4 ms·

Watson is not a simulation any more than your brain is a simulation. Your brain is (likely) mostly just algorithms and data structures, albeit on an enormous sc

by cryptoz 16y ago

Watson is not a simulation any more than your brain is a simulation. Your brain is (likely) mostly just algorithms and data structures, albeit on an enormous scale. This could be wrong, but I'm betting not. What else could the brain possibly be? It's not magic. > We will know when Watson is dangerous when it feels fear, angst, want. Not just an algorithm to sort facts and simulate speech. Nah. Look at good science fiction to see why this is false. The most dangerous AI ever conceived might be something like Skynet or HAL 9000; machines that are cold, calculating and have no emotion whatsoever. But they do hold weapons, they do speak English and they are intelligent. I'm not suggesting we'll ever build anything like what we see in science fiction, but good writers often are able to predict - or even influence (see Clark, Asimov) - the future. Algorithms to sort facts are indeed the beginnings of machine intelligence.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago
I deny that the human brain IS algorithms. It is neurons connected by dendrons/synapses. Right? Small bits of it can be algorithmically simulated. Large processes can be algorithmically simulated. But to call the algorithm "intelligence" is sympathetic magic. Algorithms work in a different way; they break in a different way; they are hard-coded so don't change. They are a simulation.
- kls 16y ago
  No disrespect intended but, I think you are lacking a fundamental understanding of machine learning, genetic algorithms, neural networks and AI in general. I was introduced to Watson when I took a sub-project from IBM related to Watson, I had no idea what it was untill taking the contract, at which point I was introduced to Watson and it is an impressive feat, it is with out a doubt the state of the art in NLP AI. Sufficient to say, AI algorithms differ from the static and rigged structures that most developers write for business apps, web or mobile apps (even the good developers that decouple stuff), the scale of difference is orders of magnitude. In many cases machines learning has the ability to generate new code based on learning and build new connections and new algorithms to deal with learned problems. Applications literally generate new and novel applications and then connect themselves to these new nodes. This is not stuff usually broached when you just need to credit a line in an account payable or get the sales volume for last month. There is a huge gap between the code used to write business applications and the structures used in AI. This is not meant as a critique of you or anyone in general, and is not intend to belittle business app, mobile or web developers but rather to help inform people that, those who have not worked in the field of AI, that their understanding of software development has little relevance when applied to the field of AI. It is literally a different world where the concepts are totally foreign to a non-AI developer.
  - arethuza 16y ago
    I think anyone who has worked in the field of AI would admit there are a lot of philosophical questions around the definition of intelligence and it's relationship to algorithmic problem solving. One of my favourite thought experiments in the area being Searle's Chinese Room: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
    - kls 16y ago
      Sure, intelligence is much like religion or faith, what it is is a very personal matter as well a philosophical matter to each observer. To me if a machine can make a logical decision that it arrives at via it's own conclusion independent of human involvement (after the initial construction). It can be said to be intelligent. I personally think we have already achieved intelligent machines. Granted not intelligent in the traditional biological sense but intelligent in their own right. I do believe that we are close to hyper-intelligent machines than many think we are. I personally think it will be the next big step. I also believe that it will fundamentally and irrevocably change humanity. It is a Pandora's box that we will not know the ramifications of until we pass that event horizon, it is much like Schrodinger cat, full of possibilities but until we experience the event we will not know how it affects humanity.
    - natural219 16y ago
      How is this anything but pure semantics? I still don't know the conceptual difference between Searle's strong AI and weak AI, other a single word change in the definition.
      - blauwbilgorgel 16y ago
        It's all about semantics with philosophers ;) Searle claims through this experiment that strong AI does not exist. The robot in the room doesn't know how to talk Chinese, it just matches up symbols by using an elaborate dictionary. Turing defined intelligence by the appearance of intelligence. If the Chinese room can make you think it houses someone that speaks Chinese, than that means the person in the room is intelligent. To Searle everything is weak AI. Just calculation, without knowing what they really calculate. Intelligence is more than appearance, like a hologram of someone, is not that person self. Pragmatists and functionalists play around Searle's conclusion. For them it is about the behavior, not the system itself. In Searle's vision something like the China Brain (every person in China uses a radio to act as a neuron) is ridiculous. In the functionalist view the China Brain is intelligent and self-aware.
- mquander 16y ago
  "I deny that the human brain IS algorithms. It is neurons connected by dendrons/synapses. Right?" "I deny that Watson IS algorithms. It is transistors assembled into logic gates. Right?" My statement is obviously a silly thing to say. Watson is both algorithms and transistors, depending on how you care to think about it. If you believe that your statement is not equally silly, please explain.
hencq 16y ago
Well HAL 9000, while cold and calculating seems to be scared when he's being turned off. So I'm not sure I agree there are no emotions. Who knows, maybe things like emotion just appear as side effects of the simulation once it becomes complex enough.
- jerhinesmith 16y ago
  I'm not sure using a fictional computer is helping your argument.
  - hencq 16y ago
    My only argument is that I disagree that the fictional computers named showed no emotion.

by cryptoz 16y ago

JoeAltmaier 16y ago

I deny that the human brain IS algorithms. It is neurons connected by dendrons/synapses. Right? Small bits of it can be algorithmically simulated. Large processes can be algorithmically simulated. But to call the algorithm "intelligence" is sympathetic magic. Algorithms work in a different way; they break in a different way; they are hard-coded so don't change. They are a simulation.

kls 16y ago
No disrespect intended but, I think you are lacking a fundamental understanding of machine learning, genetic algorithms, neural networks and AI in general. I was introduced to Watson when I took a sub-project from IBM related to Watson, I had no idea what it was untill taking the contract, at which point I was introduced to Watson and it is an impressive feat, it is with out a doubt the state of the art in NLP AI. Sufficient to say, AI algorithms differ from the static and rigged structures that most developers write for business apps, web or mobile apps (even the good developers that decouple stuff), the scale of difference is orders of magnitude. In many cases machines learning has the ability to generate new code based on learning and build new connections and new algorithms to deal with learned problems. Applications literally generate new and novel applications and then connect themselves to these new nodes. This is not stuff usually broached when you just need to credit a line in an account payable or get the sales volume for last month. There is a huge gap between the code used to write business applications and the structures used in AI. This is not meant as a critique of you or anyone in general, and is not intend to belittle business app, mobile or web developers but rather to help inform people that, those who have not worked in the field of AI, that their understanding of software development has little relevance when applied to the field of AI. It is literally a different world where the concepts are totally foreign to a non-AI developer.
- arethuza 16y ago
  I think anyone who has worked in the field of AI would admit there are a lot of philosophical questions around the definition of intelligence and it's relationship to algorithmic problem solving. One of my favourite thought experiments in the area being Searle's Chinese Room: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
  - kls 16y ago
    Sure, intelligence is much like religion or faith, what it is is a very personal matter as well a philosophical matter to each observer. To me if a machine can make a logical decision that it arrives at via it's own conclusion independent of human involvement (after the initial construction). It can be said to be intelligent. I personally think we have already achieved intelligent machines. Granted not intelligent in the traditional biological sense but intelligent in their own right. I do believe that we are close to hyper-intelligent machines than many think we are. I personally think it will be the next big step. I also believe that it will fundamentally and irrevocably change humanity. It is a Pandora's box that we will not know the ramifications of until we pass that event horizon, it is much like Schrodinger cat, full of possibilities but until we experience the event we will not know how it affects humanity.
  - natural219 16y ago
    How is this anything but pure semantics? I still don't know the conceptual difference between Searle's strong AI and weak AI, other a single word change in the definition.
    - blauwbilgorgel 16y ago
      It's all about semantics with philosophers ;) Searle claims through this experiment that strong AI does not exist. The robot in the room doesn't know how to talk Chinese, it just matches up symbols by using an elaborate dictionary. Turing defined intelligence by the appearance of intelligence. If the Chinese room can make you think it houses someone that speaks Chinese, than that means the person in the room is intelligent. To Searle everything is weak AI. Just calculation, without knowing what they really calculate. Intelligence is more than appearance, like a hologram of someone, is not that person self. Pragmatists and functionalists play around Searle's conclusion. For them it is about the behavior, not the system itself. In Searle's vision something like the China Brain (every person in China uses a radio to act as a neuron) is ridiculous. In the functionalist view the China Brain is intelligent and self-aware.
mquander 16y ago
"I deny that the human brain IS algorithms. It is neurons connected by dendrons/synapses. Right?" "I deny that Watson IS algorithms. It is transistors assembled into logic gates. Right?" My statement is obviously a silly thing to say. Watson is both algorithms and transistors, depending on how you care to think about it. If you believe that your statement is not equally silly, please explain.

hencq 16y ago

Well HAL 9000, while cold and calculating seems to be scared when he's being turned off. So I'm not sure I agree there are no emotions. Who knows, maybe things like emotion just appear as side effects of the simulation once it becomes complex enough.

jerhinesmith 16y ago
I'm not sure using a fictional computer is helping your argument.
- hencq 16y ago
  My only argument is that I disagree that the fictional computers named showed no emotion.