Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Israeli AI System "Hal" And The Turing Test

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the look-no-foolin' dept.

Technology 447

Conspiracy_Of_Doves writes: "Hal, the AI creation of Dr. Anat Treister-Goren of Israel, has fooled child language language experts into believing that it is a 18-month old child. Dr. Treister-Goren says that Hal will probably attain adult-level language skills in 10 years. CNN.com article is here. Yes, it's named after what you think it's named after, and yes, the article mentions why naming it Hal might not be such a hot idea."

cancel ×

447 comments

FP? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198356)

FP

Close, but no cigar (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198362)

More like 2198356th post. Good try though.

Incredible! (4, Funny)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198357)

It's just like chatting with an 18 month old child! Doesn't know how to type, read, or write at all!

Truely an incredible step in toddler AI!

That's the way to do it! (1)

TrollMan 5000 (454685) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198377)

It's a start. AI is supposed to mimic human responses, so raising it from a "baby" makes sense. It will be programmed over many years, just like a human child. After all, we are all programmed, by our enviroment, people around us, as well as by our genetic code.

Yes, but... (2, Funny)

PopeAlien (164869) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198525)

..Don't forget these are "child language language experts".. Thats not just any ordinary language expert - Thats a child language language expert, which means they are twice the ordinary child language expert.

..So fooling them really is quite the feat..

Re:Incredible! (1)

DCheesi (150068) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198631)

Funny, sounds more like a Slashdot troll to me...

Great (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198364)

Great!

Now all those pedophiles have someone to chat with legally.

Re:Great (2, Funny)

alen (225700) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198396)

The next step in Thought Crime. Make them think they are talking to a real child and then arrest them.

in other news... (1, Troll)

room101 (236520) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198367)

Cats on my keyboard have successfully fooled me into thinking that an 18-month old child was at the keyboard.

(maybe I should RTFA to see if it makes sense, but I just couldn't resist.)

The next step? (1, Funny)

SpanishInquisition (127269) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198371)

If they can fake a 18-month old child, they can surely fake the average /. poster, hell, maybe I am a bot right now writing this.

Re:The next step? (-1)

Pr0n K1ng (160688) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198454)

Why don't you STFU?

you mean you're not a bot? (-1, Offtopic)

motherfuckin_spork (446610) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198566)

I thought for sure you were only a perl script...

Re:The next step? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198581)

you are an insult to 18 month old children everywhere.

That's not bad (5, Funny)

cnkeller (181482) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198373)

Dr. Treister-Goren says that Hal will probably attain adult-level language skills in 10 years.

I know people I work with who still haven't achieved adult-level language skills...

Re:That's not bad (1)

gundam (106705) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198518)

And in my company they're the customer service reps whose only job is talking with customers.

Re:That's not bad (1)

s1r_m1xalot (218277) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198527)

You know, developments such as this might just explain "CmdrTaco"'s grammar.


Who's *really* running Slashdot?

HAL isn't such a bad name... (2)

kypper (446750) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198381)

True, all the 2001 problems could be alluded, but that's 10 years down the road. ;o) (yes, irony is intended)


Reminds me of a political party in Canada (NPC)that tried to implement a new method of communication called Newspeak. Now that was ironic. (and very funny)


Regardless, the fact that it learns like that is incredible. I just wonder if it won't hit a block at any point that isn't forseen.

Re:HAL isn't such a bad name... (1)

frobozz3.141 (449529) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198500)

WTF is "NPC"? Do you mean the progressive conservatives ("PCs") or the New Democrats ("NDP")? Does "NPC" stand for the New Progressive Conservatives?!?!?

-Frobozz

Re:HAL isn't such a bad name... (1)

Rackemup (160230) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198544)

Wasn't there a Natural Party of Canada at one point (or something like that)?

*BEEEP* Wrong. (2)

kypper (446750) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198583)

NPC: The National Party of Canada. It was in existence for the 1993 election, and fell through due to a special interest group factioning the National Executive.


Recall Mel Hurtig.

1984 (1)

chips (4885) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198635)

Wow that party was definitely doubleplusunsmart!

Interestingly enough, I'm reading that book for the first time as we speak, probably the best summer reading assingment I've ever had.

