Re: Happy New Year, CAP!

Traveler wrote:
Just out of curiosity but, show of hands, how many here are actually working on "true AI"? (And I mean more than philosophical implications, but real theory.) 

Well I, for one, have been working on true AI from the very beginning
(early 1990s) although I'm now considered a crank and a crackpot by
many and I don't blame them. Still, I do have a few supporters.
ahahaha...

BTW, true AI, to me, means any AI mechanism that can be scaled up to
human-level intelligence by adding more processing power.

I don't buy the "more processing power" paradigm. If you can describe exactly how the scaled-up version will emerge into the desired behavior then you could simply describe the scaled-up version in the first place.

Whenever AI researchers say "oh it just needs more CPUs!" they simply acknowledge that their work is inadequate and that only if a million monkeys worked with a million of their thing for a million years would it work. This ridiculous argument even works for random command generation!

Temporal Intelligence:
http://www.rebelscience.org/AI/Temporal_Intelligence.htm


I read your article and I don't quite understand what you mean by temporal.

You dismiss the idea that the brain functions as a symbolic system, but later refer to signal discretization (into "spikes") within the brain. If signals are discretized, isn't this hinting at a symbol system?

You assume that intelligent behavior can be broken down into "pieces of intelligence" that together produce emergent behavior/function (the connectionist approach). This in itself is not a given. Taking out a piece of this kind of system would reduce its capacity, whereas taking a piece out of, say, a computer would break it. How do we know which is correct?

I've scoured the internet for papers, web-sites, anything and found nothing but hacks and phonies. (See: Singularity Instutute for one.) 

There are a few sites/people who claim to be working on true AI. Off
the top of my head, I can think of Jeff Hawkins'
www.onintelligence.org, Peter Voss' http://adaptiveai.com/ and a few
more that I can't remember right now.

I read Hawkins' book, all he says is that we should study the brain in order to understand the intelligence mechanism as it appears in humans and work from there to reproduce it in an algorithm. He sprinkles in a few observations about certain neuron functions and draws generalizations which ultimately lead nowhere.

As appealing as his vision of reverse engineering the brain sounds, its the wrong way to go. Medical science has been trying to do the same to much simpler human organs for centuries. Modern drugs are discovered largely by statistical studies. When you're forced to take some substance and test it to see if it has any useful properties by actually applying it to living tissue repeatedly to see what happens, you simply don't know *** about *how* it works.

Peter Voss' venture strikes me as a money sink. He's just luring investors for zero return. If they really had made "significant progress", where are the publications and press releases?

-- Risujin
.

Loading