3 ms·

>lowliest fruit fly can do: survive on its own, and thrive, in the real world [1]. That's not related to intelligence. That's other components of the fruit fly

by hueving 10y ago

>lowliest fruit fly can do: survive on its own, and thrive, in the real world [1]. That's not related to intelligence. That's other components of the fruit fly (reproductive system, etc). AI research is not really focused on creating systems that consume resources to do nothing but reproduce.

YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
>> AI research is not really focused on creating systems that consume resources to do nothing but reproduce. Yeah, here's a little paper I had to peruse lately for a uni assignment (on neural networks, of all things): Bio-Benchmarking of Electronic Nose Sensors [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0006406 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....] It's a comparison of a Metal Oxide "electronic nose" and the olfactory receptors of a ...fruit fly. Results: the MOx sensors are nowhere near the fly's antennae in discriminatory power. The insect's neural system seems to be extremely fine-tuned to discriminate between an impossibly broad range of odourants, with overlapping signals in odorant space. The MOx sensors are rubbish at discriminating between the different odours for exactly that reason (that the odours blend with each other and leave you with so much noise). The MOx receptors even get damaged if the odorant signal is too strong. The fruit fly? It doesn't care. Here's a bit from the paper, that's really enlightening: We also note that the nature of the fly's broad and overlapping sensor fields would seem to require sophisticated and powerful neural processing for classification of odorant signals. There is anatomical, experimental and computational evidence that the insect does have such a system dedicated to olfaction [22], [23]. In contrast, it is known that the chemosensory system of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, has very few interneurons and synapses between sensory and effector units [24], [25]. Given its deficit in neural processing power, we expect that the nematode approaches one-to-one matching between chemoreceptors and odorants, with less reliance on combinatorial processing than the fly. This would imply that nematode chemoreceptors have very tight tuning curves compared with either fly ORs or MOx sensors and may account for the remarkably large number of chemoreceptor genes identified in the C. elegans genome [26]. Whilst replicating the nematode model in an electronic nose may theoretically be feasible, it would present daunting engineering challenges to develop and deploy a very large number of tightly tuned and independent sensors. So much about "systems that consume resources to do nothing but reproduce". Oh yeah, AI is too interested in them, yes indeedy-oh. If we could make _one_ measly computer that could find its way around the real world with the purposefulness and accuracy of a mere nematode worm, we would be happy. No, scratch the "we". _I_ would be happy. The mother of AI they'd call me, you know? It'd be Nobel this and Turing award that and oh, here's a honorary readership to add to your collection, ma'am. I mean you have to be joking, right? We're not interested in reproducing the cognitive abilities of biological systems? That's like, the definition of AI.

by hueving 10y ago

YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago

>> AI research is not really focused on creating systems that consume resources to do nothing but reproduce. Yeah, here's a little paper I had to peruse lately for a uni assignment (on neural networks, of all things): Bio-Benchmarking of Electronic Nose Sensors [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0006406 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....] It's a comparison of a Metal Oxide "electronic nose" and the olfactory receptors of a ...fruit fly. Results: the MOx sensors are nowhere near the fly's antennae in discriminatory power. The insect's neural system seems to be extremely fine-tuned to discriminate between an impossibly broad range of odourants, with overlapping signals in odorant space. The MOx sensors are rubbish at discriminating between the different odours for exactly that reason (that the odours blend with each other and leave you with so much noise). The MOx receptors even get damaged if the odorant signal is too strong. The fruit fly? It doesn't care. Here's a bit from the paper, that's really enlightening: We also note that the nature of the fly's broad and overlapping sensor fields would seem to require sophisticated and powerful neural processing for classification of odorant signals. There is anatomical, experimental and computational evidence that the insect does have such a system dedicated to olfaction [22], [23]. In contrast, it is known that the chemosensory system of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, has very few interneurons and synapses between sensory and effector units [24], [25]. Given its deficit in neural processing power, we expect that the nematode approaches one-to-one matching between chemoreceptors and odorants, with less reliance on combinatorial processing than the fly. This would imply that nematode chemoreceptors have very tight tuning curves compared with either fly ORs or MOx sensors and may account for the remarkably large number of chemoreceptor genes identified in the C. elegans genome [26]. Whilst replicating the nematode model in an electronic nose may theoretically be feasible, it would present daunting engineering challenges to develop and deploy a very large number of tightly tuned and independent sensors. So much about "systems that consume resources to do nothing but reproduce". Oh yeah, AI is too interested in them, yes indeedy-oh. If we could make _one_ measly computer that could find its way around the real world with the purposefulness and accuracy of a mere nematode worm, we would be happy. No, scratch the "we". _I_ would be happy. The mother of AI they'd call me, you know? It'd be Nobel this and Turing award that and oh, here's a honorary readership to add to your collection, ma'am. I mean you have to be joking, right? We're not interested in reproducing the cognitive abilities of biological systems? That's like, the definition of AI.