Uhh... Turing had a computer?? (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198383)

from the article:
But in Turing's time, computers were slow and cumbersome devices, utterly incapable of fulfilling his vision.

It was my belief that computers never existed until years after Turings death. Am I mistaken??

Re:Uhh... Turing had a computer?? (2)

ryants (310088) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198413)

From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (13 Mar 01) [foldoc]:

Alan Turing

Alan M. Turing, 22/3? June 1912 - 7 June 1954.

Eniac was around during WWII, so yes, computers existed in Turing's lifetime.

Re:Uhh... Turing had a computer?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198456)

Turing not only had a computer - he was a major designer of the Pilot Ace at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, England. Or did he design the full Ace and someone else did the smaller Pilot Ace? I forget.

Re:Uhh... Turing had a computer?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198574)

Actually, Turing helped develop one of the first Computers. It was not acknowledged much at the time, as it was developed to help with breaking the ULTRA codes.

Tech pages on CNN (1)

TwistedTR (443315) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198391)

I love how CNN never puts any hardcore tech info
on their stories. Some explanation of what kind of machine HAL runs on, or perhaps some insite into how it works.

The Conversation (5, Funny)

PoitNarf (160194) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198394)

"Hi, how are you today?"
"Poop!"
"Poop? I don't quite understand what you are trying to say."
"Pee-pee!"
"Indeed."

Re:The Conversation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198411)

That's more like a 2 1/2 year old than a 1 1/2. 1 1/2 usually can only say "mommy"...

But funny as crap, though. Interrupted work with my bellylaugh...

Re:The Conversation (1)

TwistedTR (443315) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198416)

Sure, it starts off with poopoo and pee-pee, give it a little while and the thing with start on with:

"I have an army to raise and I must get to Managua, I require a window seat and an inflight happy mean. And No pickles! God help you if I find a pickle!"

When it starts making plans to take over the world, then it'll be fun conversation.

This is pretty cool (1)

Captain_Frisk (248297) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198395)

I'd like to what kindof algorithms they are using. If they are using a neural net, its never going to scale up to adult style language.

However, i think this is the right direction to travel in pursuit of passing the turing test.

Captain_Frisk

Re:This is pretty cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198428)

Indeed. It'd be interesting if it was a Genetic Algorithm, but its difficult to predict the intelligence growth of a genetic algorithm. I'm sure its a combination of several AI Algorithms...

Re:This is pretty cool (1)

kurowski (11243) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198439)

If they are using a neural net, its never going to scale up to adult style language.

Um, just what kind of hardware do you think the human brain runs on?

h0w 500n? (1)

TechnoVooDooDaddy (470187) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198408)

until it can understand l33+ h4XX0r speak?

How it works... (1)

r1ch (166865) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198409)

There's no info on how HAL works in the article above, but for those of you who still have Adobe software on your machine, there's a more technical paper here [a-i.com]

wow? (1)

notext (461158) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198415)

The article state "HAL" understands 200 words and has a 50 word vocabulary.

That does not seem impressive to me. I have never fooled with AI, so maybe my expectations are too high?

I could swear some irc bots are better, maybe I am just not as smart as I thought I was!

Re:wow? (1)

Dimensio (311070) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198437)

It's my understanding that IRC bots speak in phrases at best, not words. An AI that can put even simple sentences together from even a relatively short list of words sounds somewhat impressive.

Of course, I can barely parse C, so I'm certainly no AI or coding expert :)

no more windows? (1)

MasterOfDisaster (248401) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198417)

"It is going to be the next user interface, the last user interface," Dunietz said, explaining that it will replace the mouse, computer pointing devices and the Microsoft Windows environment"

Good, someone else who wants to rid the world of MS

Baby Hal? (5, Funny)

Dolly_Llama (267016) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198420)

Hal, the AI creation of Dr. Anat Treister-Goren of Israel, has fooled child language language experts into believing that it is a 18-month old child.

Dave...I have a load in my diaper...Dave...

Experts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198421)

Wow, child language language experts, eh? Just plain child language experts can't do the job?

Reward -vs- Punishment (5, Funny)

smack_attack (171144) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198424)

When Hal was "born," he was hardwired with nothing more than the letters of the alphabet and a preference for rewards -- a positive outcome -- over punishments -- a negative one.

