7 ms·

Am I the only one who's skeptical about the feasibility of AI? As I see it there are two ways to think about AI: first there's the kind of AI that arises from s

Am I the only one who's skeptical about the feasibility of AI? As I see it there are two ways to think about AI: first there's the kind of AI that arises from software emulating parts of the human brain based on our current understanding of its inner functioning and produces human-like intelligence, so even if the mechanisms are different from those actually employed by the brain the output is similar in response and depth of reasoning; then there's the AI that stems from creating an artificial brain by reverse-engineering the human brain, but we are an awfully long way from doing that, mostly because we can't expect to unravel in a few decades what evolution has spent millennia perfecting. It looks to me, a layman, that the only approach that holds any water is the first one. But then again, it mostly looks like people are implementing software based on a flawed understanding of cognitive functions and basically hoping that something magic happens. How can a scattershot approach like this ever produce anything even remotely resembling human intelligence?

_random_ 13y ago
"mostly because we can't expect to unravel in a few decades what evolution has spent millennia perfecting" - that's not the kind of thinking that got us driving cars, flying planes, coding computers and altering genes. Evolution doesn't have a brain.
- mrqwerty 13y ago
  Evolution is a brain.
Gobitron 13y ago
I'm extremely skeptical of this, even though I spend a good deal of my time trying to automate machine 2 machine communication (which gets me thinking about this a lot). I also think that there's a good amount of hubris in these scientists believing that the brain is something that can be emulated by computing power of any kind...are we sure it's an apt analogy (brain as computer)?
- codyb 13y ago
  It's the holy grail of the field.
- gamegoblin 13y ago
  On an abstract level, the brain is just a complex circuit. Neurons take inputs as electric signals and send outputs as electric signals. Neurons are bit more general than our typical logic gates, but at a high level they have a lot in common.
- solipsism 13y ago
  Where is the hubris in attempting to do something without knowing whether it's possible? What is it about AI that seems to make people defensive? Is it the idea that human intelligence might not be as special as we think it is?
  - tluyben2 13y ago
    Religious people, even if not strict, have this reaction always. I don't see this clashing with religion, but 'they' do. Then again, i'm not religious although I was raised with the bible at home and in school and know it by heart.
    - Gobitron 13y ago
      I guess that if you're religious, then yeah, almost by definition, you would be skeptical of assertions like these. Although to the parent comments point, I'm not defensive at all about looking into AI. I find it fascinating and exciting and though I'm not trained in it, I read as much as I can about it and don't want to stop any research or questions into it at all. But hubris - yes it is hubris. Because there is no scientific basis for the assertion that we will cross that chasm into 'true' AI, and thus it's based just as much on faith as any religious belief. And it's hubris because they claim a scientific basis where there is none. When there is a scientific basis or proof that we've reached (or will reach) this 'singularity', you won't see me complaining. I'm not anti-science. I just don't think it's ever going to happen. On a semi-related note, doesn't anyone find it kind of odd that Ray Kurzweil's calculations for when the singularity will occur happen to be just about the time his natural life will end (statistically speaking)? These projections are all driven by ego and faith, very little by science...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
pygy_ 13y ago
You don't need to emulate brains to create intelligence anymore than you have to imitate birds to build airplanes.
- krapp 13y ago
  Isn't that an open question? Also, airplanes do imitate birds in a few fundamental ways.
  - solipsism 13y ago
    Do rockets?
    - krapp 13y ago
      Well, no. You're right. I don't know whether that invalidates my point though. It may not be necessary to model the human brain to achieve machine intelligence. It may also be that any sufficient machine intelligence would wind up modelling the human brain to a limited but necessary degree, in a similar way that birds and airplanes share wings with similar lift effects, but different mechanics. Until there's something real to point at, I think it's semantics.
  - tluyben2 13y ago
    Well, if you look at them from very far and keep your ears closed they kind of resemble birds. And they do resemble birds more than other stuff in the air. I think that analogy probably will hold up; the eventual strong AI will resemble a brain a complexity and will have a lot of things in common, but it will not be the same.
bermanoid 13y ago
