8 ms·

We are far, far from hard AI. If anything, this article shows that we're only just now starting to ask the right questions. And that's even debatable. Plus they

We are far, far from hard AI. If anything, this article shows that we're only just now starting to ask the right questions. And that's even debatable. Plus they're very hard questions. The problem is we have no theory of intelligence, no theory of psychology. Research in the cognitive fields is fractured, all about tiny insignificant phenomena with little relation to anything else. Our best theory is "the brain is like a computer" which is, frankly, a terrible theory. Here's something I find more promising: On Intelligence From First Principles: Guidelines for Inquiry Into the Hypothesis of Physical Intelligence [1] In short, what we really need to understand is self-organization and non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Not image labeling. [1] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10407413.2012.645757 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10407413.2012.645...

eli_gottlieb 13y ago
Go read Juergen Schmidhuber's research and then tell me we're so far away we can't even see Hard AI on the horizon.
- hharrison 13y ago
  Read the paper I linked and you'll understand why I'm not impressed.
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    I wasn't talking about his neural-networks work. That's just what he does to get funding ;-).
    - hharrison 13y ago
      I'm already familiar with some of his work. What did you have in mind specifically? In any case, he may be one of the best in the traditional computational approach to AI, but I think framing intelligence in terms of computation is inherently misguided. Of course I'm not going to get far with that unorthodox perspective on HN :)
      - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        I had meant AIXI and Goedel Machines, but if you've got a non-computational view that's also scientifically grounded, I'd love to hear it.
        hharrison 13y ago
        I think the first true strong AI will come from research on non-equilibrium thermodynamics. We need to get down to the basics: where do entities come from that self-organize, more specifically that are able to use information in structured energy arrays to find and dissipate negentropy deposits, and dissipate that energy in order to maintain their own state away from equilibrium and hence avoid dissipating themselves? In short, strong AI will not come from top-down research on problem solving or learning, but bottom-up research on what makes autonomy and agency possible. Goedel machines might actually be the closest thing to this in the computing literature, my reaction is less about the work itself than the rhetoric surrounding it, to be honest. JS should collaborate with a physicist on the thermodynamic side of the problem. If you're intrigued, you could start with the article I linked above, or if you have journal access, anything from the same special issue. I chose that article just because it's the only one not behind a paywall.
tlarkworthy 13y ago
Yes I think the same. Understanding how thinking machines self organise out of a set of sufficient conditions is very important. I am commenting mainly so I can read your link later.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
chongli 13y ago
The problem is we have no theory of intelligence I don't think we can have a theory of intelligence. At least in the public consciousness, intelligence is one of those "God-of-the-gaps" style concepts that continually evolves in order to maintain the illusion of human superiority.
- hharrison 13y ago
  Well, to the extent that it's a scientific problem, it sure would help to have a theory. I sure don't expect that theory to enter the public consciousness anytime soon, if at all. But I do agree with your sentiment as far as the way intelligence is usually discussed, even among the science-literate.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  Intelligence certainly exists. There is a reason humans are building space ships and chimpanzees are playing around with sticks.
  - chongli 13y ago
    Right. But how do you define it intensionally? Saying that "humans have a lot of it", "chimpanzees have less of it", "ditto for dolphins", "reptiles have very little of it", etc. is defining intelligence extensionally. Why is this a problem? Because an extensional definition doesn't tell you how to add new elements to the set.
    - hharrison 13y ago
      I'll try: a system is intelligent if it is able to respond to low-energy deposits (information) with high-energy reactions (e.g., movement) in order to seek non-local sources of negentropy to dissipate. But then again I'm more interested in the intelligence that differentiates a slime mold from a hurricane than the intelligence that differentiates a human from a chimpanzee. For example: hurricanes are self-organized, constituted by a structured flow of energy and matter rather than specific pieces of matter. But a hurricane is a slave to the local potential. It will dissipate all the negentropy in its wake, and in doing so maintain its structure. But once there is no more energy differential to dissipate, the hurricane will itself dissipate as it is not able to break free of the local potential and use information to seek out non-local negentropy sources. The question for research is what is necessary to make that jump from self-organization to intelligence, given that operationalization.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

Go read Juergen Schmidhuber's research and then tell me we're so far away we can't even see Hard AI on the horizon.

hharrison 13y ago
Read the paper I linked and you'll understand why I'm not impressed.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  I wasn't talking about his neural-networks work. That's just what he does to get funding ;-).
  - hharrison 13y ago
    I'm already familiar with some of his work. What did you have in mind specifically? In any case, he may be one of the best in the traditional computational approach to AI, but I think framing intelligence in terms of computation is inherently misguided. Of course I'm not going to get far with that unorthodox perspective on HN :)
    - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
      I had meant AIXI and Goedel Machines, but if you've got a non-computational view that's also scientifically grounded, I'd love to hear it.
      - hharrison 13y ago
        I think the first true strong AI will come from research on non-equilibrium thermodynamics. We need to get down to the basics: where do entities come from that self-organize, more specifically that are able to use information in structured energy arrays to find and dissipate negentropy deposits, and dissipate that energy in order to maintain their own state away from equilibrium and hence avoid dissipating themselves? In short, strong AI will not come from top-down research on problem solving or learning, but bottom-up research on what makes autonomy and agency possible. Goedel machines might actually be the closest thing to this in the computing literature, my reaction is less about the work itself than the rhetoric surrounding it, to be honest. JS should collaborate with a physicist on the thermodynamic side of the problem. If you're intrigued, you could start with the article I linked above, or if you have journal access, anything from the same special issue. I chose that article just because it's the only one not behind a paywall.

tlarkworthy 13y ago

Yes I think the same. Understanding how thinking machines self organise out of a set of sufficient conditions is very important. I am commenting mainly so I can read your link later.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

chongli 13y ago

The problem is we have no theory of intelligence I don't think we can have a theory of intelligence. At least in the public consciousness, intelligence is one of those "God-of-the-gaps" style concepts that continually evolves in order to maintain the illusion of human superiority.

hharrison 13y ago
Well, to the extent that it's a scientific problem, it sure would help to have a theory. I sure don't expect that theory to enter the public consciousness anytime soon, if at all. But I do agree with your sentiment as far as the way intelligence is usually discussed, even among the science-literate.
Houshalter 13y ago
Intelligence certainly exists. There is a reason humans are building space ships and chimpanzees are playing around with sticks.
- chongli 13y ago
  Right. But how do you define it intensionally? Saying that "humans have a lot of it", "chimpanzees have less of it", "ditto for dolphins", "reptiles have very little of it", etc. is defining intelligence extensionally. Why is this a problem? Because an extensional definition doesn't tell you how to add new elements to the set.
  - hharrison 13y ago
    I'll try: a system is intelligent if it is able to respond to low-energy deposits (information) with high-energy reactions (e.g., movement) in order to seek non-local sources of negentropy to dissipate. But then again I'm more interested in the intelligence that differentiates a slime mold from a hurricane than the intelligence that differentiates a human from a chimpanzee. For example: hurricanes are self-organized, constituted by a structured flow of energy and matter rather than specific pieces of matter. But a hurricane is a slave to the local potential. It will dissipate all the negentropy in its wake, and in doing so maintain its structure. But once there is no more energy differential to dissipate, the hurricane will itself dissipate as it is not able to break free of the local potential and use information to seek out non-local negentropy sources. The question for research is what is necessary to make that jump from self-organization to intelligence, given that operationalization.