3 ms·

I can see you don't have any background on this otherwise you would already know the answers. This has been well researched by biologists, linguists and cyberne

I can see you don't have any background on this otherwise you would already know the answers. This has been well researched by biologists, linguists and cyberneticians for well over half a century both at the academic and applied level. "Intelligence" is neither digital or analogue (or maybe its a quantum artifact) -- we don't have a clue what it is. That's the point. It appears to be an emergent property of organic systems that must evolve over the development of that system but we still can't prove that we are intelligent or self-aware. But we can be certain it doesn't appear in purely deterministic machines who's every parameter can be assessed at the fine grain level.

weavejester 15y ago
If we have no idea what intelligence is, how can you make the claim that it cannot appear in a purely deterministic machine? Clearly there's no theoretical difficulty; with a large enough lookup table you could simulate every action an individual could take. Whether this lookup table can be considered conscious is academic if we have no way of defining consciousness. So the question becomes: is there a more efficient algorithm that can be executed by a machine that it is feasible to build? Because you're apparently certain that there isn't, you must have a mathematical proof that this algorithm cannot exist, right? And even if your "certainty" was merely hyperbole, perhaps in lieu of proof you could provide some compelling evidence of your case?
- Craiggybear 15y ago
  "with a large enough lookup table you could simulate every action an individual could take" Oh dear. That's Artificial Intelligence Day 1. It also doesn't work. That isn't an AI. There's also the slight dual problems of Nyquist and Shannon limits which dictate why this can't physically work in a digital system. But never mind. You seem to know that it is possible and it that's how to do it. No amount of prior research since 1948 onwards will be of any use to you. You already have the answer. Its all just a matter of brute-force computing power and nothing else. Its that unsubtle, is it? Geee -- what a waste of time! All these years and it was just a matter of a big enough look up table. What a fool everyone has been not to just realise that! So c'mon then, where is your fully functional robotic AI? Keeping it a secret isn't fair to the rest of us. Did you consider any of these: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=artificial+intelligence+academic+programs&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=7m01T-nrFebA0QX-zcChAg&ved=0CCsQgQMwAA http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=artificial+intelligenc... And this one's a doozy: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&article=1002&context=jozsef_toth&type=additional&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.co.uk%2Fscholar%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dartificial%2Bintelligence%2Bimpossible%26btnG%3DSearch%26as_sdt%3D0%252C5%26as_ylo%3D%26as_vis%3D1#search=%22artificial%20intelligence%20impossible%22 http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&... And they're just scratching the surface of a very deep field of research.
  - weavejester 15y ago
    "Oh dear. That's Artificial Intelligence Day 1. It also doesn't work. That isn't an AI." And why is that? A sufficiently comprehensive lookup table would have indistinguishable behaviour from a human being, so there is no observation you could make to distinguish this hypothetical lookup table from a "true" AI (whatever that is). If you can't distinguish between two systems through observation, then there's no point in treating them as different. "There's also the slight problems of Nyquist and Shannon limits which dictate why this can't physically work in a digital system." I'm not sure what the Nyquist sampling theorem has to do with anything, but obviously a lookup table large enough to appear conscious isn't feasible to build simply due to the amount of matter you'd need. That's not the point. The point is to determine whether it is possible in principle. "You seem to know that it is possible and it that's how to do it." Are you not familiar with the concept of a thought experiment? The purpose of discussing the hypothetical lookup table is to define the bounds of the argument. By showing that it is possible in principle, we can move on and discuss whether it is possible in practise. "So c'mon then, where is your fully functional robotic AI?" I'm not the one making an unsubstantiated claim. You're the one who said "Intelligent behaviour and sense of self is remarkably complex and digital machines can't replicate it." The responsibility of backing up that claim with some form of evidence or proof is on your shoulders.
drcube 15y ago
>But we can be certain it doesn't appear in purely deterministic machines who's every >parameter can be assessed at the fine grain level. I don't know why you think this statement doesn't apply to humans. We're deterministic machines as well. More complicated perhaps, and less is known about the "fine grain level", but there is no evidence that we are anything more than complicated meat machines.
- Craiggybear 15y ago
  It does indeed apply to humans. If you could be bothered to read the rest of this thread you'd see that this is precisely the point I am trying to make. Humans are machines. But we (and other living things) appear to exhibit defined properties that are not present in complex digital machines. It also seems that what we refer to as self-awareness is an emergent property that living things have, although in theory, not specifically limited to living things. That set of properties is what is formally defined as having a mind. Whatever that means, and I agree its far from clear what that is. But -- and its a big but -- digital processes don't seem to be able to mimic or model it (that could be our shortcoming -- the models are not any good) and it isn't just a matter of more memory/processing power/a big enough look-up table. These are not the problem nor the answer. It isn't just a CompSci issue. If it were just that, we would have it licked by now and we would all have interchangeable minds that we could simply reprogram and upload with new sets of skills and belief systems (yes, Robots would definitely need them too, by the way). We have a long way to go and for a while now we've been heading down the wrong road. But don't take my word for it.
  - drcube 15y ago
    I agree we have a long way to go, and I don't know enough about the state of the art to say whether we're heading down the wrong road or not. But I'd like to point out an something that made an impact on me. Thomas Nagel's essay "What is it like to be a bat?": http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/nagel_nice.html http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/nagel_nice.html He makes a distinction between subjective understanding of consciousness ("What is it like to be X?") and the objective understanding (What are the atoms and neurons doing? What is the structure of the mind?) I think this distinction is a big part of why you, and society as a whole, dismisses AI. We have a much deeper objective understanding of computers than we do about our own brains. But comparatively, bats are as familiar as our own siblings next to our subjective understanding of "what it is like" to be a computer. We simply have no basis for comparison. We can't put ourselves in a computer's shoes. And without this subjective, gut feeling comparison, people in general find it difficult or impossible to assign the word "intelligence" to any non-humanoid entity, be it whales, robots, or computers.

