Artificial Intelligence

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:55 am UTC

Yakk wrote:No, not simulating ion flows. But creating a model of a neuron that replicates the observed external behavior of real world neurons isn't computationally trivial either.

You seem to have faith that most of the characteristics of the shape of the response of a neuron to incoming messages don't matter all that much. Do you have evidence for this faith?


I think I'm just going to bow out now. I don't have time to debate the efficacy of the approach I'm taking, or the feasability of it. Or the ingenuity of the status quo approach. I'm simply not interested in being involved in such a debate. Rather, I'd like to dig into the theory itself.

I've had these sorts of debates before. In the end I exhaustively proved the other side of the debate was incorrect. Then the debate ended, and nothing came of it. We never dug into the theory itself. Rather, we had discussed whether intelligent machines were even possible. Now the debate seems to be centering on whether an approach that the mainstream isn't taking can even possibly work. I just don't have the excess cycles to put into such a discussion.

-Dave
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby Yakk » Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:38 am UTC

You are aware that you seem to be a crackpot, right? You have most of the symptoms.

1> The details or your method are fuzzy or secret.

2> Everyone else is doing it completely wrong, yet you don't seem to know in detail what everyone else is doing.

You described not what cognitive science and AI research is doing, but rather a characiture of it, and the same with your description of a mere populizer of science as somehow directing science? You don't seem to have even casual exposure to the academic world of research you are dismissing: if that is the case, how can you be so certain that your description of them is accurate?

I'm not trying to anger you, I'm trying to caution you. I might be wrong, and you might not be a crackpot -- but you might be wrong as well. If you don't admit the possibility that you are going off on the wrong track entirely, this can screw you up seriously.

Good luck with your theory -- I hope it isn't a crackpot theory! Because that would be very cool if it wasn't. :)
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
Yakk
 
Posts: 10036
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:17 am UTC

Yakk wrote:You are aware that you seem to be a crackpot, right? You have most of the symptoms.

1> The details or your method are fuzzy or secret.

2> Everyone else is doing it completely wrong, yet you don't seem to know in detail what everyone else is doing.

...

Good luck with your theory -- I hope it isn't a crackpot theory! Because that would be very cool if it wasn't. :)


Yakk,

See this is what I wanted to avoid. "Fuzzy or secret" is what I wanted to dispel. I don't want to get bogged down defending myself or trying to prove I'm not a crackpot. I don't mind if I'm thought of as a crackpot. I want to explore and expand upon my theory. Visit the Machine Intelligence thread in my forums link below, read every post there and then if you've got questions come back to me and I'll answer them. I don't want to reiterate what I've written.

Just because I haven't detailed how much research I've already done, or how aware I am of what others are doing, you assume the worst. I'm very aware of AI research, what other groups are doing, and in almost every case they're all wasting their time pursuing dead ends. Any approach you care to name I can probably point out the critical flaw that will prevent it from going anywhere. I talk about this on my forum in some essays. They've been working on AI since the 1940's, and the goal still remains out of reach. Marvin Minsky, a huge figure in the AI field, has stated if we can duplicate what natural selection did, only it takes us 5 million years instead of 5 billion, we're way ahead of the game. What lofty goals to set, eh? I'm shooting for major breakthroughs within the next year.

I will go into further detail, but I'd rather post on my forums. I'm trying to build up the knowledge base in my forums, not the xkcd forums here, which are more general. Feel free to go over there and post skeptical comments or questions. The forum is open to anyone. You clearly are very familiar with the subject matter, so I would welcome you to dig into this a bit. Your interest could help a lot!

You did make one point about how science is done -- you said it's not done by doing theorizing, it's done by hands on experiment. This is not true in all cases. A lot of the greats in science made great breakthroughs by doing nothing but thinking about the problem. With machine intelligence, there aren't enough people working on theory, there are far too many adding to the endless flood of technical papers containing questionable experimental evidence. Jeff Hawkins goes into this a lot in his book, "On Intelligence". We're flooded with details -- way too much information. Most is irrelevant.

Thank you for your posting.

-Dave
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby 4=5 » Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:08 am UTC

this is infuriating. I want to know what this great theory is but I'm forced to dismiss it as crackpottery, I'm not allowed to be told anything at all about your amazing new theory. I'm not allowed to question you because there is well reasoned and irrefutable answer that you can't be bothered to find. I'm not allowed to ask about your credentials because you have spent lots of time in the field of Ai research that you can't be bothered to enumerate right now. I not allowed to know what your idea because you can't be bothered to defend it right now. In my quest for knowledge you have shown up as empty promises of enlightenment future.

just say succinctly what it is and leave, it's sheer strength will convince us of the truth, and the record on this forum that it was your idea will be a support in your claim to glory.
User avatar
4=5
 
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:02 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:51 pm UTC

4=5 wrote:just say succinctly what it is and leave, it's sheer strength will convince us of the truth, and the record on this forum that it was your idea will be a support in your claim to glory.


Don't get so upset. The theory involves the flow of spikes being the key to everything the brain and all nervous systems do. It's not superintelligent neurons, it's dumb neurons, but a lot of them, and the amazing stuff we observe nervous systems doing is an emergent behaviour. It has to be attacked from this viewpoint.

Follow this url to my forum. It's running the same PHPbb software xkcd is running. I'll be happy to go into detail, but I want it to be on my forum. Just create a user account there and ask away. Even simply cut and paste from this forum over into that one.

http://www.xdr.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=29

The thing is the theory can't be reduced to a 10 second sound bite. I attempted to in my first paragraph above, but that doesn't go into any details.

My goal isn't just a nebulous theory that gives a vague impression of what it's all about, but a theory detailed enough to actually implement in actual hardware. The proof is in the pudding.