Evolution did just fine, and it's far more scattershot than our current efforts at AI. You're also crucially missing the possibility that someone comes up with an intelligent algorithm that doesn't mirror the human brain in much detail, but still manages to outperform it. Think of flight: inventing flapping machines didn't turn out to be very useful, but we figured out a workaround that was far more efficient. The most interesting (terrifying?) AI research is along these lines.
dimatura 13y ago
Is it feasible? Yes, absolutely. Are we anywhere near to 'human-level' AI? No, not by a long shot. How long will it take? Will we ever make it? Very hard to know.
- tluyben2 13y ago
  Well... That definition keeps changing. For passed definitions we passed human-level a few times. And for some tasks we did or will pass it soon. So what is your definition of 'human-level' intelligence? Don't copy wikipedia; make one up in strict language (don't say consciousness please). For what a lot people make/made up we passed.
  - dimatura 13y ago
    I'm not going by a definition. Getting an airtight definition is pretty hard. I'm talking in a fuzzy "You'll know it when you see it" sense. Sure, we get human or even superhuman performance at various constrained tasks, and that's great. But what about say, iron man's Jarvis? Still in the realm of science fiction.
    - tluyben2 13y ago
      We get superhuman performance on most tasks we use computers for now; people forget that easily. Not too long ago, before electronic calculators, we used people as calculators; it was a good job for which you needed a brain; they would consider computers now superhuman. A Watson hooked up to Asimo presented a few 100 years back (I don't think you actually would have to go back that far; my grandparents would not see it as less than human, probably more) would be considered god himself. And we are on HN, mostly smart people here who vastly over estimate 'normal people'. It's nice that we (me included) assume a human can be taught to be able to do anything other humans can (with some margins), but for now this is not true either. And if we want this empirical evidence thing going on; if a (kind of) Turing test would be done with a large part of the population who have not been told they are, for instance, we let a human with earplugs walking around a village in Arkansas and walk up to an average person and play the human interaction for Watson (or something like it), it would usually succeed. It would in my village for 100% sure; I could actually make a knowledge based script for talking to a lot of people and they would not see the difference. So I understand what you mean, but I don't think in a chinese room kind of way (and that experiment, as many have shown, doesn't matter) we are not that far off. When we reach your level of input/output you will 'see it' but still, because you don't have a definition, will deny it. I would wager that we are there are already in the 'fuzzy' sense of at least 40% (I think it's a lot more) of the population. My grandparents, bless them, definitely think they are talking to a human when they call they book a railway ticket (which has been a steadily improving AI for a little under 20 years now); for their 'fuzzy' it's been solved and strong AI exists.
solipsism 13y ago
mostly because we can't expect to unravel in a few decades what evolution has spent millennia perfecting. As others have suggested, this is demonstrably wrong, trivially so.
- EzraVinh 13y ago
  Actually, there are some areas where evolution still has an advantage. A biologist was explaining to me how artificial enzymes (man made proteins) can at best speed up a chemical reaction by 10^3 - 10^6, while natural enzymes typically speed them up by 10^9 - 10^12. Might have got those number wrong, but his point was that natural enzymes beat artificial ones by a wide margin.
hyp0 13y ago
You're being a bit parochial, specificially anthropocentric. Why a human brain? If you consider it's possible that other intelligences exist in the universe, they probably won't have human brains... Or, consider other animals on earth: given several million years and the right conditions, do you consider it possible that intelligence (at our level) could evolve again - and I don't just mean apes, dolphins and elephants. Especially fascinating in this connection are parrots, crows and other corvids, which are obviously quite intelligent, but have a completely different neuroanatomy of the higher centers from mammals. Are really we so special? Apart from being first (that we know of)? The history of science is a history of anthropocentrism iconoclasm! Of course, copying what we know works seems like a reasonable starting point. Secondly, who said it has to be done within a few decades? If it is done within centuries or millennia, it is still done. "Infeasible" would mean it can't be done, ever. Personally, I tend towards 50 years off... as it has been for a long time (and probably will continue to be) <- this is a joke. I'm saying it's a looong way off.
EzraVinh 13y ago
I agree with your assessment on those two avenues. One thing that throws people off is that the AI/Machine Learning community is constantly selling their models as "human like" when the models are really only inspired by the human brain by extremely loose analogies. There is another approach, what I would call the Airplane approach, since it is to the brain what airplanes are to birds. That is, to base machine intelligence on a new kind of mathematical logic that hasn't been invented yet.

