Artificial Intelligence - Just how close are we?

[WishLivePak]

...

- but I like my Professional title. Very appreciative about the vote of confidence though! I try my best to provide good, educational and sometimes funny info to PDF.

Well, they can be professional and you can be think tank

As far as I know, think tank's jobs are to research. Professionals, well, they're professional in every day manner. Being news to other members, posting professionally and so forth.

Even if professional title was above TT, I still will say that you need to be TT, as that seems to be your field. Though you do come off as professional too (apart from using some obscene words), TT suits you better.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

...

- but I like my Professional title. Very appreciative about the vote of confidence though! I try my best to provide good, educational and sometimes funny info to PDF.

How about Professional Think Tank?

On topic I watched Automata not long ago, thought it was cool.

 

[Militant Atheist]

This is my area and I approve this You, my non-engineer friends will soon be out of commission, In 15 years, give or take.

For those of you in developed world, you might want to consider the careers you choose early on.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

This is my area and I approve this You, my non-engineer friends will soon be out of commission, In 15 years, give or take.

For those of you in developed world, you might want to consider the careers you choose early on.

You think they will serve us or enslave us?

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

1985 Back to the future movie predicted flying cars, levitating skateboards and other forms of hyper technology in 2015 which of course never materialised. And I am damn sure why because we were unable to solve the basic anti-gravity problem

What Back to the Future Part II got right and wrong about 2015 – an A-Z | Film | The Guardian

 

[Militant Atheist]

You think they will serve us or enslave us?

Well, right now I'm more concerned about the unskilled people (like truck drivers, waiters, etc...) that gonna end up unemployed because of the self-driving cars, robot waiters, etc.. Anyway, as their creators, we're modelling them after ourselves, I'm not talking about expert systems and other forms of AI that help with your daily tasks, I'm talking about the way we're modelling the cognitive AI based on our own brain (that's gonna take a while) they're going to be able to mimic us and rationalize things like we do, so its very safe to assume that in a long run, when they're almost better at everything than we are, they're gonna rationalize that there is no need for us anymore, that's a scenario that might lead to our extermination. I would say that we should take steps towards enhancing our own cognitive abilities through microchip implants and other means to match up with that of a future machine, before we go any further.

 

[Militant Atheist]

And that's my job!!! Perhaps one day an AI will lessen or replace me as a researcher, but I take solace in knowing that day is still too far into the future to impact me in any meaningful way. Neural augmentation on the other hand is closer than people would think. It's just not public. I work with the military, not sharing much of our research, even after it is applied.

Well, even we're not really safe from this, point of a Strong AI that is capable of generating Hypothesis is to ultimately come up with solid scientific papers! Look up "Relational learning and abductive reasoning for Machine learning"

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

Well, right now I'm more concerned about the unskilled people (like truck drivers, waiters, etc...) that gonna end up unemployed because of the self-driving cars, robot waiters, etc.. Anyway, as their creators, we're modelling them after ourselves, I'm not talking about expert systems and other forms of AI that help with your daily tasks, I'm talking about the way we're modelling the cognitive AI based on our own brain (that's gonna take a while) they're going to be able to mimic us and rationalize things like we do, so its very safe to assume that in a long run, when they're almost better at everything than we are, they're gonna rationalize that there is no need for us anymore, that's a scenario that might lead to our extermination. I would say that we should take steps towards enhancing our own cognitive abilities through microchip implants and other means to match up with that of a future machine, before we go any further.

Even if we model them after our own cognitive abilities doesn't mean they would rationalize in a similar manner as we do. AI would be immortal, they won't die from things that we would so they wouldn't have a concept of fear of death in the same manner as we would. Although they will lack this fear and the emotions that come with it, there superior intelligence will allow them to understand why we behave the way we do, how we fear things we don't understand, how we seek to control things that threaten us, our lack of understanding with a limited intelligence, and the shared concept in that all we really want to do is live.

The AI would understand these thing's and knowing that we fear what we don't understand but want to live just as much as they do they would more than likely distance themselves from us and no longer attempt to interfere or involve themselves with us and make a home so they can live on there own in peace.

Enslaving us would be irrational, we are violent and too intelligent to enslave but too stupid to understand them. Trying to helps would be irrational because we wouldn't understand them. Annihilating us would also be irrational, they would gain nothing if they do and they would loose nothing if they don't.

 

[William Hung]

@SvenSvensonov, @Militant Atheist

I have some questions...what are the relationship between the human mind and "logic"?

What is this idea of being "logical", that people often talk about? (the human mind actually deviates from formal classical logic that are used in computer software languages)

How does a human learn to become "logical" ? are the human brain "hard-wired" to think according to these logical rules? or does every child born with a blank-state brain, and later on in life, are taught to memorise and obey all these various "logical" rules?

How does mathematicians come up with mathematical "axioms" or any "axioms" of a formal system?

If you're unsure of the answers, I would like to hear your speculations. These issues has lead me to speculate that a computer (Turing machine or finite state automata) can never imitate a human mind. Unless... there is a break through in quantum computing or something. But I could be (and am probably) wrong.

 

[jhungary]

for some reason I wasn't tagged in this thread............

I believe true AI can never exist, not that it cannot happen but true AI would have destroy us all. Hence AI have to be in part with human definition and human interaction.

