4 ms·
Amazing how people with all this knowledge still haven't gotten anywhere close to AI. It might even be something simple, overlooked, done a little differently.
by downer 19y ago
Amazing how people with all this knowledge still haven't gotten anywhere close to AI.
It might even be something simple, overlooked, done a little differently.
- akkartik 19y agoLet us know when you find it. I can't think of any phenomenon less likely area to have a simple algorithm than intelligence.
- mojuba 19y agoIntelligence is about finding algorithms for successful survival within a given environment. It's some sort of a meta-algorithm, although I have no idea if it's simple or not, but we can be sure it does exist.
- downer 19y ago> Let us know when you find it. I can't think of any phenomenon less likely area to have a simple algorithm than intelligence. Cf. Evolution.
- mojuba 19y agoSorry for repeating myself (comment lost in this huge thread), but I think it's the definition of intelligence we should look for first. Once we have a clear and unambiguous definition of intelligence, only and only after that we may be able to think about implementation. And I'm sure implementation would be straightforward once we know what we are trying to achieve. It's actually amazing if not ridiculous that researchers always start from the other end of a cigar: they raise ideas, one after another, but they don't even try to explain what problem exactly they are solving.
- downer 19y agoIf we all took that attitude, we'd never get anything done. The process of discovery is hands-on, learning by doing. You don't know all the rules at the outset, or all the definitions, or even know what you don't know. You find out as you go along. Thus it has been for every great invention from sex to agriculture to post-it notes to landing a man on the Moon and back to on-demand porn. The real requirement is that we have some way to test it; that we can do, e.g. by conversation. To cop an example from quantum mechanics (which I know nothing about), we don't have to understand why it is like that in order to make predictions with it. We don't need a clear and unambiguous definition of intelligence in order to tell that other human beings are intelligent. Likewise, we don't need one in order to start trying to create an artifice that impresses us into thinking it also is intelligent. This was quite impressive, and on the right track, seemingly: http://hci.stanford.edu/~winograd/shrdlu/ http://hci.stanford.edu/~winograd/shrdlu/
- mojuba 19y agoWe don't need a clear and unambiguous definition of intelligence in order to tell that other human beings are intelligent. The problem here is that not every human being is intelligent and yes, we are actually trying to define intelligence through IQ tests, for example. Likewise, we don't need one in order to start trying to create an artifice that impresses us into thinking it also is intelligent. So when you need accounting software you say: "write me something that will be as clever as my accountant". Is that the way you formulate tasks for software engineers?