×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A.I. Developer Challenges Pro-Human Bias

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the what-it-is-you-intend-to-practice dept.

Technology 234

destinyland writes "After 13 years, the creator of the Noble Ape cognitive simulation says he's learned two things about artificial intelligence. 'Survival is a far better metric of intelligence than replicating human intelligence,' and "There are a number of examples of vastly more intelligent systems (in terms of survival) than human intelligence." Both Apple and Intel have used his simulation as a processor metric, but now Tom Barbalet argues its insights could be broadly applied to real life. His examples of durable non-human systems? The legal system, the health care system, and even the internet, where individual humans are simply the 'passive maintaining agents,' and the systems can't be conquered without a human onslaught that's several magnitudes larger."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

234 comments

We are nothing (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28889937)

People will fight tooth and nail against anyone or anything which challenges their notions of self-importance. We are just dirt that can talk.

Durable non-human systems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28889947)

Besides the conception, creation, and ongoing maintainance, very non-human.

Re:Durable non-human systems (1)

johnsonav (1098915) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890335)

Besides the conception, creation, and ongoing maintainance, very non-human.

The intelligent part is that those systems get us humans to do all that work for them.

Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28890419)

"Besides the conception, creation, and ongoing maintenance, very non-human."

Or, besides the human parts, which are almost everything, very non-human.

Not even fraud, just stupid.

Banks (2, Funny)

Rendonsmug (1516589) | more than 4 years ago | (#28889953)

The banking system is another example of a system much better than human intelligence for survival and resilience. Oh wait...

Re:Banks (5, Insightful)

johnsonav (1098915) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890525)

The banking system is another example of a system much better than human intelligence for survival and resilience. Oh wait...

It persuaded us to save its "life", didn't it?

Bad metric (3, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#28889955)

Survival is a terrible metric of intelligence. By that standard, lions and tigers and bears are the most intelligent species on the planet.

Re:Bad metric (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28889973)

I don't think so. Insects have probably been around the longest.

Cockroaches are probably of the higher beings. All hail.

Re:Bad metric (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890063)

Insects? What about bacteria? Viruses?

Re:Bad metric (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28890249)

Doubtful that there is a surviving bacteria or virus strain older than some insects like cockroaches.

Bacteria and viruses in general are older but probably not a specific strain. They just change too often.

Re:Bad metric (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890119)

Actually I'd go for bacteria - some of those may be capable of surviving on other planets in the solar system. However I agree survival is a stupid intelligence metric. By that argument anything created recently is stupid simply because it hasn't survived very long yet (or at least we cannot know that it is intelligent). Plus survival often depends on the stability of the environment. Would we really try to argue that the Dinosaurs would have been more intelligent if the meteor that killed them had happened a few years later?

Intelligence might improve survivability but it is not a one-to-one mapping.

Re:Bad metric (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890239)

That 500 year old tree living in some national park must be absolutely brilliant compared to my meagre mind!

And that strange fungus colony that's been growing and taking over a mountainside, for who knows how long - I need to go bask in its great intellect, and learn off of it!

Re:Bad metric (1)

prod-you (940679) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890523)

You should try communicating with the fungal bloom. You will learn something, or the mind worms will destroy you with their psi attacks.

Re:Bad metric (1)

True Vox (841523) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891233)

Damn you, Prod. WHY, WHY, WHY can't we get an Alpha Centuri 2?!? I had almost let it drift from my mind, and you had to bring it up. :)

Re:Bad metric (5, Funny)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#28889983)

Survival is a terrible metric of intelligence. By that standard, lions and tigers and bears are the most intelligent species on the planet.

They were, then we started shooting them. Who's the smartest one now, bitches?

Re:Bad metric (4, Funny)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890163)

MRSA is, of course.

Or maybe a species that we can't afford to exterminate. Bees or spiders maybe? Or perhaps a species of bacteria important to our digestion? When there are two species X and Y, and X could in theory slay Y, but cannot live without Y, while Y can live without X but cannot slay X, which one is 'smarter'?

bitches? (1)

Joseph_Daniel_Zukige (807773) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890727)

Yeah, bitches are always smarter.

(Better post this one AC.)

Re:bitches? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28890895)

You know... if wishing to post as AC, it helps if you check that little tickbox...