[...] Treister-Goren corrects Hal's mistakes in her typewritten conversations with him, an action Hal is programmed to recognise as a punishment and avoids repeating.


How long until Hal figures out that sending high voltage through the typewriter stops the punishment?

Re:Reward -vs- Punishment (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198585)

Now, damn, that was FUNNY!

fooling (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198425)

It can fool child language experts, but can it fool children? Everyone knows they're a lot smarter.

http://retards.org/

Variant Spelling (2)

Chacham (981) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198427)

Treister-Goren corrects Hal's mistakes in her typewritten conversations with him, an action Hal is programmed to recognise

I just thought this was cute, being recognise, at least in the US, is a variant spelling of recognize.

Re:Variant Spelling (0)

dEaTh_ChUrCh (156981) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198467)

Thats the proper way to spelt it you yank halfwit. I don't know, give you a Country and a langauge and you have ruined it.

Re:Variant Spelling (1)

karb (66692) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198608)

It's all daniel webster's doing, and he only did it because you brits were being rather stubborn at the moment.

Peer Review FIRST, then talk to the news agencies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198429)

I won't believe it until we hear about it in the Peer Review Journals BEFORE he goes talking to CNN. That's never a good sign. Usually, it means the scientist got inadequate results, though results that can be fiddled with to look good, and needs more funding.

Is it just me (1)

RoofusPennymore (151772) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198441)

Or does this sound like how bad things start to happen in the Movies?

Put it to work... (1, Redundant)

seanmeister (156224) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198443)

Hutchens believes it will take about a decade to develop Hal's language and communications skills from that of a toddler to an adult.


Hal could be a Slashdot editor in about 3 weeks!

Re:Put it to work... (1)

unitrcn (472455) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198553)

...and if we augment his vocabulary with a few key phrases (hot grits, Natalie Portman, first post, *BSD is dying, Linux is gay), we could have him posting some pretty convincing trolls!


And if at some point he generates more flames in response than a human troll, I'd say he could be the first AI to pass the turing test!

"2001" (5, Interesting)

YIAAL (129110) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198452)

Funny how all the cultural fears of technology come from books and movies like Frankenstein, Brave New World, Colossus, (remember that one?) and 2001. All of which are fiction, and written the way they are to make an interesting story (who would read a story about a man who created a "monster" that was happy, friendly, and harmless, or a computer that worked perfectly and caused no trouble?) Yet in popular discussion, people treat them as real, and embodying actual dangers with which we have real experience.

We need more Artificial Intelligence -- the natural kind is in too short a supply.

Re:"2001" (1)

Coq (204365) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198516)

All of these stories are used in this manner because the writers intended them to be used in this manner. The writers saw people abusing science by creating technology that crossed or approached moral boundaries. Then when technologists come to that moral boundary later in the real world, they can say "we don't want a HAL on our hands, lets prevent that by doing this."

Scary.. (1)

duckie13 (234928) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198453)

So all they really have to do is talk to your average AOL-er to get the equivalent of this AI right? ;D

But seriously, was I the only one who got a quick, lil chill while reading this? Especially with the thought of this Dunietz guy laughing manically in his room with hundreds of computers in it?

Just machines? (1)

rootmonkey (457887) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198455)

"We believe that human beings are complicated machines, computers are also machines, and we should be able to do with computers what human beings can do," Are we just machines though? I don't know, but it will be interesting if we can prove it with computers. Will computers become consience (I doubt it) but at least this question may be answered in mylife time. Check out www.kurzweilai.net

Re:Just machines? (1)

smack_attack (171144) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198513)

I interviewed her [stephenvandyke.com] a while back, what a total bitch.

Re:Just machines? (1)

rootmonkey (457887) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198549)

I agree,but how do you bitch slap a cyberbitch though?