weavejester 15y ago

If we have no idea what intelligence is, how can you make the claim that it cannot appear in a purely deterministic machine? Clearly there's no theoretical difficulty; with a large enough lookup table you could simulate every action an individual could take. Whether this lookup table can be considered conscious is academic if we have no way of defining consciousness. So the question becomes: is there a more efficient algorithm that can be executed by a machine that it is feasible to build? Because you're apparently certain that there isn't, you must have a mathematical proof that this algorithm cannot exist, right? And even if your "certainty" was merely hyperbole, perhaps in lieu of proof you could provide some compelling evidence of your case?

Craiggybear 15y ago
"with a large enough lookup table you could simulate every action an individual could take" Oh dear. That's Artificial Intelligence Day 1. It also doesn't work. That isn't an AI. There's also the slight dual problems of Nyquist and Shannon limits which dictate why this can't physically work in a digital system. But never mind. You seem to know that it is possible and it that's how to do it. No amount of prior research since 1948 onwards will be of any use to you. You already have the answer. Its all just a matter of brute-force computing power and nothing else. Its that unsubtle, is it? Geee -- what a waste of time! All these years and it was just a matter of a big enough look up table. What a fool everyone has been not to just realise that! So c'mon then, where is your fully functional robotic AI? Keeping it a secret isn't fair to the rest of us. Did you consider any of these: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=artificial+intelligence+academic+programs&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=7m01T-nrFebA0QX-zcChAg&ved=0CCsQgQMwAA http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=artificial+intelligenc... And this one's a doozy: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&article=1002&context=jozsef_toth&type=additional&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.co.uk%2Fscholar%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dartificial%2Bintelligence%2Bimpossible%26btnG%3DSearch%26as_sdt%3D0%252C5%26as_ylo%3D%26as_vis%3D1#search=%22artificial%20intelligence%20impossible%22 http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&... And they're just scratching the surface of a very deep field of research.
- weavejester 15y ago
  "Oh dear. That's Artificial Intelligence Day 1. It also doesn't work. That isn't an AI." And why is that? A sufficiently comprehensive lookup table would have indistinguishable behaviour from a human being, so there is no observation you could make to distinguish this hypothetical lookup table from a "true" AI (whatever that is). If you can't distinguish between two systems through observation, then there's no point in treating them as different. "There's also the slight problems of Nyquist and Shannon limits which dictate why this can't physically work in a digital system." I'm not sure what the Nyquist sampling theorem has to do with anything, but obviously a lookup table large enough to appear conscious isn't feasible to build simply due to the amount of matter you'd need. That's not the point. The point is to determine whether it is possible in principle. "You seem to know that it is possible and it that's how to do it." Are you not familiar with the concept of a thought experiment? The purpose of discussing the hypothetical lookup table is to define the bounds of the argument. By showing that it is possible in principle, we can move on and discuss whether it is possible in practise. "So c'mon then, where is your fully functional robotic AI?" I'm not the one making an unsubstantiated claim. You're the one who said "Intelligent behaviour and sense of self is remarkably complex and digital machines can't replicate it." The responsibility of backing up that claim with some form of evidence or proof is on your shoulders.

drcube 15y ago

>But we can be certain it doesn't appear in purely deterministic machines who's every >parameter can be assessed at the fine grain level. I don't know why you think this statement doesn't apply to humans. We're deterministic machines as well. More complicated perhaps, and less is known about the "fine grain level", but there is no evidence that we are anything more than complicated meat machines.

Craiggybear 15y ago
It does indeed apply to humans. If you could be bothered to read the rest of this thread you'd see that this is precisely the point I am trying to make. Humans are machines. But we (and other living things) appear to exhibit defined properties that are not present in complex digital machines. It also seems that what we refer to as self-awareness is an emergent property that living things have, although in theory, not specifically limited to living things. That set of properties is what is formally defined as having a mind. Whatever that means, and I agree its far from clear what that is. But -- and its a big but -- digital processes don't seem to be able to mimic or model it (that could be our shortcoming -- the models are not any good) and it isn't just a matter of more memory/processing power/a big enough look-up table. These are not the problem nor the answer. It isn't just a CompSci issue. If it were just that, we would have it licked by now and we would all have interchangeable minds that we could simply reprogram and upload with new sets of skills and belief systems (yes, Robots would definitely need them too, by the way). We have a long way to go and for a while now we've been heading down the wrong road. But don't take my word for it.
- drcube 15y ago
  I agree we have a long way to go, and I don't know enough about the state of the art to say whether we're heading down the wrong road or not. But I'd like to point out an something that made an impact on me. Thomas Nagel's essay "What is it like to be a bat?": http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/nagel_nice.html http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/nagel_nice.html He makes a distinction between subjective understanding of consciousness ("What is it like to be X?") and the objective understanding (What are the atoms and neurons doing? What is the structure of the mind?) I think this distinction is a big part of why you, and society as a whole, dismisses AI. We have a much deeper objective understanding of computers than we do about our own brains. But comparatively, bats are as familiar as our own siblings next to our subjective understanding of "what it is like" to be a computer. We simply have no basis for comparison. We can't put ourselves in a computer's shoes. And without this subjective, gut feeling comparison, people in general find it difficult or impossible to assign the word "intelligence" to any non-humanoid entity, be it whales, robots, or computers.