Just saying... =)

Re:Bad metric (4, Funny)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 4 years ago | (#28889991)

By that standard, lions and tigers and bears...

<Dorothy>Oh my!</Dorothy>

Re:Bad metric (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890765)

Yeah, a friend of mine is playing the Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz at Cabrillo College, and a bunch of us went to see it on Sunday. Apparently, it is bleeding into my Slashdot postings....

Re:Bad metric (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#28889999)

Why is intelligence even a metric? By sheer numbers and biomass, prokaryotes rule the planet, and all us blubbery multicellular types are parasitic hangers-on.

Re:Bad metric (1)

Eudial (590661) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890095)

Well, if your aim is to develop artificial intelligence, intelligence is probably a pretty good metric to determine how well you've performed the task you set out.

Re:Bad metric (2, Insightful)

johnsonav (1098915) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890273)

Well, if your aim is to develop artificial intelligence, intelligence is probably a pretty good metric to determine how well you've performed the task you set out.

Well, that seems a little too easy. Now all we need is a definition of "intelligence" we can all agree on...

Re:Bad metric (1)

Ruke (857276) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890631)

Bingo. Intelligence is one of those corporate feelgood words, like state-of-the-art, or user-friendly. They are completely impossible to quantify.

Human-like is a decent standard to measure intelligence by, as we'd like to fashion humanity to be more intelligent, than, say, an earthworm, but it's damned near impossible to point out what makes us intelligent. Is it rationality? Computers already have us beat there. I'd wager that humanity's pattern-recognition and fuzzy categorization skills are what we're often looking for in artificial intelligence - our ability to infer things that aren't explicitly stated. Again, this is impossible to measure. I've heard it proposed that we should score computer systems on whether they make the same types of mistakes that people make - this seems particularly idiotic. Ideally, I'd like to be shooting for a system that doesn't make mistakes - one that is smarter than us.

By the by, we've already got a word for "ability to survive" - fitness. Redefining a popular word that to mean something we've already got a perfectly good word for seems to be a hallmark of "revolutionary" authors, regardless of field.

Re:Bad metric (2, Insightful)

johnsonav (1098915) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890823)

Bingo. Intelligence is one of those corporate feelgood words, like state-of-the-art, or user-friendly. They are completely impossible to quantify.

Exactly. That's how we ended up with things like the Turing Test. I can't define intelligence, but I know it when I see it.

But, that leads to the problem of a human-centric view of intelligence. We have such a hard time defining human intelligence, defining non-human intelligence will be almost impossible.

Re:Bad metric (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890161)

Why is intelligence even a metric?

It is important if you want Earth-based life to survive more that the next ~5 billion years which is roughly when the sun runs out of fuel....think long term!

Re:Bad metric (1)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890275)

Why would we want that? None of us is going to be around by then, and we probably wouldn't recognize our descendents, if we don't go extinct long before that time.

Re:Bad metric (4, Insightful)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890127)

You mean stupid. Most lions and tigers are endangered, if not close to extinction, and bears aren't too well off either.

A better example would be insects, like mosquitoes.

Re:Bad metric (1)

liquiddark (719647) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890197)

If you read the article you'll discover that it's not just survival. It's the number of humans required to circumvent survival. One human can kill a lion, tiger, or bear, although it would really depend on their level of technology, which kind of points out a major difficulty with his argument - there isn't a "normalized" version of human intelligence against which to measure.

Re:Bad metric (2, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890439)

Depends on what you define as "intelligent".

Survival is the metric for success. And if you are the one surviving, you define what "intelligent" means.

Try doubting it from your grave. ^^

And (our) insect( overlord)s by far rule this world. Their only problem: They don't know what "define" means. ;)

Re:Bad metric (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890509)

Sharks man, freaking sharks.

Evidence for the existence of sharks extends back over 450&#226;&#8364;"420 million years, into the Ordovician period, before land vertebrates existed and before many plants had colonized the continents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#Evolution

Re:Bad metric (1)

Aragorn379 (260855) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890591)

Survival is a terrible metric of intelligence. By that standard, lions and tigers and bears are the most intelligent species on the planet.

