I understand the disdain towards brute force approaches. The 4-colour problem was "proven" by brute-forcing it - checking every possible topological configuration of maps and showing they can be coloured properly. It gives us a result, but no insight into why it is true.
However, brute force methods can produce results we couldn't otherwise imagine - our own biases/traditions/point of view blinds us to other ways of doing things. The recent Go match is an example, where DeepMind produced moves that were incomprehensible when they were made, but led to wins later in the match. This is valuable learning.
I also think brute-force techniques can produce superior results where no other means are possible. Genetic algorithms are like this - they can produce near optimal solutions to problems that are otherwise computationally impossible to solve, simply by being able to test large numbers of somewhat random events and promoting those solutions that score highly.
I think peter12's real issue is against those who think AI will be able to take over for humans in systems where decisions need to be made based on rational understanding, intuition, and maybe common sense, over a more mechanistic approach. I agree with this stance - without understanding the limitations of AI, it can be misused and result in very unforeseen consequences. However, I think the recent increase of interest in AI is a good thing, even if that interest is misplaced. AI was considered a near-dead field when I was in university, but recent advancements have vastly improved the quality and "learning efficiency" of neural networks leading to, among other things, the defeat of a Go master.
This inevitably starts to lead down various philosophical (religious?) paths. If you are a materialist, and humans are bound by purely predetermined mechanistic reactions to stimuli, then you can see AI as eventually being able to perfectly model a human brain. Otherwise, there will always be a gap, and it is important to recognize what that gap is.
The Following User Says Thank You to psyang For This Useful Post:
I get tons of "scifi now" stuff in my Facebook, like robotics, drone racing, 3d-printing / bioprinting etc. these days. As a friend of mine put it, we might be living in a cyberpunk dystopia of a planet on self-destruction mode and corporate overlords tromping over democracy, but at least we're getting the cool tech too.
Here's some robotics stuff:
I also think the question of AI rights will start to be considered an issue within decades, possibly quite soon. AIs teaching themselves, which is common these days, has the potential for some insanely quick developments.
(On that note, would highly recommend the movies Ex Machina and Her.)
Last edited by Itse; 03-24-2016 at 09:59 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I've been laughing my ass off all day at the news articles and the quotes that resulted from the AI.
"So Microsoft created a chat bot that so perfectly emulates a teenager that it went off spouting offensive things just for the sake of getting attention?
I would say the engineers in Redmond succeeded beyond their wildest expectations, myself."
I'm always interested to hear intelligent folk share their opinions on the future of AI. Whether it's Ray Kurzweil, Elon Musk, Sam Harris...it's going to be an interesting century, particularly with many of the predictions being of the not-so-rosy variety.
A friend of mine who's an adept computer programmer has always been skeptical of the future threats posed by AI given that its scope and capabilities will always be limited by the predefined parameters of human programming, but I don't know. Several prominent figures have suggested it could one day pose a danger, owing to the idea that a "God AI" or runaway AI could theoretically learn and improve itself so rapidly that it could end up looking at us in the same way that we look at insects or microbial life. I guess there are less far-fetched scenarios that would signal negative outcomes for humanity as well, but those aren't as fun to discuss.
I think peter12's real issue is against those who think AI will be able to take over for humans in systems where decisions need to be made based on rational understanding, intuition, and maybe common sense, over a more mechanistic approach. I agree with this stance - without understanding the limitations of AI, it can be misused and result in very unforeseen consequences. However, I think the recent increase of interest in AI is a good thing, even if that interest is misplaced. AI was considered a near-dead field when I was in university, but recent advancements have vastly improved the quality and "learning efficiency" of neural networks leading to, among other things, the defeat of a Go master.
You seem like someone with a pretty strong background on the science side. I will defer to you on all those questions as my credentials there are exactly nil, and my potential to gain real understanding of the algorithms, and all the high-level mathematics involved in machine learning is also zero.
My real view, as you precisely identified, is a concern as to the personal teleos or purpose of human beings in light of the extensive promises and threats that artificial intelligence could have for our species. We are remarkable creatures, both flawed and divine, and it is simplistic to believe that machines - or as some in this thread have said, human-created GODS - will solve the cipher of our existence. If they are able to do so, and not tell us, then what is the point?
I am not really sure if there is anything further to discover. Certainly, the utopian promises of Ray Kurzweil et al. are without foundation. We are not anywhere near decoding our neural code, understanding human consciousness, or even scratching the surface of our own nature. It seems highly implausible that we will discover or create anything approaching artificial general intelligence without those key pieces of information, and if we do, the dangers, both imagined and real, are worth contemplating.
But beyond that, I really think we need to be honest about what machine learning can actually do. As I said, I do not understand the algorithm side, and I would really find your insight helpful, but it seems that we can create increasingly sophisticated routine-based machines. You are right. Defeating a Go master is significant, and maybe the long-term predictive abilities of that machine will be able to have some use outside of a Go championship game.
To me, right now, it is akin to IQ testing. We know that you can practice the heck out of IQ problems, but when you take an actual test comprised of secret answers, you fare slightly or no better than someone who didn't practice at all. We aren't creating machines that are able to spread their intelligence across multiple tasks, and this, of course, is the essence of real artificial intelligence.
