Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Artificial Intelligence...

2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,136 ✭✭✭Bob the Unlucky Octopus


    No, BC, your question was "what comes before intelligence?"- which is not at all the same thing. And as for self-awareness, it is not required that we are self-aware to exhibit intelligent behavior- we know this from zoological studies, never mind preprogrammed psycological studies.

    Artificial systems currently only respond to preprogrammed inputs, with an inability to act in self-interest- it's interesting that the comprehension of simple commands are simpler to achieve in an artificial system than a living one. Seeing how we're trying to bring an essentially constructed system on par with the several hundred million years needed on this planet to achieve sentient intelligence, you can see why some are pessimistic. We don't even fully understand the scientific properties of intelligent behavior, and psychologists are still debating on purely observational data.

    Occy


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭][cEMAN**


    Originally posted by BoneCollector
    Before we try to address the application of A.I.,
    Should we not 1st address what comes before intelligence?

    um.....Stupidity? hehehehe

    uhuh uhuh uhuh can a shoot em paw? uhuh uhuh uhuh


  • Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 4,599 CMod ✭✭✭✭RopeDrink


    Intelligence is gained by the ability to learn...

    I was interested in this one program that was discussing the ability for creations (Robot's, basically) to learn... To manipulate situations by solving problems, after "Learning" solutions...

    Can't remember the program thouroughly, but if these tests were excersised enough, you'd have the ability to create some form of "Robot" or whatever you wished, and with the proper chance, let it off to learn situations, surroundings, and many other traits... Of course, the intelligence gained will never exceed / reach the peak / standard of Human Intelligence as a whole.

    I don't see any other ways of Maintaining Artificial Intelligence... You can't create a reference for the being to check everytime it faces a problem, that's not intelligence, so what other ways are there to collect "Intelligence", and if that is answered, how would it be intigrated within a being!?...


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Seeing as half of us here would be trek fans, <nerdness>this is just like the episode where they try to claim ownership of data</nerdness>. As people have been trying to say, what defines intelligence? What is sentience<sic>? We have only ever been able to define it in terms of what we have, but what if some other form of life, with some other sort of view of the universe, totally undimensional to our own appears? They might not consider us as sentient as them. I think AI would have to be constructed in terms of our awareness, and we just ignore the philosohpical questions. BoneCollector's idea will probably be the way to go it. There is no chance in hell that we could build an artificial, working model of our own brain, instead create something with some basic instincts, and program it to learn(still a huge task). Then we can either program it in how to improve itself, or create an offspring of itself, but with more fundamental knowledge it has acquired. After all, is this not how our own brains have evolved to give us our own sense of intelligence, albeit over a much longer period? It may take time, but I would think that eventually this would begin to form some sort of intelligent being. Opinions?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    Well, there are a few differing views of how to tell whether something is intelligent.

    (Logical) Behaviourism: that a human's behaviour, his actions and his ability to reflect and improve one's actions is the only reliable way for another person to imply intelligence. Intelligence itself is merely the brain which is a bundle of dispositions - I bull away from a naked flame because it causes pain because I'm disposed toward not liking pain; I like action films because I'm disposed toward violence.

    Functionalism: Intelligence is the way in which the cognising organ/system functions. The success of this is measured by the analysis and outcomes of actions (when exhibiting signs of intelligence). Whether a brain's functions comprise intelligence with its given materials or a computer, so long as it functions the same way, a computer is intelligent. Intelligence itself is the whole cognising system.

    Biological Naturalism:It's all in the biological system that's the brain - everything is down to neurons and intelligence is the function of these separate but integrated areas performing well. Intelligence is just a by-product of the system of evolution - as Dennett says, intelligence is 'derived'.

    Dualism/Idealism: the mind is something non-physical whose property is intelligence. It's separate to the body and is something unexplainable.

    Now, cognitive science and AI uses the functionalist argument. Intelligence is just a matter of a system interacting to produce derived intentionality but whereas intelligence for computers is, as yet, unsuccessful, neuro-biology is beginning to explain what intelligence is.

    Personally, I go with Dennett's argument: the human brain has just evolved more than anything else we know on this planet and its functions are complex but can be explained by evolution - intentionality is derived, merely an extended function of our needs given interactions in the world. Now, when one accepts that even the simplest macromolecule like an amino acid has a form of "rudimentary agency" and all life descended from amino acids - it's fair to infer nowadays that our intelligence is just a highly complex form of agency with many, many parallel layers and so on. Intelligence is biologically based but it's not just based on function. Given this view, AI is possible but 'intelligence' is not fully understood so more analysis is required. But this is the right place to start, I believe.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 512 ✭✭✭BoneCollector


    How about this...

    Intelegence is..

    The ability to

    1) Adapt
    2) anticipate
    3) and assimilate

    Any inteligence system, weather it be
    electronic or biological must be able to meet the above.

    Adatapt:
    Be able to deal with and interact with any chalanges or envoiroments it is presented and develope solutions which if sucessfull become part of the original program.

    Anticipate:
    To Plan ahead and develope new ideas, routines or stratagies to meet future needs events, envoiroments or tasks.

    Assimilate:
    To accumilate and process all information to better meet the same 3 critiria and further improve itself to do all 3 ever better next time.

