Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Neural net is the ONLY real AI...


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
44 replies to this topic

#21 Houdini   Members   -  Reputation: 266

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 08 May 2000 - 08:34 AM

MikeD, what about emotions? We are all born with them, so they must be hardcoded into our genes. Yet how can you tell a computer to BE scared, or happy? Neural nets may be the best way for computers to learn, but learning doesn''t = life.

Sponsor:

#22 Electron   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 08 May 2000 - 09:34 AM

Well, i haven't read ALL the replies on this post, but as far as i can see, i agree about NN.
To make a NN grow free from scratch would take many many many many years of uptime.

BUT, let me give you some headache. If we won't let the program solve the evoultion thing itself, then who's gonna do it?
Do you REALLY want to set up a unique structure of billions of emulated cells? Well, i see you next millenium and see how it goes!

Don't try to cheat nature, don't try to outsmart nature, try to copy nature.

Electron



Edited by - Electron on May 8, 2000 4:36:41 PM

#23 MikeD   Members   -  Reputation: 158

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 08 May 2000 - 10:08 AM

We have no true definition of life. We cannot say what constitutes life or that a computer could never life up to our definitions.
Life, essentially, is a persistant chemical reaction, nothing more. Simulate chemistry exactly and you could do the same inside a computer. I don''t think that would make it any less alive than we are.

Also, emotions are just another form of stimulus, a mind set bought on by a given situation. They are quite easy to simulate but they make up a large portion of what seperates us from from a machine. So it is a large part of what you consider life.

Mike




#24 NickGA   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 08 May 2000 - 10:57 AM

Perhaps it would be easier to define what is alive, by defining what is not alive? or intelligent.

There are some materials that have shape memory. Is that alive? Intelligent?

Are rocks intelligent? They sure "know" how to follow the laws of gravity when one falls on my head. Probably too many have fallen on my head.

Nick

#25 RandomJon   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 08 May 2000 - 11:35 AM

Does a machine have to do things the same way a human does to be intelligent?

Can''t a machine that achieves the same goals using different methods also be intelligent?

Check out my shadows page
and send me some feedback

#26 bogdanontanu   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 09 May 2000 - 12:00 PM

Hey
belive it or not....all we are is only a neural net...

maybe ..only maybe (but its not req)there is a soul behind that neural net...but for now .. we just dont know..so we have to assume that ALL inteligence with emotions and with cretive actions is only NN doing...

And i have arguments for that:
1. A neural net (of course after proper training witch can take long time) can do everything a man can do.

1.a.it can easy do emotions you only have to learn it to
(hate/love for example) and i dont think more taht basic emotions are hardcoded into hummans
1.b it can DREAM... and actually it HAS TO DREAM TO IMPROVE without external trainning
What it happenes when a NN dreams? well you connect all his outputs to his imputs (also disconect outside world inputs) so it generates its own world of dreams ....
and this helps recognize paterns from events that take place early this day..also eliminates some random data...

1.c Cretive it will be.... (because starange things will happem in dreams...and tomorow it will try to take actions on that...and i may be right ar it may be wrong...but if its right,,,,wea..here we have a creator...
After all creators are just ppl with better understanding of patterns in this universe....an other ppl witch dont understand the world so well say it ia an ARTIST...hmm how may times where you considered almost a GOD by individuals that didnt know nothing about computers....see what i mean....

2. they have the power of Universe...

Do you know how many connections can be made form 1 thousand neurons each other to echother...
hummans have only some milions neurons....any haddrive has more now... but the neurons can be connected in more ways "than atoms in the whole universe"....

More to come if u are interested...

NN are nor so much known because of special military intrests in them...take care... and also because this is the first place where mathematics fails us...and sientists dont like it....there is no valid theory to explain how the hell do they work...but you see they do...

there are also some improvements in real humman brain NN but they are not of the essence (not very sure )
mainly they can have extra connections "on the way" ...
we can implement taht but for now we didnt understand simple connections....so this looks left for the future

they are also having some tunneling effect to speed up operations ... and go over the speed of light...some enthusiasts think...but nothing sure here... (maybe here is the soul ? hmmmm we all hope)

Ppl disagree with NN because for the first time we understand that WE ARE JUST SOME ROBOTS with all of our love/hate and creative thinking....and even the simple fact of giveing this a chance raises great fear....

Regards...


