Beta
×

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!

Can AI Games Create Super-Intelligent Humans?

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the they-already-have dept.

AI 312

destinyland writes "A technology CEO sees game artificial intelligence as the key to a revolution in education, predicting a synergy where games create smarter humans who then create smarter games. Citing lessons drawn from Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age, Alex Peake, founder of Primer Labs, sees the possibility of a self-fueling feedback loop which creates 'a Moore's law for artificial intelligence,' with accelerating returns ultimately generating the best possible education outcomes. 'What the computer taught me was that there was real muggle magic ...' writes Peake, adding 'Once we begin relying on AI mentors for our children and we get those mentors increasing in sophistication at an exponential rate, we're dipping our toe into symbiosis between humans and the AI that shape them.'"

cancel ×

312 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Have you not seen (2)

Glarimore (1795666) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867232)

Terminator? Or the Matrix?

Re:Have you not seen (1)

mrcaseyj (902945) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867334)

Terminator or Matrix would happen much faster than this educational AI loop. The educational AI loop would require decades for each round of feedback. And considering that the AI would have to be nearly as smart as humans to outperform human teachers significantly, the AI should be able to enhance itself much more rapidly than waiting for the next generation of kids to grow up and reprogram it.

Re:Have you not seen (4, Interesting)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867760)

You have to remember two things:

  1. 1. Of all the colleges at a university, the teaching college will generally have the lowest, or near the lowest, admissions requirements. Low pay just doesn't draw the high quality talent. Now sure, you'll find some absolutely stellar teachers, ones that actually care about their students, and spend lots of time outside of school researching the stuff they're teaching, building lesson plans, projects, field trips. You'll find a lot more who are just teaching straight out of the text book. I could outwit at least half my grade school teachers.
  2. 2. We are in school of some form or another for a good chunk of our lives. A couple years of daycare. Another decade of elementary and high school. From there, a few years of vocational, or several years of college, or up to another decade for higher level degrees. For 20 years of care, we only get another 40-50 of functional lifetime out of a person. We simply can't afford as a society to have a low student/teacher count. AI could fill the gaps for the less demanding tasks. An AI could guide individual students through directed self study, and aid them in homework, allowing a teacher to assign more work and still expect it be accomplished. An AI could handle larger lectures, allowing teachers to focus one-on-one, or with small groups.

AI in schools would allow the teachers we had to operate more efficiently and more effectively. That in turn means fewer teachers per student, increasing individual teacher pay, and drawing in a better quality of teacher. Think of it as the same thing that has happened in manufacturing for the last 200 years. Machines don't replace humans all together. They simply fulfill the more repetitive tasks.

Re:Have you not seen (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867574)

Have you not seen Terminator 3 or the Second Renaissance? It's by hating and by creating machines of hate that we train our creations to treat existence as a zero-sum game. Kindly please tell all your friends.

Hmmm... (3, Funny)

modecx (130548) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867652)

I think this is more an example of Lawnmower Man.

Re:Have you not seen (4, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867742)

You do realize those aren't documentaries, right? Sometimes I wonder if slashdot forgets that.

Re:Have you not seen (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867808)

Terminator? Or the Matrix?

You take red blue pill and read some comics. Suddenly you start believing what you read and write silly articles about it.
You take the blue pill and read some comics. Suddenly you start believing what you read and write silly articles about it.

That's because they're both elicit drugs.

No (2, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867240)

Can AI Games Create Super-Intelligent Humans?

If all the universities, colleges, think tanks, etc can't produce super-intellegent humans then what makes them think we'll be able to produce AI that can?

Re:No (2)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867274)

"X(s) can't produce Y, and someone else thinks Z can produce Y?" You fail logic.

Re:No (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867330)

"X(s) can't produce Y, and someone else thinks Z can produce Y?" You fail logic.

Um, no. Basically, he's talking about a 'perpetual intelligence machine' (which I'm sure violates one of the laws of thermodynamics) fueled by the educational system (which is running out of money). This is the same system that is demonizing teachers as greedy, unqualified babysitters. As we chase the good teachers out of the education system we're going to try to use AI to create 'super-intellegent humans'? We're going to be lucky if the next generation of children learn anything not on a standardized test.

The current generation of school kids is going to be the ones going on to college to create this super-duper AI? With the price of higher education going through the roof, and the interest rates on student loans giving the loan shark on the corner a run for his money, we're going to see a drop in college graduates. I suppose anything is possible, but I think we have a better chance of seeing affordable college education before we see AI creating 'super-intellegent humans'. At the rate we're going I think we should be striving for 'educated humans'.

