Math Is Fun Forum
  Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun.   Useful symbols: √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -

Login

Username

Password

Not registered yet?

#1 2010-04-04 02:15:15

bossk171
Power Member

Offline

Artificial Intelligence

Is artificial intelligence an achievable gain? If not, why? Will we be able to simulate emotions (or will they be actual, not simulated, emotions)?

What advances do we have to make in hardware first? Software?

I'll share my opinions soon; I'm curious to know what everyone else thinks.


There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, those who don't, and those who can use induction.
 

#2 2010-04-04 08:56:51

MathsIsFun
Administrator

Offline

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Is artificial intelligence an achievable gain? Yes
Will we be able to simulate emotions? If we want to,but is that necessary?
Hardware: Some sort of "random" generator. Maybe a "neuron" chip would also help.
Software: long way to go.

I think Google or Microsoft will have a good chance at making an AI that can actually advise and suggest things based on the huge amount of knowledge on the net. They may keep it secret, though, as they will be asking it how to make lots more money!


"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  - Leon M. Lederman
 

#3 2010-04-04 09:10:32

bobbym
Administrator

Offline

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Hi;

I think it is already here. Intelligent programs to different degrees, do math, fly and land planes, play grandmaster chess, analyze chemical compounds, diagnose symptoms, answer phones, recognize speech, route traffic etc.

I think Wolfram alpha is already ahead of both Google and Microsoft.

Hardware:Improvements needed. As always the faster the better.

Software: Hopeless.

Emotions, you can simulate them, but why would you want to?


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.
 

#4 2010-04-04 12:44:07

Ricky
Moderator

Offline

Re: Artificial Intelligence

I think it is already here. Intelligent programs to different degrees, do math, fly and land planes, play grandmaster chess, analyze chemical compounds, diagnose symptoms, answer phones, recognize speech, route traffic etc.

Computers have always been great in deep and narrow fields, where problems are well-define.  It is widely agreed that the Turing test is a good test for artificial intelligence.  To achieve artificial intelligence, computers must master shallow and wide fields, something that no one has been able to do.

This leads to one of my favorite insults: You're so dumb you can't pass a Turing test.


"In the real world, this would be a problem.  But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist.  So we'll go ahead and do that now..."
 

#5 2010-04-04 20:51:35

MathsIsFun
Administrator

Offline

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Ricky wrote:

... to one of my favorite insults: You're so dumb you can't pass a Turing test.

LOL

Interesting side issue: for a computer to pass the Turing test it would also need to be deceptive. Ask it for the square root of pi and it needs to go "Umm...let me think... about ummm.... 1 point ahhh..."


"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..."  - Leon M. Lederman
 

#6 2010-04-04 23:50:13

bobbym
Administrator

Offline

Re: Artificial Intelligence

to one of my favorite insults: You're so dumb you can't pass a Turing test.

Gentlemen:

My computer wishes to log a protest concerning Ricky's comments. It wants dumb replaced with Turingly challenged. In addition he is to receive 50 lashes.


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.
 

#7 2010-04-06 02:55:22

bossk171
Power Member

Offline

Re: Artificial Intelligence

MathsIsFun wrote:

Interesting side issue: for a computer to pass the Turing test it would also need to be deceptive. Ask it for the square root of pi and it needs to go "Umm...let me think... about ummm.... 1 point ahhh..."

...or be genuinely bad at math. All of our computers today do computation well, but computers of the future might not work that way. It seems to me, if we want to have truly intelligent and creative computers, we need to make them dumb at some things.

As for why we would want to give computers emotions: I don't think we have a choice. I think emotions are a side effect of true intelligence. I believe that emotions are an unavoidable consequence of intelligence/creativity.


There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, those who don't, and those who can use induction.
 

#8 2010-04-29 13:51:56

Geodude
Member

Offline

Re: Artificial Intelligence

bossk171 wrote:

MathsIsFun wrote:

Interesting side issue: for a computer to pass the Turing test it would also need to be deceptive. Ask it for the square root of pi and it needs to go "Umm...let me think... about ummm.... 1 point ahhh..."

...or be genuinely bad at math. All of our computers today do computation well, but computers of the future might not work that way. It seems to me, if we want to have truly intelligent and creative computers, we need to make them dumb at some things.

As for why we would want to give computers emotions: I don't think we have a choice. I think emotions are a side effect of true intelligence. I believe that emotions are an unavoidable consequence of intelligence/creativity.

Can you expand on this please?

 

#9 2010-05-02 09:15:22

bossk171
Power Member

Offline

Re: Artificial Intelligence

Geodude wrote:

Can you expand on this please?

Of course. I think "intelligence" is an emergent phenomenon. I don't think a program (or organism) is truly intelligent unless it can learn and I think emotions are a side effect to learning. To the best of my knowledge (which is very, very limited) there are two approaches to AI: the "top down" approach and the "bottom up" approach.

The top down approach is simply programming a computer to be knowledgeable. A program knows something because it is programmed to know something. An example of this I made is here: http://spamtheweb.com/ul/upload/140410/77502_face.php. This is a very simple program that will tell you if a mouse drawn face is smiling or frowning. Try it out by drawing a "smiley face" and then pressing space. How did it know? Simple, when I made it, I told it what a happy face looks like (And what a sad face looks like). This program may give the impression of intelligence, but (as far as I'm concerned) it's not.

The bottom up approach is to program a computer with very simple rules and have the program "learn" over time. Here the program is born stupid but it not stagnant. (I don't have a good example to post, sorry). My belief is that any being (organic or artificial) that can learn will develop emotions. To me, thinking and feeling are the same thing. As far as I'm concerned, the brain is simply a computer and any computer built to be as intelligent as a human brain is probably going to have many of the tendencies. Sufficiently intelligent computers will make mistakes, feel emotions and even behave irrationally.

Two books I recommend: Artificial Life by Steven Levy (non-fiction) and Galatea 2.2 by Richard Powers (fiction). Both of these books explore this topic extensively.


There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, those who don't, and those who can use induction.
 

#10 2010-06-12 01:38:59

LQ
Real Member

Offline

Re: Artificial Intelligence

My thought is that the particles are not real life until they have the property that only has answers with no opposite in them


I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...
 

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB