Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #1415

Re: Towards true A.I.

Show all headers | View raw

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 05:22:16 -0700 (PDT), Gary Forbis wrote:
>
> > On Apr 3, 12:51 am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 19:46:46 -0700 (PDT), Gary Forbis wrote:
> >>> On Mar 30, 9:32 am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> It is widely believed in that intelligence evolves "magically" per
> >>>> learning, once the structure of "brain" is set right, a damaging
> >>>> idea IMO. It is similar to the alchemists attempts to create gold.
> >>
> >>> Hmmm... Self-assembly is a proven method.
> >>
> >> In engineering?
> >
> > Do you suppose humans, our exemplar, is engineerd?
>
> I have no idea. There is no any *scientific* theory describing human
> intelligence and its evolution, much of silly hand waving and
> ideological/religious debates though. But the point was about the AI.
>
> > In the past I have referred to Artifactual Intelligence.  It was
> > to empahsize that the intelligence was real but created by man.
>
> Intelligence is not an artifact, a thing. It is an ability, a property of
> a computing system. In order to be able to say whether given computing
> system is intelligent we need a constructive (in mathematical sense)
> definition of intelligence.

AIXI is one such definition that generally works.  Why do you talk as if it
doesn't exist?

> > If you notice, the interior edge of a nut is ever so slightly indented.
> > This is to help the nut and bolt align when we get them close enough
> > together.  Most word processors have spell checkers.  SSIS builds
> > massive SQL queries just by connecting two boxes together on the
> > screen.  Most computers today are built from standard products in
> > modified configurations.
>
> Do you suppose that this would eventually evolve into intelligence?
>
> [Spellchecking is like chess, a perfect example how a problem attributed
> to intelligence was solved by brute force. The key question of AI is:
> whether all problems of intelligence could be. In short, whether
> intelligence is computable on a FSM. The delusion of many is that bigger
> the FSM is more intelligent it becomes. It is like if you had a program
> bug to fix, you would run the code on a fatter server. OK, some customers
> could indeed be fooled that way (:-))]
>
> > The arc of engineering is towards less and less human involvement
> > between conceptualization and implementation.
>
> I don't see that. It is true that some parts get automated. But that by
> no means excludes human intelligence, not even reduces its role. Yes, we
> become able to solve the problems we could not solve before. But the way
> these are solved is still same. We have an intelligent human agent using
> unintelligent tools. For example, in programming it is irrelevant if you
> program in machine code, or in a higher level programming language. The
> code generator is not intelligent. Only productivity and quality differ.

Learning machines are in fact intelligent and are able to replace the human
intelligence in the creation of new software.  If it's not a learning
machine, then yes, there is no intelligence in there other than what the
human engineering copied from his own brain (in effect).

But if it's a learning algorithm, then it has it's own intelligence, and
does not need the intelligence to come from the engineer.

We have endless examples of how learning machines have demonstrated
themselves to be more intelligent than the human the created them (in
limited domains).

The only advantage humans still hold over these intelligent optimization
processes is that our hardware is still more generic than any of the
machines we have built.  The brain's behavior optimizing system is more
generic and applicable to a wider range of applications.  Learning systems
however are advancing and we won't be able to hold the title of "best
learning machine on the planet" for much longer.

> >>> Do you suppose the lattice
> >>> structures of crystals can only be formed by the hand of God?
> >>
> >> The word "intelligent" has slipped away. But if you brought it back,
> >> that would be exactly my question. Why the solution of the problem is
> >> sought by the hand of God (learning) rather than in understanding? I
> >> don't mind iterative/adaptive methods. I do have a problem, when they
> >> are applied without specifying what is to find, if and where the
> >> process converges, how exact is the result is.
> >
> > I program via a mix of top down, bottom up, and middle out programming
> > styles. I see no reason to waste my time on the easy stuff if I can't
> > do the hard stuff needed to complete the project.
>
> Right, you must know in advance if the hard stuff (intelligence) can be
> done.
>
> > If I fully qualify the
> > specification of the product prior to starting the development I am
> > likely to fail because I presume the answer to a systemic problem not
> > fully understood.
>
> Sorry, but AI as a problem is light years distant from being
> over-specified: no specifications there, whatsoever.

Your lack of understanding is not proof they are not there.

> > Human engineered soltuions tend to be torn apart by nature. On the
> > other hand naturally developed solution have achieved static or
> > homeostatic configurations that last very long times.
>
> Really? A CPU chip may exist for millions of years.
>
> Engineered solution are far superior to the biological ones in all
> respects if the designs are comparable. None of really successful and
> widely used solutions can be found in the living nature: car, jet,
> computer, kettle, nuclear powerplant, TV, an endless list...
>
> It is wrong to compare massively layered hierarchical designs with the
> monolithic ones, especially where the latter do not work.
>
> When our engineering techniques will become able to deploy
> nano-technology we will beat the nature on that field too. Consider
> medicine, you could fight bacteria or cancer cells by micro robots
> destroying them physically rather than chemically. No chances to adapt.
>
> There exist severe limitation in how "evolution" is supposed to work.
> There exist solutions (local optimums) which cannot be achieved by
> gradual steps. Stanislav Lem considered an example: the wheel.