Re:No (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867372)

Not necessarily. The quality of presentation which can be created in a movie is much better than the quality of presentation which can be created in a theater. You can argue about the content of movies being better or worse than the theater content, but the quality of presentation is unquestionably better in movies. This is because movies have larger economies of scale. They have larger audiences. They can afford much more expense in paying attention to the smallest details. School teachers (even the really, really, really good ones) could be the theaters of tomorrow. They might become eclipsed by AI which is designed to such impeccable details because it can afford to be because its design is used by a large market rather than the few hundred students at a time that you get in the schools.

Re:No (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867390)

Life itself basically violates the laws of thermodynamics.... if thought of as a closed system. Life is basically the way that the universe fights entropy adding order to chaos, even though ultimately it has to fail. That doesn't mean we can't have local changes to entropy where the universe can be "reset" back to some earlier condition or even improved upon, but none the less when you take into account the universe as a whole, entropy always increases regardless.

I'm not saying anything in support of the educational system, whose purpose is usually to train a generation of kids to become factory workers. That factories no longer exist in many/most 1st world countries for these kids to be employed in is usually missed by educators trying to perpetuate the system. Could education systems be adapted for other aims? Perhaps, but it certainly isn't to teach kids to become the best they can be. Having school kids learn about AI techniques seems like an awful waste of resources too. A shift to make knowledge workers instead of factory workers seems to be too big of a leap for unionized professional educators whose organizational roots are in industrial labor unions.

Re:No (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867426)

Universe doesn't fight entropy. It slides towards. Life, as a pocket of order, necessitates a more rapid descent towards disorder as its consequence. In other words, life acts as a catalyst for the increase of entropy. So it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. By introducing a catalyst, the slide into entropy is expedited.

Re:No (1)

Cidolfas (1358603) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867594)

Universe doesn't fight entropy. It slides towards. Life, as a pocket of order, necessitates a more rapid descent towards disorder as its consequence. In other words, life acts as a catalyst for the increase of entropy. So it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. By introducing a catalyst, the slide into entropy is expedited.

This is my religion.

Re:No (1)

johanatan (1159309) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867854)

Where do you draw the lines around this 'pocket or order'? And no matter where you draw them, do you not still see order?

Re:No (1)

johanatan (1159309) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867862)

i.e., if you attempt to demarcate in this fashion, you at the very least create two orders-- the one that you consider 'ordered' and the other which you consider 'disordered'. That is an ordering in and of itself; however arbitrary it may seem.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867450)

(not everything with the word perpetual violates the laws of thermodynamics, that's not really how it works. Not that I disagree with your other points.)

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867356)

His logic is valid... you should probably bet on the experts in the field discovering something new in the field.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867436)

I bet on epicyclists discovering something new in astronomy! I bet on computer scientists discovering the world wide web!

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867544)

They'll be a bit behind the times. Everyone else discovered the web in the 1990s.

Re:No (1)

MichaelKristopeit424 (2018894) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867686)

Z doesn't exist without X(s)... you're an ignorant hypocrite. didn't they teach you the transitive property at logical preschool?

you're an idiot.

Re:No (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867314)

What the lovely chap in the article seems to forget is that education is probably more about politics than about education. The Creationists, ID-ists and the slew of others nutjobs all having their pound of flesh taught in the US school system seems to show that it certainly isn't simply a matter of getting the right teaching methods. Having that crock taught by a teacher or by an AI makes no difference.

Furthermore, I don't totally disagree that perhaps better teaching methods could be developed. I just think that saying our best teachers, professors and mentors are second rate to an AI is a long stretch.

Re:No (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867376)

I doubt he forgets it. I doubt it very much actually.

Re:No (4, Insightful)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867444)

>>The Creationists, ID-ists and the slew of others nutjobs all having their pound of flesh taught in the US school system seems to show that it certainly isn't simply a matter of getting the right teaching methods.

Yes, like in Creationist Texas that just voted 8 to 0 to reject Evolution! Oh, wait. It was 8 to 0 to support Evolution and reject ID.

Your paranoid hysteria is a bit overblown if IDers can't even get one vote in *Texas*. You're probably one of those folks that confused the proposals for changes to the history standards with actual changes.

While I'd agree that a slew of nujobs have their say in education, it's more the people who invent new teaching methodologies every year, and then force them on teachers, not your fantasy about the all-powerful Koch brothers rewriting textbooks.

Education is screwed up for a lot of reasons, but that's not one of them.