_random_ 13y ago

"mostly because we can't expect to unravel in a few decades what evolution has spent millennia perfecting" - that's not the kind of thinking that got us driving cars, flying planes, coding computers and altering genes. Evolution doesn't have a brain.

mrqwerty 13y ago
Evolution is a brain.

Gobitron 13y ago

I'm extremely skeptical of this, even though I spend a good deal of my time trying to automate machine 2 machine communication (which gets me thinking about this a lot). I also think that there's a good amount of hubris in these scientists believing that the brain is something that can be emulated by computing power of any kind...are we sure it's an apt analogy (brain as computer)?

codyb 13y ago
It's the holy grail of the field.
gamegoblin 13y ago
On an abstract level, the brain is just a complex circuit. Neurons take inputs as electric signals and send outputs as electric signals. Neurons are bit more general than our typical logic gates, but at a high level they have a lot in common.
solipsism 13y ago
Where is the hubris in attempting to do something without knowing whether it's possible? What is it about AI that seems to make people defensive? Is it the idea that human intelligence might not be as special as we think it is?
- tluyben2 13y ago
  Religious people, even if not strict, have this reaction always. I don't see this clashing with religion, but 'they' do. Then again, i'm not religious although I was raised with the bible at home and in school and know it by heart.
  - Gobitron 13y ago
    I guess that if you're religious, then yeah, almost by definition, you would be skeptical of assertions like these. Although to the parent comments point, I'm not defensive at all about looking into AI. I find it fascinating and exciting and though I'm not trained in it, I read as much as I can about it and don't want to stop any research or questions into it at all. But hubris - yes it is hubris. Because there is no scientific basis for the assertion that we will cross that chasm into 'true' AI, and thus it's based just as much on faith as any religious belief. And it's hubris because they claim a scientific basis where there is none. When there is a scientific basis or proof that we've reached (or will reach) this 'singularity', you won't see me complaining. I'm not anti-science. I just don't think it's ever going to happen. On a semi-related note, doesn't anyone find it kind of odd that Ray Kurzweil's calculations for when the singularity will occur happen to be just about the time his natural life will end (statistically speaking)? These projections are all driven by ego and faith, very little by science...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

pygy_ 13y ago

You don't need to emulate brains to create intelligence anymore than you have to imitate birds to build airplanes.

krapp 13y ago
Isn't that an open question? Also, airplanes do imitate birds in a few fundamental ways.
- solipsism 13y ago
  Do rockets?
  - krapp 13y ago
    Well, no. You're right. I don't know whether that invalidates my point though. It may not be necessary to model the human brain to achieve machine intelligence. It may also be that any sufficient machine intelligence would wind up modelling the human brain to a limited but necessary degree, in a similar way that birds and airplanes share wings with similar lift effects, but different mechanics. Until there's something real to point at, I think it's semantics.
- tluyben2 13y ago
  Well, if you look at them from very far and keep your ears closed they kind of resemble birds. And they do resemble birds more than other stuff in the air. I think that analogy probably will hold up; the eventual strong AI will resemble a brain a complexity and will have a lot of things in common, but it will not be the same.

bermanoid 13y ago

Evolution did just fine, and it's far more scattershot than our current efforts at AI. You're also crucially missing the possibility that someone comes up with an intelligent algorithm that doesn't mirror the human brain in much detail, but still manages to outperform it. Think of flight: inventing flapping machines didn't turn out to be very useful, but we figured out a workaround that was far more efficient. The most interesting (terrifying?) AI research is along these lines.

