Amidst reading Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, looking into Found in translation: Microsoft tool talks pretty and Ken telling me about Microsoft research’s stereoscopic vision based distance calculator, I was wondering how long it will take Artificially Intelligent systems to comprehensively capture (or mimic) the generation of novelty in human minds. The same old question arise, could intelligence be formulated? The fuzzy situations we humans deal everyday and the diversity provided by our out-of-the-box thinking, could it be mimicked or portrayed in a machine? Or the question might be, is it even needed to depict this behavior to exhibit intelligence? May be our intelligence has anomalies from cognitive science perspective as alternate lifestyles couldn’t be justified rationally? I believe that probabilistic analysis of all possibilities or even heuristic approach in game theory doesn’t lead to intelligence. With a node range of 8 moves or more, if an “intelligent” program can formulate the possible moves and start predicting and blocking the moves towards a chess mate, would it be called intelligence? May be so, but still not human intelligence. To mimic this trait we’d have to simulate forgetfulness with very high hybrid (voice, imaging, sensory) information processing, memorization and retrieval speeds however today’s Floating point operation frequency (fops count) is not up to par. Here is an interesting logic theorem:
Thinking is a species of computation. (FUN)
A Turing machine can compute any computable function. (TuringChurch thesis)
Digital computers implement Turing machines.
Therefore,
Digital computers can think.
Searle's Chinese Box: The Chinese Room Argument and Artificial Intelligence by Larry Hauser
Some Links and quotes on AI
- A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God. - Anon
- But could something think, understand, and so on solely in virtue of being a computer with the right sort of program? Could instantiating a program, the right program of course, by itself be a sufficient condition of understanding? This I think is the right question to ask, though it is usually confused with one or more of the earlier questions ["Could a machine think?"; "Could an artifact, a man-made machine think?"; "Could a digital computer think?"], and the answer to it is no. (Searle 1980a, p. 422)
- Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity – Anon
- In short, intelligence, considered in what seems to be its original feature, is the faculty of manufacturing artificial objects, especially tools to make tools, and of indefinitely urging the manufacture. Henri Bergson French philosopher, 1927 Nobel Prize in Literature, 1859-1941
Artificial intelligence newsgroups
- microsoft.public.artificial.intelligence
- msn.computingcentral.artificial.intelligence.general
- comp.ai - general AI
- comp.ai.fuzzy - fuzzy logic
- comp.ai.genetic - genetic algorithms
- comp.ai.jair.announce - Journal of AI Research
- comp.ai.jair.papers - Journal of AI Research, the articles
- comp.ai.nat-lang - natural language
- comp.ai.neural-nets - neural networks
- comp.ai.shells - expert system shells
- comp.ai.vision - machine vision