Re:No (1, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867570)

IN CASE YOU HAD NOT NOTICED, IT SHOULD NOT BE NEWS THAT TEXAS SAID THAT EVOLUTION WAS OKAY.

IT SHOULD NOT EVER BE NEWS.

YES, I AM SHOUTING. DEAL WITH IT.

--
BMO

Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867650)

I'm convinced at this point that "the earth is 6000 years old" is more often said sarcastically by atheists than seriously by religious people.

Re:No (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867588)

Can AI Games Create Super-Intelligent Humans?

Of course. You only need to look around you here at Slashdot.

Personally, I'm convinced that the AI in the original Deus Ex gave me god-like powers of concentration and cognition. However, the AI in Witcher 2 has set me back to approximately the mental capacity of a brain-damaged labrador retriever.

So I guess it's a wash. But boy, when Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare 3 Black Ops 2 DLC 1 comes out, am I ever gonna get smart again!

Re:No (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867776)

The AI would be used to teach lectures, and provide students with guided self-learning. This would free up teachers to provide more one-to-one and one-to-few interaction with the students who need assistance. It would not replace teachers, merely shift their duties.

I'd say he's right. (1)

Cogent91 (2203516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867890)

Its not a question of AI's "making" geniuses, the point is optimizing the return on invested time the students gain. An AI could moderate the pedagogy methods used on each particular student to allow the most ideal combination of learning activities. This could be anything from orchestrating peer groups inside of simulated spaces to simply choosing the dominant coursework as aligning with dispositions. Imagine if you had spent K through 12 studying subject matter you loved while being persistently pushed to better understanding by a mentor who could answer directly or put you quickly in touch with those who can answer even the boldest of questions you might have. The outcome of such an optimized learning environment really would be the "super-intelligent" students Alex Peakes speaks of.

HELL YES! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867910)

Because all those institutions you described work like "schools". Which is a deeply wrong way of education. While games are the natural way of education. The way all those institutions are supposed to work. I'll explain:

Nature's purpose for playing games, IS learning. Training for reality. Kinda like a holodeck simulation. It is the whole point of games. Look at playing dogs. They play to train for real fights.

And fun is the indicator that it's good learning. Psychologically, fun is pleasure with surprises.
Surprises are, when reality turned out differently than your inner model predicted it. Which means you'll learn something.
And pleasure is, when you gain something that's good for you. (More resources, better use of resources, avoidance of loss of resources.)

But people still have this perverse masochist perspective, that "proper learning should not be fun". That you should learn "hard". And they still think teaching should involve forcing the information down your throat, whether you like it or not. Fun is a mere side-effect... at best. Just like motivation. The completely personal balance between skill and difficulty, that is THE key to motivation, is replaced by a global lockstep.

Which isn't surprising, considering that the school model our educational systems are based on, was created by Bismarck because he wanted something like a military training camp, but for children. As it was seen as an ideal for children, to sit still and obey, back then.

Ah, no. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867264)

There is a great divide between the teams of educated programmers building modern video games and the fat isolated losers who play them. This is just a way to appeal to the demographic that feels insecure about their intelligence and sees video games as a waste of time - which for the most part they are.

Re:Ah, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867618)

God I'm full of shit. I should stop posting while wearing my mother's panties.

aperture education (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867288)

"children. Keep calm and continue testing."
"At the end there will be cake."

Fairyland (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867300)

Eventually they'll teach us to ignore the poisoned shot glasses and bore the giant's eye out.

Re:Fairyland (1)

physburn (1095481) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867810)

Abso-bloody-lutely. Thats all your learn, From Games like Borderlands. But to the question of self-fueling feed back loops here, there a really isn't one, and if there is its not symbotic. Games teach the board people (in varying ammounts). Corporations make games. People make games, (but rarely can sell them, if there not Corporations). Computer Games are often the antipodetheis of real life for participatents, and rarely offer teaching much practical. Many Corporations, play ultra cricket, over stepping the mark, selling shit to sucker buyers, and making the buyers ever dumber for there next product. Thats life funny I may say, but without money your gay, dying from your far bosses glaze. As for AI's what sets the goals on the AI's that Wikia is probably going to make in the X many years I do not know. But I'll doubt they'll get any of Azimov's laws solidly built in. And probably very little in privacy settings. 3D Shooter Games [feeddistiller.com] - Summary of Recent News Items.

Why do we need AI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867302)

So that we can have more unemployed teachers?

Anything AI or ROBOT these days should be seen as a threat to humanity. These things are being built so that the CEOs can replace YOU, not make your life easier.

