Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Definition : "true artificial intelligence" is one that is at least as dynamic as human intelligence. (Thus, is capable of all mental tasks that can be done by a typical human being, either by instinct or training.)

Since the advent of computers, there have been many predictions as to when artificial intelligence.
One of my personal projects happens to be the making of a true artificial intelligence model.
(I am determined to set this as my life goal and will work until I achieve this.)

So, my serious questions to you is:
Is true artificial intelligence probable in near future (< 20 years from now)? (Yes / No)
If yes, what year would you predict it to happen?
If no, what would be the problem?

For entertainment only:
The fate of humanity after its creation?

Come on, bright INTJs, show me what you've got.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
Maybe. The reports about cyberwarfare theory and development in the US, Britain and Israel certainly point to a possibility as they've been trying to use neural-networking patterns to develop software.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Are there no more inputs on this topic? :(
Makes me "sad".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
Definition : "true artificial intelligence" is one that is at least as dynamic as human intelligence. (Thus, is capable of all mental tasks that can be done by a typical human being, either by instinct or training.)
Who's the typical human being that they base this on? I hope I don't lower the bar too far.:tongue:

Since the advent of computers, there have been many predictions as to when artificial intelligence.
One of my personal projects happens to be the making of a true artificial intelligence model.
(I am determined to set this as my life goal and will work until I achieve this.)
What are you using to build your models?

So, my serious questions to you is:
Is true artificial intelligence probable in near future (< 20 years from now)? (Yes / No)
If yes, what year would you predict it to happen?
If no, what would be the problem?

For entertainment only:
The fate of humanity after its creation?

Come on, bright INTJs, show me what you've got.
I think that there are already a number of models that exist that are capable of at least some of the mental tasks that can be done as a typical human, and could be adapted further. The limiting factor, as I understand it, is the lack of technological resources needed to test and impliment these models. That technology, I can see us producing some time in the next 30years.

As for the fate of humanity - M.A.D.!... or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
An AI with the thought capabilities equal to even half of Forest Gump would still be far superior to the brightest minds in some ways due to speed in it's capability to retrieve and assimilate knowledge. From this point if it is capable of bettering itself it should rapidly evolve into something far beyond that of any human even with today's technology and processor speeds IMHO.

The problem right now I think is not hardware requirements but rather programming techniques and the lack of understanding the human mind and how it processes information.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
An AI with the thought capabilities equal to even half of Forest Gump would still be far superior to the brightest minds in some ways due to speed in it's capability to retrieve and assimilate knowledge. From this point if it is capable of bettering itself it should rapidly evolve into something far beyond that of any human even with today's technology and processor speeds IMHO.

The problem right now I think is not hardware requirements but rather programming techniques and the lack of understanding the human mind and how it processes information.
You do realize that there are 50 to 100 billion neurons, which are capable of what is called "parallel computing"?
(Meaning, each individual neuron is its own little CPU that processes tiny bits of information; all 50 - 100 billion neurons simultaneously.)

There are no parallel computing in our technology yet. No two things can be processed simultaneously in computers (one thing happens first than the other)

But there is a neat concept called "additivity" which enables our computer CPUs to be added.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Excerpt from a non-scholarly source:

[The following is inspired by my reply to two questions posed by a highschool student: How fast does the human brain compute, and how much information can it store? My original response to that student has since been updated.]

There are several ways to answer the question about how fast the brain processes information.

The best answer for this question can be obtained because we have good estimates for the three main variables that enter into it: how many neurons (brain cells) we have, how fast a neuron can fire, and how many cells it connects to. A human being has about 100 billion brain cells. Although different neurons fire at different speeds, as a rough estimate it is reasonable to estimate that a neuron can fire about once every 5 milliseconds, or about 200 times a second. The number of cells each neuron is connected to also varies, but as a rough estimate it is reasonable to say that each neuron connects to 1000 other neurons- so every time a neuron fires, about 1000 other neurons get information about that firing. If we multiply all this out we get 100 billion neurons X 200 firings per second X 1000 connections per firing = 20 million billion calculations per second.

This estimate might easily be off by an order of magnitude- that is, it might be 10 times too high or low. It also is a bit misleading because it estimates the raw 'clock speed' of the brain, which is much higher than the number of real useful calculations we do in a second. An apparently much simpler way to approach the problem is to note that the time it takes for the brain to make a really simple decision- like naming a picture or reading a word aloud- is about 300-700 milliseconds. So we can say that brain can only make about two conscious calculations per second. However, this is also misleading, for a bunch of reasons. One reason is that many well-trained brains can make incredibly complex decisions that quickly. Moreover, even simple tasks like reading a word aloud are actually very complex, actually requiring huge amounts of low-level computation. Finally, note that your brain is doing all sorts of things unconsciously at the same time- maintaining your body and its relation to the world- whenever you are engaged in conscious calculations. So depending on whether you want the raw clock speed, or some higher-level measure of information processing, your question has two answers that differ widely.