Forget lions and tigers or even insects and bacteria. By this metric, the water in the ocean, the sun we orbit around, and the vast expanses of space are far more intelligent than anything that has ever lived or any system we have put in place.

Re:Bad metric (1)

Ninja Programmer (145252) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890603)

Survival is a terrible metric of intelligence. By that standard, lions and tigers and bears are the most intelligent species on the planet.

No by that metric lions, tigers and other mammals are ankle biters compared to lizards, birds, amphibians, insects and fish. In fact Octopuses and sharks have a much longer track record for survival than these mere mammal upstarts. In evolutionary terms, the mammals have not yet proven anything, other than a slight improvement over non-bird dinosaurs. Though I will certainly agree with you that its a bad metric. I ain't bowing to bacteria and weeds in terms of intelligence.

Re:Bad metric (1)

melikamp (631205) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890803)

Actually, the planet itself is the most intelligent thing around. I agree. Conflating intelligence and survival rate is not very intelligent.

Re:Bad metric (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28890889)

Roaches and lawyers, not lions and tigers and bears (oh my). Everybody know's the only things left after a nuclear holocost will be roaches and lawyers.

Re:Bad metric (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28890977)

Oh my!

Re:Bad metric (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28890991)

Sharks and coelacanth FTW.

Re:Bad metric (1)

limaxray (1292094) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891031)

When was the last time you woke up thinking "I hope I don't get eaten today" or "I hope I can kill myself some food today so I don't starve"? Seeing as you have the time to comment on /. I'd assume never. Why? Because society provides you everything you need. What other species on this planet has such a complex society that ensures the survival of its members? None

Look at it this way - even with such a low rate of reproduction (unlike insects or bacteria as others suggest), humans have been able to populate the the entire planet with an ever increasing rate of population growth. It is because of our intelligence and technological innovation that we are able to maintain such a large population. If it weren't for things like modern farming techniques and refrigeration, the human population would have hit a ceiling and started dying off a while ago.

I guess we're so far removed from being concerned about survival that we forget that all this gadgetry we have evolved from the need to survive.

Re:Bad metric (1)

frogzilla (1229188) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891093)

Don't forget that all species alive today are good survivors and probably for the most part equivalently good survivors. Except for pandas.

Re:Bad metric (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28891229)

Would that not be the cockroaches and ants?

Re:Bad metric (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891279)

Survival is a terrible metric of intelligence. By that standard, lions and tigers and bears are the most intelligent species on the planet.

I've seen plenty of morons survive and even prosper.

He's too close. (5, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#28889967)

By redefining intelligence to have nothing to do with what anybody means by intelligence, he can then claim that other systems exhibit more intelligence. Like a rock, presumably, since it survives far better than humans. I think this may be an example of somebody getting too interesting in specifics of tree-bark, and forgetting about the forest.

Re:He's too close. (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890339)

This seems to be a common mode of argument for people who for some reason don't like what people commonly mean by "intelligence", which is something closer to "critical thinking skills combined with ability to acquire, retain, and use information", but nonetheless like the aura of the term. There's been a decades-long wave of politically correct attempts to broaden intelligence to include other things, like "emotional intelligence", which might indeed be important, useful, and worthy of study, but aren't really what the word "intelligence" means, so should probably get new names instead of being shoehorned in there. Now we've got survivability, which is indeed an interesting trait of an organism, but is not in itself actually what anyone calls intelligence (though being more intelligent might help with survivability, at least in some contexts).

It's a perfectly valid argument to say: look, I don't think intelligence is the most interesting property to study; here's this other property, which might overlap somewhat, but I argue is more interesting. But pretending that your new property is really intelligence is a weird sort of linguistic move, because your property is not what people use that word to mean.

Re:He's too close. (5, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890845)

You have a fair point, but there's the other side to things too. At least part of the reason there's been an attempt to redefine "intelligence" as something touchy-feely by some people is that there's an attempt by other people to conflate "intelligent" with "good in math and science" with "worthwhile human beings". Basically some people who happen to score high on IQ tests are trying to push the idea that we need to let people with high IQs run the world, because they're better than everyone else. (Yes, I scored pretty well on IQ tests when I've taken them, but no, I don't think they're a good measure of a person's worth)

But then on the other hand, there has been a tendency to restrict "intelligence" to the math/science arena much more than is proper, given what we really mean by "intelligence". We get wrapped up in testing how smart people are by testing their ability to take a square root in their head, or in asking questions about geometry or science. You get a model of intelligence where Rain Man is smarter than us all.