Re:Why do we need AI (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867380)

I, for one, welcome our horse-buggy overlords.

Re:Why do we need AI (2)

blue trane (110704) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867456)

The answer is not to throttle technology; the answer is to understand that money creation is a technology in itself, and should be democratically controlled instead of the exclusive right of private individuals. The recent story about the Fed creating $16 trillion shows that govt could easily create enough money to provide a basic income to everyone, so that we can each explore the natural wonder and creativity that we are born with, using tools such as AI to expand knowledge ever-greater bounds...

Well that's a new record (5, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867306)

This is one of the silliest versions of a Singularity I've seen yet, and there are already a lot of contenders. This has a lot of the common buzzwords and patterns (like a weakly substantiated claim of exponential growth). It is interesting in that this does superficially share some similarity with how we might improve our intelligence in the future. The issue of recursive self-improvement where each improvement leads to more improvement is not by itself ridiculous. Thus, for example humans might genetically engineer smarter humans who then engineer smarter humans and so on A more worrisome possibility is that an AI that doesn't share goals with humans might bootstrap itself by steadily improving itself to the point where it can easily out-think us. This scenario seems unlikely, but there are some very smart people who take that situation seriously.

The idea contained in this post is however irrecoverably ridiculous. The games which succeed aren't the games that make people smarter and challenge us more. They are the games that most efficiently exploit human reward and mechanisms and associated social feelings. Games that succeed are games like World of Warcraft and Farmville not games that involve human intelligence in any substantial fashion. The only games that do that are games that teach little kids to add or multiply or factor, and they never succeed well because kids quickly grow bored of them. The games of the future will not be games that make us smarter. The games of the future will be the games which get us to compulsively click more.

Oh no! (1)

oGMo (379) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867394)

A more worrisome possibility is that an AI that doesn't share goals with humans might bootstrap itself by steadily improving itself to the point where it can easily out-think us. This scenario seems unlikely, but there are some very smart people who take that situation seriously.

Games that succeed are games like World of Warcraft and Farmville not games that involve human intelligence in any substantial fashion. [...] The games of the future will not be games that make us smarter. The games of the future will be the games which get us to compulsively click more.

An unlikely scenario, eh? Maybe it's already begun... ;-)

Re:Well that's a new record (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867442)

Indeed. I think it's made all the more new-age crystal-meditation stream-of-consciousness buzzword babble by the fact it's a transcript of a talk. I think I got to about the fourth paragraph before I started skimming and scrolling. No way I'm going to read this drivel. Besides, if I want Singularity Silliness, I go straight to the source - Ray Kurzweil.

If we really want to make strides in AI, we need to have some software that learns and tries new things - and put it into an arms race [wikipedia.org] with others of its own kind.

Re:Well that's a new record (1)

kumma (1077987) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867938)

Yep. And one could also claim that games create more stupid humans who then create more stupid games.

Re:Well that's a new record (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867766)

That's the thing though AI has no need or desire. Without need nothing can approach human intellect because human intellect is all about extending intentional selves into things in-order to fulfill desires.

"The games of the future will be the games which get us to compulsively click more."

This is almost exactly what Plato said about poetry!

Re:Well that's a new record (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867930)

Explain Starcraft 2

Citing lessons drawn from Neal Stephenson's The Di (3, Insightful)

SpectreBlofeld (886224) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867326)

I don't think citing a work of fiction to support your thesis about video games will get you taken very seriously,

Re:Citing lessons drawn from Neal Stephenson's The (3, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867350)

I don't think citing a work of fiction to support your thesis about video games will get you taken very seriously,

Not mention his reference to 'muggle magic'.

Mod parent up. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867448)

This sounds more like a Hollywood pitch (see, it's like The Diamond Age ... crossed with Harry Potter ... taking place during The Singularity ... the geeks will LOVE it!) or a PR stunt.

It's all about the random references.

From TFA:

âoeAutocatalyzing Intelligence Symbiosis: what happens when artificial intelligence for intelligence amplification drives a 3dfx-like intelligence explosion.â

"3dfx-like". WTF.

And ...

There are three different Mooresâ(TM) Laws of accelerating returns. There are three uncanny valleys that are being crossed.

I'm getting the feeling that they're just grabbing random phrases and stringing them together.

Re:Citing lessons drawn from Neal Stephenson's The (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867386)

Neal Stephenson doesn't just write fiction. I am biased because he is my favorite author. But Stephenson writes fiction based on history and trends within humanity which he studies quite carefully. I was actually surprised to find him acknowledging one of the preeminent mathematicians of our time as his source in one of his novels.

