• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Artificial Intelligence thinks mushroom is a pretzel

TragicMonkey said:
I don't know that that's necessarily true. Animals don't have culture, but they do have emotions. Well, mammals do, anyway. Ever pissed off a cat? They definitely experience anger, rage, wrath, fury, the whole rainbow of emotion!
Click to expand...
Mammals are raised by their parent(s) so there is a culture of association and familiarity and socialization. Mammals have intelligence that these computers do not, and may not ever have.

Even other sexually-reproducing animals that do not raise their offspring have a form of sociability needed at the minimum for reproduction.

Computers might need true desires and hatreds in order to care about and understand anything. How could we instill a sense of gain or loss to a computer?

One of the factors of children learning about the world is a sense of embarrassment and humility when they get things wrong. Imagine a child picking up a wild mushroom and telling their parent to look because they just found a pretzel.
 
William Parcher said:
I don't think computers could care about anything if they don't experience emotions. They need to know happiness and pain and fear and suffering and security in order to have anything mean anything. But I don't know how that could ever happen and besides that they aren't born into any culture and without that emotion has no meaningful context.
Click to expand...
I think it's waaay too early to say that with any confidence.

Especially since the taboo on human experimentation means we're never going to do any kind serious exploration of human emotion and cognition as a function of genetics and upbringing.

We're basically trying to reverse engineer the human condition, without having proper access to the workings of the original article.

We may never get there. We may get exactly there. We may get somewhere else entirely. We may end up confronting the AI of our dreams, and saying, "it's desire, but not as we know it."

But I think we're still a couple centuries away from knowing which one of those to expect.
 
I think a lot of people here are missing the point, which is this: Artificial Intelligence doesn't mean a fully conscious sentient computer which is aware of its own existence and can reason and make decisions like a human can. That's Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) - a specific category of AI which, it is true, has not been achieved.

Artificial Intelligence is a term which encompasses a number of techniques by which computers perform tasks that emulate human cognitive function such as learning and problem solving. That does not require consciousness or sentience, and new techniques are making great progress in this area.

However, some of them still misidentify mushrooms as pretzels. That's okay - these systems are getting better all the time.
 
theprestige said:
Good thing I don't have a lot of confidence, then.

You seem to have a ton. Where I'm saying, this is what I think, you're saying, this is how it is. What makes you so confident?
Click to expand...
When you say it could take hundreds of years you seem confident that it won't take thousands of years.
 
I think the first problem with AI is that everyone is looking for a quick and dirty way out. The image processing in humans is staggeringly complex, including stuff like detection for scales built right into the retina. And there is evidence that there's some reconstruction of the 3d model, e.g., in why you can tell if a painting's eyes are looking right at you. Meanwhile, everyone seems to want some quick and dirty way, like that if the blob is this general shape it's a mushroom, and if it's that general shape, it's a deer.
 
That said, mandatory joke, humans aren't always better either: e.g., in the Europea middle ages a species of goose was identified as a plant, so it was ok for nobles to eat it during fasts :p
 
theprestige said:
I think it's waaay too early to say that with any confidence.
Click to expand...

No, I think it's true by definition. You can't want without some sort of emotion. Normally a machine wouldn't have those. Intelligent or not, they just do what they're told to do. Why we'd want to simulate emotions in our computers is beyond me. What if they don't feel like doing that Google search for you?
 
theprestige said:
It might take thousands of years. I'm not confident it won't.

But I asked you a question. Will you please answer it?
Click to expand...
Your question is about my confidence in what I say. You can go back and look at my posts and see that I use qualifiers for my opinions but then in addition I use some facts.

What causes my skepticism is my past reading on "how the mind works" and how emotion is probably necessary for even simple intelligence. Emotion may be necessary for learning including learning how a mushroom is never a pretzel and what each of them look like in a near-infinite number of contexts.

But my confidence level is really meaningless. I'm not going to stop the progress of technology and artificial thinking. Nobody is harmed if I am skeptical of the outcome of the quest for artificial thinking done by a computer in a way that mimics human thinking.

I'm not proposing to stop the work. I'm only expressing my skepticism and offering the opinion that there may be a sci-fi dream here that cannot be achieved. It wouldn't be the first time that humanity walked down a dead end.
 
Belz... said:
Why we'd want to simulate emotions in our computers is beyond me. What if they don't feel like doing that Google search for you?
Click to expand...
You get rid of that particular computer and get a different one that will reliably do the Google search for you. Maybe you interview it before taking it on board. Look for indicators of reasonable honesty and a motivation to achieve shared goals.
 
HansMustermann said:
That said, mandatory joke, humans aren't always better either: e.g., in the Europea middle ages a species of goose was identified as a plant, so it was ok for nobles to eat it during fasts :p
Click to expand...

Closer to home I think you've misidentified "fish" as "plant".
 
Assuming AI ever happens and machines become self-aware and self-programming we wouldn't have much to fear from them. Shooting them would disarticulate the machinery etc.

The killer robots in Terminator would be vulnerable to armor-piercing bullets and anti-tank-type weapons.
 
HansMustermann said:
That said, mandatory joke, humans aren't always better either: e.g., in the Europea middle ages a species of goose was identified as a plant, so it was ok for nobles to eat it during fasts :p
Click to expand...

Nonsense. That proves humans are better. They know when to misidentify objects, and don't do so randomly.
 
Ziggurat said:
Nonsense. That proves humans are better. They know when to misidentify objects, and don't do so randomly.
Click to expand...
One might be concerned about putting an AI in charge of the power grid, if it's capable of redefining fish as fowl for religious reasons. But we already have such intelligences in charge of the power grid.
 
theprestige said:
I'm sure that AI researchers are learning just as much about how to develop true AI by these "misses" as they would from the hits.

The goal of this work is not to get it right every time. The goal is to get good data about what's going on and what happens when the test subject is making its guesses. A wrong guess can give just as much good data about the process as a right guess - perhaps even much more.
Click to expand...

Hellbound said:
This. As has been said, the most exciting discoveries in science don’t start with “That’s what I expected”, but with “Hmm, that’s odd...”
Click to expand...

Exactly, things working perfectly don't provide much insight into how they work. Think about all the interesting developments in neurology that were brought about by horrific accidents; Phineas Gage for example.
 
theprestige said:
One might be concerned about putting an AI in charge of the power grid, if it's capable of redefining fish as fowl for religious reasons. But we already have such intelligences in charge of the power grid.
Click to expand...

The problem there is not one of intelligence, but of incentive. The incentive structure in place in developed countries seems to work reasonably well.

If we ever do create true artificial intelligence, what incentive structure could we put in place to keep them in line? We would need to make them able to feel pain, and then we would need to inflict pain on them. I'm not very comfortable with that.
 
Ziggurat said:
The problem there is not one of intelligence, but of incentive. The incentive structure in place in developed countries seems to work reasonably well.

If we ever do create true artificial intelligence, what incentive structure could we put in place to keep them in line? We would need to make them able to feel pain, and then we would need to inflict pain on them. I'm not very comfortable with that.
Click to expand...

I don't know that pain, or it's analogue, would be such a bad idea, but there are also positive rather than negative incentives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom