AI is ridiculous concept that many misinterpret.

[DaveC426913]

I agree.
And that would be a "learning AI", no?

I suppose. Can there be AI without learning?

It seems to me any computer program can take input and maximize its goals.

I guess the key is that "the environment" is a collection of inputs many orders of magnitude more complex than anything not taken in by external sensors.

So yeah OK., I'll accept that.

 

[Write4U]

This may be of interest;
So you think you know what is Artificial Intelligence?

The various definition have been grouped into 4 different dimensions or schools of thought, based on what we want our A.I. to achieve and how we measure its success. As can be seen in the diagram, the definitions set the goal of Artificial Intelligence, either based on thought process and reasoning(top row), or based on behavior(bottom row). Further, the definitions are also grouped in terms of how we measure the success of Artificial Intelligence. This can be either in terms of human intelligence(left column), or against the idea of rationality or ideal concept of intelligence. The difference in human thinking and rationality is that, the former must be an empirical science, involving hypothesis and experimental confirmation and the latter involves a combination of mathematics and engineering.....more

https://hackernoon.com/so-you-think-you-know-what-is-artificial-intelligence-6928db640c42

 

[Steve Klinko]

If it is never read it provides no information, regardless of what potential information it has.

Not if all you ever do with it is put it on a shelf.

The Book obviously has information, not just potential information. Accessing or not accessing the information is irrelevant.

 

[billvon]

The Book obviously has information, not just potential information. Accessing or not accessing the information is irrelevant.

This is a stupid argument and has nothing to do with AI.

 

[Steve Klinko]

The problem is actually the other way around.

You think organic brains are doing something magical, and that, somehow, learning is something only organic brains can do.

For example:

You take it as a given that learning is the provenance of only organic brains, and therefore you assume that computer learning is, by definition, anthropomorphization.
That's a logical error.

Learning is the ability to use a set of data to formulate predictions about future inputs - even though those predictions were not given.

Notice there's no mention about what kind of *ware is required: whether hardware or wetware.

Wrong, I merely point out that we don't know how Brains do what they do. You insert the word Magical. You must be a Physicalist. Ironically you seem to give the Neurons the property of Consciousness without explaining how this property works. But I know you cannot Explain how this works because nobody has figured this out yet. As I said it is ok to Anthropomorphize what computers do, as long as we keep it in perspective. And if you want to fully generalize Learning like this you must acknowledge that: When a Book is added to a Library, the Library has gained more knowledge and has effectively learned.

 

[billvon]

Wrong, I merely point out that we don't know how Brains do what they do.

Fair enough! And you don't know what neural networks do. Thus for the purposes of this discussion, both are opaque.

 

[Steve Klinko]

Artificial intelligence (AI), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence

Learning to adapt to an environment is a specific type of learning, better described with the very word you used, namely Adaptation. Learning is also the accumulation of Information with no application to Adapting to anything.

 

[Steve Klinko]

Fair enough! And you don't know what neural networks do. Thus for the purposes of this discussion, both are opaque.

I know what Neural Nets do as well as anyone. I worked with a Scientist on a project using Neural Nets and Fuzzy Logic a whole bunch of years ago now. We were eventually awarded a patent for the technique we developed.

 

[Write4U]

Learning to adapt to an environment is a specific type of learning, better described with the very word you used, namely Adaptation.

Adapting to the environment is part of evolution of learning species.

Learning is also the accumulation of Information with no application to Adapting to anything.

? Give me an example.

 

[Steve Klinko]

Adapting to the environment is part of evolution of species. Give me an example.

I read and learn about various subjects all the time just for the pure enjoyment of the knowledge. No Adaptive applicability to my environment.

 

[billvon]

I know what Neural Nets do as well as anyone. I worked with a Scientist on a project using Neural Nets and Fuzzy Logic a whole bunch of years ago now. We were eventually awarded a patent for the technique we developed.

Ah! Good, then you know how similar they are to biological neural networks.

As you mentioned, no one has figured out precisely why our own neural networks let us think. Therefore, it's not valid to say that artificial neural networks do not have that property.

 

[Write4U]

I read and learn about various subjects all the time just for the pure enjoyment of the knowledge. No Adaptive applicability to my environment.

And that is beyond the ability of AI?

 

[DaveC426913]

Wrong, I merely point out that we don't know how Brains do what they do. You insert the word Magical. You must be a Physicalist. Ironically you seem to give the Neurons the property of Consciousness without explaining how this property works. But I know you cannot Explain how this works because nobody has figured this out yet.

Not knowing how the brain does what is does works in my favour and against yours.

You can't claim that 'a computer can't do X', while at the same time saying 'a brain can do X - even though we don't really know what or how'. (x=learning)

(That's the same as billvon just said

... no one has figured out precisely why our own neural networks let us think. Therefore, it's not valid to say that artificial neural networks do not have that property.

Learning has a distinct meaning. Both a computer and a brain could be black boxes (opaque, as Billvon says) about their internal mechanisms, yet - as long as they demonstrate that they manage to accomplish goals using methods they have not been taught - then they are learning.

You are coupling 'organic brain' and 'learning' too closely.

As I said it is ok to Anthropomorphize what computers do, as long as we keep it in perspective.

That is a logical fallacy. You are assuming your conclusion in your premise.

You start by assuming that 'learning can only be done by organic brains', then use that to conclude that 'saying a computer can learn is anthropomorphizing'.

Invalid.

 

[DaveC426913]

Steve, your views seem quite subjective, over-simplistic and based on an antiquated impression of what AI and learning AI are capable of.

OTOH, the preponderance of public research and literature strongly supports our statements.

A little bit of reading will help bring you up to speed on the latest developments. Wiki is not an authoritative source itself but it provides a foundation that yields quality third-party reading material:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence


On the other other hand, if you have some published, credible material that supports your position, I think we'll entertain it.