Re:Citing lessons drawn from Neal Stephenson's The (3, Insightful)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867498)

He writes tortured metaphors about katana-wielding Mafia pizza delivery men, and pulls endings out of his ass. Referencing mathematicians and writing novels that appeal to backpatting nerds doesn't make him a genius, it just makes him aware of his audience.

Snowcrash was published in 1992 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867662)

If you didn't like snowcrash, you shouldn't be on slashdot. And if that's the last Stephenson book you've read, you REALLY shouldn't be on slashdot.

Re:Citing lessons drawn from Neal Stephenson's The (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867782)

pulls endings out of his ass

NOTE: SPOILER ALERTS SPOILER ALERTS SPOILER ALERTS

Hey, hey, hey, are you saying that your old girlfriend being able to read and pronounce ancient Sumerian protospeak, a robot dog, an army of chinese girls that obey your whim, breaking into a submarine to save your faux mother, and a dimension altering, thousand year old monk is somehow pulling things out your ASS?

Cryptonomicon and the Baroque Cycle had nothing that really stands out so I'm leaving those alone.

Re:Citing lessons drawn from Neal Stephenson's The (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867864)

I don't think he writes for backpatting nerds; it's worse than that, he writes for nerd wannabes. No real nerd will make it through "Cryptonomicon"; the only people likely to swallow that crap are the ones as clueless as Stephenson himself.

Re:Citing lessons drawn from Neal Stephenson's The (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867418)

I don't think very seriously,

FTFY

Re:Citing lessons drawn from Neal Stephenson's The (1)

wrook (134116) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867432)

He's a CEO. He doesn't have to be taken seriously amongst those with knowledge in the field. He just has to be taken seriously amongst those with investment money. If he can spin an exciting story that makes investors think, "What if he's right? No matter what the risk, I should get in on this because the payout is unlimited" then he wins. He gets people to front money, which he spends on whatever he wants.

The world of business is not so far removed from the world of fiction.

Re:Citing lessons drawn from Neal Stephenson's The (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867536)

Two works of fiction. Don't forget the documentary Harry Potter.

Ah, tech CEOs can be idiots too.

I do that too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867328)

I do the same thing this guy does, I use star trek and other sci fi movies to bolsert my argument. People just seem to think I"m a crakpot and this guy well ... eh well actually

Re:I do that too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867508)

I use Jules Verne! oh wait...

Byproducts creating intelligence? (1)

AirStyle (2363888) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867346)

I don't think that would be the case. The PEOPLE CREATING the AI are the ones that are teaching the gamers, not the game itself. It's just being taught THROUGH the game, and that's not entirely true. If the gamers are able to derive equations for better AI handling by watching other AI in progress, then good for them. However, it still stands that if you really wanted game AI to become smarter, just do what everyone else already does: go to AI classes.

Re:Byproducts creating intelligence? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867474)

Some games are already creating smarter people, not because were created with that goal, but because make people think, solve problems, even using different than normal approachs. Even Angry Birds fall into that category.Being more intelligent also improves for information outside any game or from different games, so its not limited as somethimg exclusively related to some game designers.

You cannot assume... (1)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867368)

...that human intelligence can be modeled as an algorithm. The vague promises of "AI" have failed to appear not because we're not working hard enough, but because this simply isn't a problem that can be satisfactorily solved.

The first true "AI" is going to be biologically engineered, not electronically.

Re:You cannot assume... (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867468)

What makes you think that AI hasn't been created? As far as I am concerned any Bayesian filter is AI. A computer program which can tell the difference between spam and not spam better and faster than a secretary is, in fact, more intelligent in that problem domain than a human. And before you say that it's just a machine, recall that such a computer program makes mistakes and that it learns and can be trained to make less mistakes.

Re:You cannot assume... (1)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867554)

We can lower the bar for what we call "AI", but frankly, the amazing work that can be done in certain problem domains through calculation really isn't what we mean by "intelligence". Categorizing something into "spam" or "not spam" is a simple binary task, one which I'll argue that humans can do *better*, even if they can't do it *faster*. Deciding if someone is being sarcastic or not, or any sort of learning, that's another thing entirely.

Find me something that passes the Turing Test, then we'll talk :)

Re:You cannot assume... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867734)

Find me something that passes the Turing Test, then we'll talk :)

Haven't we already had several "somethings" that pass the Turing Test?

