Discussion in 'Intelligence & Machines' started by Rick, Nov 15, 2008.
What do you guys think?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
read up on Jeff Hawkins
I believe the Robots are here. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! WATCH FOR THE TITANS! :itold:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think we'll see an AI emerge on the internet before we create one and stick it into a robot body.
Were actually working towards that right now, by creating metadata about things on the internet it will make it easier for AIs to understand/manipulate and catagorize information.
A friend of mine works for AT&T who said that they are working on an AI platform that will be commercialized using iPhone....soon...
AI will happen, it's just a matter of when. New developments in computing and modelling will see us jump towards it in fits and starts, until it's ubiquitous, and we forget we were ever without it.
I should think it will happen in the next 50 years, if not sooner.
THE TECHNICAL DEFINITION of artificial intelligence is the science of designing machines that can simulate human intelligence by showing conversational capability similar to that of humans (and, to some extent, the ability to "understand" human thinking). The best known gauge of whether a machine is intelligent is the Turing test, proposed by the scientist Alan Turing in 1950. The test measures whether a human judge can tell the difference between a machine and a human while engaging in a natural-language conversation with both in a situation where all participants are isolated from one another. Today, however, the term artificial intelligence is used to describe anything from pattern and voice recognition to genetic programming. In addition to its grounding in computer science, AI borrows heavily from disciplines such as cognitive psychology, mathematics, semantics, linguistics, and philosophy.
The Top500 supercomputer list is computing's game of leapfrog, where hardware vendors one-up each other in the performance space. IBM, which has long dominated the list, is about to put itself far, far ahead of anything ever seen on that list or promised.
Now, IBM and the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration will build a pair of supercomputers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the same facility where its BlueGene/L is housed. BlueGene/L dominated the the list for years until last summer when another IBM supercomputer, Roadrunner, bumped it from the top spot.
Sequoia, due to be delivered in 2011 and operational in 2012, will be a 20 petaflop system that fits into just 3,500 square feet, roughly the same size as BlueGene/L, but it will have 40 times the compute power, according to Dave Turek, vice president of Deep Computing at IBM. The second supercomputer, Dawn, will be shipped this year and run at 500 teraflops, making it a Top 10 contender for the Top 500 list and making it about equal to BlueGene/L in terms of performance.
When deployed in two years, Sequoia will represent a huge leap forward in supercomputing. The current top performer, Roadrunner, is an IBM machine at the Los Alamos National Laboratory that is just barely over the one petaflop limit.
Up to now, the most ambitious future design has been Pleiades, a supercomputer designed by Intel and SGI and deployed at NASA's Moffet Field facilities. It will be a one petaflop machine when completed this year and NASA hopes to reach 10 petaflops by 2012.
Sequoia will be based on future IBM BlueGene technology and use 1.6 million IBM POWER processors and 1.6 terabytes of memory, which will be housed in 96 refrigerator-sized racks. Turek said the final specs on the processor have not been settled, so he could not say if it would use POWER6 or some derivative. BlueGene/L, for example, uses the much older PowerPC 440 processor but achieved its performance through scale.
Cosmic, could you discuss the crap you C&P please? We don't need a leak from Google into this site. What you do it pointless, please desist.
I thought the link I provided was enough information about AI that I really didn't need to add more to it.
This thread does not seem to be registering in my CPU very well...
Can you rephrase the opening...
dont take his words by heart.
People can go Google AI themselves. C&P'ing stuff you don't discuss an aspect of is just spamming up the forum. Please stop, or discuss what you paste.
Hey I didnt know that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thank you so much Cosmictraveler. Sequoia seems like a nice bet for a supercomputer for AI programming, considering how much more powerful it is and how much closer it comes to the human brain.
The missing part in "academic AI" is the neuroscience.
Allow me to quote Nietzsche:
Even though we know a lot about our body by now by studying DNA, we hardly know anything about thoughts. The control is still in the hands of nature and is external. But scientists keep believing that its nature and nurture and been digging on it for decades without much of progress.
The article kinda gave me an idea, purely hypothetical, but I wonder what yall think...
He seems to have the impression that AI should be allowed to evolve and formulate itself as a result of it's observations and interactions. He refers to intelligence evolving from insect to human, but what if we somehow got to the point where we could skip some steps and make a humanoid AI with the mental capacity and similar innate knowledge of a human infant? This AI could then be raised like a human child, interact with people like a person, and mentally develop into a very human-minded machine?
Maybe even swap bodies a few times, starting with a tiny fairly weak system, then as it gets older, give it appropriately-sized larger bodies with progressively more strength. It ought to be built to only be as strong as an equivalently-sized child until it's an "adult", then it can be outfitted with serious gear and enable it for, I dunno, unique employment opportunities where a custom-tailored body can be of use.
Crazy idea, the stuff of sci-fi, but I dunno, thoughts?
before that, how can we be sure that what humans posses is actually intelligence? Looking at the world around us, i think we have mistaken stupidity with only long term consequences as intelligence.
I think the author's an arrogant, rude man. He writes that Kevin Warwick is a "second-rate speculator", that the Turing test is the "wrong way to think" and "They wouldn't listen to us telling them we'd been there, done that, any more than the Islamist utopians currently reliving the Middle Ages are listening to the west today."
AI progress, like human evolution may appear slow but it is present. Attended IET's Tustin lecture recently, given by a Honda researcher, they of ASIMO.
Robots will learn from experiencing, the consequences of their own mistakes; they may not be 'intelligent' in the human sense, but perhaps more useful than a lot of humans, like the late Jady Goody, or UK expense-fiddling MPs. Wait till DARPA decides it wants a thinking robot and puts a huge sum down in a challenge.
There is a simple test to prove AI. It is not turing because the internet already provides that by anonymous forums and chat rooms.
No, the real test to determine that AI matches or exceeds human minds is the Aha! test.
The day a machine can come up with an idea that solves its own inquiry and realizes its own intelligence (with an exclamation of Aha!) then AI will have been achieved.
Separate names with a comma.