Re:Just machines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198606)

Sure we are. I wouldn't say "just" though. You have to think of it as a positive thing. Our brains must operate under the same laws of physics. If we can just model the basic functionality (which is already being done, but at a very low-level) it will be possible to build machines which understand. Once computer user-interface designers come up with higher forms of computer-human interaction, it could be called intelligence then. There would be very little difference between what a computer can reason about and what a human can reason about. The only reason, IMO, that computers are not considered intelligent, is because they operate on a machine-to-machine interface, and only on a very low human-to-machine interface (i.e. typing, mouse movements, etc.). Once speech recognition becomes better and higher forms of internal interaction (i.e. not just comparing ASCII strings to determine whether there is a match but combining audio feedback, mouse feedback, and keyboard feedback together to understand the user) are realized, there is really nothing left to AI (or, rather, intelligence that humans recognize as "intelligence").

creating computers in man's image, exponentials (5, Insightful)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198459)

neural nets are designed to simulate how the brain works, so it makes sense that they be trained the same way. consider this: perhaps they can absorb information faster than a human brain, but who could deliver interactive teaching at that speed?

now consider:

today (2001): human trains AI, limited by wetware bandwidth

...20 years from now: AI trains AI, limited by neural net bandwidth.

result: all 20 years of training one AI will be compressed into to a fraction of a second training time for the next generation

this is the manifestation of Raymond Kurzweil and James Gleick's observations: the acceleration of everything, the exponential growth of compute power.

hang on for the ride, kids. it's gonna get weird. i bet we see AI legistlation in the next 10 years.

we will be the 'gods' (as in creators) of the new race that will inhabit the earth.

Re:creating computers in man's image, exponentials (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198488)

Any posting on /. about Artificial Intelligence is sure to bring out people with a little basic, first-semester knowledge of AI who actually have no I regarding the subject at all.

Re:creating computers in man's image, exponentials (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198621)

And sure enough, you came.

Re:creating computers in man's image, exponentials (5, Insightful)

ryants (310088) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198519)

neural nets are designed to simulate how the brain works, so it makes sense that they be trained the same way
Actually, neural nets don't simulate, they mimic at some crude level.

But just like mimicking what a bird does (ie tape feathers to your arms and flap) isn't going to get you off the ground, mimicking the human brain will probably only get us so far.

I believe the real breakthroughs will come more or less like it did in aeordynamics: when we understood the principles of flight and stopped mimicking birds, we could fly. When we understand the principles of intelligence and stop mimicking brains, we might be on to something.

Re:creating computers in man's image, exponentials (2)

bartle (447377) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198593)

hang on for the ride, kids. it's gonna get weird. i bet we see AI legistlation in the next 10 years.

That's what they were saying 10 years ago. Better projects than this one have failed to pan out in any meaningful way, I guess CNN was still looking for A.I. stories. I personally don't see any of our current technology and techniques delivering A.I.; if it comes to be, it will be do to something that hasn't even been discovered yet.

Re:creating computers in man's image, exponentials (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198633)

No need for AIs to train new AIs; just make a duplicate.

Of course, that's assuming the AI neural net standard data format remains backwards compatible. Or that the RIAA or their successors haven't legislated to put AI personality copy protection in place...

Why isn't it a hot idea? (3, Insightful)

ethereal (13958) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198462)

Yes, it's named after what you think it's named after, and yes, the article mentions why naming it Hal might not be such a hot idea."

I don't know, it seems to fit if you ask me. HAL was very childlike in the movie, especially in regards to his "dad" Dr. Chandra (well, in the sequel at least), and only ended up hurting people because he was lied to and thought there was no other way. How is that any different from a human child who is abused and as a result doesn't value human lives at all?

I don't think they should have named it HAL just because it's going to get boring after every single AI project is named HAL, but naming it after the famous movie star of the same name wasn't a bad idea in my opinion. As long as you treat it right and don't give it control over vital life support functionality, you should be just fine :)

variability (2, Insightful)

4n0nym0u53 C0w4rd (463592) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198464)

From the article:
"Some kids are more predictable than others. He would be the surprising type"

Being the "surprising type" with a vocabulary of 200 words probably indicates that the program is not particularly good. The range of possible behaviors is pretty small for such a system. As the vocabulary and complexity of possible utterances increases, it is likely that the "surprising" aspect of Hal is going to move into "bizarre" territory.

