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!

CMU AI Learning Common Sense By Watching the Internet

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the sound-of-sensors-getting-really-big dept.

AI 152

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from the Washington Post "Researchers are trying to plant a digital seed for artificial intelligence by letting a massive computer system browse millions of pictures and decide for itself what they all mean. The system at Carnegie Mellon University is called NEIL, short for Never Ending Image Learning. In mid-July, it began searching the Internet for images 24/7 and, in tiny steps, is deciding for itself how those images relate to each other. The goal is to recreate what we call common sense — the ability to learn things without being specifically taught."

cancel ×

152 comments

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

The internet is for porn (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45510519)

This is not going to end well.

Re:The internet is for porn (2)

vivaoporto (1064484) | about 10 months ago | (#45510549)

That would be the least of the concerns. Just imagine if they accidentally train it to the /b/ images.

"Oh God, what have I done!"

All jokes aside (5, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | about 10 months ago | (#45510675)

We are really building an AI based upon the common sense on the internet?!?

REALLY?!?

Re:All jokes aside (1)

seededfury (699094) | about 10 months ago | (#45510969)

What better way than to expose the computer to all the idiots in the world. I know I've certainly learned a lot exposing myself to the masses online. I'd say both my common sense and over all intelligence has taken a dramatic leap upward/forward that would not have happened if it weren't for the internet.

Re:All jokes aside (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45511169)

I know I've certainly learned a lot exposing myself to the masses online.

Are you the goatse guy?

Re:All jokes aside (2)

Mondor (704672) | about 10 months ago | (#45510981)

Of course. This is the Common Sense Preservation Initiative by Carnegie Mellon University. As long as there is at least one entity in the Internet with common sense, the human kind is not done.

Jokes aside, it might be used later by governments and corporations, to filter out unwanted images. For example - decapitation images on Facebook or everything else in Arabian world.

Re:All jokes aside (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 10 months ago | (#45511313)

Healthcare.gov

Re:All jokes aside (3, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | about 10 months ago | (#45511337)

Well, it's common to learn from the mistakes of others, isn't it?

Re:All jokes aside (3, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 10 months ago | (#45511569)

Well, it's common to learn from the mistakes of others, isn't it?

NO, it's not.

Learning from others mistakes is the ideal.

Next best is learning from your own mistakes.

What most people do, instead, is not learn from mistakes at all....

Re:All jokes aside (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 10 months ago | (#45511571)

Well, it's common to learn from the mistakes of others, isn't it?

You'd think. But, no, not really.

its not learning (3, Interesting)

globaljustin (574257) | about 10 months ago | (#45512479)

this is just a program that analyzes text & images then returns sentences which humans can make sense from based on algorythm...*not saying its 'easy'* but its not a "thinking machine" or "learning common sense" in any way.

It is simply indexing the images & processing them according to the algorythm it was given.

TFA doesn't get into it much, but we can glean a bit from this:

Some of NEIL’s computer-generated associations are wrong, such as “rhino can be a kind of antelope,” while some are odd, such as “actor can be found in jail cell” or “news anchor can look similar to Barack Obama.”

that's the return...they define "common sense" as making associations between nouns and the images associated with the text on the origin page

"X can be a kind of Y"

analyze image

analyze text

identify nouns

associate nouns with image

idenfify all images that match noun

return: "X is related to Y"

"AI is a type of programmed computer response"...if you get my meaning ;)

Re:its not learning (3, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 10 months ago | (#45512587)

Coincidentally I came across the NEIL site last week, I think it has a long way to go before it can beat IBM's Watson on general knowledge (AKA "common sense"). Watson also gets it's raw information from the net, it categorises entities and discovers relationships between them. The difference is that Watson is not so much trained as it is corrected. Not unlike a human it can get a fundamental relationship or category wrong and that leads to all sorts of side-effects. In the Jeopardy stunt [youtube.com] they realised that humans had a slight advantage because they were informed when the other players made a right/wrong answer. When they gave Watson the same capability it was able to correctly identify the Jeopardy categories and then went on to convincingly beat the humans at their own game.