I would like to point out that in the case of the theory of the mind and brain, we're all crackpots. No one has successfully created a machine that is as intelligent as a human -- nor even as intelligent as a rat. Lots of theory and handwaving, but no one has actually figured it out. Until someone does, all the "experts" are not experts at all. They're just working their particular approach. I claim that 70 years of attempts are probably enough to get people thinking that something new is in order.

Note I'm not after glory. I'm after finishing the job -- building intelligent machines. Ushering in The Singularity. I'd prefer to live in a post-Singularity world. We'll all benefit from that -- the whole human race. I'm just unhappy because the so-called experts aren't making any headway, and I am convinced they won't ever -- the sheer mass of researchers are pursuing dead-end leads, and the ones that are pursuing the right leads are in the tiniest minority.

-Dave
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby Yakk » Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:09 pm UTC

No: people poking at the brain in research contain people who do lots of experiments, and build concrete models, and attempt to test these models.

Sure, most of the models and experiments are junk: but they are putting their money where their mouth is.

Look up COGENT: an attempt to build software that aids humans in building cogitive models. These models are then tested against human behavior. Sure, it isn't "we have AI", but it is actually producing data. What is better is that it produces hypothesis which can be falsified.

That is just one branch of serious research into the field. Dozens if not 100s of approaches are being done to try to figure out how human intelligence works. The trick is to be serious about it, you have to produce experiments, publish your findings in a way that others can build on them, and test your predictions.

I don't see predictions when I'm reading your posts on the other website: I see musings at the level of philosophy/literature rather than at the level of science. Your posts using quotes from the Illiad does not bolster your position...

So some questions... Can you produce:
A post that demonstrates why you believe that "we have the computational power today"?

I can see an example where you spend 11 million dollars building a model where each dendrite has 64 bits of state, neurons are 10 to 100 times less connected than in the human brain, and you can model on the order of 0.001% of the neurons in the human brain. And this completely ignores the "what interconnects with what" problem!

A post that demonstrates why you think that a weak model of a neuron is good enough? Anything other than hopeful thinking?

...

In short: I don't see why you are worth paying serious attention to, when there are 100s or 1000s of PhD students, grad students, and researchers poking away at the problem, producing both reproducible and testable results, and building models that are grounded in tested reality rather than philosophy?

Sure, most of the models that the PhD students are working on won't work. That is expected. When you are trying to worm your way into solving a new problem, you don't know before hand which approach will work.

So you try multiple approaches. You study things from many many angles, and when one approach starts producing interesting results, you toss more resources at it.

The popularizers of science? They aren't the scientists. Ray is just an author -- he's a philosopher, not a scientist. He's an ad-man, not an engineer. He isn't important, other than possibly convincing people that "AI is neat, maybe I should research it or support those who do".

...

In short: start building models. If you aren't building models and testing things out, you are just philosophizing. And if you need 11 million dollars to test your hypothesis, then you had better get cracking and either making money (go go self-funded research!) or gain credibility via simpler accomplishments (academic or otherwise) so others will donate.

There are paths you can follow if you are serious about wanting to do research and spend all of your time on it. Go apply for a PhD program. :) Your job will be to work on producing original research. Find a supervisor that will take you on, and you'll even be paid a living wage while you are doing it usually. Then you become a post-doc in which you do even further research -- your job description is basically "produce papers and get them published", each one of which should contain as much testable, hard models as possible. All the while you will be kept in room & board by funding.

If you produce sufficient papers, you can try to become a professor -- the tenure track is all about producing papers, the other parts of the job are secondary. Every paper is another bit of research you have had to push out -- and you will be able to talk to other people whose job is also research, and they'll probably love to hear your ideas. You will attempt to get funding so you can hire peons to do the research work you want, and your peons will love to have your concrete, testable ideas in order so that they to can produce papers.

Ie: there is an existing infrastructure so you can dedicate your life to this problem. It just requires that you produce testable, interesting results, write them up so that others can understand them.

And there are 1000s of people doing that right now in the AI field. Why not join them?
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
Yakk
 
Posts: 10036
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:58 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:No: people poking at the brain in research contain people who do lots of experiments, and build concrete models, and attempt to test these models.


I'll respond to this post if you take it over to my forum. Otherwise, sorry.

-Dave
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby Yakk » Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:17 pm UTC

I lack reason to think your forum is worth my bother. Good day. :)
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
Yakk
 
Posts: 10036
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:05 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:I lack reason to think your forum is worth my bother. Good day. :)


You can create your same login + password over there, it's not any bother. It's the same phpBB software, same user interface. The reason is that the discussion of MI is precisely what my forum is themed on, but the xkcd forums aren't. Moreover I want to be able to backup the forum discussions to permanent media, as a safeguard. We're creating knowledge out of nothing, and it's worth preserving. I have no control over xkcd's archival.

If you're interested in getting at the truth, perhaps learning something, take the plunge. I can assure you I can address every point you bring up. 30 years is a long time to off and on be working on the MI problem! Nothing you've written is a surprise, not even close. I'll go into detail, but it has to be over there. Also anyone else is free to go there, join and ask questions. You can even browse the forums without having to join. There is a lot of material already posted. But there isn't any traffic. I need to get some more traffic, as an incentive for me to keep writing the stuff out. This is work, after all, for me -- part of my chosen profession.

-Dave
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby Kaiyas » Sun Mar 09, 2008 10:00 pm UTC

dash wrote:
Yakk wrote:I lack reason to think your forum is worth my bother. Good day. :)


You can create your same login + password over there, it's not any bother. It's the same phpBB software, same user interface. The reason is that the discussion of MI is precisely what my forum is themed on, but the xkcd forums aren't. Moreover I want to be able to backup the forum discussions to permanent media, as a safeguard. We're creating knowledge out of nothing, and it's worth preserving. I have no control over xkcd's archival.

