6 ms·

The authors comparison of intelligence to biological systems is absurd. Biological systems are more complicated than necessary. Let me say that again. Biologica

by jostmey 12y ago

The authors comparison of intelligence to biological systems is absurd. Biological systems are more complicated than necessary. Let me say that again. Biological systems are overly complicated. This is because Natural selection has no regard for simplicity. Evolution is a blind process of trial and error that sticks to what works. So just because the gene networks of an amoeba are a confusing mess, which they are, does not imply that Intelligent machines have to be just as complicated. I wrote a post on this awhile ago: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wlFJtuBgnVkWm1nflKtJAy3bWCuvBAZDH-GlgadCTCc/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wlFJtuBgnVkWm1nflKtJAy3b...

nyrulez 12y ago
This argument would have merit if we were anywhere near biological intelligence in our "AI". We don't even understand how most of the brain works, what it does or how it does it. In fact if it was so simple even to re-create some aspect of the brain, we would have created the super-brain with the amount of resources we have at our disposal and time we have spent in the field of AI. It is like saying calculus is unnecessarily complex because all I can do is simple arithmetic.
- tensor 12y ago
  Why is the brain the benchmark for "intelligence"? We already have machines that can run circles around the brain on very complex reasoning tasks. True, we don't have a talking robot that simulates humans, but in many other tasks we've met or exceeded what humans can do. I would argue that we already have intelligent machines. What we don't have is a human simulator.
  - bejuizb123 12y ago
    It is not a benchmark but a target to be reached. Once we have models of human simulation, we can treat the human brain as a benchmark.
  - nyrulez 12y ago
    You raise a valid point but for an orthogonal question. When I first saw a calculator, as a 5 year old, I thought it was the most amazing and intelligent thing ever. The original point discussed above was about how unnecessarily complex the brain is if its function/intelligence is so simple. We may or may not want to treat it as a benchmark, but the fact remains nobody understands it or can mimic its function even after trying for a very long time. (though believe me you, that's what most of AI is trying to do, even if in a simplistic way)
  - baddox 12y ago
    Haven't you heard? At the moment a computer exists which can outperform a human mind at a certain task, that task can no longer be considered a criterion for intelligence. Multiplying large numbers doesn't require intelligence. Chess doesn't require intelligence. Facial recognition doesn't require intelligence. Proving mathematical theorems doesn't require intelligence.
    - brianberns 12y ago
      There's a widely-accepted standard for judging intelligence called the Turing Test. Computers are still a long way from passing that test.
      - nl 12y ago
        They aren't that far from passing it actually. One kinda sorta passed it earlier this year, by pretending to be a 13 yo boy. It was at the annual Turing Test event though[1]. Even if we ignore that, given the recent interest in using RNNs to generate natural language I'd say we are 18 months from being able to pass it reliably. [1]http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR583836.aspx http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR583836.a...
        plikan13 12y ago
        I strongly doubt this. Here's a good way to defeat any computer in a Turing test: tell a joke, and ask it to explain why it is funny.
        nl 12y ago
        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_humor#Joke_recognition http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_humor#Joke_reco...
      - baddox 12y ago
        The Turing test is a method for judging whether a computer has intelligence comparable to that of a human, or what's often called "strong AI." Strong AI is obviously a special case of AI, but most AI research isn't even particularly interested in developing a strong AI.
- jostmey 12y ago
  Look, if Evolution can give rise to intelligence, which is nothing more than a drawn out process of trial and error, then perhaps creating intelligence is easy. The major roadblock standing in our way is a lack of computing power. The Human mind still vastly outstrips our fastest computers. Of course, there will be technical challenges in creating machines with human level intelligence, but once we have super fast computers I think it will be possible.
  - nyrulez 12y ago
    You assume a-priori how the brain was formed. Perhaps the burden of proof could be in the reverse direction. Ever considered that ? If it was just a drawn out process of trial and error, surely hundreds of top AI researchers with 10,000s of cores/petabytes of RAM at their disposal could have would have made massive strides with their non hit and trial, deliberate process. Surely copying something that is in front of you is easier than designing something like it from scratch ? I hope you agree. But we haven't been able to. And I don't imply that we will never be able to, at least hopefully copy or even enhance some of the interesting aspects. I find AI very exciting. But I would stop calling something we don't even understand "simple and generated from hit and trial".
    - nyrulez 12y ago
      Edit: Look I didn't want to challenge your optimism. It is refreshing to believe that. But I have dealt with enough AI to know that most people have no idea what AI is. There is not much collaboration happening between the neuroscientists, philosophers and AI researchers. Unless a single organization brings them together under one roof, we are very far away from what most people would call biological intelligence.
    - nl 12y ago
      Actually, we have made dramatic strides in AI. 2 years ago we couldn't classify multiple objects in a photo properly. Now we can, and within 2 years I would bet we will be approaching human performance on that task. Watson can do medical diagnosis better than most humans. We understand some parts of intelligence quite well, and others less so.
dredmorbius 12y ago
Natural selection does have a regard for simplicity, in that complexity has costs. Natural selection has very primitive hueuristics for achieving design: variance + selection. But once a superior arrangement is achieved, it succeeds. Presuming it provides an advantage in survival, reproduction, competition, etc. Examples of retrogressive complexity among natural systems include the many birds and insects which evolve toward flightless variants in island habitats. Flying is a useful, but complex, and very high-energy adaptation. Where it provides a capability to out-compete other life forms (better range, escape from predators, more food-gathering capability) it's useful, but given risks presented (including being blown off an island in a storm, say), it can also be maladaptive.

