Gregory Hather <student@calpoly.edu> wrote:
>Some 50 years after Turning, look where IA is now. It stalled because
>it is to hard to program an adult human like mind. Instead, scientists
>should have persued artificial neural networks so the system could learn
>on its own and generalize by modifiying the strengths of its simulated
>conections. Rather than faking intelegence, this system would learn
>like a human. ANS is definatly the future of comuter intelegence.
First of all, IA is not AI, which is what you mean.
Secondly, while ANN's are cool, they are still very difficult to work with. You can't just slap together a huge neural net, wire it up to some input/output, switch the sucker on and start breast feeding it, shaking rattles and reading it childrens books -- and expect it to start learning and growing into an intelligent being. How the network is organized, the ways in which it is connected, the learning algorithms used, and a million other things that control how the NN learns and develops. When we are born, we already have all this stuff built in. The brain has many predefined areas with specific functions, and the way it learns and develops has been tweaked over millions of years of evolution.
Thirdly, why do you believe that a symbolic or classic AI is 'faking
intelligence'? I don't want to start another debate on what constitutes
intelligence, but why should we be so naive to assume that the human way is
the only way to be intelligent?
I say if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, writes a book on
metaphysics, and can teach you advanced calculus, it's intelligent.
AI researchers have been attempting what you suggest both with ANN's and symbolic systems for decades now. It just happens to be a very difficult thing to do.
--Aaron
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+| Aaron Davidson <ajd@ualberta.ca> http://ugweb.cs.ualberta.ca/~davidson/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+