• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
vallentin

What is really AI?

81 posts in this topic

Not in the slightest.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Sneftel
Alright. Is it not intelligent?


Quote:
Original post by owl
I said intelligence, not AI.

For AI we dont need to imagine much, there are plenty of game AIs that behave pretty intelligently. And we could say that they *are* intelligent to some degree.

But if there was a scale to measure inteligence on how qualitatively and cuantitatively a being (artificial or not) organizes data, then bubble sort, your program and all the games AI's would be near ZERO and humans would be at the top.


Yes, based on the definition of intelligence I proposed earlier, we could say they are intelligent in a very low scale and their domain is quite restricted compared against human beings.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But now your definition gets hazy. You propose ranking intelligence based on "how quantitatively and qualitatively a being organizes data", without elaboration. Clearly the numbers in a sorted list are "more organized" than the words in a poem. Doesn't this make bubble sort more intelligent by your definition? If not, how does one score, on your one-dimensional scale, how a being organizes data?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah well, I think I never said what kind of "quality" to measure.

I meant quality in a human sense. A poem expresing a human idea (with methaphors, paraboles, reminicenses), would be of higher quality than a bunch of sorted numbers.

We could even say that a short poem contains more information than a bast collection of sorted numbers, since a poem carries a meaning (that triggers experiences, images, sensations) and the mechanisms needed to extract that meaning is orders of magnitud more complex than the one needed to appreciate the "sortedness" of the numbers.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by owl
I meant quality in a human sense. A poem expresing a human idea (with methaphors, paraboles, reminicenses), would be of higher quality than a bunch of sorted numbers.
Then this just comes down to the bog-standard definition, "thinks like us".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well yes. Do you know any other remarcable intelligence to compare with? I mean, dolphins may be intelligent but their kind of intelligence doesn't really seem to be very useful for us right now.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not offhand. But you should be aware that that's the real definition you're using, none of this "organizes information" silliness. Justice Potter Stewart (in)famously defined pornography as "I know it when I see it", and perhaps he was onto something there. What you're looking for is a definition of intelligence that agrees with all the gut feelings you've already decided on regarding the level of intelligence of various entities. Since the underlying decisions here are, in general, so capricious and impulsive--yet now so strongly held--there's no reasonable definition one can come up with to excuse them all equally. This is why coming up with a definition of "intelligence" is useless unless you (a) have a need to objectively define a metric of intelligence, (b) have an objective test to determine whether a given metric is accurate, and (c) are willing to have that metric disagree with you and tell you that you're wrong about something being intelligent or not intelligent. Under any other set of circumstances, it's all just semantic flailing.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Rixter
Except isn't that like saying an encyclopedia is intelligence?

No, an encyclopedia is a collection of information (pages in a book, or in the digital age usually an electronic database + interface). My comment about 'search being a tool' was intended to convey that while search may appear as a fundamental component of many instantiations of systems labelled 'artificial intelligence' it is, in and of itself, not a demonstration of intelligence. Just as the hammer, nail and 2x4 are components that can be combined to produce a finished house.

Quote:
Original post by Rixter
I would be more inclined to say it's the producing of the solution that is intelligence, not the solution itself.


Yes, you may well need intelligence to create the design and implementation of the end product given only the possible components... but again, that isn't strictly necessary. I could create a machine that builds houses for me. Or I could create a machine that builds machines that builds houses. At some point in that chain there is likely to be some application of intelligence... but that doesn't mean that I couldn't build a system that could interact with the world, learn and adapt itself so that it becomes a house. Now where is the 'intelligence' specific to building houses?

Quote:
I would consider skill and creativity to be more attributes of intelligence


I'd consider skill and creativity to be expressions of intelligence. Look back to my original definition for why I take this stance.


Quote:
Perhaps our definition of search is different as well.


To formalise my definition, search is a procedure for determining the elements of a set that satisfy an objective... so some examples of search:
  • finding the members of a set that map to an extremum of an objective function
  • finding a partition of a set such that at least one disjoint subset returns a disjoint value of a constraint function

    A search algorithm (IMO) is then a specific procedure for solving the search problem.

    How does your definition differ?

    Quote:
    As you said, one does not need to know how to do something for AI techniques to work, and sometimes not even the end goal. Wouldn't that require some form of search? Wouldn't even the wiring and re-wiring of our brain be a form of search? I don't know.

    It may not require an explicit instantiation of a search algorithm, but all learning and adaptation that improves the performance of a system is implicitly a search through the space of possible systems. So yes, learning in the mammalian brain can be considered a search through the set of possible mammalian brains (constrained by the initial state of the current brain and the reachable set of possible brains) for one that improves performance.


    As for Emergent's comments...