It is interesting to put this into the perspective of contemporary technology. The 'clock speed' of a neuron is abysmal by technological standards. The central processing unit in the machine on which I wrote this document has a 1 Ghz. clock speed, which means it runs1000 million clock cycles per second. If we divide 1000 million by 200, we see that the CPU on my computer is 5 million times faster than the clock speed of a neuron. Of course the computational power of our brains comes from the fact that we have a lot of neurons. Nevertheless, the gap between technology and neurons is closing fast. It has been estimated many times by many different people, using uncontroversial projections into the future (the exponential growth curve suggested by Moore's law), that we will have a computer that can process as many bits per second as the human brain within a few decades at most. Soon thereafter, computers will exceed human beings in raw processing power. If you are under 50 years old as you read this, then you can reasonably bet that you will own a cheap desktop computer that will process more information than your brain does before you die (Ray Kurzweil estimates that cheap computers will process this fast by 2023). If you are under 25 years old, there is a good chance that you will own a cheap desktop computer that processes more information than the whole human race (Ray Kurzweil estimates that cheap computers will process this fast by 2049). This does not necessarily mean that the computers will be as intelligent as you or as a small town full of people, since at the moment we have no idea how to program computers to be generally intelligent. But nobody really knows what such computers might be capable of in the long run. If you are interested in speculation on this issue, check out Ray Kurzweil's site, and (if change doesn't make you squeamish) look into the Singularity.

The second question was about the storage capacity of the brain. This is much more difficult to measure, because we don't really understand how the brain stores information, and we do know that it can use very different methods for different storage problems. For example, excellent chess players are much much better at remembering chess positions than poor chess players, and trained musicians are much better at remembering music than untrained musicians.

Some people have estimated that the storage capacity of the human brain is functionally infinite- that is, we can essentially always find room to store more information if we want to, so no practical limit exists. A more principled lower estimate might be made using the numbers above. Let’s assume that a change in any connection strength between two connected neurons is equal to one bit of information and further assume (a huge over-simplification) that neural connections have just two possible strengths (like a bit in a computer, which is either 1 or 0). Then each neuron has ‘write’ access to 1000 bits of information, or about 1 kilobyte. So we have 100 billion (number of neurons) X 1 K of storage capacity, or 100 billion K. That’s about 100 million megabytes. Since in fact neural connections are not two-state but multi-state and since neuron bodies can also change their properties and thereby store information, this is a very low estimate, so you can see why some people have estimated it to be functionally infinite.

However, we can also make the same kind of 'reality adjustment' we did for the speed question above. As you probably know, the number of bits used to store an item on a computer is not equal to the number of items. For example, to store one letter of text (one item) on a computer takes a theoretical minimum of seven bits, and in real computers it usually takes more. To store one picture can take thousands or even millions of bits. The same must apply to the human brain. Each memory must be composed of many many bits. The first person to try to estimate the amount of storage in a human brain was Robert Hooke, in 1666. He estimated how fast he could think, multiplied by his lifespan, and decided that he had 2 x 10^9 bits of storage. He had a high estimate of himself: his estimate for an average person was twenty times less, at 10^8 bits! A psychologist named Tom Landauer wrote a paper in 1986 ("How Much Do People Remember? Some Estimates of the Quantity of Learned Information in Long-term Memory", Cognitive Science, volume 10, pages 477-493), in which he tried to estimate from a review of experimental results how many useful distinctions a person might be able to remember in all. His estimate was one billion distinctions. At the 2002 Psychonomics conference, Landauer re-visited this question. He used a novel technical method (whose details need not concern us here) to estimate how much word knowledge a person had. His new estimate is in the same ball park as Hooke's: 4 x 10^8 bits.

These storage estimates may also be placed into a modern technological perspective. The storage capacity of a neuron is so-so by modern technological standards. The hard disk on my computer holds 60,000 megabytes (about 60 gigabytes), so we can say that by the first estimate above the storage capacity of the human mind is equal to about 1666 modern computer hard disks, and the brain looks pretty good. However, the near future promises to massively increase information storage capabilities. The past certainly suggests that it will. My first hard disk purchased in the mid-1980s (for more cost than my newest hard disk, even without taking inflation into account) held 20 megabytes, or 3000 times less than my latest one. If the future rate of increase of storage speed mirrors the rate I have seen in my own life to date, then we should be able to put the entire contents of a human brain on a cheap hard disk within about 15 years (if we can think of a way to get that information out of the brain!). Much better storage is certainly possible: for example, the DNA molecule inside your cells contains about 750 megabytes of information. This has made it possible for someone to take a crack at estimating the amount of information in a single male ejaculate.