Well, that's just silly, because the Earth is full of wheels, and they all
got here by evolution.  It's trivial to prove that evolution in fact can
create wheels - just look at the nearest car.

But if you meant "created by the evolution of DNA machines", then yeah,
it's hard to create rotating wheels when the body parts must be connected
together with blood vessels in order for them to stay alive and grow.

Many other things are hard for DNA machines to grow as well, like jet
engines, and micro chips.  But instead of growing everything, evolution
discovered it could make even more interesting things by growing a crude
reinstatement learning controller and allowing it to control arms and
hands, which then could build wheels out of non-living matter!  So
evolution did solve the problem of how to build wheels.

Only a human would be arrogant enough to believe "he" had done it alone.
That's the same arrogance that allowed men to believe the earth was the
center of the universe for so long! :)

-- 
Curt Welch                                            http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@kcwc.com                                        http://NewsReader.Com/

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

John McCarthy R.I.P. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-04 13:17 -0700
  Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-09 13:17 -0800
    Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. casey <jgkjcasey@yahoo.com.au> - 2011-11-09 14:04 -0800
      Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-10 09:45 +0100
        Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. casey <jgkjcasey@yahoo.com.au> - 2011-11-10 01:24 -0800
          Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-10 12:14 +0100
        Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-11-10 11:38 +0200
          Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-10 11:54 +0100
            Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@aalto.fi> - 2011-11-10 14:09 +0200
              Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-10 14:46 +0100
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) - 2011-11-13 18:00 -0800
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-14 12:07 +0100
                Towards true A.I. (was: John McCarthy R.I.P.) seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) - 2012-03-27 12:25 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-03-29 15:21 +0200
                Re: Towards true A.I. curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) - 2012-03-30 15:56 +0000
                Re: Towards true A.I. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-03-30 18:32 +0200
                Re: Towards true A.I. Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-03-30 14:20 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-03-30 15:01 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) - 2012-04-21 15:53 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. casey <jgkjcasey@yahoo.com.au> - 2012-04-21 18:47 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-04-22 10:03 +0100
                Re: Towards true A.I. Don Stockbauer <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> - 2012-04-22 04:10 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. Gary Forbis <forbisgaryg@msn.com> - 2012-04-02 19:46 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-04-03 09:51 +0200
                Re: Towards true A.I. Gary Forbis <forbisgaryg@gmail.com> - 2012-04-03 05:22 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-04-04 10:31 +0200
                Re: Towards true A.I. curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) - 2012-04-05 00:24 +0000
                Re: Towards true A.I. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-04-06 10:41 +0200
                Re: Towards true A.I. curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) - 2012-04-05 01:00 +0000
                Re: Towards true A.I. seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) - 2012-04-21 15:44 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) - 2012-04-17 21:57 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-04-21 10:08 +0200
                Re: Towards true A.I. seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) - 2012-05-30 00:38 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-05-30 09:43 -0400
                Re: Towards true A.I. seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) - 2012-06-18 11:08 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. casey <jgkjcasey@yahoo.com.au> - 2012-06-18 13:19 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-06-18 20:51 -0400
                Re: Towards true A.I. seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) - 2012-06-21 01:48 -0700
                Re: Towards true A.I. Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2012-06-21 11:40 -0400
                Re: Towards true A.I. curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) - 2012-05-30 14:59 +0000
                Re: Towards true A.I. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-05-30 19:25 +0200
            Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) - 2011-11-10 16:03 +0000
              Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. casey <jgkjcasey@yahoo.com.au> - 2011-11-10 12:16 -0800
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "James" <no@spam.invalid> - 2011-11-10 13:00 -0800
              Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-10 21:50 +0100
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) - 2011-11-10 21:07 +0000
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-11 11:43 +0100
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) - 2011-11-12 22:38 +0000
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. casey <jgkjcasey@yahoo.com.au> - 2011-11-13 01:32 -0800
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) - 2011-11-14 15:28 +0000
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-14 16:57 +0100
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) - 2011-11-17 22:19 +0000
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-18 10:51 +0100
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. casey <jgkjcasey@yahoo.com.au> - 2011-11-14 11:42 -0800
                Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2011-11-13 12:45 +0100
    Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-14 10:28 -0800
  Re: John McCarthy R.I.P. seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) - 2011-11-13 16:00 -0800

csiph-web