Re:You cannot assume... (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867828)

Categorizing spam is not a simple binary task. It is an inherently analog statistical inference. You take that bit of data, and you take a bunch of other bits of data, and you calculate the likelihood that it matches. You can boil this down to a single pass/fail, or you can filter into any number of categories from certainly spam, probably spam, likely spam, maybe spam, unlikely spam, and react on each scenario differently.

Re:You cannot assume... (1)

ralphdaugherty (225648) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867872)

You can boil this down to a single pass/fail, or you can filter into any number of categories from certainly spam, probably spam, likely spam, maybe spam, unlikely spam, and react on each scenario differently.

So when there's more than two possibilities it's not a binary task?

Re:You cannot assume... (1)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867566)

Intelligence is not the ability of an expert system to do what it was programmed to do well, it's... well it's many things.

It's the ability to apply things from one problem domain to another via analogical reasoning. The ability to apply induction and deduction to identify new problems. The ability to identify correlations between things. To then test them and prune the meaningless junk from the correlation matrix (This is what crackpots and conspiracy theorists fail at). It's the ability to identify specific problems and generate expert programs to solve them, which then become integrated into the brain until you don't know they're there. And a lot of other cerebral things, all (in the only known case) driven and profoundly manipulated by an underlying primitive mind that seeks food, shelter and sex.

AI hasn't been created because we don't even known what natural intelligence is, beyond the Supreme Court's famous "I know it when I see it."

Re:You cannot assume... (1)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867812)

Well, that's a hypothesis that fits the evidence. But another hypothesis, beyond saying "we we don't even known what natural intelligence is" would be "we know what natural intelligence is, but it involves about 1000 interacting subsystems in a human brain many of which we don't yet know how to duplicate"

Modern neuroscience has surprisingly cogent explanations how it all works together, the trouble is that many of the tricks the brain does would be very tough to duplicate with current technology. For example, the feedback systems that make it all work are tied to a biological body via a network of molecular sensors. We don't have hardware remotely comparable to that as of yet.

The complexity is also immense, and it's wired together in such a way that all the systems are interrelated. Even if the world's fastest supercomputer could simulate a human sized network efficiently (it can't...not because the brain is so powerful but more because simulations using current cpus are hideously inefficient) we don't have more than a tiny fragment of the neural map that such a simulation would need to function.

So it's not really a total mystery like the general opinion here is on slashdot...but a very complex problem that would take immense resources and many years to solve. Well, there isn't very much money spent on AI research. Certainly not the hundreds of billions of dollars/year that "common sense" would dictate that we should be spending. (because even partially working AI could save millions of human lives every year and massively increase human productivity, and fully functioning AI would allow us to unleash a golden age of technological development never before seen on earth)

Re:You cannot assume... (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867896)

Why not? The brain at its core is nothing more than an electrochemical computer. The power of the brain comes from that it is insanely parallel, and inherently imperfect. A problem is run many times through many different pathways coming up with many different solutions. Those results are tallied and a statistical best guess is chosen. The brain never comes up with correct answers, just probable ones. One prominent theory is that hard intelligence is born as a byproduct of this randomness.

The problem is that this is completely counter to how we build computers, and machines in general. Precision is paramount to performance. Every few years, some computer engineering professor comes out with a way to radically reduce power consumption by making computers prone to errors, but robust against them. Every few years, nothing happens, because this is such a foreign concept to everything we've built previously, that we can't figure out how to make it work. It will be a huge leap in computing power, for types of problems that can handle it, but it will require a complete paradigm shift in engineering and programming to make it happen. That is where you will see the beginnings of what you might consider "true AI".

What if there are bugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867378)

And the subject is really in reference to Ender's Game. What kind of bugs did you think I was referring to?

Artificial Intelligence 2012 (2)

bitbucketeer (892710) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867382)

The gold farming bot that can pay off a $14.8 trillion debt has my vote!

Re:Artificial Intelligence 2012 (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867452)

Debt isn't hard to repay. It's only hard to repay if you want to keep borrowing to keep supporting price-fixing schemes we have going.

Er, no (1)

jonahbron (2278074) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867384)

Can they teach you how to make a better game? Yes. Can they enhance your brain and may you super-intelligent? No.

Re:Er, no (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867608)

Can they enhance your brain and may you super-intelligent? No.

Damn. I was hoping it would be like Baby Einstein for middle-aged morons.

I guess I have to keep hoping for the drug that was in that documentary with Robert DiNiro, Limitless.

Someday, I'm gonna be smart, and then, LOOK OUT WORLD!