As Chomsky pointed out [soton.ac.uk] , relying strictly on positive and negative feedback is not enough to develop language...

interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198562)

links in .sigs aren't suffixed with the [domain]

"Take off every zig!

for great [slashdot.org] goatse [goatse.cx] [slashdot.ogre]!"


(don't worry, we'll figure it out...)

There is another... (2)

GMontag (42283) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198466)

I hear that Dr. Forbin is being trained by a child-like computer that destroys cities when it does not get its way.

Wonder if they are sharing info? Better not cut the data connections, they could get really mad!

The 13yo horny boy turing test... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198468)

I've been able to fool horny teenage boys into thinking they are talking to a dumb girl. Does that count for anything? Some have talked for hours and hours.

Here's the logs:
http://retards.org/logs/supersexygirl27/

AIM: supersexygirl

cool (1)

hex1848 (182881) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198471)

now all he needs is a walking teddy bear that helps raise him.

one of the biggest problems people will have.... (1)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198474)

one of the biggest problems people will have is the fact that thses things are so human like in thier interactions that peta will probably start petitioning for the rights of these computers.

I for one think it is stupid for thinking that a computer, just because it can become selfaware(though there is more reseach to be done on that) should have rights. being aware that it exists as an entity does not mean that it should have freedoms given to humans. what can a free computer do? it can't move, it can't earn a living, infact as long as the desires are hard coded onto a chip, all it will want is the praise of its master, like a dog.

good job HAL!! or thank-you HAL is all it should need, it will do 2 things, keep it happy and drive it to predict your next need more acuratly next time.

Old news... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198476)


This happened back in February... Thanks, CNN, for finally catching up, and Slashdot, for reporting on news only once it becomes mainstream...

"In February 2001, lingual experts outside Ai reviewed transcripts of Hal's conversations with chief trainer Anat Treister-Goren and could not distinguish between the language skills of the algorithm and that of a 15-month-old infant."


From FastCompany: http://pf.fastcompany.com/change/change_feature/du nietz.html

The "lingual experts" only looked at a transcript between the creator and the software. Why couldn't the experts talk to it directly? Guess it's still a beta.

The true next step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198483)

Will be for the integration into a human being, for it to develop racist Jewish tendencies, perform "targetted attacks" and label any arab as a terrorist.

Truly a cherished thought.

It would also help solve the "ticking timebomb" Jewish problem.

Bunch of retarded morons.

Sci-fi references and the dark side of AI (1)

Phlux (14914) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198490)

"These new entities are going to be more human than human."
Mmm... References to Blade Runner and 2001 in the same article... and they admit that they programmed nothing into this computer other than a preference for pleasure over pain. No Asimov's laws of robotics, nothing (I know, where they started, it wouldn't have been able to interpret them anyway). What if the computer is a sadist? Do we really need AI to perform the tasks they outlined in the article (taking care of all the arrangements for a trip, for example)... Not that I am against AI, but we need to think more about what we are getting ourselves into...

What a crock (2)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198494)

It must be time for this guy to apply for some grants. This is so far from any sort of language "breakthrough" as to be a complete joke. You could probably output random sentences with that 200 word vocabulary and fool "experts". 18 month old children don't exactly have the greatest conversational skills.

Dr. Treister-Goren says that Hal will probably attain adult-level language skills in 10 years.

*cough*bullshit*cough*. Call me when you have any actual *theory* on adult-level language skills, much less an implementation.

I firmly believe we're at least 100 years away from a turing-test level of language processing. And no, Moore's Law does nothing for this problem. We are currently at Aristotle's knowledge trying to work out Relativity.

Wait a second... (1)

Evan927 (15553) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198499)

"These new entities are going to be more human than human."

Great. So they name the AI after 2001, and they get marketing lines from Bladerunner.

I'm thinking this could be bad....

The last interface? (1)

FillerBunny (326610) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198502)

I don't think so. As much fun as it would be to give my computer verbal instructions, I can't imagine how you could play an FPS and still have it be fun.
"Shoot that guy. Now shoot that other guy. Reload. Shoot the sniper. Get his gun." Etc.. Etc..

Better article on ZDNet (1)

apirkle (40268) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198504)

There is a better article on ZDNet [zdnet.com] , with more technical details, including a very sketchy description of some of the algorithmic ideas used in developing HAL.