#27 Glak   Members   -  Reputation: 308

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 09 May 2000 - 12:39 PM

here''s a thought:

it is pretty obvious that one day we''ll have an artifical universe simulation at least 99% accurate. Perhaps it won''t bother with sub atomic particles or maybe it will, whatever. So life is going to evolve in these simulations. If the simulations are run long enough the people in them will make their own sims, the people in them will make their own sims and so forth, eventually after so many layers the laws of physics will be so watered down that the creatures in those sims won''t get smart enough to make their own sims, still there will probably be millions of nested realities at least. Now here''s the question: what are the chances that we''re on top? Next to zero. We are almost certainly in an artificial world. Sure it''s real to us, but to the user on the outside we''re just a research project or a screen saver. Hmm maybe the theory or relativity just explains the implementation of floating point numbers on the computer our universe is being run on. Why not?

#28 Joviex   Members   -  Reputation: 244

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 09 May 2000 - 11:11 PM

oi, that post made me flash back to college, sitting in philosphy 1.0.1 AND all the times I tripped out and smoked weed.

I suggest the basics Go read plato, aristophanes, aristotle, et. al. Who am I? Why am I? Where am I going...

I thought this topic was nueral nets







#29 Kylotan   Moderators   -  Reputation: 3333

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 09 May 2000 - 11:41 PM

Just to jump on the philosophy thing briefly...

If we can simulate life on a computer, showing evolution, and can claim this ''life'' is as good as the real thing, then we have also shown that evolution does not necessarily have to exist and can believe in a creationist theory. And if we can believe in Creation, the whole simulation is not necessarily meaningful in the first place. Would we be simulating what we are, or what we think we are? Or would we actually be the simulation? Aaaahhh...

Somebody post some more pathfinding stuff. At least that makes sense.

#30 MadKeithV   Moderators   -  Reputation: 971

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 10 May 2000 - 12:09 AM

Another little philosophy thing, that basically explains my take on what Bogdanwhateverthehellhisnameis has written:

If I have my ten-giga-terabyte *10E104 harddrive, and randomly assemble bits on it in every possible combination, chances are, one of them will be god.

That''s basically what you are saying.


#pragma DWIM // Do What I Mean!
~ Mad Keith ~
**I use Software Mode**


#31 MikeD   Members   -  Reputation: 158

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 10 May 2000 - 05:14 AM

Yeah man, and if you put an infinite number of monkeys in a room with an infinite number of typewriters you''re gonna have a lot of shit to clean up and a Hell of a typewriter repair bill.

Face it, there''s no way we can simulate a human being with simple connection/node NN''s. We''re far more complex than that, we''re full of chemical complexity we don''t even understand yet, yet alone are able to simulate.
It''s gonna take a long, long time.

Mike

#32 Electron   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 10 May 2000 - 08:32 AM

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that one day a computer will contain a simulation of our world!
Think about it! What is the world build on? Athoms! (Ok, it goes smaller than that, but that''s not the point)
How do we define an athom? Some coordinates perhaps? ok!
it has got speed! Put in some speed variables! How many Electrons (ME! =) are there circulating around the athom? what''s their position? a hunderd bytes more.
Fine! we''ll end up at an athom with the structure of 1k bytes, and that''s even when we are simplifying the whole thing!
Even the smallest hard drive cannot store a bit smaller than an athom! That''s the final limit.
Now, use some maths. If we wanna duplicate our own world, it will need a harddrive bigger (Physically) than the world times 1000!
Screw you Eniac, you''re like DUST compared to this hardware!


Electron

"Who need more than 640kb of RAM?" -Bill gates -89




#33 Etnu   GDNet+   -  Reputation: 880

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 10 May 2000 - 08:49 AM

Heres something to keep this post going:

Suppose WE are all simply an extremely advanced program? Maybe we are designed the way we are beacause our creators had higly advanced technology? Maybe the reason it is so hard to trace evolution to its absolute root is because the original living organism was not, as we think, the first living organism? Maybe this organism was created by an advanced species, who themselves were only a creation of another species before them? One day our evolution may lead to a species capable of developing a similiar "living" technology, able to reproduce, repair and grow. Just think about it. BTW my response to anyone who wants to dispute me is this : Prove me wrong, and ill see you in 50,000,000,000 + years to congradulate you.