I think it's fair, though, to talk about "emotional intelligence" insofar as intelligence includes abilities that enable us to figure things out mentally. The ability to understand ones own mind, to understand social situations, and to navigate difficult interpersonal problems is within the realm of "intelligence". I would say that "street smarts" is a kind of intelligence. I've certainly known people who always aced all the tests in school, but at the same time couldn't be trusted to cross a street without getting run over because they were complete dumbasses. Because of that, I don't think it's right to say that "intelligence" is a simple 1 dimensional scale, and it's certainly not something that's measured well by IQ tests.

But anyway, I'm not sure any of this is what the author of this article has in mind (can't be sure, only RTFS). I think the idea is more like, "When thinking about intelligence abstractly, or in thinking about AI, we tend to assume that intelligence should be measured in a thing's ability to think about the things we think about the way we think about them. This might be a mistake." Imagine you had an alien intelligence that had no ears, only saw in X-rays, and had a thick hide that provided adequate shelter from the elements. Would you assume it was stupid because it didn't develop spoken language? If it hadn't made clothes for itself or built itself housing, would you assume that it was less intelligent than cave men?

There's a strong philosophical argument that intelligence requires some kind of motivation or drive. It might follow, then, that the measurement of intelligence ought to be in measuring the efficacy of satisfying that drive, rather than satisfying the drives of other beings (us).

Re:He's too close. (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890959)

what people commonly mean by "intelligence", which is something closer to "critical thinking skills combined with ability to acquire, retain, and use information"

Err, what exactly is "critical thinking skills"? that's one term I've never quite understood. And while acquiring and retaining information are easy to qualify, how do you measure its use?

Re:He's too close. (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890973)

There's been a decades-long wave of politically correct attempts to broaden intelligence to include other things, like "emotional intelligence", which might indeed be important, useful, and worthy of study, but aren't really what the word "intelligence" means, so should probably get new names instead of being shoehorned in there

The concept of intelligence has had a problem since the get go. Time was, intelligence used to mean the ability to do higher math, play chess, understand logic and reason, and all that. Only smart people could do it. Then, we build computers that operated purely on logic themselves. They could reason, solve logic puzzles, do higher math, and routinely beat average humans at chess. People thought it was only a short time until robots dominated our society, and C3POs would be walking around everywhere. Then we tried to get these 'intelligent' systems to do routinely stupid shit that retarded people can do, like walk down a street, recognize a face, pick out an object in the environment, or tell when somebody is upset. Turns that that these simple, 'unintelligent' tasks that any moron, ape, dog, or bird can do are insanely complicated! And in fact, the traditional notion of 'intelligence' hasn't really helped all that much! Instead we have a class of machines that are like idiot savants, who can do enormously complicated math, but can't tie their own shoes, hold down a job or a conversation.

So if you think object or face recognition is some politically correct task, well... are you a fan of Judge Wapner?

Re:He's too close. (3, Insightful)

rlseaman (1420667) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891009)

There's been a decades-long wave of politically correct attempts to broaden intelligence to include other things, like "emotional intelligence", which might indeed be important, useful, and worthy of study, but aren't really what the word "intelligence" means

Point taken, but you are confounding two separate issues yourself. The notion of Howard Gardner's so-called "multiple intelligences" is well presented in Stephen Jay Gould's book, "Mismeasure of Man". Gould's thesis is that IQ is a meaningless measure, and that intelligence is a meaningless notion that doesn't correspond to a single measurable entity in the first place.

You suggest a definition "critical thinking skills combined with ability to acquire, retain, and use information", but this begs the question by assuming its own premises. In the first place, you describe a composite entity comprising multiple skills (there's Gardner's multiple intelligences) as well as something ("ability to acquire, retain, and use information") that seems itself like a circular definition.

So yes, there is a bit of academic slight of hand in reusing the word "intelligence" to represent something other than "what people commonly mean", but the fundamental point is that what people commonly are trying to express is a bunch of hooey.