The question remains, does knowledge about intelligence fall into the realm of diminishing returns? Is it like so many things where the more we know, the less we are able to know.
Is is the beauty and uniqueness of the human mind as it has evolved over millions of years?
Because the potential for true AI is, as far as I can see, predicated on a materialist world view, which would obviously negative his religious views. He has a personal stake in terms of closely held beliefs that require him to adopt that position.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Because the potential for true AI is, as far as I can see, predicated on a materialist world view, which would obviously negative his religious views. He has a personal stake in terms of closely held beliefs that require him to adopt that position.
No, it wouldn't. In fact, the development of AI actually affirms my religious views. It follows Christian psychology quite closely.
If it is possible to create artificial intelligence that operates identically to a human being, complete with consciousness, it suggests that there is no such thing as a "soul". In other words, there's nothing going on with humans beyond a collection of atoms, that could be replicated if you had a sophisticated enough 3d printer with the requisite resolution to effectively "print" a human. That obviously has huge implications for Abrahamic religion and explains why religious people are so dead set against the possibility.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Except that we wouldn't really know if we had created an artificial intelligence that was real or just a very good simulation. Anyway, it would literally be impossible to create a being in such a way. As I said before, it is all conjecture. We don't even know the slightest about our brains process information in such a way that creates consciousness. I am not closed to the possibility of such a problem being solved, but at this point, it is highly unlikely.
There are also significant philosophical differences between human free will and machine will.
Even if we could create an omnipotent artificial general intelligence that could theoretically exist on a plan of knowledge that would be god-like from our perspective, it still wouldn't solve the fundamental human questions of loneliness, wondering, and wandering that mark us from other species.
Furthermore, if such a machine existed, it would almost certainly not be able to communicate with us, and thus, would have absolutely no implications - beyond the hellish tyranny that would no doubt exist - for Christians as it would say nothing about the personal logos represented through the Christian God.
I am also surprised that you, as a very fervent liberal - don't have any deep philosophical concerns regarding the development of AI. It would certainly spell the end of any modern conceptions of liberty.
Except that we wouldn't really know if we had created an artificial intelligence that was real or just a very good simulation. Anyway, it would literally be impossible to create a being in such a way. As I said before, it is all conjecture. We don't even know the slightest about our brains process information in such a way that creates consciousness. I am not closed to the possibility of such a problem being solved, but at this point, it is highly unlikely.
There are also significant philosophical differences between human free will and machine will.
Even if we could create an omnipotent artificial general intelligence that could theoretically exist on a plan of knowledge that would be god-like from our perspective, it still wouldn't solve the fundamental human questions of loneliness, wondering, and wandering that mark us from other species.
Furthermore, if such a machine existed, it would almost certainly not be able to communicate with us, and thus, would have absolutely no implications - beyond the hellish tyranny that would no doubt exist - for Christians as it would say nothing about the personal logos represented through the Christian God.
I am also surprised that you, as a very fervent liberal - don't have any deep philosophical concerns regarding the development of AI. It would certainly spell the end of any modern conceptions of liberty.
Can we please have one thread where you do not go into this religious b.s. please?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dissentowner For This Useful Post:
Except that we wouldn't really know if we had created an artificial intelligence that was real or just a very good simulation. Anyway, it would literally be impossible to create a being in such a way.
Support this claim. If you are a materialist, which most Western thinkers are at this point, there is no reason beyond a current lack of technology to prevent us from creating a being in exactly that way.
Quote:
There are also significant philosophical differences between human free will and machine will.
I'd dispute this - what are they?
Quote:
Even if we could create an omnipotent artificial general intelligence that could theoretically exist on a plan of knowledge that would be god-like from our perspective, it still wouldn't solve the fundamental human questions of loneliness, wondering, and wandering that mark us from other species.
As far as I can tell, this is just meaningless philosophy-sounding word salad. Explain what you're talking about.
Quote:
Furthermore, if such a machine existed, it would almost certainly not be able to communicate with us, and thus, would have absolutely no implications - beyond the hellish tyranny that would no doubt exist - for Christians as it would say nothing about the personal logos represented through the Christian God.
Why on Earth would you think it couldn't communicate with us? There's absolutely no basis for believing any of this.
Quote:
I am also surprised that you, as a very fervent liberal - don't have any deep philosophical concerns regarding the development of AI. It would certainly spell the end of any modern conceptions of liberty.
I have HUGE concerns. I'm not even sure it isn't an existential threat to Humanity, though probably not one that will manifest itself in my lifetime.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Even if we could create an omnipotent artificial general intelligence that could theoretically exist on a plan of knowledge that would be god-like from our perspective, it still wouldn't solve the fundamental human questions of loneliness, wondering, and wandering that mark us from other species.
My cat gets lonely when I leave, she wonders what I do all day and why I can't sit still to give her my lap, and she wanders the neighbourhood. 3 strikes, you are out.
My cat gets lonely when I leave, she wonders what I do all day and why I can't sit still to give her my lap, and she wanders the neighbourhood. 3 strikes, you are out.
You should carefully consider the meaning of these words and reflect upon your own experience or are you the same type of thing as your cat. Does your cat have an account on here? Does she demand recognition? Does she secretly feel pleased to see her posts "thanked" by multiple prestigious posters?