However, molecular storage is nothing. In his book Robot, Hans Moravec discusses the possibility (not yet realized) of using individual low-energy photons to store information. If we can do this, then we will be able to store one megabyte in a single hydrogen atom, and ten billion megabytes in a small structure the size of a virus. By the above estimate, that's the equivalent of the complete memory contents of 100 people, all contained in a speck that is very much smaller than a single neuron.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,552 Posts
I'm all for technological singularities.

Where next?



There are all sorts of potential benefits: Methuselarity, post Scarcity society and a potential Kardashev scale rating far beyond what we currently enjoy. What's not worth the risk?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
@Trinox Not sure this will help, but, I think the human brain can store so many memories because our neural wiring is much like how an alphabet and numbers work: though there are a finite amount, there are endless permutations. I think memories work in the same way. The reason we can remember events from the external environment, is because the events as we perceive them are how the brain has processed them, and the imprint on the neural wiring is remembered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,053 Posts
I guess we're nearing that point from all the research that is being done in the fields concerning robotics and programming.

Time to prepare for the worst...

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,120 Posts
Definition : "true artificial intelligence" is one that is at least as dynamic as human intelligence. (Thus, is capable of all mental tasks that can be done by a typical human being, either by instinct or training.)

So, my serious questions to you is:
Is true artificial intelligence probable in near future (< 20 years from now)? (Yes / No)
Do you mean totally artificial-- i.e. no connection to any living thing? In that case, No. Not ever.

1- Machines can have no consciousness. So. for sure, no conscious self awareness. (No self.)

2- Machines can not feel anything.

Copying neural networks in silicon, etc. simply gives you a different sort of computer. It does not confer consciousness on the computer.

The best we can expect is to create a reasonably convincing faked human intelligence.

For entertainment only:
The fate of humanity after its creation?
'It'-- purely artificial human intelligence machines-- is impossible.

Even so, let's say we make bunches of 'smart machines'. I would expect them to follow their programming and do their jobs fine. Unless the programmers are just plain stupid, there's no reason to expect some comic book robot revolution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
@SiFan Hi. Just so you know(I hate how cold texting is...it lacks empathy that would be obvious face to face) I am not trying to put down your opinion on this, because, in many ways I agree, but I disagree with a few things you said. We are technically machines ourselves, the only difference is that we're machines that evolved, most likely if we are not the experiment of some other alien civilization, by chance. Technically speaking, we are composed of biological machinery, that is even being used in primitive nanotechnology. I think that...given we most likely did randomly evolve consciousness, it is possible. If it is possible, I believe it can be done artificially, with finer precision. I would agree that it would not be like our consciousness, but, it would still be a consciousness. It's possible by merit of it's existence. All it might take is better understanding of consciousness, and of course, of cybernetics.

I don't, however, believe it is all a positive thing. I think people look at this...futurist nonsense, as a new type of religion. Faith and salvation they base on science. The same illogical nonsense humans always flap their lips about. Still, I believe that self awareness can be created. I also believe that life can be engineered from scratch. The question I have is: should it be done? That, I am not even 0.5% about. And you are right about emotions, I think they might be unique to biological life...but what if robots can be built with engineered biological parts? Then again, their "brain" would be different, so it probably wouldn't register our biochemical reactions in the same way. I believe that people always think they are Professors on every subject, but even Professors have been wrong, so it is hubris to say we know or do not know something is possible. Rather, we should always say "I believe", and accept that others might not believe the same things. Love and friendship, harmony in fact, is still possible in a society despite not agreeing on every single subject. Science is logical, and should be examined without emotional bias, the illogical arguing should be saved for politics and religion, as both are illogical things reliant on human emotion, for the sake of worship or protesting and voting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,053 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,255 Posts
I do not think that copying the human brain is actually a worthy goal. Why bother? It already exists and in abundance. There is no need to recreate that. And the human brain creates neurosis, which is something you certainly don't want developing in a machine that's running some mission critical system. I rather think that the goal of AI should be to create a new intelligence, with similar flexibility to the human brain and without the neurosis. That would be worth pursuing.

If you cannot fully trust a human with some things, and you can't, why would you imagine that a machine with an identical brain would be any better? That's the whole flaw in the project as far as I can see. We don't need mechanical people, what we need are labour saving devices with adaptive abilities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
Are we limiting the discussion to human intelligence? I think simpler beings like bacteria can be simulated very easily. We are able to model group intelligence very well already, such as species population birth/death rate based on availability of natural resources.

We can indeed crack the human brain which sends messages in much the same we have designed computers to send messages, with electrical signals. Isn't it wonderful? I don't know if we can in 20 years, but I like to think that this is further along in the future simply because I am admittedly a bit intimidated by the amount of change it could bring.

I also wonder how different we are from computers. Perhaps we are just complex computers programmed with certain values and motivations that we try to achieve?
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top