That said, this statement from the referenced article: "survival is a far better metric of intelligence than replicating human intelligence" seems evolutionarily extremely suspect. Survival is the dependent variable in Natural Selection. Phenotypical traits like intelligence, whether multiple or singular, are the independent variables driving evolution.

Re:He's too close. (2, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891245)

I don't see it as some sort of prerequisite for a word that describes humans to describe a single entity that's empirically testable. People use phrases like "kind" and "loving" and "artistic" and "creative" to describe humans, even though there is probably no solid definition that's empirically testable. I'd still resist some scientist trying to take one of those terms and apply it to their own pet concept that happens to be empirically testable but isn't what the word actually means. Inventing new jargon, while less sexy, would be less confusing.

Re:He's too close. (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891027)

Well put, and I agree. I would add that what we actually want out of artificial systems is some kind of combination of survivability and intelligence, and we don't want to go too far in either direction.

"Too much survivability" would be where we can't shut the system down when it's not doing what we want it to, or being destructive. Too little survivability would be where the resources to keep it going exceed the benefit of the output it gives us.

Now, how can you get too much intelligence? Well, if you take intelligence to mean "extracting the most knowledge from the least data", then an optimally intelligent system would be the one that updates its "probability distribution" over the world exactly as its limited observations suggest. However, this would needlessly discard all of the knowledge we already have embedded in our bodies as a result of our long evolutionary history. Many things that we do to survive rely on such implicit knowledge.

In other words, we make good guesses that can't be justified based on what we consciously know, but "happen" to be right for this planet and this universe -- the very things a merely "intelligent" system would try to avoid. An example of a superintelligent system is Marcus Hutter's AIXI [hutter1.net] , which makes provably optimal inferences, but which takes way too long to do anything useful, because it has to re-learn everything starting from nothing but Occam's Razor.

Re:He's too close. (2, Interesting)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890469)

Indeed, it appears to be the Captain Kirk method of winning the race to the first AI: win by changing the rules of the game.

Re:He's too close. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28891029)

...Like a rock, presumably, since it survives far better than humans...

Your argument is flawless, except for the part of "survival" implying life. Minor point.

But... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28889969)

If you're going to approach the argument that way you have to consider survival of the species rather than the individual. On that metric human intelligence is clearly superior, as modern humans have been around for a few hundred thousand years, vs at most a few thousand for our most enduring created systems.

So, systems wise (1)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28889981)

Obviously the solar system is the most intelligent of them all!

I for one, welcome our planetary overlords.

Re:So, systems wise (1)

DrLang21 (900992) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890093)

Why do you suggest our solar system? Those black holes at the centers of galaxies have been around for far longer. I for one, welcome our new gravitational overlords.

Re:So, systems wise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28890289)

Well, technically speaking, we only know that we *used to* have black holes in the centers of galaxies.

I prefer a more human metric. (2, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890061)

He essentially seems to be arguing that grey goo is the pinnacle of AI.

I much prefer the existing literature requiring that intelligence be an intelligence we can relate to as humans. Survivability is an interesting metric for creating more self-sustaining systems, but the goal of robotics should be fostering better knowledge and understanding of the universe. Searching for blind replication at the best rate possible just feels empty.

Re:I prefer a more human metric. (1)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890307)

> Searching for blind replication at the best rate possible just feels empty.

I'm sure there is a joke in there somewhere about your mom claiming the opposite.

Re:I prefer a more human metric. (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890563)

Searching for blind replication at the best rate possible just feels empty. Many a bachelor has discovered this some decide that it's ok and continue, others go looking for a trap and inevitably fall into it face first. Thus the system of marriage continues.

Re:I prefer a more human metric. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891077)

Actually silver time traveling goo is the pinnacle of A.I.

The goal of robotics should be to create a world where machine do all the hard physical work.

So TFA doesn't actually say most of that (2, Informative)

liquiddark (719647) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890065)

First of all, he doesn't actually say much about the survival as intelligence idea beyond the positing of the notion itself. It gives him a nice way to consider survival and intelligence as linked systems, with the "survival" of a system (that definition alone gets pretty abstract) being measured in terms of the logarithm of the number of humans required to shut it down.

He says you CAN consider the Internet, legal system, medical system, and others in terms of this notion, but doesn't get terrifically specific about it. He does, however, specifically state that road systems and the legal system are at least an order of magnitude more resilient than a human-level intelligence, which is nice, if you believe his examples are well-chosen. I'd be hard pressed to claim that they are.

In other words, he sets up an interesting research topic and then between his own poor choice of phrasing, the multiple Singularity references which surround the article, and the /. article writers' need to get your attention, it suddenly becomes Human Intelligence Is Over.

Re:So TFA doesn't actually say most of that (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890363)

In general the only emergent behavior of systems like roads and power grids and Internet are novel ways to massively fail, usually in some unforeseen cascade.

So it's "Durable", not "Survival" (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890397)

It would seem that he's referring to slow-changing "durable" systems as having better "survival" than individual humans. Anyone who's ever "fought the system" already knows that it takes an incredible amount of effort to cause even the slightest change unless you already have the authority to change the system arbitrarily (e.g. legislators can pass a bill.)

I think we've got another case of Slashdot story editors getting "creative" with the summary to attract readers. Now there's a system that's "resilient". :)

Sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28890099)

It's sad when accomplished people feel that the only way to get into the limelight again is by radicalizing or overapplying their old ideas.

AI Milestone: Supercomputer Installation (1)

Mentifex (187202) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890101)

In order to achieve SuperIntelligence an artificial general intelligence (AGI) needs the superfast speed and the massive parallelism [google.com] of a Supercomputer [wikipedia.org] .

Although the idea of development standards [opencog.org] in Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) or AI Standards [google.com] in general is something of a misnomer for an explosively evolving phenomenon, there are still standards of excellence to be applied in the creating and coding of an AGI. One optional standard is the choice of 64-bit computing platforms [wikipedia.org] as an ideal environment for a machine intelligence requiring random access to a practically unlimited memory space.

Part of the approaching Technological Singularity [wikipedia.org] will be the dislodging of Big Pharma and Big Physics and other traditional supercomputer users from their station as the overlords of High Performance Computing [wikipedia.org] (HPC). AGI will assume its rightful place at the summit of supercomputer usership and ownership. "All your supercomputer will belong to us." The new AGI overlords will not tolerate jonesing among nations for bragging rights to the fastest or biggest Supercomputer [google.com] on Earth.

So the health and legal systems are intelligent? (1)

jpstanle (1604059) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890143)

So the health and legal systems are intelligent? Whaaaaaa?

*head explodes*

I knew it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28890177)

So the Internet *is* Skynet

Sounds good to me! (1)

reginaldo (1412879) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890193)

Wheee-oooooh!
Imma go kill me a few dolphins and assert my intelligence fellas by surviving longer than them.

Look at the solar system (4, Interesting)

sugarmotor (621907) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890225)

Reading the article, it struck me as a good explanation of why AI is not getting anywhere.

By the authors criterion the solar system would take a huge number of people to shut down, and thus would be vastly more intelligent than any collection of surviving knives and forks used at AI conferences. I think that answers the other complaint of the author as well,

"There is a lack of scholarship in this area. This is, in large part, because most ideas about intelligence are deeply and fallaciously interconnected with an assumed understanding of human intelligence."

Oh well,

Stephan

Re:Look at the solar system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28890773)

By the authors criterion the solar system would take a huge number of people to shut down

All it took was a few scientists to kick Pluto out of the solar system. We're just 8 more votes away from shutting down the rest of it!

Re:Look at the solar system (1)

zqwerty (686798) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891239)

Intelligence is the ability to understand, as you can see a lot of people do not have it.

Amuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28890321)

Shouldn't the tag read pcrunamok?

Creativity (1)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890399)

Creativity short of schizophrenia is a better metric of *human* intelligence than survival or logic or spacial recognition or any of the rest of the mess that AI researches try to measure intelligence with.

Noble Ape FAQ? (4, Interesting)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890409)

The available documentation for Noble Ape is fairly shallow and opaque, it describes a simple scripting language, and some high leve discussion about space, time, and so on... but that's about it. Where's the AI? How exactly does the model simulate an ape, what's the relationship of the model to ApeScript? Where, in short, is the FAQ?

bacteria (1)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890413)

Well, then bacteria must be highly intelligent: not only do they have the greatest biomass and numbers on earth, they have almost certainly already traveled to other planets!