    Yes, in part I agree that 'Artificial Intelligence' is a brand label, just as 'Cola' is a label for a type of carbonated drink. There are many different drinks that might be labelled 'Cola' that don't necessarily fit with the general expectation of what 'Cola' is... and there may or may not be an objective form of 'Cola', nor of 'Artificial Intelligence'. But that doesn't mean we cannot use the label to describe specific instatiations of the product.

    The problem with AI is that too many people erroneously apply this label to what they're building so it has lost some of its value (mostly this is a problem seen in business where people are trying to sell products ... look at the hype over artificial neural network based products during the early 80s). Some of those instantiations may indeed by good examples of the product... others not so good... but some of us do believe that it's worth trying to work out if in fact there *is* an objective form of AI... and rather than just philosophise about it, we go out and build systems and evaluate them and ask the question... "is it intelligent"?... and then we get into arguments over our definition of intelligence... and most of us just go back to our labs and ignore it... but sometimes we feel compelled to speak! ;)


    As a quick aside... machine learning and Optimal Control should not be considered side by side and I don't believe anyone working in OC would ever claim what they were doing was AI. If though you meant by OC merely the problem of determining an optimal control function/regulator... then ML is just a tool for doing that... as are the formal methods of OC (what we usually call Control Theory).
  • 0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    I can imagine a sort of test to measure the quantity and the (human like) quality of data being "organized" by different creatures of nature. Say for example:

    * Is social?
    * Has language?
    * Uses tools?
    * Builds tools?
    * Is adaptable?
    * etc.

    And some sort of sub-set of detailed questions regarding the kind of society they form, how many different sounds (words) their language has, what kind of tools, for which purpose, etc. Each one with certain score, thus giving you a measure of how similar to human intelligence a given intelligence is.
    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote:
    Original post by alvaro
    Quote:
    Original post by AngleWyrm
    This brings up an interesting point: What exactly is a free choice? Is selecting the best option a free choice, or is it simply an optimized relationship to the environment? Is choosing randomly from a probability distribution of personal biases over the options a free choice?

    We have a pretty hardwired dualistic view of the world, where all objects obey the laws of physics, but some seem to have "souls", or "behaviour". This gives us an illusion of free will that probably has nothing to do with how the world really works, but it's a powerful metaphor that helps us understand and predict events around us. I don't think this illusion has to necessarily be present in an agent to be able to call it intelligent. It's just a byproduct of the way we are implemented.


    No one really knows what free choice is. However alvaro is what a philosopher would call a Hard Determinist. Which may or may not be a correct stance but in my opinion is not very likely. Although I doubt he would agree with the other baggage a typical hard determinist would carry - such as a lack of a belief in the notion of moral responsibility.
    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote:
    Original post by SneftelThis is why coming up with a definition of "intelligence" is useless unless you (a) have a need to objectively define a metric of intelligence, (b) have an objective test to determine whether a given metric is accurate, and (c) are willing to have that metric disagree with you and tell you that you're wrong about something being intelligent or not intelligent. Under any other set of circumstances, it's all just semantic flailing.


    I feel that at least for humans only (c) will ever be possible. so such a model/metric would have to acknowledge this and work with a system that has notions beyond true and false (e.g. append modifiers like possible and necessary).
    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    IMO defining intelligence as a relative measure to "human intelligence" is just a cop-out showing that we don't know what intelligence really is.

    I have a feeling that there are a lot of people who if given such a test would receive a sub-human score!

    Quote:
    Original post by owl
    * Is social?
    * Has language?
    * Uses tools?
    * Builds tools?
    * Is adaptable?

    Sorry for going off on a tangent, but I find your metrics interesting food-for-thought:

    * There are certain people in the world who are for whatever reason (injury, mutation, trauma) are completely lacking in social skills and/or instincts, however they're still intelligent (and human!). In fact, many religious figures throughout history have been known to spend long periods of time in complete isolation before coming back to society and teaching great wisdom...

    * Humans raised alone would not have language, so the important thing is the ability to develop language - a capacity which many animals also have.

    * Some animals can use and make tools (and can adapt), but is this a problem with the definition, or are these animals also intelligent? (see the argument that 'human rights' should extend to all great apes...)

    * Any living creature can adapt - just not in a single life-time. Does this mean that if we look at a species of virus (instead of an individual virus organism) that the species as a whole has some intelligence?

    [Edited by - Hodgman on April 3, 2008 10:10:32 PM]
    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    As I've been saying to Sneftel I do believe that there are levels of (individual) inteligence in nature, and that those levels are measurable in relation to the quantity and the quality of the information (read information as "data" and also "matter") certain being is able to process/organize.