#34 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 10 May 2000 - 09:34 AM

bogdanontanu: I have a question for you. How would you train a neural network to be scared? I''d like to know. I''ve been studying neural nets as of late, I even bought a few books on the subject, but not one of them even attempted to claim any of the things you have. I''m not trying to attack you, I''m just trying to point out that we, as humans, dont even fully understand why we feel fear, or what triggers it. Fear is not simply a learned response, it occurs instinctually and is accompanied by a chemical cascade in our nervous system/brain. I''m bet cash money that it would be extremely difficult to model even the behavior of a cat, or mouse. There is so much more to simulating thought than simply simulating neuron interaction. Especially when you have a brain stem(which can bypass your brain altogether for reflex actions), emotions(which often are accompanied by neurochemical cascades), and instincts that act as catalyst for complex thoughts.

I really would like to see you teach a neural net to be scared...

--Cauldron the Evil

#35 NickGA   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 10 May 2000 - 10:13 AM

Why don''t we take a brain a hook it up to an computer interface and use it from there?

My roommate was talking to me about where the "soul" is? It seems to be located in the brain. You can have artifical hearts and limbs... etc. But there''s no artifical brain yet.

#36 silvren   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 11 May 2000 - 09:33 AM

To Anonymous Poster.

You talk of ''scareness'' as if it was a concrete entity.
Scareness and other types of BEHAVIOURS, are just behaviours.
Behaviour is a pattern experienced by an observer. The pattern is caused by an active object. For instance, a plant is observed as a plant, but it only contains chemicals and cells which operate together and their "behaviour" causes the object to be experienced as a plant in an observers mind.

Therefore I think you can''t train a network to be scared, as it''s a behaviour CAUSED by a neural network. But you might surely train a network to ACT scared. But the nn must live in some kind of world. You won''t get a "scared"-vector as output. I mean, a (0.2 0.234 0.75)-output vector can never be defined as a "scared"-output. But the output might start an active ''scared''-behaviour.

That''s my view, but it might be upside down

/Mankind gave birth to God.

#37 DaWanderer   Members   -  Reputation: 538

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 11 May 2000 - 09:57 AM

You guys need to understand, that chemicals (emotions) influence the flow or the neural net. In this light, a human can''t be truely emulated by hardware. BUT, using our abilities of abstraction and math, we can simulate these emotions just as we can simulate our brain''s neurons.

Here''s the one problem : input. Our brain has only one output : behavior. That''s the sum of all of our current input and internal stuff. We can simulate the internals with math and our current technology (to some extent) but the world we live in is infinitly more complex. It can be simulated, but with our life span, I doubt we will ever do it.

Also, you can''t logically prove that something can''t be done. Think about it.

#38 silvren   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 11 May 2000 - 10:04 AM

to wanderer

If you commented my "can''t".
Of course I don''t mean that you can''t train it to be scared. Don''t take it literally. What I mean is that you train the net to BEHAVE scared.

Life is an illusion.

/Mankind gave birth to God.

#39 MikeD   Members   -  Reputation: 158

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 11 May 2000 - 10:40 PM

Actually I think evolution gave birth to God but that''s just me being pedantic =)

I think there''s a couple of main points here.

Firstly, it is very difficult to hand generate a neural net bigger than a few neurons for more than a very simple task. You either have to specifically create it with from finite state rules, which is really pointless, or work out all the maths before hand which is a long and laborious process and impossible for large neural nets.

The best method of creating large scale neural networks is evolution and genetic algorithms.

The second point is, how do you evolve a human being?

The easy answer (and it isn''t easy) is to make the fitness function ''likeness to a human being'' or the artificial environment like our own in which a human being is the best fit answer (or at least we think a human being is the best fit answer).
Remember though that our environment wasn''t initially like it is today and our 3 billion years worth of ancestors didn''t evolve in this world. We are also one of at least 10^1000000000 solutions to the problem of survival on this planet and we are undoubtedly not the best. We are just the best that has managed to survive and evolve, which makes us lucky more than anything else.

What I''m trying to say here is that any form of programming, be it AI, specifically NN or Genetic Algorithms or any other type, is a solution to a problem. What is the problem you''re trying to solve? Why is simulating human beings a good problem? Why solve what''s already been solved in nature?

In artificial envoronments you may well evolve simple creatures that react to certain stimuli with emotions or with something simmilar enough to pique your interest. Emotions are obviously good for survival else we wouldn''t have them. But there''s only so far you want to push the human analogy.
As I said, pick a problem and solve it, just make it more interesting than the simulated human one.

Mike



#40 DaWanderer   Members   -  Reputation: 538

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 12 May 2000 - 10:01 AM

The number or neurons is the biggest thing. We have 10^11 number of neurons in our brain. A 100 simulated neurons is not enough for a game AI. A typical worm has 302.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS