From: Emmanuel Charpentier (emmanuel_charpentier@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Sep 11 1998 - 08:44:17 MDT
---"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
>
> > The basic concept used is neural network, and more particularly what
> > I would call associative net
...
> I disagree with the basic concept that human brains are
> based on neural nets.
:DDD You're joking, aren't you? How many neurones are there in a
brain again? What else do you propose for memory, processes, learning,
pain/pleasure taking place in you and me.
...
> Human
> brains use more powerful principles.
You need to give me some hinsight here. I don't see what you mean.
Of course, I shall agree with you on the fact that current
artificial neural network are not really human like, they are still
yet pattern catchers. But add many more layers, intra layers synapses
(and surely many other things), and you can code just about anything.
The funny thing is that you don't need symbols. In fact, I believe
symbols are merely used for communication...
> My AI is based on neither neural nets, nor rule-based systems.
Symbols _may_
> be fundamentally based on association, but they are still only a
part of an AI architecture.
From what I've read, you mostly think that you need to code all
abilities and 'somehow' have them work together through some world
model, central to have all the module communicate between each other.
But according to me, what you do is simply code a body of features for
an AI. You don't give it any ability concerning memory, learning,
imagination, your basic human thingies. Or do you think you simply
have to add modules whose work will be to 'memorise', 'imagine',
'streamline memory' whatever else is not taken care of by the
domdules? (domaine module)
I don't think you can ever link together an autocad module and an
OCR module and say "tadam, here I got the base for an AI". What you do
is put together functionnalities, not integrate them (no matter the
amount of code).
Markov nets would probably do a better job at it, at least it
allows to 'associate' things together!
> > From that point of view, it means that at least one of the AI
> > advantage should be dropped:
> > "3.The ability to perform complex algorithmic tasks without making
> > mistakes, both because of a perfect memory, and because of a lack of
> > distractions."
>
> > Humans perform repetitive and boring tasks all the time, my
> > heart can tell you!
>
> This wasn't intended as stating that the AI could perform high-level
tasks
> perfectly, only low-level tasks for which there are complete
algorithms;
> stupid, non-flexible procedures.
Come on, human body and brain do it all the time. That's what
happen when you become an expert on a task: you don't need to think
about it! It's wired!!! And you didn't answer about perfection: you
can't design perfection into an AI, and have that AI work its way
around in an unperfect (from our models point of view) universe!!!
...
> No offense, but these arguments always sound like "But fish are the
result of
> billions of years of evolution! How could they be outmatched by a
mere
> nuclear submarine?"
I'm always good at 'giving the stick to get beaten with'...:) But
I still think evolution has come up with solutions that are pretty
effective, and we will have to somehow copy them before improving
and/or completely changing design.
> and the rest of humanity is watching football.
"On est les champions, on est les champions, on est, on est, on est
les champions!!!" "et 1, et 2, et 3... zero" :D (we're still singing
it from time to time, and I bet jacques chirac does too)
Being world champions is a great feat for the french nation,
cathartic I would say: somehow, it helps us getting over WWII and
decolonisation, and being less fearful of globalisation.
Manu (bad singer, particularly on the net).
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:34 MST