7 ms·

In fact, there's no clear way to even define AI, It's easy to define, but the term has been stolen by people wanting more media attention for less work. AI is

by seiji 12y ago

In fact, there's no clear way to even define AI, It's easy to define, but the term has been stolen by people wanting more media attention for less work. AI is just "what we are" without all the squishy parts. AI ("hard" AI, AGI) is a fully thinking, doing, feeling software system implemented in non-biology. I've suspected that AI is fundamentally impossible to implement on a Von Neumann architecture. Balderdash. We haven't discovered any computation problem that our universal computing architecture can't compute because... universal. It's not "universal \ things-that-can-generate-thoughts." Universal simulation machines can simulate things... universally. Now, we may not have the software architecture discovered yet, but it's certainly doable given our current hardware.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
We haven't discovered any computation problem that our universal computing architecture can't compute because... universal. It's not "universal \ things-that-can-generate-thoughts." Universal simulation machines can simulate things... universally. And yet, the Game of Life is completely deterministic and is the opposite of real life in pretty much every way, even with the new advances. Quantum may change this. There are certainly problems which are tractable only on quantum computers. Shor's algorithm is of course the classic example. Saying that Von Neumann architecture is a universal problem solver is a rejection of the idea that quantum computing allows any new problems to be solved, but we have evidence that that's not the case.
- seiji 12y ago
  Game of Life is completely deterministic and is the opposite of real life in pretty much every way My computer also can compute 5 + 5 and that is the opposite of real life in pretty much every way too. Not every algorithm results in life [and it requires algorithm + data + continual input, which the GoL doesn't integrate]. is a rejection of the idea that quantum computing allows any new problems to be solved Because the idea quantum computing solves new problems has no basis in research or reality? "Quantum" != magic A tiny, currently impractical, factorization algorithm isn't a new problem current computers can't solve. They just take the long way 'round.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    The fact that a previously-intractable problem can be solved in a tractable amount of time on a quantum computer is important. It doesn't mean the problem didn't exist before, but rather that the problem can now be solved. For all we know, making an intractable problem tractable is the necessary step to make AI a reality. In fact, it's hard to argue that it isn't, so quantum computing becomes very interesting.
    - seiji 12y ago
      For all we know, making an intractable problem tractable is the necessary step to make AI a reality. But, we know that's not a necessary step. We have computer vision systems working essentially the same way our brains perceive images (and since the new systems are on computers, we can speed them up millions of times to recognize millions of images quickly instead of relying on our dumb 10Hz to 100Hz brain clock). so quantum computing becomes very interesting. But quantum computing doesn't magically reduce difficult things to non-difficult things: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=206 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=206 Also, required reading on why no quantum juju is required: http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf
      - sillysaurus3 12y ago
        I didn't say quantum computing magically reduced anything. You've set up a strawman and proceeded to beat it with a hammer. I said that quantum computers can solve previously-intractable problems. We don't know what steps are necessary to reach AI, so we don't know what is or isn't a necessary step. Vision is a tiny part of cognition, as evidenced by the fact that there are fish which have no vision (or at least no human-like vision) since they live in absence of light. Yet they are alive: they reproduce, they seek food, they think, they do all of the things a living creature does, except see light.
        WhitneyLand 12y ago
        You're confusing computing performance intractability with conceptual intractability. Shor doesn't do anything new for AI, it just speeds things up.
jeorgun 12y ago
That's still an incredibly unclear definition (c.f. the Chinese Room Argument, P-zombies, etc., etc.). And that human intelligence is an entirely computable process isn't exactly universally accepted.
- seiji 12y ago
  isn't exactly universally accepted. Good point. People will always believe in magic and gods and meeting dead friends again too, but while they continue to stand firm in their fantasy beliefs, we march forward creating an actual future.

by seiji 12y ago

sillysaurus3 12y ago

We haven't discovered any computation problem that our universal computing architecture can't compute because... universal. It's not "universal \ things-that-can-generate-thoughts." Universal simulation machines can simulate things... universally. And yet, the Game of Life is completely deterministic and is the opposite of real life in pretty much every way, even with the new advances. Quantum may change this. There are certainly problems which are tractable only on quantum computers. Shor's algorithm is of course the classic example. Saying that Von Neumann architecture is a universal problem solver is a rejection of the idea that quantum computing allows any new problems to be solved, but we have evidence that that's not the case.

seiji 12y ago
Game of Life is completely deterministic and is the opposite of real life in pretty much every way My computer also can compute 5 + 5 and that is the opposite of real life in pretty much every way too. Not every algorithm results in life [and it requires algorithm + data + continual input, which the GoL doesn't integrate]. is a rejection of the idea that quantum computing allows any new problems to be solved Because the idea quantum computing solves new problems has no basis in research or reality? "Quantum" != magic A tiny, currently impractical, factorization algorithm isn't a new problem current computers can't solve. They just take the long way 'round.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  The fact that a previously-intractable problem can be solved in a tractable amount of time on a quantum computer is important. It doesn't mean the problem didn't exist before, but rather that the problem can now be solved. For all we know, making an intractable problem tractable is the necessary step to make AI a reality. In fact, it's hard to argue that it isn't, so quantum computing becomes very interesting.
  - seiji 12y ago
    For all we know, making an intractable problem tractable is the necessary step to make AI a reality. But, we know that's not a necessary step. We have computer vision systems working essentially the same way our brains perceive images (and since the new systems are on computers, we can speed them up millions of times to recognize millions of images quickly instead of relying on our dumb 10Hz to 100Hz brain clock). so quantum computing becomes very interesting. But quantum computing doesn't magically reduce difficult things to non-difficult things: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=206 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=206 Also, required reading on why no quantum juju is required: http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      I didn't say quantum computing magically reduced anything. You've set up a strawman and proceeded to beat it with a hammer. I said that quantum computers can solve previously-intractable problems. We don't know what steps are necessary to reach AI, so we don't know what is or isn't a necessary step. Vision is a tiny part of cognition, as evidenced by the fact that there are fish which have no vision (or at least no human-like vision) since they live in absence of light. Yet they are alive: they reproduce, they seek food, they think, they do all of the things a living creature does, except see light.
      - WhitneyLand 12y ago
        You're confusing computing performance intractability with conceptual intractability. Shor doesn't do anything new for AI, it just speeds things up.

jeorgun 12y ago

That's still an incredibly unclear definition (c.f. the Chinese Room Argument, P-zombies, etc., etc.). And that human intelligence is an entirely computable process isn't exactly universally accepted.

seiji 12y ago
isn't exactly universally accepted. Good point. People will always believe in magic and gods and meeting dead friends again too, but while they continue to stand firm in their fantasy beliefs, we march forward creating an actual future.