    Of course there are exceptions everywhere, but the test I imagined would be applied to the observation of a species as a whole and not to one individual.

    I noticed we usually (always?) use the term intelligence wanting to mean intelligent as human, and if a creature lacks certain ability we have, we say it's not intelligent. I find that kind of unfair.

    I also think that if a computer program that works with a certain set of rules and data can take useful/meaningful decisions to achieve expected results, we could say that it shows some degree of inteligence in it's domain. And that if it performs better than other program in the same domain, it can be said to be "more intelligent" than that other program.

    If an entity is not aware of the choices it makes or if it has not the capacity of recognizing itself as an individual doesn´t turn that entity into something not-intelligent. But it is evident at least for humans that having that capacity helps to the work of processing information in a deeper way.

    I find myself to be kind of verborragic today, I apologise for that.
    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote:
    Original post by Timkin
    Quote:
    Original post by Rixter
    Except isn't that like saying an encyclopedia is intelligence?

    No, an encyclopedia is a collection of information (pages in a book, or in the digital age usually an electronic database + interface).
    There was an anti-B.F.Skinner argument called the Chinese Room:

    Inside the room is a person who does not know how to read Chinese. Outside, a man who does know how writes a note and slips it under the door. Inside, the illiterate man has warehouse of symbol look-up tables that show response strings for various sequences. The illiterate person simply compares symbols and transcribes the response sequences and passes a note back. So even though the guy on the outside is having a conversation, the guy on the inside is totally oblivious.

    If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...It might be just the thing to take duck hunting.

    But why stop at low-flying duck resolution: What if it looks, sounds, smells, feels, and tastes like a duck to the limits of the human senses? I might have bought a package of that at the store the other day.
    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote:
    Original post by Daerax
    No one really knows what free choice is. However alvaro is what a philosopher would call a Hard Determinist. Which may or may not be a correct stance but in my opinion is not very likely. Although I doubt he would agree with the other baggage a typical hard determinist would carry - such as a lack of a belief in the notion of moral responsibility.

    Hmmm... I am not so sure about determinism: There could be randomness involved. What I do believe strongly is that there is nothing special in physics for brains. I don't believe in moral responsibility, but only in the sense that I don't think it is part of the laws of physics. Of course, it is an important concept that allows us humans to develop working societies, and I feel as much of it as anyone else. I think Richard Dawkins said it best in this TED talk (the whole thing is good, but the relevant part for this discussion starts around minute 19).

    [Edited by - alvaro on April 4, 2008 7:25:46 AM]
    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Simple answer: Something that looks like its intelligent.
    Complicated answer: A highly emotive acronym applied to a number of different methods of making man-made objects appear to be intelligent.
    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote:
    Original post by AngleWyrm
    Quote:
    Original post by Timkin
    Quote:
    Original post by Rixter
    Except isn't that like saying an encyclopedia is intelligence?

    No, an encyclopedia is a collection of information (pages in a book, or in the digital age usually an electronic database + interface).
    There was an anti-B.F.Skinner argument called the Chinese Room:

    Inside the room is a person who does not know how to read Chinese. Outside, a man who does know how writes a note and slips it under the door. Inside, the illiterate man has warehouse of symbol look-up tables that show response strings for various sequences. The illiterate person simply compares symbols and transcribes the response sequences and passes a note back. So even though the guy on the outside is having a conversation, the guy on the inside is totally oblivious.

    If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...It might be just the thing to take duck hunting.

    But why stop at low-flying duck resolution: What if it looks, sounds, smells, feels, and tastes like a duck to the limits of the human senses? I might have bought a package of that at the store the other day.


    I've heard the Chinese Room argument before, but is it the room + data that's intelligent? Or is it the room + data + guy using data that's intelligent? I think data (knowledge), representation, and solutions are great and all, but I believe it's the construction and use of these that is the intelligence. This does bring up an interesting point though (that's more or less been said here a few times), that things are 'intelligent' until we know how they work, then it's like 'oh, that's not magic', so we want to know which part is "intelligent". Is an ant intelligent or the colony? Is a brain cell intelligent or a billion cells linked together? Is a thermostat intelligent? What about a billion of them?
    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    My Definition:

    * A system that demonstrates behavioral evolution and the required abilities for survival in its native environment.

    So, from my own definition, a neural network that reads cheques and translates handwriting to ascii, isn't AI, because even though is was initially based on neurons, the evolution of those neurons has probably been "locked" once the application was deployed, therefore inhibiting any ability for the system to demonstrate any evolution of behavior.
    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote:
    Original post by Rixter
    I've heard the Chinese Room argument before, but is it the room + data that's intelligent? Or is it the room + data + guy using data that's intelligent? I think data (knowledge), representation, and solutions are great and all, but I believe it's the construction and use of these that is the intelligence.

