Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

What are you view in Strong AI

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 8:27

Please respond

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 8:29

My views of Strong AI are such that any sufficiently ``Strong'' AI would be capable of correct grammar and sentence construction.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 8:39

I think we should reach for mammalian and human-like AI first. Build better hardware which can run nn networks the size of our neocortex+thalamus, some optimizations/hacks are allowed, but it should still embody the same rough functionality. There's actually some interesting work being done in this direction, but it's a bit disappointing that there are only a few serious contenders to this race.

As for Strong AI, it could be anything, but it should be able to do everything human-like AGI can do and more (this doesn't mean just increased speed, that's included in human-like AI, but increased capacity/depth could be acceptable). Alternative designs (non-biological neural network-like) would also be interesting, but I don't think we'll be getting some usable ones too soon, and there's that whole FAI problem, which I'm ignoring as far as human-like AI ones is concerned (I could give more detailed reasoning here, but I'm too tired to it all, so I'll leave that for another time).

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 8:54

>>3
What? Today's technology can't even create a quadripedal robot, that could ballance himself and run at speed of your cat. And a creature without hands and legs can't be intelligent, because it can't even explore its environment.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 9:07

>>3
OpenCog

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 9:10

exploration not require movement, if send a small robot or watch camera view, even hands superfluous

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 9:11

>>1-1000
Strong AI can go to the store and fart out goofballs for all I care.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 9:16

>>3
The problem with mammalian brains is that there's A LOT of duplication and redundancy for error correction, which is no longer necessary when you transition to digital electronic computation. Simulating neural networks for all subsystems is overkill, you need merely implement the higher-order function of various subsystems and modalities. We know how the eyes and visual cortex work to some degree, they integrate the input signal and perform second-order Lagrangian differentiation spatially and temporally. You don't need a neural network to implement that, just a stream-lined DSP pipeline or multiple parallel pipelines.

We're starting to see applications of this approach showing up in research vehicles that can drive themselves, simple object recognizers, and UAV visual intelligence systems.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 9:19

>>6
It requires movement, if you want to extract most information from the environment. Knowing what term "apple" means requires knowing its relation to other things in environment. For example, robot can try to use knife on apple and get knowledge about seeds, apple contains. This is a tacit knowledge about holding a knife, cutting an apple and extracting seeds. You can't hardcode this.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 9:43

>>9
I don't think you've ever seen any technology created since the 70s.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 10:02

>>8
Your approach can work, but I don't think it's as simple as you think: we're mostly generalized pattern recognition machines, we recognize low-level patterns (let's say edges and lines in our visual cortex) at the lower level of our cortex, then as we move toward higher regions of the cortex, you recognize patterns of patterns, and patterns of those patterns and so on, patterns themselves are both spatial and temporal.

You could try to take a modern approach by using some statistical means to parse language or perform some complex tasks, but why not just create the most generic pattern recognition machine (such as ourselves) which can learn language and everything else(just like we do)? This will of course lead to similar faults that Humans (and other mammals) have: we're not inherently rational or logical, but we do have certain low-level mechanisms which allow us to develop rational and logical thinking (such as the causes of cognitive dissonance) by making it more difficult for us to hold contradicting views.

In general, I'm undecided as to wether a bodyless (environment-less) AI would be easy or even possible, my current view is that without the environment, it's impossible for such an AI to ever learn, even moreso, something similar to ourselves. Which means either the easy solution of robotic embodiment or the more complex solution of a simulated world (with overly simplified physics, but good enough for the agent to learn these "laws of physics").

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 11:55

>>10
AFAIK, most of your technology consists of mathematics, which has nothing in common with reality. You can't capture IRL knowledge with Set Theory and logical relations. Neither you can do with neural nets, which require manual guidance.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 12:34

>>12
Get out.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 12:40

>>12
Stop posting in a board written in a jewish-mathematics-driven programming language, using a jewish-mathematics-based computer on a jewish-mathematics-based network.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 12:46

>>12
which require manual guidance.

Let me guess, you believe it's the hand of God manipulating everyone's neural wetware for His plan, and as such you believe that computers will never be as smart or smarter than humans at generalized tasks? Get the fuck out of here.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 12:56

>>13>>14>>15
I don't take orders from jewish maggots.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 12:59

>>15
>believe it's the hand of God
No. It's you, who believes in "God" and "Infinity", jew. Or maybe you just a simple-minded shabbes goy, who loves to lick jewish ass-holes?

Name: VIPPER 2011-04-14 13:03

Oh No! Its the stormfront autist! Quick to the SAoVQ.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 13:10

>>17
Your an anus!

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 14:11

>>17
JEWS DID INFINITY

Name: famous jews 2011-04-14 18:28

>>20
While Newton's fame came from his work in the field of science, his work on Biblical hermeneutics was the work he most loved. He also wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies. Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible, as he considered himself to be one of a select group of individuals who were specially chosen by God for the task of understanding Biblical scripture. Newton’s conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.


In philosophy, Leibniz is mostly noted for his optimism, e.g. his conclusion that our Universe is, in a restricted sense, the best possible one that God could have created. Leibniz devoted considerable intellectual and diplomatic effort to what would now be called ecumenical endeavor, seeking to reconcile first the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches, later the Lutheran and Reformed churches. In this respect, he followed the example of his early patrons, Baron von Boineburg and the Duke John Frederick—both cradle Lutherans who converted to Catholicism as adults—who did what they could to encourage the reunion of the two faiths, and who warmly welcomed such endeavors by others.

Descartes claimed to be a devout Roman Catholic, claiming that one of the purposes of the Meditations was to defend the Christian faith. Stephen Gaukroger's biography of Descartes reports that "he had a deep religious faith as a Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth." After Descartes died in Sweden, Queen Christina abdicated her throne to convert to Roman Catholicism (Swedish law required a Protestant ruler.) The only Roman Catholic she had prolonged contact with was Descartes, who was her personal tutor.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 18:54

There Are No Jews In France! How many times must I tell you?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 19:09

There are no anus in France!

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 19:41

In France they neither have holes to defecate from, nor do they have Jews. They are also missing soap.

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 19:41

>>23
So, where the pâté comes from?

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 19:51

>>25
You need to hax french anus!

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-14 21:42

>>26
No just ask her politely

Name: Anonymous 2011-04-15 22:33

bumps in the trunk

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List