ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags artificial intelligence

Reply
Old 29th July 2019, 12:30 AM   #81
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,630
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You're describing a very different problem. This isn't a problem of bad AI.

This is a problem of you thinking you're the customer, but really you're the product.
It's really both. Yes, it's a problem of misusing the customers not even as product, like for advertising, but as involuntary lab rats for training an AI. But at the same time it IS the problem of what said AI is capable of. And it turns out: not much.

And I'll further say that it is a more general problem of the silly notion that anything can learn to know what you'd like better than you do, while working with buggerall data and feedback.

I mean, think about it. Even if you had a human instead of the AI, did I leave without leaving a like or dislike because I'm not very interested in the genre, or the video is meh, or the guy said something stupid (but not enough to warrant a thumbs down,) or I had a bad hair day and didn't feel like it, or what? Why did I even get to that video in the first place? Is it a topic that actually interests me, or did some idiot coworker spam a link to everyone in the company, or did I mis-click, or was it mis-tagged, or what?

Or let's say I did leave a thumbs up. Am I interested in the topic, the genre, the author, or did I just think the guy was really funny (while being otherwise completely wrong on the topic, as humour kinda tends to be), or what?

Let's say I click on something I usually don't. Well, what happened? Did I suddenly get interested in something else entirely? Is it a one off curiosity? Did I just click on a link in an email or forum post? Did I mis-click? Or what?

Was it even me at the keyboard? Computers can have multiple users in a family.

Etc.


And the last one is actually a very important issue for a lot of products. If, to return to that example, you try to take control of my toast for me... what happens when mom visits and she wants it less crunchy? Hell, what happens when _I_ get a bad tooth and want it lighter toasted than usual?

Circumstances change in all sorts of ways, and the idea that anything can learn a one perfect point that fits everything for ever, is just flat out... not well thought through.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 29th July 2019 at 12:45 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 12:42 AM   #82
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,780
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I am quite aware that it can't be done very well at present. That doesn't demonstrate that it's impossible.

You wouldn't believe how many people in threads over the years believe that because something is not done NOW it cannot be done EVER.

It has barely been 100 years since we were cutting limbs off people for small nicks. We've only had reasonably decent technology for 70 years out of our 70 thousand year existence (give or take).

And yet in thread after thread we get people saying X can't be done EVER because we haven't perfected it NOW.

Also, as far as AI threads go in particular, it is stunning how many people literally don't understand a damn thing about what they are talking about, yet will expound on AI anyway. Every AI thread here is a Dunning-Kruger orgy.
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 12:55 AM   #83
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,780
On a (way, way, way) less serious note, we don't want a perfect A.I. mostly because it has been sufficiently proven that it would eventually impose hell upon people, even people from the past!

I'm going to put it in spoiler tags to play along, since the theory is that only people aware of this during their lifetimes will be included in its hell.

Don't read this if you have anxiety problems.

Roko used ideas in decision theory to argue that a sufficiently powerful AI agent would have an incentive to torture anyone who imagined the agent but didn't work to bring the agent into existence. The argument was called a "basilisk" because merely hearing the argument would supposedly put you at risk of torture from this hypothetical agent — a basilisk in this context is any information that harms or endangers the people who hear it.


https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk


https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk


Where to donate to not spend eternity in hell:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machin...arch_Institute
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 01:06 AM   #84
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,426
Originally Posted by This is The End View Post
You wouldn't believe how many people in threads over the years believe that because something is not done NOW it cannot be done EVER.

It has barely been 100 years since we were cutting limbs off people for small nicks. We've only had reasonably decent technology for 70 years out of our 70 thousand year existence (give or take).

And yet in thread after thread we get people saying X can't be done EVER because we haven't perfected it NOW.

Also, as far as AI threads go in particular, it is stunning how many people literally don't understand a damn thing about what they are talking about, yet will expound on AI anyway. Every AI thread here is a Dunning-Kruger orgy.
On the other hand, there are things that we know are so contrary to the way physics and the universe works that we can say with a great deal of confidence that it will never be possible with any kind of technology. Travelling through space at a speed that is faster than light is impossible not because of a lack of technology, but because the laws of physics make it impossible.

