The Big Blue Empire Strikes Back...

[Lindley]

If you've actually read the link regarding the DARPA Cognitive Research project, you will see that one of the things they were trying to figure out was how the brain could do what it does with such little power

I read it. It says IBM will have nine months for the first phase. That says to me that they're simply going to try building a really big neural network, most likely. Anything else would take far longer. Interesting to see what happens, but probably not a game-changer.

The problem with the "AI will advance geometrically" theory is that they've been saying that since the 60s and it hasn't happened. Fundamentally, the directions being explored by AI researchers will not lead to self-aware machines; merely improved Google search results and the like. You can accelerate all you want, but if you aren't pointing at a given destination, going really fast won't get you there.

It may be that we eventually figure out how to make intelligent machines, but it won't be as an inevitable result of the advancement of computers. If they do figure out how to model the human brain that might be a step in that direction, but it won't be the endgame.

 

[scotthm]

ScottHM,

Creating an artificially 'intelligent' computer is not creating a 'being', it's creating a machine... a tool.

If it's sentient, it's a being whether it's a human, or a robot.

That's opinion, and not 'fact'.

as most people know, technology increases at a geometric rate (exponentially). The faster it advances, the faster it advances faster.

I don't know this. I believe that technology often reaches a plateau before beginning to advance again, and it's often just serendipity that starts the ball rolling again.

---------------

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Lindley,

How big will this neural network be?


ScottHM,

Well why would it be any different if it was sentient?


CuttingEdge100

 

[Lindley]

Lindley,

How big will this neural network be?

I have no idea. I'm just speculating as someone who knows what level of advancement DARPA projects tend to aim at and what the current state of AI is more or less in that area.

 

[scotthm]

ScottHM,

Well why would it be any different if it was sentient?

Why don't we cross that bridge when we come to it? I have a feeling we won't be here to see it.

---------------

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Lindley,

I have no idea. I'm just speculating as someone who knows what level of advancement DARPA projects tend to aim at and what the current state of AI is more or less in that area.

You can't even venture a guess?


ScottHM,

Why don't we cross that bridge when we come to it? I have a feeling we won't be here to see it.

You know, generally when you're in the process of designing or building something you typically try to weed out as many potential problems as you can before whatever you're designing is built.


CuttingEdge100

 

[Lindley]

Lindley,

I have no idea. I'm just speculating as someone who knows what level of advancement DARPA projects tend to aim at and what the current state of AI is more or less in that area.

You can't even venture a guess?

Why would I be able to? I'm not even 100% positive that's what they're doing. I don't work for DARPA or IBM!

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Lindley,

Oh well...


CuttingEdge100
"Too much power in too few hands is dangerous. I fail to see how any (One) World government could effectively enforce global policies without accumulating a disturbing amount of power and influence."

 

[msbae]

See the Chinese room argument for that, msbae.

Just because a computer can convincingly carry on a conversation doesn't mean it exhibits any intelligence. It is just, as kv1at3185 said, an expert system.

Numenta's apparent goal is to do what the human brain does well, which is recognize patterns in complex data. This is something computers are generally bad at, but humans are very good at. This is not likely to result in any kind of artificial sentience, it's just a methodology for improved data analysis.

Okay, now I'm less concerned.

 

[msbae]

Ya know what? I'm not worried about Terminator Robots coming back from the future looking for Sarah & John Connor.

Since the universe likes to keep a relative balance in things, I'd bet we end up with robots like Bender from Futurama instead. That could actually be pretty cool if I reprogram him to steal for me instead of himself.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

msbae,

I'm not entirely sure if time travel is even possible in real life...

However the fact that A.I. will ultimately become more intelligent than the natural kind is entirely plausible. The question is then how it will view us? It might consider us troublesome pests...


CuttingEdge100

 

[msbae]

msbae,

I'm not entirely sure if time travel is even possible in real life...

However the fact that A.I. will ultimately become more intelligent than the natural kind is entirely plausible. The question is then how it will view us? It might consider us troublesome pests...


CuttingEdge100

Even if that does happen, I probably won't be around anymore. Something tells me it will be at least a few more decades before A.I. becomes as sophisticated as a 5-year old, let alone smart enough to make Einstein look like Forrest Gump.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

msbae,

I think it will be about 15-30 years tops before A.I. outsmarts us.

I'm not being overly optimistic (or pessimistic depending which view you hold)


CuttingEdge

 

[msbae]

In 30 years, I'll be 57. I think that will leave me with enough physical ability to help the Human resistance. Better start stock-piling the firepower while you still can...

 

[CuttingEdge100]

In 30 years I will be 64. It doesn't change the fact that there will be 34 year olds, and even 20 year olds in that time frame.

 

[msbae]

In 30 years I will be 64. It doesn't change the fact that there will be 34 year olds, and even 20 year olds in that time frame.

An old man can still aim a gun.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

I don't think it would do much, msbae

 

[msbae]

Every little bit helps.