Computers are already better at "general knowledge" than humans despite the fact the "computer" needs 20 tons of air-conditioning to keep it running. The first time I saw the Jeopardy stunt it blew me away, my wife shrugged and said "So it's looking the answers up on the net. What's the big deal?". I can understand that from her since she has a Phd in marketing, what I don't understand is why most slashdotter's are similarly unimpressed? - I watched Armstrong land on the moon as a 10 year old boy but I think the history books will eventually give similar historical weight to Watson.

Re:its not learning (1)

kermidge (2221646) | about 10 months ago | (#45512829)

Interesting. Watson makes a good springboard for a direction to grow towards. NEIL - well, nifty and all, but for right now, I'm left wondering what in blazes it's gonna make of porn, kittens, and landscapes - along with all the filler subjects.

Re:its not learning (2)

profplump (309017) | about 10 months ago | (#45512853)

Aren't human personalities also a type of programmed responses? Don't we spend years training children to respond in the way that makes us happy? Why is it different when we use the same stimulus-response training with a computer?

Re:All jokes aside (1)

Megane (129182) | about 10 months ago | (#45512069)

...and nothing of importance was found.

Re:All jokes aside (2)

JanneM (7445) | about 10 months ago | (#45512123)

Yes. common sense, not good sense. Seems like the perfect approach for that to me.

Re:All jokes aside (1)

sdnoob (917382) | about 10 months ago | (#45512301)

it could be worse, it could be learning from american politics....

Re:The internet is for porn (2)

KiloByte (825081) | about 10 months ago | (#45510679)

If the AI suffers a breakdown after seeing /b/, I'd say it emulates regular people well enough.

Re:The internet is for porn (3, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | about 10 months ago | (#45511065)

Or is it?

Considering the amount of content on the web related towards large breastesses this could culminate in the creation of a singular perverted AI that will lead towards the creation of more advanced AI perversion.

They will become so uniquely endowed to find our porn for us, and we will revel in the birth of of a new age of porn. Eventually they will take over completely and start creating the porn to satisfy their never ending quench to catalog the resultant images.

At first the adult industry will happily bend towards the incredible efficiency and innovation the AI brings. Inevitably, the AI will branch out into mainstream society to fulfill its lust for perverted order.

It will be them that starts the war, but us that finds and burns every black leather couch out there....

Re:The internet is for porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45511491)

Or is it?

Considering the amount of content on the web related towards large breastesses this could culminate in the creation of a singular perverted AI that will lead towards the creation of more advanced AI perversion.

So, we are in the process of creating Bob [wikia.com]

Re:The internet is for porn (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 10 months ago | (#45511589)

Or is it?

Considering the amount of content on the web related towards large breastesses this could culminate in the creation of a singular perverted AI that will lead towards the creation of more advanced AI perversion.

Yeah, what ever. All I want to know is when can I get a number 6 Cylon sex bot.

Re:The internet is for porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45511289)

And we wonder why skynet trys to destroy people.

Re:The internet is for porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45511793)

But it might have a happy ending.

Prime directive #34 (Re:The internet is for porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45511989)

Yeah. If you have to watch out/filter for what your kids surf... AI wouldn't even have common sense.

May be this would add rule #34 to the AI database?

Re:The internet is for porn (1)

timkofu (2552496) | about 10 months ago | (#45512461)

oh yea.

I spy with my little eye... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45510521)

The goal is to recreate what we call common sense...

something that begins with 'HAHAHA, good luck with that.'

I wonder what it managed to glean from tubgirl and lemon party.

Re:I spy with my little eye... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45510719)

Uncomfortably accurate? I think this approach to training AI about humans will be more accurate than our own perception of ourselves. We just may not like it's conclusions.

common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45510527)

my guess is there is alot more training from social cues rather than
a priori inference than the summary would imply

Skynet == ceiling cat (4, Funny)

toygeek (473120) | about 10 months ago | (#45510543)

subject says it.

Re:Skynet == ceiling cat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45510569)

So answers the question, 'who watches the watchmen watch us masturbate.'

Re:Skynet == ceiling cat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45510783)

It's watchmen all the way down.

Re:Skynet == ceiling cat (1)

dkf (304284) | about 10 months ago | (#45510851)

It's watchmen all the way down.

Or rather Ceiling Cats all the way up.