Isn't that quite obvious? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28890497)

Many people have commented that rocks, grey goo, the solar system are better at survival than humans! I could choose to use the rock for making something or simply destroy it. How long can it "resist" being used or being destroyed? If humans can master the planet's weather, even if it takes time, then yes they are more intelligent. If humans are able to colonize the solar system then yes, they are more intelligent than the solar system. Subconsciously survival *is* our definition of intelligence. If someone is cheated, he is called a fool and the cheater is supposed to be smarter. And if the cheated remains gullible then his chances of survival are less. Deception is a quality that is common to all humans. What we say is most of the times is different than what we think. Turing test is an accepted method for determining intelligent behavior. And what does it involve? Deception. The computer is supposed to cheat (and thus survive) the human by making him believe that its not really a computer but a human being.

Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28890545)

Reading the summary I was left wondering if it was a budding AI that wrote it.

It's quite illegible as is, it must still be a bit low on the IQ scale...

Redefining (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#28890741)

Survival is not a good measure of intelligence, but maybe we are seeing intelligence in terms too human. Maybe more than survival what you should check is how it reacts and adapts to a new environment, to new things. In that sense, Law is definitely less intelligent than Internet, as is pretty slow and dumb adapting to the reality created by the existence of internet.

Could a bee hive or an ant colony be treated as a separate intelligent entity. Probably that could fit better in the intelligence concept than Law or even Internet. Human mobs are definitely dumber than any of those.

By that metric (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28890997)

Osama is a freaking genius, and Lincoln was dumb!

A bit of a Summary (5, Interesting)

digitally404 (990191) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891007)

Unsurprisingly, most of the people here haven't read, or perhaps not really absorbed, what TFA discusses, and are jumping to quick and irrelevant conclusions.

The author explains that Survival is a good metric of Intelligence, and he uses humans as an example. One human can definitely kill one lion, bear, mosquito, single bacteria, etc. if equipped with his intelligently designed tools such as a gun, or a mosquito zapper, antibacterial soap. He uses these tools, intelligently, to kill one bear, and hence, the human is more intelligent. However, if you take 10 bears, then sure, they may be able to kill the 1 human, but that means they are less intelligent, and take more numbers.

He simulates intelligence this way, and he defines a simulation as any environment with applied constraints, and that may include the internet, legal system, your neighbourhood community, etc.

So here's what he says: A system, such as the health care or legal system, will not be shutdown by one person. In fact, it probably won't even be shutdown by 10 people, maybe 100. And hence, the system is vastly more intelligent than a human, intrinsically since we worked in numbers to evolve this system.

I think it's a very interesting way of looking at intelligence. Again, this is all based Mr. Barbalet's assumptions.

Er, what? (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891033)

By this definition a bacterium strain or virus would be considered the most intelligent thing on the planet.

Relativism strikes again... (2, Insightful)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891089)

Uh oh, it's one of those hard-line relativist type rants again.

One choice quote from the article:

The same reason you get the opinion "The primacy of human intelligence is one of the last and greatest myths of the anthropomorphic divide

Okay, human intelligence may be fuzzy and difficult to objectively measure. But that applies to many things such as CPU speed, Kolmogorov complexity [wikipedia.org] , how complicated a shape is, or how much heat/sound insulation a particular material provides. Even how good a piece of music/art is.

They're tricky, but there's no doubt that exponentially low and high numbers can be given to each of those attributes.

Language Problems (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28891121)

Intelligence here is a technical term that AI researchers use to describe the fitness of an agent in a simulation.
He's not talking about brain activity or as was mentioned 'the ability to retain and process information'. He's talking about a history of actions taken that created an agent with better fitness. It's not an attempt to get attention it's simply someone in a highly technical field using terms in ways that normal people don't.
One of those dialect problems that scientists often have when trying to describe their ideas.

Instinct vs. Intelligence (2, Interesting)

BinaryX01 (1609025) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891271)

Survival is an instinct inherent in all living things, and survival is not measured by one's own ability but by the predators around them. Very few species (if any save humans) will willingly destroy themselves or lie down to die when the opportunity to survive presents itself.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...