tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post8725582620661765881..comments2024-03-14T11:09:32.759-05:00Comments on Falkenblog: Kurzweil on Creating a MindEric Falkensteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07243687157322033496noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-18694371764557990152013-01-16T09:14:17.811-06:002013-01-16T09:14:17.811-06:00Drederick. You make good points, and my article co...Drederick. You make good points, and my article could have been better focused, because my (intended) point was that while deep preferences like envy, status seeking, an aversion to loneliness, and time preferences, can be put in, the one that can't is the doubt we feel from uncertainty, and several great philosophers (I could have included Heidegger) state this worry is the essence of human consciousness. If we can't model this, we can't put it into computers, and it's not a trivial lacuna. It's a deep issue for economists too.Eric Falkensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07243687157322033496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-55845126807751851172013-01-16T03:05:59.253-06:002013-01-16T03:05:59.253-06:00I think your opinion on this must be influenced by...I think your opinion on this must be influenced by your religion/spirituality. If humans are just meat and chemicals and electrical impulses, then whatever goes on in our brains can be simulated in a different medium. Do you agree that IF we don't have souls/spirits/whatever, then your objection fails?<br /><br />"A computer needs pretty explicit goals because otherwise the state space of things it will do blows up"<br /><br />Why doesn't the state space of human's blow up? Because we're not doing a brute force search, but neither does a computer have to. It can use heuristics too.<br /><br />"because they don't have finite lives, so they can work continuously, forever"<br /><br />That doesn't mean that their goals couldn't be time-bound. Also, computer processes can end in a variety of ways so I'm not sure why you're assuming all AIs would live forever.dredericknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-81456830126923505592013-01-15T09:04:40.973-06:002013-01-15T09:04:40.973-06:00At one point accurate and reliable computer langua...At one point accurate and reliable computer language translation seemed like an unattainable goal – too many nuances and all that. About 15 years ago I remember a guy (a real live Watson in fact) telling me about a company he was backing that aimed to solve this problem with a giant hub-and-spoke model where the source language would first be translated into a “universal” language and then that would be translated into the target language. I don’t think that ended up working out so well.<br /><br />The breakthrough technology (Google’s I think) was to build up a database of past examples of human translations in which word x in language y in context z was accurately translated to word xx in language yy. So there’s another example of (massive) quantity begetting (mostly good enough) quality. Maybe a similar proxy system could be developed for emotions, anxiety, doubt, fear etc.<br /><br />There has to be a finite amount of neural connections (or whatever) in the human brain so duplicating that raw firepower with a computer shouldn’t be (and in many cases already hasn’t been) an insurmountable problem but maybe there is some advantage (greater efficiency?) that the chemical storage and processing of information (or chemical combined with electric) has over the purely electronic.<br />Mercurynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-68664619369444012352013-01-15T07:39:28.983-06:002013-01-15T07:39:28.983-06:00mr Falkenstein,
your comments at the end about ro...mr Falkenstein,<br /><br />your comments at the end about romance (of those thinkers) is quite interesting a topic. Could you perhaps expand a bit on that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-56351291788810603862013-01-15T07:29:58.211-06:002013-01-15T07:29:58.211-06:00First, I noted they can put in emotions, and Marvi...First, I noted they can put in emotions, and Marvin Minsky has mentioned this. Secondly, I don't say anything about Google not being interested in AI. But, other than that, I concede that quantity can produce quality. Eric Falkensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07243687157322033496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-84209002932420508792013-01-15T06:57:38.231-06:002013-01-15T06:57:38.231-06:00So here's a thought. 15 years ago, a computer ...So here's a thought. 15 years ago, a computer first beat Kasparov. Until then, chessmasters used to say that computers would never beat human champions because they would need to understand "art". After the fact the feat was "obvious" and "unimpressive", because the computer just had raw power.<br /><br />Next people said, computers will never be able to understand the nuances and wit of games like Jeopardy. So Watson completely blew away his competition. "Bah", said the naysayers, "it was obvious and unimpressive, it just read wikipedia".<br /><br />But here's the thing you are missing out: with quantity, comes quality. All these things you are saying computers do not have, you should have qualified with a "Yet". They are emotionless, yet. They are without anxiety, yet. They are unintelligent and unimpressive, yet.<br /><br />Lets see what will happen within 15 years.<br /><br />Also, to say that Google isn't interested in Artificial Intelligence is just bad reporting on your part. You should inform yourself better before ranting. They are the number one company interested in that issue, and now they hired Kurzweil as one of their top engineers to advance that research.Barba Rijahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06514373829674181118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-70363279654060881692013-01-15T00:20:56.873-06:002013-01-15T00:20:56.873-06:00"Just as objectivity is the result of objecti..."Just as objectivity is the result of objective scientist..."<br /><br />Is NOT the result?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com