There are some (I happen to not be one of them) who feel that true General Artificial Intelligence is similarly impossible not because of a lack of technology, but because the laws of the universe prevent such a thing from existing.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 03:16 AM   #85
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,630
Oh, I for one most certainly think it's possible to make a working AI. If anyone got that idea from my previous messages, let me dispel that misunderstanding.

What I do say is that currently the problem isn't as much the "artificial" part, but rather the "commercial" part of the equation. Namely:

1. Everyone seems to just want a quick and dirty hack. E.g., in the case of recognizing shapes, nobody actually wants an AI that learns what a mushroom is, or tries to reconstruct a 3D scene to figure out if that could be a mushroom, they just want something that looks at a 2D blob and just says "yep, it looks like other 2D blobs tagged mushroom."

And it is my firm conviction that that's extremely limiting.

2. More generally, the problem has historically been that instead of trying to even talk to psychologists and neuroscientists, the domain has been left to idiot savants who just like maths and pulling postulates out of the ass, and idiots who don't understand what they're funding there when they decide which of those gets the funding.

E.g., we actually still have an AI prize for the algorithms with the highest compression ration, because an idiot once postulated that the best AI will be the one which compresses the most data in the tightest space, and ignored issues like also needing some kind of way to quickly access information X that is referenced by information Y. So virtually all winners for that most promising AI have been variants of arithmetic compression, which, sure, compress the whole Wikipedia in a remarkably tight space, but you need literally HOURS to access any particular page in the compressed blob. So it would be physically impossible to make any kind of real time inferences based on the compressed data.

Literally about 80% of the interval we've even had to research AI up to the present has been WASTED with such nonsense, before anyone even tried the only learning model that actually works at all, namely, the Bayesian kind. Now everyone's doing that, but see point 1, they're still trying to take some abstract shortcut with it, and still won't talk to a neuroscientist.

But the most important of them all is:

3. Not everything flippin' needs an AI in it. And more generally, not everything needs to hit every checkbox on a "latest and coolest nerdy buzzwords" list.

Even if you actually made an AI that is indistinguishable from a smart human, it's still faster and even more convenient to just let me set the timer on the microwave to whatever it says on the box of whatever I'm heating there, than have an AI learn over many months what is the perfect time for every kind of food.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 1st August 2019 at 03:17 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 05:35 AM   #86
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,834
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
On the other hand, there are things that we know are so contrary to the way physics and the universe works that we can say with a great deal of confidence that it will never be possible with any kind of technology. Travelling through space at a speed that is faster than light is impossible not because of a lack of technology, but because the laws of physics make it impossible.
I get your point, but that may not be the best example. Effectively FTL travel is still theoretically possible via wormholes, but they'd rely on the existence of exotic matter, which we don't know any examples of yet. So most likely impossible, yes

A closed system with decreasing entropy may have been a better example

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
3. Not everything flippin' needs an AI in it. And more generally, not everything needs to hit every checkbox on a "latest and coolest nerdy buzzwords" list.
Hey! You can't take away my deep and meaningful relationship with my electric toothbrush!
__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 04:08 PM   #87
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,122
More images that AI cannot properly identify...

AI fails to recognize these nature images 98% of the time

Originally Posted by The Next Web
...AI just isn’t very good at understanding what it sees, unlike humans who can use contextual clues...

...what AI doesn’t know can kill us. This happened when Tesla’s ill-named “Autopilot” confused the white trailer of an 18-wheeler for a cloud and crashed into it resulting in the death of its driver...
https://thenextweb.com/insider/2019/...limited-plans/
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 04:12 PM   #88
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,724
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
More images that AI cannot properly identify...

AI fails to recognize these nature images 98% of the time



https://thenextweb.com/insider/2019/...limited-plans/
Someone giving AI the bird?

Maybe AI is just ignoring it without saying anything. Well, how would you feel?

Last edited by Elagabalus; 1st August 2019 at 04:13 PM.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 05:18 PM   #89
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,426
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
I get your point, but that may not be the best example. Effectively FTL travel is still theoretically possible via wormholes, but they'd rely on the existence of exotic matter, which we don't know any examples of yet. So most likely impossible, yes
That's why I specifically and deliberately said travelling through space.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 05:32 PM   #90
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,125
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
More images that AI cannot properly identify...

AI fails to recognize these nature images 98% of the time



https://thenextweb.com/insider/2019/...limited-plans/
More ignorance about what AI actually is, and what's actually going on here.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 05:40 PM   #91
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,426
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
More ignorance about what AI actually is, and what's actually going on here.
Uh... the provided link is for an article about Comcast increasing its prices, and nothing at all to do with AI.

It also has a full-screen popup ad, so **** that ****.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 06:13 PM   #92
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,122
Sorry, here is the correct link. https://thenextweb.com/artificial-in...98-of-the-time
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 11:41 PM   #93
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,825
The AIs don't have any context yet, they are too simple.
If you want it to identify pretzels you train it with many pics containing pretzels. Without any context the AI finds similarities between all the pretzel pics it was trained with.
In that situation it's both smarter than you and much more stupid. It is as likely to notice the pretzels in all the pics as it is to note other similarities elsewhere in the pics, similarities you would not even be aware of.
When it identifies a mushroom as a pretzel it's not really making a mistake, because the mushroom picture shares a large number of similar features to the pretzel pics it was trained with.
Humans on the other hand can't help but see things in context and therefore are unaware of how similar the mushroom and the pretzel pics actually are.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2019, 08:15 AM   #94
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,122
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
If you want it to identify pretzels you train it with many pics containing pretzels. Without any context the AI finds similarities between all the pretzel pics it was trained with.
Why "train" it with photos of pretzels instead of real pretzels?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2019, 08:27 AM   #95
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,863
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Why "train" it with photos of pretzels instead of real pretzels?
Cos the AI kept saying "I'm not sure yet, gimme another pretzel."
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2019, 09:58 AM   #96
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,825
Yes.
Also, because it doesn't have human instincts, it kept spitting them out. Made a huge mess.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2019, 11:26 AM   #97
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,682
I could really go for a big soft pretzel with rock salt and mustard right now. Is there an AI powerful enough to get that for me?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2019, 02:13 PM   #98
Mader Levap
Muse
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 593
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
A NN is made up of artificial neurons that functions like idealized biological neurons.
They are so "idealized" that they have almost nothing in common with their biological counterpart.
That makes them unsuitable for simulating biological brain and if some future version of NN achieves actual intelligence, it will be intelligence completely different from human's.

So I still stand by my comparison. Birds and planes, biological brains and artificial neural networks.

Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Quote:
They are feed, they are awashed in hormones and other stimulants, they can fail, they can degrade, they can change their state, break connections and create new ones. No neuron is exactly same.
Which gives artificial neurons the edge.
Not if you want to get something similar to biological neural networks. That was my point, they are nothing alike.

Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Quote:
You would basically have to simulate entire human brain to atomic level, all with blood circulation, pressure, temperature, trillions of chemical reactions occurring in every cell at once etc.
No you don't.
Yes, you have to, if you want to actually simulate human brain. Nodes and weights won't be enough. For example, if your brain simulation cannot get drunk, it is not good simulation. NN cannot get drunk.

Well, I guess instead of atomic-level numeric simulation you could do atomic-level NN-based simulation. Taking aside practicality of it, it is absolutely not same thing as equating physical neurons with their artificial counterparts.

Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Theses are single function NNs with only a few neurons, of course they can be fooled. Even humans with these HUGE brains are fooled by stuff all the time.
My point was that these NNs are failing in very different way than human visual system. Human never would see panda as gibbon just because some pixels in picture were very slightly brightened or darkened. Artificial neural networks "perceive" world very differently than humans, get over it.

Originally Posted by This is The End View Post
On a (way, way, way) less serious note, we don't want a perfect A.I. mostly because it has been sufficiently proven that it would eventually impose hell upon people, even people from the past!
Concept of Roko's Basilisk exists because certain fringe transhumanist cult that created it has set of peculiar axioms (you could compare them to tenets of traditional religious cult). Basilisk is logical consequence of those axioms.

Critical one is that two copies of mind that are identical are exactly same mind. Like, philosophically. This is why you could be threatened (if you accept these axioms) in principle by act of creating and torturing simulation of you in not-yet-existent future. Because, well, it is actually you! Not separate, independent instance of you (as any sane human would think), but YOU, period.

There are so many practical problems with it, even when you accept their axioms, that most cultists distance themself from that idea.

