3 ms·

Sorry, 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 percep

by endtime 16y ago

Sorry, 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 ago
You'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 ago
  I 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 ago
  Well, 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.

by endtime 16y ago

iandanforth 16y ago

You'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 ago
I 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 ago
Well, 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.