dimatura 13y ago

Is it feasible? Yes, absolutely. Are we anywhere near to 'human-level' AI? No, not by a long shot. How long will it take? Will we ever make it? Very hard to know.

tluyben2 13y ago
Well... That definition keeps changing. For passed definitions we passed human-level a few times. And for some tasks we did or will pass it soon. So what is your definition of 'human-level' intelligence? Don't copy wikipedia; make one up in strict language (don't say consciousness please). For what a lot people make/made up we passed.
- dimatura 13y ago
  I'm not going by a definition. Getting an airtight definition is pretty hard. I'm talking in a fuzzy "You'll know it when you see it" sense. Sure, we get human or even superhuman performance at various constrained tasks, and that's great. But what about say, iron man's Jarvis? Still in the realm of science fiction.
  - tluyben2 13y ago
    We get superhuman performance on most tasks we use computers for now; people forget that easily. Not too long ago, before electronic calculators, we used people as calculators; it was a good job for which you needed a brain; they would consider computers now superhuman. A Watson hooked up to Asimo presented a few 100 years back (I don't think you actually would have to go back that far; my grandparents would not see it as less than human, probably more) would be considered god himself. And we are on HN, mostly smart people here who vastly over estimate 'normal people'. It's nice that we (me included) assume a human can be taught to be able to do anything other humans can (with some margins), but for now this is not true either. And if we want this empirical evidence thing going on; if a (kind of) Turing test would be done with a large part of the population who have not been told they are, for instance, we let a human with earplugs walking around a village in Arkansas and walk up to an average person and play the human interaction for Watson (or something like it), it would usually succeed. It would in my village for 100% sure; I could actually make a knowledge based script for talking to a lot of people and they would not see the difference. So I understand what you mean, but I don't think in a chinese room kind of way (and that experiment, as many have shown, doesn't matter) we are not that far off. When we reach your level of input/output you will 'see it' but still, because you don't have a definition, will deny it. I would wager that we are there are already in the 'fuzzy' sense of at least 40% (I think it's a lot more) of the population. My grandparents, bless them, definitely think they are talking to a human when they call they book a railway ticket (which has been a steadily improving AI for a little under 20 years now); for their 'fuzzy' it's been solved and strong AI exists.

solipsism 13y ago

mostly because we can't expect to unravel in a few decades what evolution has spent millennia perfecting. As others have suggested, this is demonstrably wrong, trivially so.

EzraVinh 13y ago
Actually, there are some areas where evolution still has an advantage. A biologist was explaining to me how artificial enzymes (man made proteins) can at best speed up a chemical reaction by 10^3 - 10^6, while natural enzymes typically speed them up by 10^9 - 10^12. Might have got those number wrong, but his point was that natural enzymes beat artificial ones by a wide margin.

hyp0 13y ago

You're being a bit parochial, specificially anthropocentric. Why a human brain? If you consider it's possible that other intelligences exist in the universe, they probably won't have human brains... Or, consider other animals on earth: given several million years and the right conditions, do you consider it possible that intelligence (at our level) could evolve again - and I don't just mean apes, dolphins and elephants. Especially fascinating in this connection are parrots, crows and other corvids, which are obviously quite intelligent, but have a completely different neuroanatomy of the higher centers from mammals. Are really we so special? Apart from being first (that we know of)? The history of science is a history of anthropocentrism iconoclasm! Of course, copying what we know works seems like a reasonable starting point. Secondly, who said it has to be done within a few decades? If it is done within centuries or millennia, it is still done. "Infeasible" would mean it can't be done, ever. Personally, I tend towards 50 years off... as it has been for a long time (and probably will continue to be) <- this is a joke. I'm saying it's a looong way off.

EzraVinh 13y ago

I agree with your assessment on those two avenues. One thing that throws people off is that the AI/Machine Learning community is constantly selling their models as "human like" when the models are really only inspired by the human brain by extremely loose analogies. There is another approach, what I would call the Airplane approach, since it is to the brain what airplanes are to birds. That is, to base machine intelligence on a new kind of mathematical logic that hasn't been invented yet.