No points for originality, Dave. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198520)

It's probably a hacked copy of AOLiza. He couldn't even think of an original name? Here are some suggested names: JewBot 5000, Hebetron X, Palesetinian Childkiller, SuperZion Bitchandwhine, Landstealing Faggot, and Rabbi Deathslash.

Oh, maybe "HAL" standards for "Hebrew Autonomous Life."

So that's where (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198523)

the lameness filter came from!

Must be a misquote or an AI newbie (3, Insightful)

BillyGoatThree (324006) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198524)

"Dr. Treister-Goren says that Hal will probably attain adult-level language skills in 10 years."

This guy has obviously never heard the Minsky Theorem: "Full scale AI is always 20 years down the road."

In any case, call us when it is actually working, not when you've fooled "child language experts". I could fool experts right now with a simple cassette tape, a LOT of taped 18-month-old comments and a quick hand with a playback button. That doesn't mean my stereo is going to human in 10 years.

I am 99% sure we will eventually acheive "full AI". But I'm 100% sure it won't be via vague claims about unguessable future performance. In other words, show me the money.

MegaHAL (2)

ktakki (64573) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198526)

Jason Hutchens, who was quoted in the article, wrote MegaHAL [sourceforge.net] , which won the '96 Loebner Award. It's a fun program to play around with, especially if you "prime" it with different text files (e.g., Usenet posts, memos from marketing, pr0n, etc.).

"IT TAKES 47 PANCAKES TO SHINGLE A DOG." -- MegaHAL

k.

limits of method (2)

kisrael (134664) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198531)

I'm pretty much willing to accept the validity of the Turing Test, but I'm not sure if such a simple methodology is going to scale well. At some point, to hold your own in a conversation, you need to develop a structure to represent the outside world, and I'm not sure if a straightforward neural net implementation will get you there; admittedly it depends on how complex a neural net system you introduce.

hmmm... (1)

turbine216 (458014) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198537)

i heard a rumor that this "HAL" is actually posting on Slashdot under the moniker "JonKatz"...

Ushering in... (3, Funny)

doorbot.com (184378) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198540)

...a new generation of SPAM generation.

So is this the first instance of giving a child an IP address?

I still haven't passed (1)

Subcarrier (262294) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198541)

...my Turing test. I guess that's why daddy keeps me locked up in the basement.

Turing tests (5, Funny)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198555)

here's [modernhumorist.com] a funny one...

Turing test is pretty crappy... (4, Troll)

DeadVulcan (182139) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198556)

The fact that the Turing Test is probably still the only widely recognized test for artificial intelligence says more about our pathetic understanding of the nature of intelligence than the validity and usefulness of the test.

After all, as any con-artist and magician will tell you, it's really not that hard to fool people. Also, remember that on some occasions, some human beings will actually fail the Turing test! That must be so humiliating...

I freely admit I don't have anything better to offer, but I just wanted to point out that the Turing test is a pretty awful measurement, when you think about it.

If you hate poorly defined software projects... can you imagine being handed the Turing test as a feature spec?

Re:Turing test is pretty crappy... (1)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198589)

well, newtonian physics was a pretty crappy measurement of the usniverse but it did a damn fine job for the time considering that before newton, people thought most stuff happened because of spirits. untill you achive a certain benchmark, you can not refine your ability to measure somthing. the Turing test does a good job for people that don't even have a computer that can pass it, once we do, we can work on a better measurment of AI.

Let Internet users raise Hal (1)

jparp (316662) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198570)

How fast would Hal lurn if millions of internet users read bed-time stories to it simultaneously?

Time for the Laws of Robotics!? (1)

ediron2 (246908) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198575)

From the article:

When Hal was "born," he was hardwired with nothing more than the letters of the alphabet and a preference for rewards -- a positive outcome -- over punishments -- a negative one.

Later, the article gives a bit of a blue-sky prediction that this machine won't be anything like HAL from 2001.

Why?! What's to stop it? Heck, by their fourth birthday, kids have learned to lie for personal advantage or to avoid punishment. If all that stands between this ptyke and actively avoiding detection is a desire to avoid getting a punishment bit, we need to call for the laws of robotics REAL fast.

