5 ms·
I believe we're much closer than other commenters apparently. Here's why. 1. The wetware is nifty but it's not what makes up intelligence. The differences bet
by iandanforth 16y ago
I believe we're much closer than other commenters apparently. Here's why.
1. The wetware is nifty but it's not what makes up intelligence.
The differences between sapient and non-sapient species are slight at the level of genetic code. The changes enabling intelligence are also very recent. The changes seem to be focused around the number and distribution of cortical columns in the neo-cortex, which are all remarkably similar regardless of the sensory input they are ultimately connected to. (This is why Hawkins' work is so exciting)
2. A huge portion of what we consider intelligence is a product of language and culture.
Neglected and wild children are barely sapient in a way that we would understand (though with care they can become so). Our minds are largely constructs of a transmissible set of patterns external to our biology.
3. The blue brain project is a ten year project
While I don't think we need molecular level or even synaptic level modeling to understand the software embodied in our brains, we have a hard target to be able to model, in large part, the human brain.
4. The large numbers in the brain are no longer scary
100 billion neurons and 100 trillion synaptic connections used to seem like an absurd scale for study. Now we regularly deal with billions of rows in databases and petabytes of storage. Not only that, the transmission speeds in the brain are so slow, if we need to replicate anything like the connectivity of the brain we can do it over a massive and distributed area. There's simply no need to cram an intelligence into a single box or server farm.
5. AI research has narrowed a great deal.
Whereas we had 50 tangents twenty years ago research is beginning to focus on two key aspects of learning. A. Large data sets for statistical analysis (e.g. Google) and B. Hierarchical representations of input. (e.g. Hawkins)
6. PR2 (Willow Garage)
I'll go out on a limb here and say that a shared open source robotics platform is the best thing to happen to AI research in 50 years. People forget the sheer number of hours experiencing the world it takes for the brain to acquire sapience. By supplying a common framework for experiencing the world the PR2 will enable the kind of long term learning necessary for intelligence to emerge.
- spot 16y agocan you provide references for #2?
- miked 16y agocan you provide references for #2? I'm not the OP, but Matt Ridley's book The Rational Optimist, just released a few days ago, has much more on this. Selection here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703691804575254533386933138.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405274870369180457525...
- elblanco 16y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)
- endtime 16y agoSorry, but what on Earth does ROS have to do with strong AI? It's great for what it is, but what it is is a great messaging system with some control and perception libraries. Robotics isn't really related to AI...sure, robots apply some "weak AI" techniques like A* (or D*-Lite if you're hardcore) but the conflation of robotics and AI is really, well, Hollywood. Edit: Reread what you wrote. It's possible, of course, that the first strong AI will be the result of a robot that crawls around putting stuff in its metaphorical mouth for two years like a human baby. But it seems unlikely, given the alternatives. Connecting something to the web gives it way more data than giving it a camera and treads.
- iandanforth 16y agoYou're absolutely correct about the scale of input available through the web. The databases that Google has amassed are a perfect example. However my thinking is as follows. 1. The variety, detail and coherency of input available from interacting with the real world is more likely to give rise to intelligence. 2. Learning (above reflex modification and simple US-CS associations) appears to be based on feedback from behavior. If I want to understand how a wooden block works, for example, a great way to learn about it is to pick it up and play with it. The richness of this experience and the speed which minor modifications to behavior produce reinforcement are difficult to replicate without a body.
- spot 16y agoI think the web satisfies both 1 and 2. But if you want an intelligence enough like ours that communication is easy, then it might help to have it embodied and thus have a similar perspective and hence consciousness. I doubt it but who knows.
- endtime 16y agoWell, if you want it to develop an intuition for mechanical physics, sure. but that doesn't required for intelligence (and even if it were - connect the thing to a Havok-based sim). You're right that for an intelligence to develop as humans' do, it needs constant feedback. But there are billions (?) of humans on the web...there are ways for an AI to get feedback. Okay, though. I do see your point...human-like strong AI might grow better in a robot body than as pure software, other things being equal. It's a maybe, for a subset of AIs (those that develop like human intelligences), but fair enough.