 

[Steve Klinko]

Ah! Good, then you know how similar they are to biological neural networks.

As you mentioned, no one has figured out precisely why our own neural networks let us think. Therefore, it's not valid to say that artificial neural networks do not have that property.

Neural Nets are for pattern matching not thinking.

 

[Steve Klinko]

And that is beyond the ability of AI?

You believe Computers can Enjoy learning?

 

[billvon]

Neural Nets are for pattern matching not thinking.

Ah! Then all you do is pattern match, since your brain is a big neural net.

 

[Write4U]

You believe Computers can Enjoy learning?

What makes you think that emotional experiences are purely of the mind? Have you ever considered physical harmony and disharmony may be experienced as a physical object.

Perhaps it depends on the material the AI body is constructed of. Perhaps it requires an physical body made from artificial biochemical material that is responsive to wave function and can experience a sense of harmony or disharmony when amplified by sheer quantity of sensory points.

This is already expressed in the single celled biological organisms that can "learn" to navigate in the course of avoiding obstacles, a survival skill ultimately evolving into an ability to experience a sense of "well-being" or "distress" in humans as a result of the combined sensory functions of trillions of sensory neurons and amplification of synchronicity or disharmony.

Consider Pythagoras

He was the first person to prescribe music as medicine. He is considered the “Father of Harmonics”. He applied the principles of harmonics to everything from music, art and architecture to running governments, raising a family, friendship, and personal development. He is considered the “Father of Philosophy” in fact he was the first person to introduce the word, “Philosophy”. His Teachings, the “Golden Verses”, and his universal application of the “Golden Means” are a testament to his transcendent genius.

PYTHAGORAS ABOUT MUSIC

Through music, Pythagoras performed what he called “soul-adjustments”.
Music is Mathematics
Arithmetic= Number in itself
Geometry= Number in space
Music/Harmonies= Number in time
Astronomy= Number in space & time

Pythagoras used various intervals of harmonic ratios as a medicine for dis-eases of the body, the emotions, & the Soul. “He aligned Souls to their divine nature” and through music he performed what he called, “Soul Adjustments”. Pythagoras was able to discern the harmony and consonance of heavenly bodies, the “Music of the Spheres”.

Pythagoras put to use his discovery of mathematics as they relate to the harmonic ratios. He made stringed instruments that could be tuned so that they would consistently produce layered consonant musical intervals. Later Pythagoras calculated other chromatic and enharmonic orders, (using simple ratios to create complex intervals).......more

Pythagoras taught that music should never be approached simply as a form of entertainment. Rather, he recognized that music was an expression of “HARMONIA”, the Divine principle that brings order to chaos and discord.

Thus music has a dual value because like mathematics, it enables men and women to see into the structures of nature.

Furthermore, he taught that if it was utilized correctly, music can:
a) bring the faculties of the Soul into harmony
b) compose and purify the mind
c) heal the physical body, thus restoring & maintaining perfect health.

One of his MOST IMPORTANT DISCOVERIES was that harmonic musical intervals could be expressed by perfect numerical ratios, a finding that led him to the realization that all sensible phenomena follow the pattern of number.

According to Iamblichus, “Pythagoras said the first important lesson to learn, is that which subsists through music…” for it “possesses remedies of human manners & passions that is able to restore pristine harmony and faculties of the soul. Pythagoras devised (musical) medicines calculated to repress and cure diseases of both bodies and souls.”

https://www.delamora.life/pythagoras/#

Consider that AI are especially able to process mathematical ratios and that "does not compute" is an AI expression of frustration!

 

[Steve Klinko]

Not knowing how the brain does what is does works in my favour and against yours.

You can't claim that 'a computer can't do X', while at the same time saying 'a brain can do X - even though we don't really know what or how'. (x=learning)

(That's the same as billvon just said

Ok, I'll put a lump of coal on the table and say it is Thinking. You can't prove it is not Thinking. So I win. That is the essence of your argument.

Learning has a distinct meaning. Both a computer and a brain could be black boxes (opaque, as Billvon says) about their internal mechanisms, yet - as long as they demonstrate that they manage to accomplish goals using methods they have not been taught - then they are learning.

You are coupling 'organic brain' and 'learning' too closely.

You are coupling Learning with Adapting too closely. But this is all a bunch of semantic irrelevancy.

That is a logical fallacy. You are assuming your conclusion in your premise.

You start by assuming that 'learning can only be done by organic brains', then use that to conclude that 'saying a computer can learn is anthropomorphizing'.

Invalid.

I don't assume learning can only be done by Organic Brains. In fact I think that maybe someday we will have fully Conscious, Aware, and Sentient machines. I only argue that it is not going to be done by ADDing numbers, or XORing numbers, or MOVing a byte from one location to another, or by JUMPing execution to another section of the code, etc.. You seem to think Magic things happen when these obviously primitive and totally Mechanical Machine Operations are executing in the Machine.

 

[Write4U]

You seem to think Magic things happen when these obviously primitive and totally Mechanical Machine Operations are executing in the Machine

They do!

Ok, I'll put a lump of coal on the table and say it is Thinking. You can't prove it is not Thinking. So I win. That is the essence of your argument.

If we light it we can say it's "Burning", a physical experience that turns the coal into ashes. That's mathematical magic and I can prove it!

I only argue that it is not going to be done by ADDing numbers

Why are you restricting this to "only adding numbers"? Expand you horizons.

Many animals can physically and sensory outperform humans in every respect. The only human mental advantage is "versatility", but why should that be only a human property?

We are constructing the AI. We should be able to construct a versatile AI, which is more than a mathematical machine. I'm sure you are familiar with the Turing test
(Ex Machina)?