As far I am concerned, this particular axiom was created because of wishful thinking - it makes possible to pretend that uploading mind to computer actually "moves" you into computer. Assuming creating mind in computer actually works, obviously you will be copied, not moved. While your digital copy frolicks in cyberspace, original YOU will be still stuck in meatspace in confines of your skull. And for certain people, that won't do.
__________________
Sanity is overrated.
Mader Levap is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2019, 07:32 PM   #99
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,825
Originally Posted by Mader Levap View Post
They are so "idealized" that they have almost nothing in common with their biological counterpart.
That makes them unsuitable for simulating biological brain and if some future version of NN achieves actual intelligence, it will be intelligence completely different from human's.
Some evidence would be appreciated.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 02:51 AM   #100
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,161
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
You know you've described something that already exists and is crap, right?



Because you only need to look at Google's YouTube recommendations, to see how exactly what you describe goes horribly wrong. Because at some point Google quite conspicuously stopped giving a flying f-bomb about actually doing anything for the users, and just started using several of its services as testing grounds for its algorithms. Including stuff like giving everyone the same set of images of streetlights and street-side stairs in its captchas for a few weeks at one point, presumably because it was training its self-driving car AI, and who cares if it defeats the whole purpose of why a user might want to use a captcha.



Well, based on observing my behaviour and what it thought were clues from it, over the time it produced pretty much only the worst recommendations possible. E.g.,



- it kept recommending Turkish soap operas for years, until I switched my country from Germany to UK. Presumably because, yeah, there a lot more Turkish immigrants in Germany.



- it keeps recommending news -- granted, now about Brexit -- no matter how often I click the X in the corner to remove that. Presumably because, yeah, it looks at what other people are watching.



- it kept recommending wrestling videos for weeks, because ONCE I clicked on one video of Jeff Dunham doing a comedy show for the troops in an event that also featured a wrestling match. In fact, it's become an entertainment of its own to watch the recommendations go retarded if someone sends me a link to youtube.



- it can't seem to distinguish between playlists that are supposed to be watched in a sequence, like a TV series or a game Let's Play, and a random music list. Or at least I assume that's what happens when I watched episodes 0 to 9 of a Let's Play in order, and then it recommends that I watch one of episodes 19, 21, 13, 17, 8 again, or 12. Presumably because those got the most thumbs up. But conspicuously missing is the only one that actually makes sense to watch next, which is episode 10.



- it keeps recommending only the games I'm not interested in, but presumably the ones that kids these days play the most. Because, hey, they're all tagged as games. If you've watched strategy games before, surely you're interested in some twit bragging about using aim-bots to "pwn noobs" in games like Fortnite.



Etc.



Now all those could be solved MUCH easier by just letting me do the same thing as in Steam, namely let me set some options and tags/people I'm interested in, and ones which I don't. Especially the last one. Other than wanting to keep me as a lab rat in perfecting its learning algorithms, trying to guess what I'm interested instead of just letting me block certain twits, there is literally no advantage in doing the former instead of the latter.



And in fact, not only that, but its guessing game by now screws up even the search, where I can theoretically set some options. But for example, telling it to sort results by upload date is producing hilarious results that jump back and forth by months, while not showing at all more recent videos which I know exist.





And basically that's the problem with playing that kind of guessing game.
Sounds like you are a faulty unit. Are you still under warranty, if so I'd see about getting yourself exchanged.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 03:53 AM   #101
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,125
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Why "train" it with photos of pretzels instead of real pretzels?
How would that work, do you think?

What's your proposal for getting visual data about real pretzels into the processing of the AI?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 06:26 AM   #102
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,161
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
How would that work, do you think?

What's your proposal for getting visual data about real pretzels into the processing of the AI?
Slice them very thin and insert in the DVD drive?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 08:55 AM   #103
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,825
Originally Posted by Mader Levap View Post
My point was that these NNs are failing in very different way than human visual system. Human never would see panda as gibbon just because some pixels in picture were very slightly brightened or darkened. Artificial neural networks "perceive" world very differently than humans, get over it.
You identify the panda easily because you know you are looking for one. You look at a photo and immediately see there is an animal and you ignore the rest of the image. The NN does not know anything. It does not know that a blob of similarly coloured pixels represents an object. It has nothing to guide it, it looks at all the information contained in the pic.
Why did my classifier just mistake a turtle for a rifle?

