4 ms·

"I don't believe in this (relatively recent) trend of associating AI with bodies." The problem is that "strong AI" (ie. an AI considered intelligent in the dee

by gnosis 17y ago

"I don't believe in this (relatively recent) trend of associating AI with bodies." The problem is that "strong AI" (ie. an AI considered intelligent in the deepest sense of the term, with intelligence equal to or greater than that of a human) has pretty much run in to a dead end. Lots of approaches have been tried over the decades, and all have failed. Strong AI research needs new ideas and new approaches. Making a close coupling between the "brain" (or "mind") and the body is one such relatively new approach. As such, I applaud it. Like the approaches that came before, it also might lead up a blind alley. But at least they're trying something new and different, instead of banging their head on the same wall. And, apart from the sheer novelty of the approach, there has been a lot of evidence that much of the "processing" that has been assumed to be done in the brain is actually done in the body. Some relatively recent robotics research has been focused on creating robots without any kind of a "brain", but just with a "nervous system". These robots are able to move around and achieve goals. Here's some information on a conference where these sorts of robots are demonstrated: http://ine-web.org/telluride-conference-2010/telluride-2010/index.html http://ine-web.org/telluride-conference-2010/telluride-2010/... These robots are a far cry from achieving the goal of strong AI, but they point to an alternative approach to AI that is not brain-centric, to coin a term.

marshallp 17y ago
"Lots of approaches have been tried over the decades, and all have failed." I beg to differ with that. Marvin Minsky's idea of having 5000 people creating a common sense database of sorts wasn't tried. (the closest is cyc, which only had 20 people most of the time). Genetic programming has not been tried at all really. Machine learning hasn't been seriously tried either (the closest efforts have been google goggles and google search maybe). AI is serious and complicated engineering project. Billions are spent on creating skyscapers, tunnels, and airplanes. Yet the money spent on AI is orders of magnitude less even though the payoff is orders of magnitude more. If I had to guess, I'd say AI would be easily achievable within a year using any of the above approaches if a trillion dollars were spent on it this year.
- eru 17y ago
  I beg to differ. All the approaches you mentioned are still under heady investigation. It's only the name of AI that has been tarnished. And the progress in the tools will eventually lead to more "intelligent" systems.
  - marshallp 17y ago
    What do you mean by 'heavy investigation'. The latest skyscrapers in dubai cost billions of dollars each. How much is spent on AI per year worldwide. I'd bet it's less than 100 million. I wouldn't call that serious effort. How has the name of AI been tarnished. If people believe you can spend a fraction of the money spent on a building to create human level intelligence then it's their 'intelligence' that is tarnished. If your goal is create human level ai, than more 'intelligent' systems is not progress, we've had 'intelligent' tools since the first loom weaving machines were created hundreds of years ago.
    - coffeeaddicted 17y ago
      The game industry does spend some money on AI development. Not sure if it's 100 million, but it's a serious amount as most game development teams have at least one or two AI developers. Although most people probably don't realize how much game AI has advanced in the last decade as most of the advances had been to cope with increasingly complex game worlds.
      - marshallp 17y ago
        The point is, there are no new advancements to be had in in ai - you either hand code it (good old fashioned ai) or search for (machine learning/genetic programming) or a combination of both. No 'new' algorithms will be found that will magically solve ai. Little bits of coding here and there that use an 'ai' technique don't cut it. Automated trading uses 'ai' techniques, billions of dollars worth, but it won't make a dent towards creating ai.
        deleted 17y ago

by gnosis 17y ago

marshallp 17y ago

"Lots of approaches have been tried over the decades, and all have failed." I beg to differ with that. Marvin Minsky's idea of having 5000 people creating a common sense database of sorts wasn't tried. (the closest is cyc, which only had 20 people most of the time). Genetic programming has not been tried at all really. Machine learning hasn't been seriously tried either (the closest efforts have been google goggles and google search maybe). AI is serious and complicated engineering project. Billions are spent on creating skyscapers, tunnels, and airplanes. Yet the money spent on AI is orders of magnitude less even though the payoff is orders of magnitude more. If I had to guess, I'd say AI would be easily achievable within a year using any of the above approaches if a trillion dollars were spent on it this year.

eru 17y ago
I beg to differ. All the approaches you mentioned are still under heady investigation. It's only the name of AI that has been tarnished. And the progress in the tools will eventually lead to more "intelligent" systems.
- marshallp 17y ago
  What do you mean by 'heavy investigation'. The latest skyscrapers in dubai cost billions of dollars each. How much is spent on AI per year worldwide. I'd bet it's less than 100 million. I wouldn't call that serious effort. How has the name of AI been tarnished. If people believe you can spend a fraction of the money spent on a building to create human level intelligence then it's their 'intelligence' that is tarnished. If your goal is create human level ai, than more 'intelligent' systems is not progress, we've had 'intelligent' tools since the first loom weaving machines were created hundreds of years ago.
  - coffeeaddicted 17y ago
    The game industry does spend some money on AI development. Not sure if it's 100 million, but it's a serious amount as most game development teams have at least one or two AI developers. Although most people probably don't realize how much game AI has advanced in the last decade as most of the advances had been to cope with increasingly complex game worlds.
    - marshallp 17y ago
      The point is, there are no new advancements to be had in in ai - you either hand code it (good old fashioned ai) or search for (machine learning/genetic programming) or a combination of both. No 'new' algorithms will be found that will magically solve ai. Little bits of coding here and there that use an 'ai' technique don't cut it. Automated trading uses 'ai' techniques, billions of dollars worth, but it won't make a dent towards creating ai.
      - deleted 17y ago