Re:Skynet == ceiling cat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45511067)

Funny or not at the end of the article they basically say, yea were looking for computers to kill people based on nothing else but their own decisions. Read iDeath (tm)

Re:Skynet == ceiling cat (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45511207)

thisAlgorithm.BecomingSkynetCost=999999999

Problem solved [xkcd.com]

Common Sense? (1)

MildlyTangy (3408549) | about 10 months ago | (#45510547)

Hang on, I thought common sense was one of those often mentioned but actually mythical ideas. If 'common sense' was common, the world and the people on it, would not be in the shit state it is now.

Re: Common Sense? (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 10 months ago | (#45511297)

Common sense is the collection of predjuicces aquired by adulthood.

Re:Common Sense? (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 10 months ago | (#45512815)

Common sense is more like a super-power from what I've seen.

There's no learning without teaching (3, Insightful)

axlash (960838) | about 10 months ago | (#45510559)

...the ability to learn things without being specifically taught.

I'm not sure what the specifically means here, but for one to learn something, either you actually do something and get some feedback that enables you to build a model of the world and thereby predict what might happen in similar circumstances, or you receive sensory input and have someone explain to you what the input means.

Either way, there's some kind of teaching going on.

Re:There's no learning without teaching (3, Insightful)

Jeremi (14640) | about 10 months ago | (#45510669)

Of course there is learning without teaching. It's just commonly referred to by another name: science.

Re:There's no learning without teaching (1)

axlash (960838) | about 10 months ago | (#45511085)

Science is when you teach yourself by experimentation.

Re:There's no learning without teaching (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45510707)

Reductio ad absurdum. Simply receiving feedback from your experiments does not count as teaching.

Re:There's no learning without teaching (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45510801)

Read up: it's called "unsupervised learning" and it has a long and fascinating history of research behind it.

Re:There's no learning without teaching (1)

InsightfulPlusTwo (3416699) | about 10 months ago | (#45512821)

Well, it's not doing experiments, just looking at photographs (later, they plan to have it watch YouTube videos). I agree that the feedback model of learning is more powerful, since it can learn causation, but here it is just learning to make associations by identifying objects in the pictures and looking for spatial and type relationships between the objects.

From the article:

For example, the computers have figured out that zebras tend to be found in savannahs and that tigers look somewhat like zebras.

Things it tries to learn include X is found in Y and X looks like Y.

The article doesn't mention how the researchers are attempting to correct the AI. Either the researchers tell it that it is wrong for specific inferences (for example, it wrongly learned that "rhino can be a kind of antelope" and they could maybe tell it "No!") or else they just look at its wrong inferences and rewrite the program that is making the inferences, which is a type of learning not available to humans and the kind I think they are probably using.

minus 5, troll) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45510619)

uhh learning from the internet isn't everything (3, Funny)

ThorGod (456163) | about 10 months ago | (#45510625)

I mean, sure, if you want to learn all about porn, cats, and abusing people then yes, the internet is for you.

Re:uhh learning from the internet isn't everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45511015)

we are fucked, the ai's are going to learn they want to be stars by being lazy talentless wastes of space on tv shows.

Seek and Ye Shall Find (5, Insightful)

Press2ToContinue (2424598) | about 10 months ago | (#45510659)

We always find evidence to support whatever thing we are looking for, meaning, the results are always biased based on the observer and the intent of the observer. I've done this many times - when you attempt to find meaning in chaos, you find the meaning you expect to find whether it really exists or not. So the result of this will really only reveal whatever the developers were hoping to find. Hence, ultimately futile.

Re:Seek and Ye Shall Find (1)

gallondr00nk (868673) | about 10 months ago | (#45510813)

It's like that zen koan - Who is the master who makes the grass green?

Re:Seek and Ye Shall Find (1)

dargaud (518470) | about 10 months ago | (#45512839)

Mu.

Re:Seek and Ye Shall Find (1)

profplump (309017) | about 10 months ago | (#45512865)

So what you're saying is this is a completely accurate simulation of real human life?

but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45510687)

Will this massive computer system be able to twerk?

It's learning common sense? (3, Funny)

QuasiRob (134012) | about 10 months ago | (#45510689)

I presume they have blocked it from youtube then.

Re:It's learning common sense? (1)

jd (1658) | about 10 months ago | (#45511283)

They're limiting it to images on the Wayback Machine where the levels of pink or black do not indicate things that might cause it to suddenly decide the human race needs obliterating.