Here is an interesting article concerning what can be learnt from modeling part of the neocortex.

Quote:
We developed a mathematical framework to analyze both the structural and the functional topology of the network, integrating local and global descriptions, enabling us to establish a clear relationship between them. We represent a network as a directed graph, with neurons as the vertices and the synaptic connections directed from pre- to postsynaptic neurons as the edges, which can be analyzed using elementary tools from algebraic topology
Quote:
The microcircuit, formed by ~8 million connections (edges) between ~31,000 neurons (vertices), was reconstructed from experimental data, guided by biological principles of organization, and iteratively refined until validated against a battery of independent anatomical and physiological data obtained from experiments
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2019, 09:31 AM   #104
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,825
The idea is to, as technology allows, first model a rodent brain and eventually a human.
Here is a great talk by Prof. Idan Segev.

The video is crap, but you can hear what he is saying. Start about 10min in if anyone is interested.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 01:58 AM   #105
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,767
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
There are some (I happen to not be one of them) who feel that true General Artificial Intelligence is similarly impossible not because of a lack of technology, but because the laws of the universe prevent such a thing from existing.
The existence of human brains demonstrates that a machine capable of general intelligence is possible given the laws of physics in our universe.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 10:24 PM   #106
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,426
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
The existence of human brains demonstrates that a machine capable of general intelligence is possible given the laws of physics in our universe.
But if we have to replicate a human brain in an artificial medium, that's going to be a darn hard project. The human brain isn't a machine - it is not manufactured. It is biology. It is born. To those who hold this view (and I repeat, I am not one of them) there is an insurmountable gulf between what human beings are or ever will be capable of manufacturing, and what can grow naturally due to biology.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 02:00 AM   #107
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,767
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
But if we have to replicate a human brain in an artificial medium, that's going to be a darn hard project. The human brain isn't a machine - it is not manufactured. It is biology. It is born. To those who hold this view (and I repeat, I am not one of them) there is an insurmountable gulf between what human beings are or ever will be capable of manufacturing, and what can grow naturally due to biology.
I don't see any difference of kind between a biological system and a manufactured system. The products of biology and the products of our technology are both systems of atoms interacting according to the laws of physics.

Whatever principles allow a human brain to function as it does are physical principles. I'm sure there are constraints on how such systems can be designed and what sort of manufacturing techniques can be applied. But there is at least one design that we know works and at least one manufacturing technique that we also know works (in both cases, the ones that exist in nature).

Many of the limitations of human brains are constraints imposed by our biology: limitations of energy related to how much food our ancestors could find and consume in a day, limits of space based on the size of the human skull, limits of access to data based on what is available to our senses, networking constraints based on the lack of something analogous to wifi (the closest we have is speech). But all of those are specific to humans and are not general limitations of intelligence. If we learn to build systems that work similarly to human brains we won't have the same energy constraints, space constraints, input constraints, or networking constraints.

The same logic applies to the constraints of the manufacturing process. Our biology is constrained by having to start from a single cell, for instance. To building things out of proteins or things that protiens can build. Of being self-reproducing (so for instance whatever size constraints there are on the organism also exist for the machine that builds the organism, because they are one and the same. That's not true of cars for instance, which while they have a size constraint of having to fit on roads, can build built in factories that don't fit on roads). Etc. Again at least some of the constraints on the manufacturing process of human brains are specific to our biology and don't apply in general to intelligent systems.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

Last edited by Roboramma; 12th August 2019 at 02:06 AM.
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 02:27 AM   #108
Cheetah
Graduate Poster
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,825
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 02:49 AM   #109
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,630
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
But if we have to replicate a human brain in an artificial medium, that's going to be a darn hard project. The human brain isn't a machine - it is not manufactured. It is biology. It is born. To those who hold this view (and I repeat, I am not one of them) there is an insurmountable gulf between what human beings are or ever will be capable of manufacturing, and what can grow naturally due to biology.
The argument is rather moot, when technology can simulate biology. E.g., proteins are produced by biology, but you can download Folding@Home and simulate how they fold. The same applies to neurons. When you understand well enough how one works, you can simulate it.