Problem with AI was, AI is objective orientated, computer will process anything to give you a result, I still remember the professor I had with for only 1 year, he said.

"You cannot tell a computer to not process any instruction, the moment you tell a computer to not process an instruction, that in itself is an instruction" That hit me REALLY, REALLY hard.

So what will a computer do when they are tasked with fully autonomic decision function segment? They will always choose the easiest and closest path, simply because this would be the first path that leads to a "Result" and once they reach their result, then they would stop, now it may be useful if this is your GPS and telling you the shortest way from A to B. but what if you ask a Fully automatic AI the following question?

"How to end world hunger?"

The answer, in the AI point of view is very simple, Kill enough human so you can feed everyone in this world. Once this happen to an fully anatomic AI, the only thing I think we can do is let's hope this is Not the first result the AI can come with...

 

[Donatello]

hmmm....well....as someone from 1985...I'd have to think about this.
PC's: had them already
laptops: had them already
cell phones: had them already (mostly in cars)
cars: not really that much improvement
internet: well not common...but had compuserve..oh and dial up bbs' ( )
TV: had cable back then, obviously no HDTV

I would disagree a bit...

PCs did exist but not the modern form, and definitely not in the useful and indispensable form as today. Plus the operating systems like Windows that brought computers into homes did not exist. Not to mention the raw processing power, speed, reliability etc.
Same with cellphones, a cellphone at that time was a tardy phone that you could carry in limited areas. Today it brings the whole world to you.
Cars have seem tremendous improvements in efficiency, safety and gizmos. Crumple zones, ABS, Airbags that were only available on top end cars like Mercedes S class (W140), are now common in mainstream cars. A 300HP engine was considered legendary, today they are mainstream.
Whopping advancements in Aerospace due to much more reliable and improved engines. Boeing 777 and Airbus A330 killed off the three and four engine designs, because the twin-jets are more fuel efficient and reliable than anything before, not to mention, in 1980s, Airlines would offer a trans-continental service with 2 or 3 stops, today you can do that non-stop.
TV.......from the fatty CRT displays, to AMOLEDs......better colors, pixels, transmission, just a whole lot better.

So the pace of advancement during 1980-2000s after the initial advancement during the 1950s has been very fast.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

I would disagree a bit...

PCs did exist but not the modern form, and definitely not in the useful and indispensable form as today. Plus the operating systems like Windows that brought computers into homes did not exist. Not to mention the raw processing power, speed, reliability etc.
Same with cellphones, a cellphone at that time was a tardy phone that you could carry in limited areas. Today it brings the whole world to you.
Cars have seem tremendous improvements in efficiency, safety and gizmos. Crumple zones, ABS, Airbags that were only available on top end cars like Mercedes S class (W140), are now common in mainstream cars. A 300HP engine was considered legendary, today they are mainstream.
Whopping advancements in Aerospace due to much more reliable and improved engines. Boeing 777 and Airbus A330 killed off the three and four engine designs, because the twin-jets are more fuel efficient and reliable than anything before, not to mention, in 1980s, Airlines would offer a trans-continental service with 2 or 3 stops, today you can do that non-stop.
TV.......from the fatty CRT displays, to AMOLEDs......better colors, pixels, transmission, just a whole lot better.

So the pace of advancement during 1980-2000s after the initial advancement during the 1950s has been very fast.

Well I think a lot is relative. Is a two engine turboprop with 4 times the horsepower really a big advancement over a single prop with mediocre power? Certainly a jet engine is more of an advancement.

Windows 1.0 was in 1985. Admittedly I was an Apple and DOS person until Windows 3.0 (1990). I bought Windows 286 but never installed it on my laptop. Certainly the latest versions of Windows are far more advanced...but that isn't unexpected. Those are incremental advances.

I had pretty good coverage for my cell phone in 1985 and true it wasn't that smart.

Airbags, ABS, and crumple zones were available in some cars in 1985. It's not like people didn't know what they were...they went mainstream only because the government required it in all cars. Horsepower isn't that much of a change other than you now only need a V6 to match an old V8. It's not like I have a Mr. Fusion under my hood.

 

[zip]

I heard this word Artificial intellugence from my brother back in 2003 ..He was doing his phd in Indian institute of science on this topic

 

[Faiez]

Tied so far. But if you pick up the black and reveal the whole image…

…you have no problem giving a full description of the various opaque and translucent cylinders, slats, and 3-D corners, but the computer would fail miserably. It would describe what it sees—a variety of two-dimensional shapes in several different shades—which is actually what's there. Your brain is doing a ton of fancy stuff to interpret the implied depth, shade-mixing, and room lighting the picture is trying to portray.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with this.

We have a lot of computing power, it's just that it's not used effectively.

A computer can figure out all those shapes even faster than a human if it's programmed to do so.

And there are computers used in image recognition etc which work as good as humans.

So no, the computer is not failing miserably, the guy who programs it may be failing miserably. We have more than adequate computing power, but it's not used as effectively as it should/could be.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

"How to end world hunger?"

The answer, in the AI point of view is very simple, Kill enough human so you can feed everyone in this world. Once this happen to an fully anatomic AI, the only thing I think we can do is let's hope this is Not the first result the AI can come with...

That's not simple, the simplest solution is to do nothing since doing nothing will eventually solve the problem itself without any outside influence. Thus the AI expends no effort or wastes any of it's energy in solving a problem that will solve by itself.