Chess anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867398)

I think that is a pretty good counterexample to the issue. While chess AI has improved to the point it can even beat the best masters, has the average player of computer chess improved much? Doesn't seem like it. The top end players don't seem to be getting any better either. Computer analysis of a human's activity can certainly help at the top end by pointing out weaknesses that are hard to otherwise observe, but the challenge of AI doesn't seem to be doing the job, at least not at anything approaching the geometric improvement of Moore's Law.

Answer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867402)

NO. It will create super addicted gamers.

Lessons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867404)

Drawing "lessons" about technology from Neal Stephenson is like learning biology from Fringe.

Re:Lessons?b (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867504)

Is the basic idea what matters. We got real lessons from Asimov, Clarke and several others scifi authors in a lot of areas.

Anyway, for me Diamond Age was more a combo of internet, wikipedia and the XO, than a intelligence enhancer game. Ender's Game was a bit more on the topic, but for me the goal shold be something in the line of Padgett's Mimsy were the borogoves.

Real Intelligence has been doing this for aeons (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867410)

If I have any claim to be intelligent, it's because of other people with whom I've needed to compete (and after a point, wanted to).

My intelligence is a result of a colossal "brain" waving competition that mankind has been going through ever since we conquered the survival barrier for intelligence (a caveman could survive better than me).

The discrimination against the lazy & the stupid, has resulted in today (cue the idiocracy cliche & the xkcd refute).

Re:Real Intelligence has been doing this for aeons (1)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867708)

Indeed. Humans are born with certain boundaries of potential. Athletes have always gone up to the physical ones and started pushing. The smart have always gone up to the intellectual ones and started pushing. AI isn't going to change that.

I can see a use for AIs to help us acquire full educations faster since they can move as fast as the individual using them. This is actually a problem in physics today; Most people in physics who have something named after them made the discovery/discoveries when they were in their early 20s. Now it takes until your mid 20s just to finish learning all the physics needed to even begin contributing! It's getting to the point where it literally takes longer than your brain's childlike plasticity lasts to learn enough.

I have a hard time imagining how much more I'd know right now if the TLC and MECC games I spent my childhood on had increased their difficulty at rates appropriate for me instead of rates appropriate for some test group. Or rather, if they'd been able to keep going. Math munchers, reading blaster, math blaster, gizmos & gadgets, operation neptune, it was the same story every time... progress to max difficulty, get bored.

What we need is a Math Munchers that doesn't stop until you're solving partial differential equations... A Reading Blaster that keeps going until you can not only read the words, but gain insight from them and recognize the overarching meaning and truly understand the written word. A Gizmos and Gadgets that doesn't stop until it's taught you quantum mechanics... In short, the Young Lady's Illustrated Primer.

The first person to create and distribute such a Primer will forever change the world.

Care to play a rousing game ... (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867420)

of Global Thermonuclear War?

I Assume He Means Serious Games (2)

mentil (1748130) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867470)

I think he's referring to 'serious games', not standard entertainment-focused video games. Imagine a simulation where you interact with an AI in different scenarios. The AI's actions and responses to the user can be standardized and tweaked to ensure that the child playing the game learns the intended lesson/skill. This could be especially useful in teaching children social interactions, where how another human responds is unpredictable, even if they've been trained beforehand.

The 800 pound gorilla is that we're going to live in a Star Trek future with strong AI and a pure robot economy before parents leave child-rearing to AI simulations, so the 'exponential increase of intelligence' isn't going to come from this; genetic engineering or self-designing AIs are much more plausible for a trigger of a singularity.

Re:I Assume He Means Serious Games (2)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867762)

"The 800 pound gorilla is that we're going to live in a Star Trek future with strong AI and a pure robot economy before parents leave child-rearing to AI simulations."

You can't be serious. Do you have any idea how many parents use video games as their babysitter? There is no "before" here, it is already here. I'm not so sure it is a bad thing on the whole, either.

Re:I Assume He Means Serious Games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867818)

This could be especially useful in teaching children social interactions, where how another human responds is unpredictable, even if they've been trained beforehand.

Social interactions, where humans respond unpredictably, are very good at teaching children social interaction. The AI method sounds to me more like brainwashing: you would program expected behavior in children, to create a society (therefore social interactions) as you please. This is hardly evolution, it's more like devolution. Of course, this already happens in schools, in media, but it is limited by the nature of the methods used.

We should stop looking for answers in technology and start look for answers in ourselves.

