Ai Forums Home Welcome Guest    Monday, December 11, 2017
Ai Site > Ai Forums > The Artificial Intelligence Forum > Noam Chomsky on A.I. Last PostsLoginRegisterWhy Register
Topic: Noam Chomsky on A.I.

useruser
posted 8/2/2016  22:59Reply with quote
Noam Chomsky makes some profound points about what is needed to produce strong A.I. which he argues that nobody has been moving for this approach but rather to practical applications.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyTx6a7VBjg

keghn
posted 8/3/2016  01:29Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Very nice video.



AiHasBeenSolved
posted 8/3/2016  15:09Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Some of those "forgotten methodologies" remain as Prior Art for AI.

http://ai.neocities.org

 Artificial General Intelligence

tkorrovi
posted 8/4/2016  04:21Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Yes it's good that someone starts to talk about it. The probabilistic methods are not the way to create True AI. And the concept that AI is an "applied science", i have been arguing against it for many years, and how much that approach prevents the AI research, that is, it makes True AI research completely impossible. And this is where calling AI an "applied science" leads to.

They come up with explanations whenever the need may be. Can be done when there also are practical results. These can be credible when one completely ignores the issue. Like there is a fundamental science like astronomy, how much practical benefit there is from using large telescopes? None. Maybe they enable to later discover some new laws of physics, which may have practical benefits, but when they make the observations, there is no practical benefit at that time. So like when astronomy were also called an "applied science", then not a cent of money were given for these completely fruitless observations, and making telescopes and other equipment for these. The result would beyond doubt be no research in astronomy, and a whole field of science were efficiently killed.

 Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project

AiHasBeenSolved
posted 8/4/2016  06:42Send e-mail to userReply with quote
 
tkorrovi wrote @ 8/4/2016 4:21:00 AM:
Yes it's good that someone starts to talk about it. The probabilistic methods are not the way to create True AI.

 
The main problem with AGI -- Artificial General Intelligence -- is that the AGI entrepreneurs really have no good idea -- no theory -- of what they ought to be creating. We should create a special Web page (see below) as a kind of User's Guide for AGI Projects.

 State of the Art -- Artificial General Intelligence

keghn
posted 8/4/2016  16:50Send e-mail to userReply with quote
I have a complete AGI theory that is based on inorganic human logic
of finite state machine logic!

I have a complete theory of human psychology!

They will work well enough for now

I almost have a complete AGI theory based on artificial neural networks.


tkorrovi
posted 8/4/2016  17:22Send e-mail to userReply with quote
Then you should unite them. They all come from the same. It should be one science.

 Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project

keghn
posted 8/4/2016  22:05Send e-mail to userReply with quote
agi I could do that. I understand the dynamics of my theory so well.
My stars from the pure logic of atomic pieces. My model can
self evolve, to make its own language, alphabet, scribed symbols and
hand motion and body language. Or it will copy communication system
of who ever has already developed one, or other forms of communication.

I would not make it a top priority, because they are so different.

And then because they are so different, if the both became
super intelligence killing machines and fought each other they would try to
make allies with human governments. Other wise one Super AI may just
destroy people for fun.



rouncer
posted 8/7/2016  21:08Send e-mail to userReply with quote
tHANKS Tkoorvi for keepin the spam bots at bay!

The site, especially this thread looks clean as a whistle.

The thing I would like to add to this, is maybe want to develop true intelligence is possibly a youthful accident, which the reality of is sad once one meets it for real, happening.

What Kegh is describing is something more like what im interested in, (excuse me Kegh if your certain what your saying is the real thing. because I doubt it, but it is interesting and can do amazing automation.) As in, something subordinate to us and soulless, lower than an aomeba, and created not by god, but by mans ingenuity. that is something I want to make, and will be proud of, and could cause a singularity like stir ANYHOW!

its dangerous this machine learning stuff.


  1  
'Send Send email to user    Reply with quote Reply with quote    Edit message Edit message

Forums Home    Hal and other child machines    Alan and other chatbots    Language Mind and Consciousness  
Contact Us Terms of Use