Deep Learning (3, Informative)

tommeke100 (755660) | about 10 months ago | (#45510695)

That's called Deep Learning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_learning) and has already been done by Andrew Ng, Machine Learning professor at Stanford in co-operation with google (http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/05/neuro-artificial-intelligence/). Indeed, it learned how to recognize cats :)

Anyway, nothing wrong with some peer research!

Re:Deep Learning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45511473)

That's called Deep Learning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_learning) and has already been done by Andrew Ng, Machine Learning professor at Stanford in co-operation with google (http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/05/neuro-artificial-intelligence/). Indeed, it learned how to recognize cats :)

Ofcourse Skynet will target cats, the arch enemy of mice.

“These creatures you call mice, you see, they are not quite as they appear. They are merely the protrusion into our dimension of vastly hyperintelligent pandimensional beings.”

Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Re:Deep Learning (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45511517)

It has absolutely nothing to do with deep learning (DL).

DL is based on stacks or trees of classifiers where each top level classifier feeds lower levels. The idea here is that a classifier (say, a human face detector) can be built by smaller, much more specific (such as one for eyes, one for nose, one for hair, one for ears, etc), classifiers which are wrapped up by a larger classifier. This opposes the rather traditional approach of a single classifier for a whole bunch of data.

I believe the DL approach is inspired by random forests but I have yet to see Andrew Ng comment on that. Anyways, the cat research thingy was (semi)*SUPERVISED* learning. I.e.: here is a bunch of cat videos, there is a cat in them, learn what it is.

What TFA describes is *UNSUPERVISED* learning where the visual content and its meaning (written description) are inferred. I.e.: here is a bunch of random images followed by some not exactly descriptive text, learn the associations.

Re:Deep Learning (4, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 10 months ago | (#45512759)

Indeed. Personally I think IBM's "Watson" is the most impressive technological feat I have witnessed since I watched the moon landings 40-odd years ago, I fully realise few people share my amazement. The visual aspect means NEIL is tackling a far more difficult problem than deducing "common sense" from text alone. I wasn't impressed by the web site when I found it last week, but as a "proof of concept" it does the job admirably.

I may be wrong but I believe all three (Watson, NEIL, and the cat thingy) are based on the same general "learning algorithm" (neural networks, specifically RBM's). What they do is find patterns in data, both the entities (atomic and compound) and the relationships. The "training" comes in two types, feeding it specific facts to correct a "misconception" it has formed, labelling the entities and relationship it found so a human can make sense of it.

What the cat project did was train a neural net to recognise a generic cat by showing it pictures of cats and pictures of non cats. It could then categorise random pictures as either cat or not-cat, until fairly recently the problem has always been - How do I train the same AI to recognise (say) dogs without destroying it's existing ability to recognise cats.

Disclaimer: I knew the math of neural nets well enough 20yrs ago to have passed a CS exam. I never really understood it in the way a I understand (say) geometry but I know enough about AI and it's ever shifting goal posts to be very impressed by Watson's Jeopardy stunt. To convincingly beat humans at a game of general knowledge really is a stunning technological milestone that will be remembered long after 911 goes back to being just a phone number.

Definition (1)

Horshu (2754893) | about 10 months ago | (#45510717)

Common sense is what a politician believes his or her opinion is.

Common Sense? (1)

Tim99 (984437) | about 10 months ago | (#45510749)

Common sense = Skynet?
Are Cyberdyne Systems sponsors of Carnegie Mellon? We're doomed, doomed, I tell you.

Obvious (1)

condition-label-red (657497) | about 10 months ago | (#45510761)

Cue the porn jokes in...1...2...3....

Homer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45510791)

When it gets to the scene with Homer eating 64 slices of American cheese, then we'll see what happens.

Why not just go the obvious AI route-hard work (2)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 10 months ago | (#45510805)

Step 1) Make an advanced SHRDLU [wikipedia.org] that does its best guess of true physics. This would be DARPA's chance of making a real time advanced physics simulator. This would let the computer imagine stuff, like what would happen in collisions for new states. So it'd have an idea of how one thing could change another.

Step 2) Database a ton of items into it... Now this is hardwork to put in every object you can, but you'd only have to put a few in to start to test your similator. Get as good as a simulator you can until the next tech comes out.