by jostmey 12y ago

nyrulez 12y ago

This argument would have merit if we were anywhere near biological intelligence in our "AI". We don't even understand how most of the brain works, what it does or how it does it. In fact if it was so simple even to re-create some aspect of the brain, we would have created the super-brain with the amount of resources we have at our disposal and time we have spent in the field of AI. It is like saying calculus is unnecessarily complex because all I can do is simple arithmetic.

tensor 12y ago
Why is the brain the benchmark for "intelligence"? We already have machines that can run circles around the brain on very complex reasoning tasks. True, we don't have a talking robot that simulates humans, but in many other tasks we've met or exceeded what humans can do. I would argue that we already have intelligent machines. What we don't have is a human simulator.
- bejuizb123 12y ago
  It is not a benchmark but a target to be reached. Once we have models of human simulation, we can treat the human brain as a benchmark.
- nyrulez 12y ago
  You raise a valid point but for an orthogonal question. When I first saw a calculator, as a 5 year old, I thought it was the most amazing and intelligent thing ever. The original point discussed above was about how unnecessarily complex the brain is if its function/intelligence is so simple. We may or may not want to treat it as a benchmark, but the fact remains nobody understands it or can mimic its function even after trying for a very long time. (though believe me you, that's what most of AI is trying to do, even if in a simplistic way)
- baddox 12y ago
  Haven't you heard? At the moment a computer exists which can outperform a human mind at a certain task, that task can no longer be considered a criterion for intelligence. Multiplying large numbers doesn't require intelligence. Chess doesn't require intelligence. Facial recognition doesn't require intelligence. Proving mathematical theorems doesn't require intelligence.
  - brianberns 12y ago
    There's a widely-accepted standard for judging intelligence called the Turing Test. Computers are still a long way from passing that test.
    - nl 12y ago
      They aren't that far from passing it actually. One kinda sorta passed it earlier this year, by pretending to be a 13 yo boy. It was at the annual Turing Test event though[1]. Even if we ignore that, given the recent interest in using RNNs to generate natural language I'd say we are 18 months from being able to pass it reliably. [1]http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR583836.aspx http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR583836.a...
      - plikan13 12y ago
        I strongly doubt this. Here's a good way to defeat any computer in a Turing test: tell a joke, and ask it to explain why it is funny.
        nl 12y ago
        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_humor#Joke_recognition http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_humor#Joke_reco...
    - baddox 12y ago
      The Turing test is a method for judging whether a computer has intelligence comparable to that of a human, or what's often called "strong AI." Strong AI is obviously a special case of AI, but most AI research isn't even particularly interested in developing a strong AI.
jostmey 12y ago
Look, if Evolution can give rise to intelligence, which is nothing more than a drawn out process of trial and error, then perhaps creating intelligence is easy. The major roadblock standing in our way is a lack of computing power. The Human mind still vastly outstrips our fastest computers. Of course, there will be technical challenges in creating machines with human level intelligence, but once we have super fast computers I think it will be possible.
- nyrulez 12y ago
  You assume a-priori how the brain was formed. Perhaps the burden of proof could be in the reverse direction. Ever considered that ? If it was just a drawn out process of trial and error, surely hundreds of top AI researchers with 10,000s of cores/petabytes of RAM at their disposal could have would have made massive strides with their non hit and trial, deliberate process. Surely copying something that is in front of you is easier than designing something like it from scratch ? I hope you agree. But we haven't been able to. And I don't imply that we will never be able to, at least hopefully copy or even enhance some of the interesting aspects. I find AI very exciting. But I would stop calling something we don't even understand "simple and generated from hit and trial".
  - nyrulez 12y ago
    Edit: Look I didn't want to challenge your optimism. It is refreshing to believe that. But I have dealt with enough AI to know that most people have no idea what AI is. There is not much collaboration happening between the neuroscientists, philosophers and AI researchers. Unless a single organization brings them together under one roof, we are very far away from what most people would call biological intelligence.
  - nl 12y ago
    Actually, we have made dramatic strides in AI. 2 years ago we couldn't classify multiple objects in a photo properly. Now we can, and within 2 years I would bet we will be approaching human performance on that task. Watson can do medical diagnosis better than most humans. We understand some parts of intelligence quite well, and others less so.

dredmorbius 12y ago

Natural selection does have a regard for simplicity, in that complexity has costs. Natural selection has very primitive hueuristics for achieving design: variance + selection. But once a superior arrangement is achieved, it succeeds. Presuming it provides an advantage in survival, reproduction, competition, etc. Examples of retrogressive complexity among natural systems include the many birds and insects which evolve toward flightless variants in island habitats. Flying is a useful, but complex, and very high-energy adaptation. Where it provides a capability to out-compete other life forms (better range, escape from predators, more food-gathering capability) it's useful, but given risks presented (including being blown off an island in a storm, say), it can also be maladaptive.