first place?)
Plus "ever" is a very long time, compared to 30 years. At the very least, we know of nothing which would certainly prevent, on a fundamental level, a brain computer simulation - you can go further from there, streamlining and optimising functional blocks.

I think the problem is that we underestimate the brain somewhat. I think we are only now beginning to get an idea of what we can actually do.

Please, no New Age stuff... :p But seriously, while we underestimate it somewhat, we also at least as often greatly overestimate it - about that "grasp "though" as we do", you mean with tons of cognitive biases? (go through their list, this is the primary mode of our operation).

Edited 2012-06-25 08:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2