Marvin Minsky On AI 231
An anonymous reader writes "In a three-part Dr. Dobbs podcast, AI pioneer and MIT professor Marvin Minsky examines the failures of AI research and lays out directions for future developments in the field. In part 1, 'It's 2001. Where's HAL?' he looks at the unfulfilled promises of artificial intelligence. In part 2 and in part 3 he offers hope that real progress is in the offing. With this talk from Minsky, Congressional testimony on the digital future from Tim Berners-Lee, life-extension evangelization from Ray Kurzweil, and Stephen Hawking planning to go into space, it seems like we may be on the verge of another AI or future-science bubble."
I know 7 and 1 look similar in some fonts.. (Score:3, Insightful)
A podcast? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bubble? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, so I should get out of real estate and stocks, and get into AI. Do I just make checks out to Minsky, or is there an AI ETF? Seriously. Ever since the NASDAQ bubble, investing has been a matter of rotation from one bubble to the next. Where's the next one going to be? I wish I knew.
Re:another one? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, you have to remember that AI is pretty much defined as "the stuff we don't know how to do yet". Once we know how to do it, then people stop calling it AI, and then wonder "why can't we do AI?" Machine vision is doing everything from factory inspections to face recognition, we have voice recognition on our cell phones, and context-sensitive web search is common. All those things were considered AI not long ago. Calculators were once even called mechanical brains.
Re:slightly off-topic - general post on AI (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Erm.. (Score:0, Insightful)
Seriously, that is some stupid ass shit. Right now, neuroscientists don't fucking know how memories are stored, and you think we'll be hooking brains into the internet or some shit? It's a completely faith based proposition with no evidence for it at all.
Re:Erm.. (Score:1, Insightful)
The borg are a technologically superior amalgam of different peoples, cultures, and technologies who demand you abandon your 'backward' way of life and individuality, and insist that you instead adopt their culture, for your own good. That's the united states during the nineteenth century, not the soviets.
Re:another one? (Score:2, Insightful)
Having been on the receiving end of some of the larger telcos support system, and considering the "quality" of so-called "AI" systems today, I would have to suggest that it was about the only thing I saw coming
Re:Artificial intelligence and intellectual proper (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Erm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:another one? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Artificial intelligence and intellectual proper (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WHAT COMPUTERS STILL CAN'T DO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WHAT COMPUTERS STILL CAN'T DO (Score:3, Insightful)
But since you opened the "Searle" bag, let's have a recent quote from him:
I might note that the worst part of this quote is that it's a severe misunderstanding of the strong AI quest to say that we're hoping to produce milk and sugar (i.e. a physical product) from a simulation. Personally, I don't care how the thing happens as long as it passes the Turing test - I don't know what exactly Searle wants to see, but it's clearly not what I expect. Now from the parent:
You're kidding, right? To be fair, I know very little of Dreyfus' work, but Searle's work most definitely does deny that our minds are like computers. That is literally the point of the severely flawed Chinese room thought experiment. I will grant you that his above quote makes it sound like he's now fallen back to arguing that a program needs a physical instantiation to be intelligent, but think back - whether he's backtracked on this position or not, I don't know, but this guy was absolutely claiming that even in theory, any sort of algorithmic understanding was impossible or inferior to the "real stuff" that happens in our brain.
As to whether our minds can be captured with formal logic, I'll ask again, what else is there? Informal logic? I.e. of the kind that we can simulate quite nicely by mixing formal logic with pseudorandom number generation? Maybe this is a term