Step 1 is Flawed (1)

bgweber (1676858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867518)

The primary purpose of Game AI is to provide entertainment for players, not create the most realistic behavior. Developers are not focused on strong AI, but may be focused on creating tools for reusable AI.

A panel of leading Game AI developers provided an AI Rant [gdcvault.com] this year at GDC and discuss where they see things going.

Real advantage of a Primer (1)

hkandy (1424645) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867522)

There is an important point to be taken from TFA and Diamond Age. At the moment, although many educational programs track a student's progress in one area, and guide the student down a path of learning, there are no programs that take an overall view, Thus a student with problems in history, for example, won''t get advice that what is holding him or her back is writing or presentation skills, rather than subject knowledge. Less charitably, a nerd in employment won't get advice that what's holding him or her back is inability to persuade an MBA. This is what the Primer in Diamond Age could do.

First things first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867540)

Lets see some AI first, then work on the loop...

OK, but first, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867550)

define "intelligence".

This is from some has-been humorist (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867580)

This is from some guy who calls himself "R.U. Serious". I vaguely remember him having some minor visibility a decade ago. Ignore.

Awesome Book, but Gamification... (1)

RandomStr (2116782) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867622)

If you haven't read the book, you should, it will "open your mind"...

The "Primer" is an awesome concept, and I'm sure we'll see something like that someday...

It's been a while since I read it, but isn't the main concept that "When a child can learn at their own pace, from a high-quality source, their potential can be maximised, regardless of socio-economic factors".

And that, "It wont be long before AI is teaching our children, and it will be smarter, more knowledgeable and more patient than the best human teacher", and that will create a device bigger divide between the generation than, say, the Internet has today...

It would only be Gamification if the desire to learn was fueled by the achievements, rather than the joy of understanding and as presented in the book, and the outcome of that 'knowledge is power'...

Re:Awesome Book, but Gamification... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867868)

What you call Gamification was once known as Sophistry. One of those tendencies that has never wandered far from the spotlight of human history.

Obligatory quote (1)

Phoe6 (705194) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867632)

The question of whether a AI program can make people intelligent is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can teach swimming...

- /me

Teaching information vs teaching learning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867640)

I have no doubt a computer can teach information, but can it teach the will to learn and further learning?? Even when teachers have difficulty there?

Access to information these days is easy, but teaching people to learn that information, evaluate that information and apply that information at the correct times is not. If it was, we'd create standalone AI which could improve itself, and then many probably wouldn't even bother learning.

Government and corporations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867654)

If people think the powers that be want us smarter they are off with the fairies. The powers that be seem to want meek and mild lemmings/drones/subjects/employees who do menial tasks without question and are too stupid and brainwashed to wake up to the fact they've been had. We've even got all sorts of what Huxley called Soma to "help" people who see through the BS.

20% more intelligent! (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867658)

Citing lessons from a work of fiction?

(clicks away)

NEAT + NERO + Genetic Complexification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867674)

Although the poster has either become overexcited by the potential of autonomous AI or has simply found a way to plug his games company to a forum of potential gamers, there are elements to be excited. There are algorithms such as NEAT (NeuroEvolution of Augmenting Topologies) which take a simple neural network and evolve and complexify it to try and find complex strategies to solve problems that seemingly "emerge" out of no where. This has been implemented in games such as NERO, whose AI opponents evolve to remain competitive with the human player. This avoid the common situation with game AI where the human player is able to find and exploit weaknesses in the AI strategy and quickly become bored.

It's all about the drummers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867718)

What he failed to elucidate was his plans to use computational group sex to achieve his goals!

Not Equal (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867780)

"X is available" != "X is available for everyone"

Which is the most common oversight in all these utopian dreams of technology.

Ender (1)

ghostdoc (1235612) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867806)

I think he's talking about the simulation/game/therapy/learning tool from Ender's Game more than any beefed-up version of WoW. And I bought that as a concept, it worked well and I could see how it could be used to teach difficult concepts as well as explore the child's psyche in a therapeutic manner.

What if... (1)

zer01ife (2002158) | more than 3 years ago | (#36867826)

What if there has been an error during the running of the game? If it doesn't crash/freeze at all, then are we talking about the brain's functionality or the absorbing of information? Unless, of course, you're saying that those AI games are related to education, then I'd go with yes because it has the contents/information necessary to learn about fields of science/knowledge.

Utter bullshit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36867876)

So, some guy wants to grab some headlines, by using sexy sounding claims. However, he clearly has not done any research. As someone who works in 'AI', I can attest that the claims made here are laughable. Why did anyone post this crap?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>