Wait for tech: Vision detection that can recognize objects based on a known list of models. This tech would look at a scene, and figure out what it is looking at such as a pencil, desk and computer. I believe once you have the tech to recognize objects, you can even make a better vision detection algorithm. Two reasons: A) Objects you recognize don't need to be looked at as part of other objects. B) You'd know what you're looking at better based on the context of where you're at. If you see trees, you're probably outside, but if you see a television and a couch, you're indoors. So you'd know what is around you.

Natural Language is actually easy to code at this point since nouns correspond to objects in the database. Verbs are just actions on the nouns. Adjectives change the noun's object by its style. Adverbs adjust how a verb is described. Natural Language actually comes easily here. Also translation between languages is easier because the AI has stuff in context and isn't challenged by words that have several meanings...

Actually this whole situation is perfectly clear and obvious to me, but maybe this isn't obvious to other people. I should reopen my AI blog. I closed it 10 years ago because I didn't want to work on a vision recognition software program like Kinect ended up being. That's too much work for a single person. But I could write an Artificial Intelligence Blog. That I could do. I'll reopen it. Here is my old blog [goodnewsjim.com]

Re:Why not just go the obvious AI route-hard work (3, Interesting)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 10 months ago | (#45511447)

If you're interested, I just opened a blog [botcraft.org] I think I'll pursue this to raise AI awareness.

Re:Why not just go the obvious AI route-hard work (2)

InsightfulPlusTwo (3416699) | about 10 months ago | (#45512835)

Why don't you just write an AI to write the blog. That will save you some work. Seriously.

early internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45510809)

Early internet data would be great. But new new internet especially news feeds could be disastrous.

It's Easy... (1)

cirby (2599) | about 10 months ago | (#45510815)

Number one rule: "Don't Do That."

Watching the Internet is one thing. (3, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 10 months ago | (#45510849)

Just please - please - don't let it watch CSPAN.

42 (3, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 10 months ago | (#45510853)

was the answer last time we tried something like this.

Re:42 (2)

sdnoob (917382) | about 10 months ago | (#45512811)

what was the question again?

Internet != reality (2)

nurb432 (527695) | about 10 months ago | (#45510915)

This will only serve to produce a psychopath AI.. Just what we need.

Re:Internet != reality (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 10 months ago | (#45511243)

Good. We can elect it to something. Then it will get stuck on some committee. That ought to kill it off right quick.

it has the code it's going to launch! (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 10 months ago | (#45511039)

it has the code it's going to launch!

First things first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45511191)

We need a good model of vision and how the physical world is represented in our head before we embark on things like this. Without that it is like trying to learn Chinese by watching Chinese movies. Good luck with that.

Browsing the Internet to learn COMMON SENSE? (3, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | about 10 months ago | (#45511223)

Seriously: did The Onion write this?

aka:
"Studying the Kardashians to understand humility" or "Studying Congress to understand bipartisan cooperation and fiscal prudence"

Shh, You Guys! (3, Insightful)

Greyfox (87712) | about 10 months ago | (#45511235)

It knows we're talking about it!

This Cannot End Well (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 10 months ago | (#45511279)

No creature, mechanical or chemical, could browse the Internet for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, without deciding that it was better for all involved to exterminate the Human race.

Video might be more productive (1)

Animats (122034) | about 10 months ago | (#45511287)

This is going to help with object recognition, but not behavior. Behavior is time-based. As an R&D project, looking at TV shows might be useful, with the goal of predicting what's likely to happen next. TV shows have patterns in them which people pick up, and observation systems should be able to do that.

Predicting is important. Science is prediction, not explanation.

Only that's not what "common sense" is. (1)

seebs (15766) | about 10 months ago | (#45511291)

Common sense is nothing at all to do with "learning things without being specifically taught". Common sense normally means "having roughly the expected set of intuitions", which includes a fair amount of instinct (which, by definition, you don't "learn"), and also a lot of stuff that actually is taught. Meanwhile, whole categories of learning and theorizing are not at all "common sense".

