Not the first person, nor the last. But that doesn't mean my contribution is for nothing. Progress is made up of many steps forward.
Who said anything about not having control over them? It wasn't me! Google doesn't understand me the way you or anyone else on this list does. It's a shallow version of understanding. Even when you misunderstand me, it'll still be a better understanding of me than Google can achieve right now. But you're right: it really is getting better at understanding natural language, due to the efforts of people like myself. Right now, people are better modelers of each others' minds than any software out there (unless you're talking about modeling the masses rather than individuals), but that doesn't mean they have uploads of each other living in their heads. You're thinking of a replica, which is far more complex than a mere model. Naturally, big budgets mean a leg up, as with any difficult endeavor. That really says nothing about whether they're taking the right direction, but rather says a lot about the speed they can travel in the direction they've selected. As for the lack of success so far in finding efficient implementations, if everyone quit just because past attempts failed, no one would ever succeed. I don't intend to count on luck. I'm using my knowledge, reasoning, intuition, and hard work to move forward. I know that I'm making progress, whether or not naysayers with no personal ambitions of their own can see it. I like *accomplishing* things, not sitting back and telling everyone else they're going to fail. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Matt Mahoney <[email protected]>wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:58 PM, [email protected] > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > No, I want to build something that can tap into the knowledge & computing > > power of the internet just like we do. > > That requires solving the remaining hard problems like language, > vision, robotics, and modeling human behavior. If we could do that, > then we could automate all human labor and stop paying people $70 > trillion per year to work. I'm sure you aren't the first person to > work on this problem. > > > As for the weaknesses of humans you list, I fail to see why they would > > have to apply to an artificial mind. Those are constraints placed on us > by > > our particular implementation of intelligence. > > Of course we would not for the purpose of working. But one application > of artificial stupidity would be uploading. If you want to resurrect > your deceased loved ones as robots, then you want them to act just > like they did when they were alive. > > > And if you don't see the > > utility of having an autonomous thinking & decision making machine, you > are > > in denial. > > I see an existential threat to homo sapiens. Do you really want to > make machines that are smarter than you and not have control over > them? > > > I would also like to be able to talk to a machine and know that it really > > does understand my wishes and requests, which search engines don't do > yet. > > Google is getting better at understanding natural language questions. > The only reason you don't think it "understands" you is because you > know it's a computer. > > > And when search engines finally succeed at that, it will be because they > > will have implemented something analogous to human cognition. > > It will be because they have successfully modeled your mind. A model > of your mind is a function that takes sensory input and returns a > prediction of your actions. > > Models of human minds are very useful things. If I had a model of your > mind, I could predict what would make you happy, or what would make > you buy something and how much you would pay. I could program a robot > to carry out those predictions in real time and have an upload of you, > or just use it to steal your identity. > > > Now what I'm working on isn't plugged into the internet for anyone to use > > like an (intelligent, conversational) search engine, but in order to lay > the > > groundwork for such a service, people like me have to spend our time > working > > on these sorts of projects. How else will we learn how to make the web > truly > > intelligent? And how else will we make robots truly effective and safe, > > besides making them understand what's happening in the world around them? > > The hard problems I mentioned (language, vision, etc) require a lot of > computing power. I estimate 10 petaflops and 1 petabyte, which is > about the power needed to run a human brain sized neural network in > real time. A lot of people think there are more efficient solutions, > but nobody has found any yet. The people who are actually making the > most progress in AI have big budgets and big buildings with cooling > towers filled with racks of servers. But good luck. > > > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/23050605-bcb45fb4 > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