    Although.. Being artificial and not like us humans, it will probably not be able to deal with abstract concepts and how we! examine our envoiroment and develope abstract abilities like Art, poetry, painting and all the emotional concepts along with Materialism which we all seem to have a need for. where as AI would only have the need for the bare essetials to sustain itself, unless we are trying to develope something completely in our image and idiosyncrocies.
    Then again.. being able to deal with abstract may end up being an emergent property of a highly developed AI system, and have nothing to do with the original programming.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    Thay're all huge assumptions. What you call intelligence could be said to be based entirely on behaviourism - I mean, who is it who decides what good adaptive abilities are? Well, perhaps it could be explained through Darwinism - but Darwinist evolution doesn't involve 'intelligence' per se, just biological adaptability which is largely pre-intelligence. These are biological changes which have effects on the survivial abilities of particular organisms. It could be said that intelligence is simply something we give ourselves as a means to explain biological advancement.

    Intelligence, then, is derived from evolutionary development but is not something in itself. It's fine to cite adaptability, anticipation and assimilation but it's another thing to sufficiently explain them. I mean you're right but I don't think intelligence can be divided into these simple features. We might classify intelligence conveniently under those categories but they still don't do anything to actually explain intelligence.

    A computer may have adaptable features but adaptiveness usually depends on adequate comprehension of the outside world (for one - and the internal world) and this inevitably involves the problem of meaning. Is it possible for a computer to possess semantics to the perceived world (whether its senses are vision or something abstract like electromagnetic radiation or even echo-location like a bat).

    What you have outlined it largely a behaviourist-functionalist model but I think those features fo itnelligence don't do anything to explain it, just conveniently classify obvious features we all seem to share.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 512 ✭✭✭BoneCollector


    I don’t dictate as to what are good or bad abilities, as what is good or bad is a result of trial and error.
    No one is born intelligent so evolution does not play a part in your intelligence except you do! have the potential.
    inteligence is a result of experience and all 3 rules outlined above.
    Your environment also effects the end result.
    the ability to show intelligence to the Observer is a mater of experience and all 3 rules.
    if a potential intelligence being (human) is locked in a room with no contact with the outside world, with only food to sustain it and no communication or interaction for 20 years.
    once this person is taken out of this room into the real world they would find it difficult to understand E=mc2.
    that is not to say they would not! be able to eventually understand it, the point is.. you need experience in the environment to which your meant to operate in order to develope a mechanism to interact and convey intelligence. You can only convey intelligence using the methods that are understandable by who or whatever your conveying it too.
    conveying intelligence shows that it can deal with all 3 rules outline previously which leads to more experience and enhanced intelligence.
    we all have the potential of intelligence.
    to what level we can convey this depends on environment and experience’s to which we are exposed.
    Example:
    if someone could prove a theory that we can time travel using nothing but a match box. and you have no other data to dispute this. then any other theories you come up with around this will be based on your experience of this theory to which you where exposed within a specific environment.
    if you then met someone from another country and had a discussion about this, he would think your stupid! when infact all your calculation have been based on a mathamatical formula that was thought to you and would be correct, except it would not work with the laws of physics as WE! know it, but probably work with the laws of physics you where thought (if those laws really existed in the 1st place)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,478 ✭✭✭GoneShootin


    my intelligence is fairly artificial


  • Registered Users Posts: 897 ✭✭✭Greenbean


    "inteligence is a result of experience and all 3 rules outlined above. Your environment also effects the end result."

    I follow dada on this one. You are simply stating attributes of intelligence. Though these may be valuabe in targeting intelligence, they DO NOT define it.

    Eg, "Water". It flows, is colourless and keeps humans alive. All true, and it probably points to only one thing in the known universe that follows this BUT it isn't to say that there isn't another thing that does this (liquid oxygen?). Point is, there is a difference between definitively specifying what something is and describing attributes of it.

    Intelligence is....


    Answer that.. without doubt, absolutely true, not bs, no thinking it up on the spot ....


    My answer is, Intelligence is making choices according to goals. But I have absolutely no reservations in accepting that I may have totaly missed the point. To simply describe attributes of intelligence is to never have answered the question.. only noticed that the amoebas seem to currently have feet and can live above water... oh dear, my presumption that they lived below water was wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 512 ✭✭✭BoneCollector


    You are simply stating attributes of intelligence.

    to say i am only stating the attributes of inteligence deminishes the whole discussion.

    one could argue "What is electricity"

    electricity is the energy that is produced when a magnet is moved or rotated about a conductive coil.

    To say this is only the attributes, and dismiss it is unfair, because electricity is! the RESULT! of the magnet and the coil interaction in the same way that inteligence is a RESULT of all attributes that have been stated and are required to produce or make inteligence possible.

    To try define inteligence any further, is to define self!
    Each one is a result of the other, as we go up the scale from celular structure up to the human anatomy.
    the further back you go the closer you get to what you call attributes. Go the other way the you get the result.
    The inteligence we are trying to define is one where the owner takes control and uses its resources to produce results.
    Unlike Water which has no control and is governed by natures effects which are at best, random or the result of other elements etc...


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,335 ✭✭✭Cake Fiend


    Originally posted by EvilGeorge
    Say some one created a physicall body with AI running it - whats stopping it from becoming a physcopath or whatever..... wanting to achieve goals is somthing that we do so if one day one is created to our present level of sophistication it may want to take over (racist against....

    You could say the same about an unborn human.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1 RCD2000


    I don't think that true artificial intelligence is possible yet. There are some amazing use cases, however, AI takes on routine tasks in the most of them. We still have to wait for autonomous AI to arrive.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,443 ✭✭✭jobeenfitz


    Over eighteen years between last two previous posts. I think that's amazing.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Regional Midlands Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators, Regional North Mods, Regional West Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Regional North East Moderators, Regional North West Moderators, Regional South Moderators Posts: 1,031 CMod ✭✭✭✭Fathom


    MOD: Closed. Is this a good time to start a new AI thread? Any takers?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement