People have been saying that for decades, but there's no evidence, or even a theoretical underpinning, to the idea that a rule-based process can "wake up".--mhoye
Impressed and alarmed by advances in artificial intelligence, a group of computer scientists is debating whether there should be limits on research that might lead to loss of human control over computer-based systems that carry a growing share of society’s workload, from waging war to chatting with customers on the phone.
You know, it's true that progress in AI has been crappy, largely IMO because AI researchers aren't asking a lot of the right questions, but ridiculing the very idea that they might succeed one day strikes me as really, really stupid.-- localroger
I'm confident our first entity smarter than any human will be built by biologists, doctors, teachers & psychologists, not computer scientists. I'm obviously talking about a "parallel human" consisting of hundreds of individually clever people with implants linking them together, presumably raise that way from early childhood.
The brain isn't nearly as rules-based as people want to believe. One of the things we've learned about language parsing is that statistics works much better than rule extraction.
the first human-level machine intelligence will be integrated from the products of many research groups... the only thing really stopping us from doing this now is current intellectual property laws, profit motivations, etc. i've read about groups working on space-modelling and navigation, groups working on emotional response through feedback, groups working on problem solving, genetic algorithms, common sense, ball catching, rubix cube solving, chess playing, natural language, learning, etc and etc and etc.
So what happens once all the low-hanging fruit has been snapped up, when low-skill low-income workers can no longer compete with automated (mindless) systems? The original response to this "Computars will put us all out of work!!" panic was that we would replace the jobs with better lives for all, and perhaps we could all become knowledge workers, or creative types.
But we're also in the middle of losing the wealth-generating potential of many of our creative industries, thanks to the internet's destruction of scarcity and physical limitations on content.
How do we pay for that food and shelter, though? Both require limited resources, and unless we have some massive reorganisation of society, those resources are going to be owned, and their owners are going to want recompense (even if it's just recompense enough to pay for the robots). But with robots doing the sorts of crappy jobs billions of us now do, how are we to generate that income?
I'm not totally against the idea that with a reorganisation of society we could achieve this workless paradise -- I'd love to fish in the afternoon and criticise in the evening just as I have a mind. I just haven't seen any sort of vision of what that organisation looks like, or how we get there from here.
Humans don't act perfectly rationally. We've got a bunch of systems in our heads that are set up to make intuitive jumps without full knowledge of the situation at hand. We can guess, we can act on hunches and subtle clues we may not even realize we've picked up.
Rational agents don't
Your example of a customer-service agent...I could see a company trying it, but honestly the rule set for anything other than a very basic set of interactions would be extraordinarily complex. I imagine you'd need average computing power to advance quite a bit further (orders of magnitude) before even attempting it would be worthwhile.
« Older Odosketch... | Beijing's underground:... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt