4 ms·
Patrick Winston, director of the AI Lab, rounded up the usual suspects in this article: early attempts to make money off AI, not getting scads of defense megabu
by onan_barbarian 15y ago
Patrick Winston, director of the AI Lab, rounded up the usual suspects in this article: early attempts to make money off AI, not getting scads of defense megabucks, and 'balkanization' into well-defined subspecialties such as neural networks or genetic algorithms.
He didn't hit on the fundamental problem (to quote (allegedly) Brian Reid from his AI qualifier): "AI is bogus".
If only we could resume pouring defense dollars into the money pit of Strong AI; each strong AI researcher could be given a metric butt-ton of money for vaguely defined projects like those pushed by Winston. From the article:
"Winston said he believes researchers should instead focus on those things that make humans distinct from other primates, or even what made them distinct from Neanderthals. Once researchers think they have identified the things that make humans unique, he said, they should develop computational models of these properties, implementing them in real systems so they can discover the gaps in their models, and refine them as needed. Winston speculated that the magic ingredient that makes humans unique is our ability to create and understand stories using the faculties that support language: "Once you have stories, you have the kind of creativity that makes the species different to any other."
With clear-cut and sensible goals like this, success cannot be far away now, can it?
- sp332 15y agoDo you really think Patrick Winston got to be the Director of the MIT AI Lab for 25 years with such handwavy crap? He knows what he's talking about, even if the article writer hasn't got a clue.
- a1k0n 15y agoThat sounds sorta like the neocortex algorithm stuff Numenta is working on, and has been working on for several years. I don't think they've achieved anything beyond what's possible with more conventional approaches yet.
- jimbokun 15y ago"Winston said he believes researchers should instead focus on those things that make humans distinct from other primates, or even what made them distinct from Neanderthals." Seems like an arbitrary focus. There are still a lot of things that non human primates and other animals can do that computers cannot. Why not focus on those things? Many aspects of human intelligence are obviously shared with other animals. Heck, there are probably aspects of the intelligence of some animals that exceed human intelligence. Also, why does he think computers can understand stories if they are incapable of, say, spatial reasoning, computer vision, moving around, manipulating their environment, non-verbal communication, using tools, planning, etc. etc. etc. etc. Even if understanding and telling stories is the ultimate goal, it doesn't necessarily mean that's the best immediate goal, given where we are now.