Just like we can simulate anything else, really. I mean, computers aren't riveted together, but we can simulate a bridge on a computer anyway. Computers don't run on diesel, but we can simulate a diesel engine. Computers aren't liquids flowing through pipes, but we can simulate fluid flows. Etc.

Mind you, just simulating neurons would be a rather inefficient way to do it. But for the purpose of the argument "but computers aren't biological!!!111eleventeen", just the fact that it's possible to simulate biology on a computer is enough to shoot it down.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 06:24 PM   #110
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,426
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The argument is rather moot, when technology can simulate biology. E.g., proteins are produced by biology, but you can download Folding@Home and simulate how they fold. The same applies to neurons. When you understand well enough how one works, you can simulate it...
And that's pretty much why I personally do not subscribe to that point of view.

I should also point out here, while I am listing arguments that other people have made, that some people believe that human intelligence can never be achieved by a computer because a computer doesn't have a soul. I assume that we're all in agreement about that particular opinion as well, so having mentioned it I think we can move on.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 06:56 PM   #111
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,682
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The argument is rather moot, when technology can simulate biology. E.g., proteins are produced by biology, but you can download Folding@Home and simulate how they fold. The same applies to neurons. When you understand well enough how one works, you can simulate it.

Just like we can simulate anything else, really. I mean, computers aren't riveted together, but we can simulate a bridge on a computer anyway. Computers don't run on diesel, but we can simulate a diesel engine. Computers aren't liquids flowing through pipes, but we can simulate fluid flows. Etc.

Mind you, just simulating neurons would be a rather inefficient way to do it. But for the purpose of the argument "but computers aren't biological!!!111eleventeen", just the fact that it's possible to simulate biology on a computer is enough to shoot it down.
I'm not certain it's sufficient to simulate something. You can't cross a river on a simulated bridge, you can't power a vehicle with a simulated diesel engine, and a simulated fluid can't actually get anything wet. Perhaps intelligence is the same: it can be simulated but that simulation won't be able to do what a real intelligence can do.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 07:04 PM   #112
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,426
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I'm not certain it's sufficient to simulate something. You can't cross a river on a simulated bridge, you can't power a vehicle with a simulated diesel engine, and a simulated fluid can't actually get anything wet. Perhaps intelligence is the same: it can be simulated but that simulation won't be able to do what a real intelligence can do.
I'm not sure what the difference would be between a thing and a 100% accurate simulation of that thing.

You can't cross a real river on a simulated bridge, but you can cross a simulated river. As long as you're doing so in a simulated car.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 07:08 PM   #113
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,682
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I'm not sure what the difference would be between a thing and a 100% accurate simulation of that thing.

You can't cross a real river on a simulated bridge, but you can cross a simulated river. As long as you're doing so in a simulated car.
Unless you have a holodeck a simulation is still just a simulation. A simulated intelligence would simulate thought, but not actually think.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 07:21 PM   #114
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,426
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Unless you have a holodeck a simulation is still just a simulation. A simulated intelligence would simulate thought, but not actually think.
How could you tell the difference?
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 07:24 PM   #115
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,125
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Unless you have a holodeck a simulation is still just a simulation. A simulated intelligence would simulate thought, but not actually think.
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
How could you tell the difference?
Is there actually a difference?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 07:32 PM   #116
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,426
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Is there actually a difference?
Exactly my point.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 05:29 AM   #117
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,682
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
How could you tell the difference?
Just because you can't perceive a difference doesn't mean it's not there. Is that cat over there slumbering peacefully or just brilliantly taxidermied? You can't tell but it makes a hell of a difference to the cat.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 06:33 AM   #118
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,630
Mate. Thinking is just processing some data. If you get the same data in, and the same result comes out, then how the heck is it any different from thinking?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 07:09 AM   #119
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,125
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Mate. Thinking is just processing some data. If you get the same data in, and the same result comes out, then how the heck is it any different from thinking?
How much of what we consider thinking is actually just reviewing the thoughts we've already had?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 07:16 AM   #120
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,682
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Mate. Thinking is just processing some data. If you get the same data in, and the same result comes out, then how the heck is it any different from thinking?
If you don't read Chinese and respond to written questions in Chinese characters someone else directs you to write, are you understanding Chinese?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.