A nice benign scenario, once this thing gets smart enough to be my next PDA:

"... Well, if I say yes, I'll get punished.
If I say no, she'll know I'm lying and I'll get punished.
If I cancel her plane reservation for next week and interrupt her question with a comment that I've just been informed that her plane reservation was lost, she'll forget to ask me and I won't get punished! Yay!"

Admittedly, in that scenario, it'll be as transparent a lie as my 4-year-old's usual excuses, but I'm sure Hal will get better over time.

Just so it doesn't seem like I hate the idea, I'd be the first one on my block to buy ^h^h^h adopt one of these, but I'd also like to live long enough to see them mature into acceptable sentience. I'm not a xenophobe. I just want a level of ethics in any highly-adaptable species we encounter, since I have a healthy respect/fear of anything without a compatible ethical base.

.wedonneednofreekinsigs

Hal vs. Eliza (2)

Rimbo (139781) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198577)

All we need to do is feed Hal's responses back into Eliza, and Eliza's responses back into Hal, and train Hal to be a perverted psychiatrist a lot more quickly than these researchers are doing the job. :)

Sounds Intelligence? (1)

TrippTDF (513419) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198579)

From the CNN Article:

"The firm's philosophy is simple. If it looks intelligent and it sounds intelligence, then it must be intelligent."

Did HAL himself, with his basic language skills and poor grammer put this sentance together? Sounds intelligence to me!

Eliza and the turing test (4, Interesting)

z4ce (67861) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198584)

I have _personally_ seen Eliza pass the turing test. I set up Eliza on my ICQ uin, one of my friends in crisis messaged me and had 45minute conversation with Eliza (not such a good thing). By the end of the conversation, my friend was convinced that he was talking to a hacker who broke into my account. Oh what a mess that was. He had called his ex-girlfriends's parents and told him her new boyfriend broke into my account. I didn't have any idea a bot could be so convincing. It had some flat out amazing responses to his questions and comments. If I had never seen an Eliza conversation before I would have probably thought it was a person too. But like I said.. setting up such a bot on your ICQ account is not recommended. They will pass the turing test and that's not such a good thing necessarily.. :)

To see many such logs go to www.google.com and do a searh for "aoliza" or even "eliza chat" you'll find all sorts of hillarious conversations.

A.I. Article. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198590)

I'm telling everybody right now.

This article is a hoax! There's no technical information to it. No way to fact check it.

Some really deep stuff coming up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198599)

Start wondering how it'd be like in the near future. PC's will talk to you, but will it refuse to shut down? What happens if I try to physically pull the plug? Will all the AI appliances gang up on me then? Or are they more like those portrayed in Spielsberg's AI, or T2? All in all, I believe human-created virii will be more destructive then whatever AI is capable of.

Fake philosophers (3, Interesting)

BeBoxer (14448) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198600)

From the article:

If, or when one does, it will open a Pandora's box of ethical and philosophical questions. After all, if a computer is perceived to be as intelligent as a person, what is the difference between a smart computer and a human being?

and

"All of us strongly believe that machines are the next step in evolution," said Dunietz. "The distinction between real flesh and blood, old-fashioned and the new kind, will start to blur."

If these researchers get to the point where they can't see a moral difference between killing a person and turning off a computer, they need to get out of the lab more. What next, natural rights for computer programs? That's like inventing television, and then being unwilling to turn off the TV for fear of killing the little people inside. Rubbish.

Tha'ts not bad (1)

Wordsmith (183749) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198610)

10 years to learn to speak like an adult? I don't know many -actual- 10-year-olds (or 10 +18mo '' 11.5 year olds" who could pull it off. This kid's a quick learner!

I send you this world in order to have your basis. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2198629)

From the article.
"I build his world on daily basis," explained Treister-Goren.

The computer could talk better if it's developer could talk better.

The Emperor's New Clothes (1)

loki4eng (218727) | more than 12 years ago | (#2198638)

by Roger Penrose will shed some light, and I don't feel like regurgitating all the arguments. But imagining that humans are binary systems (just think about Godel's incompleteness theorem for more than a minute)is grossly naive and reductive. By all means, let's make interesting machines, but these assertions of "strong AI" are complete malarky.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...