If you're interested in getting at the truth, perhaps learning something, take the plunge. I can assure you I can address every point you bring up. 30 years is a long time to off and on be working on the MI problem! Nothing you've written is a surprise, not even close. I'll go into detail, but it has to be over there. Also anyone else is free to go there, join and ask questions. You can even browse the forums without having to join. There is a lot of material already posted. But there isn't any traffic. I need to get some more traffic, as an incentive for me to keep writing the stuff out. This is work, after all, for me -- part of my chosen profession.

-Dave


Transferring from a glider to a shuttle isn't any bother, they both have wings and a cockpit. :o

Deciding to advertise your theory then forcing us to comment in your forum seems suspicious. If you don't bother to help us, why should we bother to help you?

Furthermore, your "theory" seems to lack any supporting research, and a few glaring contradictions. Let's take a look:
Dave's Discussion Forum wrote:There is a flatworm called C. Elegans that has a very simple nervous system. I think it has 302 individual neurons that are completely mapped out. Some Japanese researchers have simulated the nervous system using a method called "random walk". They have been able to reproduce the observed physical behaviour of the flatworm using this method -- they can simulate the sensory input and see the correct physical response. It is a simple case of the sensory input somehow "flowing" correctly to the muscular output. Spikes flow across the nervous system and the animal's behaviour appears.

Why is it necessary to assume the entire human brain doesn't operate under the same principles?

Because, as you so clearly state:
Dave's Discussion Forum wrote:In the previous post I made a minor mistake -- the C. Elegans doesn't use spiking neurons, but that doesn't matter to the overall point.
I fail to see how this is minor or irrelevant.

As Yakk noted earlier, this reeks of crackpot-ness.
Image
clintonius wrote:This place is like mental masturbation
User avatar
Kaiyas
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:57 pm UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:28 pm UTC

Kaiyas wrote:Transferring from a glider to a shuttle isn't any bother, they both have wings and a cockpit. :o

Deciding to advertise your theory then forcing us to comment in your forum seems suspicious. If you don't bother to help us, why should we bother to help you?


What difference does it make to you? It makes a big difference to me. I don't want to be sharing my work just anywhere -- certainly not in someone else's yard. I'd prefer to share it in my yard.

Suspicious? Of what?

I'm trying to build up a body of work -- that can be referred to later. The xkcd forum might vanish at any time. It's my theory we're talking about. So why shouldn't it be discussed on my forums?

-Dave
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby Nath » Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:08 am UTC

dash wrote:What difference does it make to you? It makes a big difference to me. I don't want to be sharing my work just anywhere -- certainly not in someone else's yard. I'd prefer to share it in my yard.

Suspicious? Of what?

I'm trying to build up a body of work -- that can be referred to later. The xkcd forum might vanish at any time. It's my theory we're talking about. So why shouldn't it be discussed on my forums?

This is information. Sharing it in one place doesn't make it disappear. You can just copy and paste anything you want preserved to your own forum, if you like. Better yet, write it up formally and publish it in a conference or journal.

Imagine going into a gathering at someone's house and joining a conversation. You tell everybody that they're wrong, but won't tell them why unless they come to your party instead. It just seems kind of weird. That's pretty much what's happening here. It's certainly your right to do this, but the fact is that most people will not follow you home. You might be right, but nobody will know that.

Besides, I can think of an excellent reason for this conversation to take place here. There are only so many forums a person is willing to check. Even if it takes thirty seconds to sign up at yours, very few people will actually do so. Having this argument here will expose your ideas to vastly more people, including some young AI researchers. If you want to get the AI community working in the right direction, the easiest people to convince are the ones just starting out in the field.

As a beginning AI researcher myself, I am curious about this idea of yours. I went over to your forum and looked around. I obviously didn't read every word, but I couldn't get a feel for what this grand theory of yours actually is. I saw a lot of assertions, and several criticisms of existing AI efforts (some of which were quite valid, and many AI researchers are aware of them and trying to fix them), but nothing that really tells me what direction we ought to be working in.
User avatar
Nath
 
Posts: 2619
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:47 am UTC

Nath wrote:As a beginning AI researcher myself, I am curious about this idea of yours. I went over to your forum and looked around. I obviously didn't read every word, but I couldn't get a feel for what this grand theory of yours actually is. I saw a lot of assertions, and several criticisms of existing AI efforts (some of which were quite valid, and many AI researchers are aware of them and trying to fix them), but nothing that really tells me what direction we ought to be working in.


I'm sorry, I don't know how to make this any plainer. There is something very deep and insightful to my understanding of the issues. Take my word for it or not. But I'm only willing to share it on my forum. Take it or leave it. Those are the rules, I make 'em up. They're not changing.

Speaking of experiments, posting here about my theory is an experiment. It is an active attempt to move the project forward. I would like to attract smart people that are not entirely addicted to the status quo in AI research, who even are not involved at all in AI, but who would like to make a difference in bringing about The Singularity if they possibly can. It's not an ivory tower thing, in truth. At the bottom level I'm convinced there is a very, very simple principle at work.

I relate it to Shannon's breakthrough 1948 paper where he introduced Information Theory to the world. That paper and the insights it gave caused vast changes in the world, new industries to spring up, and led to the internet itself. The Theory of Intelligence is something very similiar. It's a new sort of math, I think. A new paradigm. A completely different way of looking at the whole problem.

This is the very kind of breakthrough the world is waiting for. Such breakthroughs have to begin somewhere. There is no guarantee they must occur in the mind of a PHD brought up in the traditional scientific community.

