Hi John,

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:08 PM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig and Telmo:
> Is "anticipation" involved at all? Deep Blue anticipated hundreds of steps
> in advance (and evaluated a potential outcome before accepting, or
> rejecting).

Sure. This issue though is that Deep Blue does this by brute force. It
computes billions of possible scenarios to arrive at a decision. It's
clear that human beings don't do that. They are more intelligent in
the sense that they can play competitively while only considering a
small fraction of the scenarios. How do we do this? There is almost no
real AI research nowadays because people gave up on answering this
question. It's related to many other interesting questions: how do we
read and understand the meaning of a text? Google is like something
with the intelligence of an ant (probably still way less) but vast
amounts of computational power. Again, this is brute-forcing the
problem and it doesn't come close to the level of understanding that a
smart 9 year old can have when reading.

On the linguistic side, Chomsky is also outspoken against the
statistical "dumb" approaches.

> What else is in "thinking" involved? I would like to know, because I have no
> idea.

Hofstadter's ideas are very deep and I don't claim to fully understand
them. I do think that is concept of "strange loop" is important. Every
time there's something we can't define (intelligence, life,
consciousness), strange loops seems to be involved. Strange loops
feedback across abstraction layers. Goals->feelings->cognition->Goals.
Environment->DNA->Organism->Environment and so on -- in a very
informal way, please pay no attention to the lack of rigour here.

I think this is compatible with comp and several thing that Bruno
alludes to. The insight also seems to come from similar sources --
notably Gödel's theorems.

On the engineering of AI side, I believe we are still in the middle
ages when it comes to computation environments and languages. One of
my intuitions is that languages that facilitate the creation of
self-modifying computer code are an important step.

Telmo.

> John Mikes
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:43:49 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-man-who-would-teach-machines-to-think/309529/
>>> >
>>> > The Man Who Would Teach Machines to Think
>>> >
>>> > "...Take Deep Blue, the IBM supercomputer that bested the chess
>>> > grandmaster
>>> > Garry Kasparov. Deep Blue won by brute force. For each legal move it
>>> > could
>>> > make at a given point in the game, it would consider its opponent’s
>>> > responses, its own responses to those responses, and so on for six or
>>> > more
>>> > steps down the line. With a fast evaluation function, it would
>>> > calculate a
>>> > score for each possible position, and then make the move that led to
>>> > the
>>> > best score. What allowed Deep Blue to beat the world’s best humans was
>>> > raw
>>> > computational power. It could evaluate up to 330 million positions a
>>> > second,
>>> > while Kasparov could evaluate only a few dozen before having to make a
>>> > decision.
>>> >
>>> > Hofstadter wanted to ask: Why conquer a task if there’s no insight to
>>> > be had
>>> > from the victory? “Okay,” he says, “Deep Blue plays very good chess—so
>>> > what?
>>> > Does that tell you something about how we play chess? No. Does it tell
>>> > you
>>> > about how Kasparov envisions, understands a chessboard?” A brand of AI
>>> > that
>>> > didn’t try to answer such questions—however impressive it might have
>>> > been—was, in Hofstadter’s mind, a diversion. He distanced himself from
>>> > the
>>> > field almost as soon as he became a part of it. “To me, as a fledgling
>>> > AI
>>> > person,” he says, “it was self-evident that I did not want to get
>>> > involved
>>> > in that trickery. It was obvious: I don’t want to be involved in
>>> > passing off
>>> > some fancy program’s behavior for intelligence when I know that it has
>>> > nothing to do with intelligence. And I don’t know why more people
>>> > aren’t
>>> > that way...”
>>>
>>> I was just reading this too. I agree.
>>>
>>> > This is precisely my argument against John Clark's position.
>>> >
>>> > Another quote I will be stealing:
>>> >
>>> > "Airplanes don’t flap their wings; why should computers think?"
>>>
>>> I think the intended meaning is closer to: "airplanes don't fly by
>>> flapping their wings, why should computers be intelligent by
>>> thinking?".
>>
>>
>> It depends whether you want 'thinking' to imply awareness or not. I think
>> the point is that we should not assume that computation is in any way
>> 'thinking' (or intelligence for that matter). I think that 'thinking' is not
>> passive enough to describe computation. It is to say that a net is
>> 'fishing'. Computation is many nets within nets, devoid of intention or
>> perspective. It does the opposite of thinking, it is a method for petrifying
>> the measurable residue or reflection of thought.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> > Groups
>>> > "Everything List" group.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> > an
>>> > email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to