    This is what's been coined (by Daniel Dennett, IIRC) as the "systems reply", and it's the conclusion of most who don't agree with Searle's argument. Searle has a rebuttal to this reply, consisting of a gymnasium (and rather stretching the analogy), which doesn't really address the issue. More memorable and entertaining is his ad hominem towards those who would espouse this theory: "It is not at all easy to see how someone who was not in the grip of an ideology would find that idea at all plausible."
    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    A BBS sysop once sicked his pet software 'bot on me, which was masquerading as a person. It lasted for about half a dozen exchanges, before it became clear there was little comprehension of what was being said. Thereafter, about three or four more exchanges exposed it for what it really was -- a simulator with a stash of canned responses.

    [Edited by - AngleWyrm on April 4, 2008 12:56:52 PM]
    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    I think we will only have true AI when a computer has the same number of processors (CPUS) as there are in the human brain.

    Since a brain has about 100,000,000,000 neurons. And right now computers have about 2-4 CPUs then according to Moore's law, the number of processors should double every to two years, we should have true artificial intelligence by....

    April 2008 + 2 * log_2(100,000,000,000/4) years = May 2077

    By which time I will be in to my 90's.

    But seeing as neurons are much slower than CPUs it might be sooner. For example eye neurons work about 100 frames a second which is 100Hz. So a 1GHz CPU can model about 10,000,000 neurons. Then we only need 10,000 CPUs and this will take:

    April 2008 + 2 * log_2(10,000/4) years = Nov 2030

    where I will be about 50 so that's not too bad.
    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote:
    Original post by animator
    I think we will only have true AI when a computer has the same number of processors (CPUS) as there are in the human brain.

    There are no CPUs in the human brain. A CPU is a centralized computational structure; the brain is a decentralized computational network. Big difference.
    Quote:
    Since a brain has about 100,000,000,000 neurons. And right now computers have about 2-4 CPUs then according to Moore's law, the number of processors should double every to two years, we should have true artificial intelligence by....

    April 2008 + 2 * log_2(100,000,000,000/4) years = May 2077

    By which time I will be in to my 90's.

    A neuron is definitely not equivalent to a CPU. A neuron is a very primitive unit in a very large distributed structure, whereas a CPU is a very complex unit at the heart of a comparatively simple structure.
    Quote:
    But seeing as neurons are much slower than CPUs it might be sooner. For example eye neurons work about 100 frames a second which is 100Hz. So a 1GHz CPU can model about 10,000,000 neurons. Then we only need 10,000 CPUs and this will take:

    April 2008 + 2 * log_2(10,000/4) years = Nov 2030

    where I will be about 50 so that's not too bad.

    Computers containing 10,000 CPUs exist today. It's estimated that in terms of primitive instructions per second, the human brain is outclassed by our fastest computers in operation today by a factor of about 5. Edited to add: IBM's upcoming Blue Gene/P architecture can be configured for use with 884,736 processors.
    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Some interesting linguistic observations:
    Quote:
    The Stuff of Thought, page 6, by Steven Pinker
    "...language is saturated with implicit metaphors like EVENTS ARE OBJECTS and TIME IS SPACE. Indeed, space turns out to be a conceptual vehicle not just for time but for many kinds of states and circumstances. Just as a meeting can be moved from 3:00 to 4:00, a traffic light can go from green to red, a person can go from flipping burgers to running a corporation, and the economy can go form bad to worse. Metaphor is so widespread in language that it's hard to find expressions for abstract ideas that are not metaphorical. What does the concreteness of language say about human thought? Does it imply that even our wispiest concepts are represented in the mind as hunks of matter that we move around on a mental stage? Does it say that rival claims about the world can never be true or false but can only be alternative metaphors that frame a situation in different ways?"

    Here's his TED talk discussing the material of this book.
    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    I think a fairly accurate definition of intelligence, is the ability to learn.

    It is something that living things just seem to have, and something that is very difficult to re-create outside of a very, very narrow scope (eg. computers that learn to play chess and backgammon well). Even then, the only real way that they can "learn" is because they have a near flawless memory and razor sharp math skills.

    Furthermore, they can only really "learn how to play well" the game after we tell them all the rules, and then explain what "playing well" is.

    Computers and programs need everything definded for them... variable names, types, values. Learning would be like, creating a new variable type during runtime, and generating a bunch of operators to manipulate the data, and then implementing them.

    Basically, in reference the the OPs origonal post reference, my 2 cents is that the difference between intelligence, and artificial intelligence, is that one exists, and the other countless people are trying to reproduce the best they can against a completely impossible goal.
    0

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.


    Sign In Now
    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0