-Dave
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby Nath » Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:38 am UTC

dash wrote:I'm sorry, I don't know how to make this any plainer. There is something very deep and insightful to my understanding of the issues. Take my word for it or not. But I'm only willing to share it on my forum. Take it or leave it. Those are the rules, I make 'em up. They're not changing.

Take your word for it? No, I'm not going to do that. But if you can point me to the place on your forum where you explain this idea of yours, I'll take a look at it.
User avatar
Nath
 
Posts: 2619
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:55 am UTC

Nath wrote:
dash wrote:I'm sorry, I don't know how to make this any plainer. There is something very deep and insightful to my understanding of the issues. Take my word for it or not. But I'm only willing to share it on my forum. Take it or leave it. Those are the rules, I make 'em up. They're not changing.

Take your word for it? No, I'm not going to do that. But if you can point me to the place on your forum where you explain this idea of yours, I'll take a look at it.


Read the Spikes thread under Machine Intelligence.

http://www.xdr.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=29

I discuss spikes in nervous systems. This is background material. I haven't written out the deep details on my forum yet. I don't have the energy to do it. I was hoping by putting the forum up and starting to build up content it would attract interested people to start following along, asking questions, making comments. Human interaction. It makes it easier for me to put the stuff down on "paper" if I'm communicating with someone.

It's like I want to take someone along with me along the yellow brick road, the end of which is Oz. The Dialectic. Using back and forth conversation to explore the theory. I want to share it, I want to write it all down. But it's something I really would like interactive feedback on.

I don't need money anymore, I'm retired. I'm 41. This is what I want to work on as my "day job" -- aside from financial investments.

Where will this lead? I'm hoping to true Machine Intelligence. The Singularity. A world where imagination is the hardest part of creation, instead of it being the easiest. Take a chance!

-Dave
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby Nath » Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:37 am UTC

dash wrote:Read the Spikes thread under Machine Intelligence.

http://www.xdr.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=29

I discuss spikes in nervous systems. This is background material. I haven't written out the deep details on my forum yet. I don't have the energy to do it. I was hoping by putting the forum up and starting to build up content it would attract interested people to start following along, asking questions, making comments. Human interaction. It makes it easier for me to put the stuff down on "paper" if I'm communicating with someone.

It's like I want to take someone along with me along the yellow brick road, the end of which is Oz. The Dialectic. Using back and forth conversation to explore the theory. I want to share it, I want to write it all down. But it's something I really would like interactive feedback on.

I don't need money anymore, I'm retired. I'm 41. This is what I want to work on as my "day job" -- aside from financial investments.

Where will this lead? I'm hoping to true Machine Intelligence. The Singularity. A world where imagination is the hardest part of creation, instead of it being the easiest. Take a chance!

OK, I've read that thread. There's nothing there that convinced me that you have a particularly promising approach -- which is fine, given that it's just background information. But there isn't yet enough there to persuade me to spend time discussing these ideas in detail. From the little information I have, it looks like you are headed towards a neural networks approach: build a large network and hope that intelligence emerges; start with ants and work your way up to humans. This sounds OK in principle; a lot of people once believed that it was a promising approach. Unfortunately, the AI community tried and failed to make it work. The idea was so unscalable that not even Moore's law will let us use it to create human-level AI in the foreseeable future.

Of course, you might have something far more profound and practical in mind. From the information I have, that seems unlikely: most people who are confident that they have all the answers end up being very wrong. I don't think that very many people will be willing to work with you on this until you come up with a more convincing case that you are, in fact, on to something.

Good luck. If I remember to, I'll stop by at some point to see where this goes.
User avatar
Nath
 
Posts: 2619
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Nath wrote:Good luck. If I remember to, I'll stop by at some point to see where this goes.


I guess thanks...for nothing. :D

-Dave
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby zenten » Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:09 pm UTC

I think the reason a lot of people think that AI is impossible is because early AI researchers made very generous predictions. They seemed to think that if just one of the many key problems in AI were to be solved, then everything would be. This is not the case. We have really good chess computers, and not bad tools for turning speech into text which is then processed, as well as tools for identifying objects through visual information. These are separate areas of research though, and don't seem to be terribly useful at solving other areas.

So we don't have a computer that can play chess which also by necessity must be able to pass the Turing test and be able to control a robot to clean my house, unlike what it seemed like the researchers used to think.
zenten
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:42 pm UTC

zenten wrote:I think the reason a lot of people think that AI is impossible is because early AI researchers made very generous predictions. They seemed to think that if just one of the many key problems in AI were to be solved, then everything would be.


This is what GOFAI is all about. Good 'ol Fashioned AI. The goal isn't impossible. It's just impossible to get there using their methods. What do they do? More of the same! Was it 5th Generation, a huge Japanese effort to produce thinking machines once and for all? Failed miserably. It's not a matter of throwing more money at it -- having more people doing the same tired approach. That just spins the wheels in the mud faster. So people throw up their hands and say, "There's no getting out of this mudpit. It's impossible!"

Then someone comes along and says, "Why don't we use this winch on the front of the car and pull ourselves out?"

And the groupthink takes over. "He's a crackpot!" "If it were that easy someone would have tried it already" "He's trying to trick us!" "Some must already be trying the winch approach, right? Why don't you go join them and stop bothering us?"

I'm not even certain people even want intelligent machines, actually.

-Dave
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby zenten » Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:15 pm UTC

dash wrote:
zenten wrote:I think the reason a lot of people think that AI is impossible is because early AI researchers made very generous predictions. They seemed to think that if just one of the many key problems in AI were to be solved, then everything would be.


This is what GOFAI is all about. Good 'ol Fashioned AI. The goal isn't impossible. It's just impossible to get there using their methods. What do they do? More of the same! Was it 5th Generation, a huge Japanese effort to produce thinking machines once and for all? Failed miserably. It's not a matter of throwing more money at it -- having more people doing the same tired approach. That just spins the wheels in the mud faster. So people throw up their hands and say, "There's no getting out of this mudpit. It's impossible!"