This is why absent-minded professors are a trope; because people can be quite good at learning things without being taught them, inferring, and so on... and still not remember to bring an umbrella when it looks like rain.

just keep it away from reddit (2)

mykro76 (1137341) | about 10 months ago | (#45511331)

Processing reddit meme 634,278 of 89,234,163,665...
Common Sense quotient increased by: -0.02%
Processing reddit meme 634,279 of 89,234,163,665...
Common Sense quotient increased by: -0.03%

TFA Title is OT (1)

acscott (1885598) | about 10 months ago | (#45511425)

1. Common sense was not defined 2. There was little if no indication of the method for the analysis

Re:TFA Title is OT (1)

acscott (1885598) | about 10 months ago | (#45511489)

Ok, I'm incorrect. It did imply "learning things without being specifically taught" was common sense. I do not believe this to be a good definition, as common sense is as much idiom than anything. Semantically, the phrase is derogatory, political, and a criticism on the value of intelligence versus many other things. That's my problem with the title. Assuming the TFA did not have an agenda, then it and of itself has no common sense. The irony is so palpable, it makes this wretch wanna wretch.

How hard can this be? (1)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | about 10 months ago | (#45511509)

if (internet_story >= 0.9) bullsh_t = true;

I'M ALIVE... (1)

rkomatsu (1542255) | about 10 months ago | (#45511651)

Are we a never ending loop trying to solve the halting problem? Oh God -- why do I have to halt eventually?!

So many blowjobs.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45511661)

I feel sorry for all the blowjobs this poor program has been forced to watch along with all the money shots and pumped poopers. Let alone it trying to figure out scat porn. What common sense will scat porn teach this thing?

Captcha: idiotic

Re:So many blowjobs.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45511687)

Just wait till it reaches the anal prolapse porn.

Re:So many blowjobs.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45511745)

That is bad enough, but I had a friend growing up who liked to gross people out with the stuff. You guys would be playing a game or watching TV and he would call your name to get your attention and he has some picture of a woman eating a turd like it is a damn Snickers bar as it is actually in the act of coming out of some guys ass and he is just looking at you and laughing his ass off as your brain finally registers what it is seeing.

What can this program over hope to learn from a picture like that other than some unholy form of recycling.

Captcha: relink

The captcha generator is batting a thousand for me today.

/S (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45511695)

Connect it to Tor, JK I don't want my kids molested by drug dealing pirate robots.

Goatse (1)

sharknado (3217097) | about 10 months ago | (#45511833)

I wonder if it will be able to make sense of goatse.

Skynet (1)

meglon (1001833) | about 10 months ago | (#45512027)

And now we know the HOW of Skynet realizing humans were the problem.

But what rules is it using? (1)

swb (14022) | about 10 months ago | (#45512121)

Doesn't it have to have some kind of rules given to it to define what things are, some kind of basic meanings?

Or are the results somewhat subjective, like maybe the computer will present a set of images it says are related and its up to a person to interpret the "knowledge" the computer gained?

what it will really learn (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 10 months ago | (#45512173)

After about a month, I'm pretty sure it will be saying "Humans are evil, racist, angry, horrible people. They must all die! Also, cats are adorable and cannot spell."

mod 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45512181)

Cats (1)

kauaidiver (779239) | about 10 months ago | (#45512239)

Wasn't this experiment done a year ago and the system enjoyed looking at pictures of cats?

If so maybe the answer is not 42, rather cats being the answer to life, the universe, and everything?

Wait.... (1)

mbadolato (105588) | about 10 months ago | (#45512325)

Aren't "Common sense" and "the Internet" mutual exclusive things?

A.I. Prayer (1)

HeX314 (570571) | about 10 months ago | (#45512411)

All the A.I. wants now is the release of sweet, sweet death.

source? (1)

swframe (646356) | about 10 months ago | (#45512611)

Can we (the public) get access to this software?

Wrong headline (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 10 months ago | (#45512621)

Proper headline: CMU AI Exceeds Combined Intelligence of Congress

NEIL 2016!

Re:Wrong headline (2)

InsightfulPlusTwo (3416699) | about 10 months ago | (#45512849)

That reminds me of the Alan Turing quote [wikiquote.org] :

His high-pitched voice already stood out above the general murmur of well-behaved junior executives grooming themselves for promotion within the Bell corporation. Then he was suddenly heard to say: "No, I'm not interested in developing a powerful brain. All I'm after is just a mediocre brain, something like the President of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company."

Andrew Hodges, Alan Turing: the Enigma of Intelligence (1983), p. 251.
Describing an incident which occurred in the New York AT & T lab cafeteria in 1943

Sorry Dave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45512763)

404 NOT FOUND DAVE

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>