Then someone comes along and says, "Why don't we use this winch on the front of the car and pull ourselves out?"

And the groupthink takes over. "He's a crackpot!" "If it were that easy someone would have tried it already" "He's trying to trick us!" "Some must already be trying the winch approach, right? Why don't you go join them and stop bothering us?"

I'm not even certain people even want intelligent machines, actually.

-Dave


We have intelligent machines. Not as intelligent as people, but way more intelligent than 20 years ago.

I mean, we have robots who clean the floor now in people's houses. That was an AI goal right there.

So yes, it can get there using current methods. It just happens in pieces. I don't believe that it can be done in one fell swoop, unless someone can make a machine that's really good at figuring out how to develop new forms of AI (and then we end up with the singularity).
zenten
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby Nath » Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:52 pm UTC

dash wrote:This is what GOFAI is all about. Good 'ol Fashioned AI. The goal isn't impossible. It's just impossible to get there using their methods. What do they do? More of the same! Was it 5th Generation, a huge Japanese effort to produce thinking machines once and for all? Failed miserably. It's not a matter of throwing more money at it -- having more people doing the same tired approach. That just spins the wheels in the mud faster. So people throw up their hands and say, "There's no getting out of this mudpit. It's impossible!"

Then someone comes along and says, "Why don't we use this winch on the front of the car and pull ourselves out?"

And the groupthink takes over. "He's a crackpot!" "If it were that easy someone would have tried it already" "He's trying to trick us!" "Some must already be trying the winch approach, right? Why don't you go join them and stop bothering us?"

I'm not even certain people even want intelligent machines, actually.

You do realize that the mainstream AI community has long abandoned GOFAI?

People aren't calling you a crackpot for challenging the status quo. AI is, in fact, a pretty young field; the status quo changes every few years, and most of the community welcomes that. People are calling you a crackpot because you're claiming to know better than everyone else in the world, and have given no evidence for this. In fact, from my perspective, it seems like you are the one doing more of the same: as far as I can tell, you're going to propose yet another formalism inspired by biological brains, and hope that Moore's law lets us run it on a large enough scale to create intelligence. (I hope I'm mistaken, because it would be neat if you succeed.)

Most of the people working in AI realize that it's a hard problem. They are hopeful, of course, but they realize that doing more of the same will not get us what we want. The AI winter splintered the field, but people are now working on bringing it back together. The current approach seems to be to solve broader and broader classes of problems -- to create more and more general problem solvers. To me, this seems like a very practical goal for AI. I'm not interested in creating pretend humans. I'm interested in creating agents that can come up with good solutions to unforeseen problems. The fact that human beings are the best such agents we have come across does not mean that simulating humans is the best way to solve the problem.
User avatar
Nath
 
Posts: 2619
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:21 pm UTC

Nath wrote:You do realize that the mainstream AI community has long abandoned GOFAI?


Nope. I wish what you say were true. I was directed to read the very latest book on AI research, a tomb called "Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach" by Russell + Norvig. I got a used copy of the 2003 2nd edition. I can report it's the same old hash. I glance through this book and I'm flabbergasted people actually put stock in this. Their concept of "learning" is how to get a group of people to determine which is the best restaurant to eat at...or something. It's a complete joke.

Marvin Minsky recently gave a talk, I listened to it in mp3 format. He spews the same old drivel. He spouts off about how we've got a lot of special purpose problem solvers. So he thinks the future of AI is to take the primary goal of which problem to solve, then create a subgoal of deciding on which special purpose problem solver to apply to the main problem. Same old hash. That particular problem is one of infinite regression, among other things. The approach won't work. It'll never work.

I don't think you realize how much the AI field has entrenched status quo built in. They can change the name, join the people ridiculing GOFAI, but when you dig deeper, their new and improved approach is just a wolf in sheep's clothing. Nothing new here.

-Dave
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:24 pm UTC

zenten wrote:I don't believe that it can be done in one fell swoop, unless someone can make a machine that's really good at figuring out how to develop new forms of AI (and then we end up with the singularity).


I disagree. I'd like to go deeper into explaining why you can do it in one fell swoop. And why these little baby steps are leading nowhere, and will always lead nowhere.

Visit my forums here:

http://www.xdr.com/forums

Create a username + password and let's discuss it.

-Dave
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby Robin S » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:33 pm UTC

I will consider registering to discuss it on your forums on condition that you let me replicate all of your posts, all of anyone else's posts, and anything else you deem relevant to the discussion into this thread so that I can get feedback on it from the people here. For me, the end result will be the same as if the discussion were held in this thread, except much more inconvenient. I'm curious to know what the benefit will be to you.
limu->i(patience)=0
Robin S
 
Posts: 3557
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:02 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby 4=5 » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:49 pm UTC

could you create another account to post his words so it is easier to tell who said what?
User avatar
4=5
 
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:02 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby Robin S » Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:04 pm UTC

What's wrong with just using quotes?
limu->i(patience)=0
Robin S
 
Posts: 3557
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:02 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:06 pm UTC

For those who don't read it, SEED has an excellent article about some of the things discussed here.
-I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.
-We can't go back. But I suppose we can go wherever we please.
User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
 
Posts: 13924
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby Nath » Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:27 pm UTC

dash wrote:Nope. I wish what you say were true. I was directed to read the very latest book on AI research, a tomb called "Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach" by Russell + Norvig. I got a used copy of the 2003 2nd edition. I can report it's the same old hash. I glance through this book and I'm flabbergasted people actually put stock in this. Their concept of "learning" is how to get a group of people to determine which is the best restaurant to eat at...or something. It's a complete joke.

Marvin Minsky recently gave a talk, I listened to it in mp3 format. He spews the same old drivel. He spouts off about how we've got a lot of special purpose problem solvers. So he thinks the future of AI is to take the primary goal of which problem to solve, then create a subgoal of deciding on which special purpose problem solver to apply to the main problem. Same old hash. That particular problem is one of infinite regression, among other things. The approach won't work. It'll never work.

I don't think you realize how much the AI field has entrenched status quo built in. They can change the name, join the people ridiculing GOFAI, but when you dig deeper, their new and improved approach is just a wolf in sheep's clothing. Nothing new here.

Russell and Norvig is a (pretty good) undergraduate-level overview of AI. I keep a copy on my bookshelf, for when I need to look up classical AI concepts. Yes, a good part of the book is GOFAI. GOFAI was not a waste of time: it produced useful insights that we can build from, and also showed us the limits of such approaches. I think it's important for newcomers to the field (like myself) to have a reasonable understanding of what's come before. The point of books like this is not to show off cutting edge research. It's to give you the background knowledge you need to understand cutting edge research and put it in context. It's like your post on spikes.

As for the restaurant example: I assume you are talking about the thing in the decision tree chapter? That's a toy example. The point is to explain to the reader how decision trees work. They aren't proposing that you actually use decision tree learning for problems like that.

As for Marvin Minsky: he has done some very important work over the years, but he hardly speaks for the majority of AI researchers. I doubt he's even actively involved in research any more. What has he published in the past ten years? It's hardly surprising that he talks about GOFAI. That's what he worked on for most of his career.
User avatar
Nath
 
Posts: 2619
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:35 am UTC

Nath wrote:It's to give you the background knowledge you need to understand cutting edge research and put it in context.


Background knowledge to understand cutting edge research -- on how to beat your head against a brick wall. That entire book is garbage. It misses the entire point. Any time spent studying it is wasted. Someone else will come along and crack the problem the right way.

Maybe that book will help you make money in AI, but producing the real deal? Forget it.

I would encourage anyone seriously interested in entering a career in AI to first read Jeff Hawkin's book "On Intelligence". The first several chapters are absolutely vital for knowing what you're getting yourself into -- what the state of the art is all about. He rips it apart. I thought that section was brilliant.

Sadly, then he goes on to describe his own theory which is based on prediction, but then doesn't go into any details about how his symbolic based prediction system could have configured itself. His stuff will go nowhere as well.

Realistically do you want to be just another cog in the machine? One more of thousands plodding along with the same approach the old guys in charge dreamt up? Will one more person make a difference? Speed up The Singularity by any appreciable amount? No way.

Rather, it's time to think outside the traditional hot spots. Look at the problem in a completely new way.

I'd go into more detail but I want to talk about it on my forum. Did I mention the link? Here it is. http://www.xdr.com/forums :D

-Dave
PS I'm not a cultist, but in one of Bhagwan Rajneesh's books talks about a time when one of his would-be followers came in to speak with him. This fellow was a judge or something, very official. He had a very high opinion of himself, felt he should be treated with special consideration. Rajneesh told him something like, "As if enlightened individuals can be produced on the assembly line." That shut him up, and the fellow then was able to learn something.

Now, you've got to mentally snip out the detail that Rajneesh turned out to be corrupt and started to love all the $$$ and had a huge collection of cars and all...and get at the underlying meaning of this lesson. The point is just because you've gone through college, been taught by PHD's, maybe even worked with a few, gotten a degree -- that doesn't mean you're instantly a creative genius. They don't teach creativity in school. That's something somehow you have to pick up on your own or be born with. School lets you become an expert on what other people have already figured out. Great, that could lead to a good job, a fine life. But are you going to make any difference in the world? Come up with major breakthroughs? Who can say. I assert what is innate in the greats was there regardless of their schooling.
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:44 am UTC

Robin S wrote:I will consider registering to discuss it on your forums on condition that you let me replicate all of your posts, all of anyone else's posts, and anything else you deem relevant to the discussion into this thread so that I can get feedback on it from the people here. For me, the end result will be the same as if the discussion were held in this thread, except much more inconvenient. I'm curious to know what the benefit will be to you.


Let me share my personal philosophy on the internet. Basically anything you can grab on the internet is yours. If you can cache the contents of my site, you can do whatever you want with it. Repost it elsewhere, keep a copy, cut and paste.

I think it would be immoral to modify it and then attribute the modified version to me, but that's about as far as I'm willing to go. I believe information is free, and should be. So I wouldn't lift a finger to prevent anyone from duplicating information I've written. I'm in favor of preservation of information, not destruction of it.

I also think it's moral to attribute the source of information when quoting.

So have at it.

-Dave
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby Robin S » Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:51 am UTC

You still haven't explained how discussing it on your forums rather than here will be of benefit, which is the main thing holding me back.
limu->i(patience)=0
Robin S
 
Posts: 3557
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:02 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby Nath » Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:19 am UTC

dash wrote:The point is just because you've gone through college, been taught by PHD's, maybe even worked with a few, gotten a degree -- that doesn't mean you're instantly a creative genius. They don't teach creativity in school. That's something somehow you have to pick up on your own or be born with. School lets you become an expert on what other people have already figured out. Great, that could lead to a good job, a fine life. But are you going to make any difference in the world? Come up with major breakthroughs? Who can say. I assert what is innate in the greats was there regardless of their schooling.

Absolutely. Learning from mainstream AI people doesn't make you a genius, and doesn't necessarily mean you will make a useful contribution. On the other hand, rejecting mainstream AI out of hand also doesn't make you a genius, and doesn't mean that you will make a contribution.

How far do you think physics or mathematics would have gotten if everybody attempted to start from scratch? I think it's important to see what people have done before you, if only to understand why they failed. Schooling is irrelevant, as long as you understand the state of the art one way or another. Otherwise you are bound to repeat other people's mistakes, like I suspect you are doing.

Your claim that Russell and Norvig is entirely garbage makes me a lot more comfortable about dismissing your other claims. It is debatable whether anything in that book will lead to human-level intelligence, but a lot of the technology described there has given rise to useful applications. I'm not talking about making money; I'm talking about solving interesting problems, adapting to different environments, learning, evolving. You know, intelligence. It's important to recognize the (numerous) limitations of those techniques, but to dismiss the whole thing out of hand is silly, and does not strengthen your case.
User avatar
Nath
 
Posts: 2619
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:50 am UTC

Nath wrote:Your claim that Russell and Norvig is entirely garbage makes me a lot more comfortable about dismissing your other claims.


Ok, Nath, I grant your argument. So let's just agree between ourselves I'm not targeting my postings to you, ok? You've made up your mind, I accept that. So bye, now. No need to concern yourself any more with this. It's a waste of both our time. You agree, right?

-Dave
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:17 am UTC

Robin S wrote:You still haven't explained how discussing it on your forums rather than here will be of benefit, which is the main thing holding me back.


It benefits me. As I did state earlier, I'm attempting to build up a body of information that I can refer to later. Having it in my forums puts it all in a neat little package. Having it in xkcd's forums, it will quickly get buried. I don't expect people looking for information about my theory to go to xkcd for information. I expect them to go to my forums. Simple matter, really.

I don't mind discussing the pitfalls of other approaches a bit here, although it is getting old. But any further details about my approach to The Singularity problem, real Machine Intelligence, will have to be posted over on my forums.

If you want to make a career in AI, just to make money or just to advance some small piece of some small problem, go ahead and follow the standard path, and accept "AI: A Modern Approach" as gospel. You will likely be successful.

If you wish to assist in any way making The Singularity come about, abandon GOFAI completely, don't even consider it as a starting point or as worthwhile background material -- it's not. It's more of a guidebook on computer algorithms, making computers do some useful things. It has nothing whatsoever to do with real intelligence. Instead, consider going over to my forum and participating in discussion there. I will share what I've already worked out, which from my point of view is tantalyzingly close. I've read huge amounts, looked for similiar viewpoints. The only thing in all my searching that even came close was Alan Barton's paper on his own theory, which I do repost on my forum in pdf format, but even he's just got a whiff of the whole thing.

What I can offer is a way of studying the problem that isn't mainstream, and yet is the only way that will work. Koch over at CalTech has it wrong, I've read lots of his work. Crick, who recently died, had it wrong. A fellow named Allwyn Scott who wrote a number of books, including "Stairway to the Mind", (recently deceased) had it wrong. Gerald Edelman might have a piece of it, but I can't decipher his lingo and crypto-speak well enough to be sure. I don't believe he's got it, because we don't have intelligent machines yet. By definition if someone really "got it" we would quickly have intelligent machines. I could name more names of people barking up wrong trees.

I would only ask that if after you get brought up to speed where I'm at, once you understand the whole picture I can share, if you have a Eureka! moment that fills in the missing piece, please come back and post it on my forum. It's this flash of insight I'm trying to cultivate. I'm hoping engaging in a back and forth discussion of the subject will help.

-Dave
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby Nath » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:32 am UTC

dash wrote:Ok, Nath, I grant your argument. So let's just agree between ourselves I'm not targeting my postings to you, ok? You've made up your mind, I accept that. So bye, now. No need to concern yourself any more with this. It's a waste of both our time. You agree, right?

Fair enough. But before I leave this conversation, I will say one more thing.

dash wrote:If you want to make a career in AI, just to make money or just to advance some small piece of some small problem, go ahead and follow the standard path, and accept "AI: A Modern Approach" as gospel. You will likely be successful.

Referring to textbooks as gospel is as misleading as referring to them as garbage. They are summaries of prior work: no more, no less.
User avatar
Nath
 
Posts: 2619
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:53 am UTC

Nath wrote:Referring to textbooks as gospel is as misleading as referring to them as garbage. They are summaries of prior work: no more, no less.


This is a subject of some interest. I believe actually reading "AI: A Modern Approach" is harmful if your intention is to work on truly intelligent machines -- unless beforehand you're aware of what AI really means. AI is not trying to make a general purpose learning machine, akin to a human brain. It's a compromise. It was born in the 1940's or 1950's, whether it was called AI or not, the effort was started back then. At first the goal was to create a truly thinking machine. Turing, Von Neumann, probably flush from prior successes, in their hubris thought humanity could continue advancing and develop truly thinking machines.

Well, it turned out to be a complex problem. Back in those days they didn't even have transistors. They used vacuum tubes. Computing machines were often mechanical. Electronic ones were pitifully weak compared to today's technology. They used up huge amounts of power. They failed often. Hardware was expensive.

Trying to develop a thinking machine, akin to the brain, with the tools of the day was impossible. They realized this. So AI, whatever it might have been called then, was born as a compromise. Well, if we can't make intelligent machines, what can we make? So you had symbolic logic, some natural language parsing, expert systems, later some neural nets which were somewhat useful for pattern recognition...all of the traditional success stories of AI. AI itself gave up on the problem of truly intelligent machines almost on day 1. Meanwhile, they got success after success in their compromise approach. Generations of students/researchers later, people have forgotten what the whole point was all about.

So you get books like "AI: A Modern Approach" Just from the title I was excited, I thought, "Wow, here's going to be something really new I can learn." What an utter disappointment when I found I'd paid $87 for this rehash of the same garbage. Yes it is garbage. Because I'm not interested in the compromise. I want the real deal. C3PO. R2D2. Robby The Robot. A machine you can talk to and it will learn what it needs to do whatever you want it to. This is what we want as children. We wonder, "Hey, I see all these robots on TV, are they real? I'd like to talk to one!" Then they're in for a disappointment. So they maintain their interest, grow up, think about what they want to do as a career. Well, they like robots and Science Fiction stories. Maybe they can work on that. So they get sucked into the AI machine and their minds get corrupted right from the word go -- they buy into the compromise. And then it's all over. Then they invest a lot of time learning this tripe, thinking this is all there is, and then they start defending it. Nobody wants to waste their time, or to have discovered their whole academic career is a fiasco. So they become part of the system, defending it, promoting it.

This is what modern science is all about. Read Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics" and you'll get more of a taste of it -- that book talks about the disaster that String Theory has become. This stuff is all over the place. AI is no exception. Science can only advance in meaningful ways through Revolution. We're ripe for one. We need it bad, actually.

-Dave
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby Morpheus » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:26 am UTC

dash wrote:So you get books like "AI: A Modern Approach" Just from the title I was excited, I thought, "Wow, here's going to be something really new I can learn." What an utter disappointment when I found I'd paid $87 for this rehash of the same garbage. Yes it is garbage. Because I'm not interested in the compromise. I want the real deal. C3PO. R2D2. Robby The Robot. A machine you can talk to and it will learn what it needs to do whatever you want it to. This is what we want as children. We wonder, "Hey, I see all these robots on TV, are they real? I'd like to talk to one!" Then they're in for a disappointment. So they maintain their interest, grow up, think about what they want to do as a career. Well, they like robots and Science Fiction stories. Maybe they can work on that. So they get sucked into the AI machine and their minds get corrupted right from the word go -- they buy into the compromise. And then it's all over. Then they invest a lot of time learning this tripe, thinking this is all there is, and then they start defending it. Nobody wants to waste their time, or to have discovered their whole academic career is a fiasco. So they become part of the system, defending it, promoting it.


I'm a AI student in my third year. I've also got AI: A Modern Approach, we had to read it the first year. It is mainly used to show how AI was, what the tools are we have from GOFAI to solve some specific problems and what we can learn from their approach.

If I get you right, your insight is that you can't take their old approach to reach 'real' intelligence. A neural net is a more promising approach. We learned about neural nets in our second year as a more modern approach of AI. What we learned was that most of neural net research is left. We know what we theoretically can do with them. Except for one kind of neural net which uses 'spiking neurons' as their basis. This way timing becomes more important, and you can do more cool stuff with the net as a whole. But this idea is not new anymore, there are lots of AI-scientists researching this right now. See for example http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/72/28123/01257420.pdf.

So I do think your way of looking at this problem is the right way, you do have some sort of intuition that I like. But what exactly is it that is so very new? What is it that all those researchers overlooked?

Daniel
User avatar
Morpheus
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:43 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Morpheus wrote:Except for one kind of neural net which uses 'spiking neurons' as their basis. This way timing becomes more important, and you can do more cool stuff with the net as a whole. But this idea is not new anymore, there are lots of AI-scientists researching this right now. See for example http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/72/28123/01257420.pdf.

So I do think your way of looking at this problem is the right way, you do have some sort of intuition that I like. But what exactly is it that is so very new? What is it that all those researchers overlooked?


I thought that name "Izhikevich" sounded familiar. Small world. I wrote about his very model in my note on others' work, here:

http://www.xdr.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=36
This is The Neurosciences Institute. This is a place directed by Gerald Edelman. This is a serious institution, they have a lot going on. They're headed in the right direction. I plan on referring to their online research papers as they come out, and hope to put it all together before they do. One fellow I'm impressed with is Eugene Izhikevich. He's got some very interesting papers on spiking neuron models, he has devised a very simple model that is computationally efficient yet exhibits practically all the known behaviours of neurons in the brain.


I probably have Eugene's paper somewhere. I looked for it on my archive here:

http://www.xdr.com/papers/

Now where did I leave that one? I remember his model, it has a fatal flaw though. It doesn't deal with the synapse, or anything at all related to neural plasticity. One must impose an arbitrary current flow from outside, if I recall correctly. It's been about a year since I was digging into technical journals looking for articles the last time. Talk about boring work...and boring reading...

Basically all Eugene did was look at waveforms of actual spiking neurons, and then come up with as simple as possible a model to reproduce those waveforms. I had been excited about it before, as my quote suggests. But the fact that it's just an easily computable waveform generator kind of takes all the steam out of it.

I think Eugene's papers were available on the NSI site, now that I think about it.

Anyway to answer your question about what is so new about my way...oh wait. You need to go over to my forums and ask there. I'm trying to move this discussion over to my forums. Here's the link again:

http://www.xdr.com/forums

I am encouraged that other people are starting to realize that spiking neural models are the only way to attack the problem. That is certainly a critical first step!

-Dave
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby Mutate » Tue Mar 11, 2008 6:41 am UTC

If they reverse-engineer the human brain, what happens if God* files a lawsuit for intellectual property infringement?


*God, some aliens, Mother Nature, extra-terrestrial humans that left a seed colony, et cetera, none of which necessarily exist.
User avatar
Mutate
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:02 am UTC
Location: Central Virginia

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Postby dash » Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:13 pm UTC

dash wrote:I am encouraged that other people are starting to realize that spiking neural models are the only way to attack the problem. That is certainly a critical first step!


Morpheus joined my forums and this discussion continues over there:

http://www.xdr.com/forums/viewtopic.php ... 6&p=94#p92

-Dave
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's
User avatar
dash
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

PreviousNext

Return to Serious Business

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: shealtket, Zcorp and 4 guests