• 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
lomateron

human intelligence

84 posts in this topic

Does anyone here thinks human intelligence is overrated and that it's just a matter of months until someone finds the right algorithm and just with a intel i7 and some GBytes of memory we can surpass human intelligence after running the algorithm for some months?

 

prove me wrong

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


prove me wrong

 

How can we? You haven't told us which side of the matter you're on.

 

But I seriously doubt that we will have human-comparable intelligence programmed on today's hardware in a matter of months.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone here thinks human intelligence is overrated and that it's just a matter of months until someone finds the right algorithm and just with a intel i7 and some GBytes of memory we can surpass human intelligence after running the algorithm for some months?

 

prove me wrong

 

 

And... why don't you prove you are right?

 

How deep is your knowledge of A.I.? 

 

Where are your arguments to prove you are right?? 

 

Its not so simple to deal with Machine Learning and its not so simple to machine and actual public A.I. techniques to simulate human behavior even human intelligence....

 

There is a little thing called 'Context Dependency' that is not so simple to teach a computer to deal with...

 

 

So... we are awaiting for your arguments proving your 'thesis'....

Edited by krinosx
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Human intelligence is far superior than what any human will ever be able to replicate. I just realized that when thinking I can program artificial intelligence that behaves like humans. 

 

I realized it when I was trying to do a task at work. I had to reorganize a shelf, but a lot of factors had to be noticed first. I had to infer some things, and I had to suppose. 

 

The thing is, I could readjust my logic on the fly when new, unexpected things occurred. My sensory mechanisms interact with my logical operator to create a new plan. 

 

So, what one would have to do is make a program that can debug itself without any help from a human. And then one would have to make that same program able to edit it's own program to make itself more efficient. 

 

Not happening on even the latest processor 100 years from now. 

 

As I mentioned in another post, try to find a computer that can calculate 1,000,000! 

 

One more thing, that same program would have to be able to write a program to solve any problem you gave it, when your instructions are written in broken english with arabic as your first language. 

 

Computers try to be perfect, but it is the imperfection of humans that gives us an advantage. 

Edited by Tutorial Doctor
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except you've met He that own's human intelligence and He gave you the source code which will mean you'll be dead, then it's never gonna be possible except He wants it to be.
-5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Computers are not better than humans. Faster, yes, but they cannot, by themselves solve complex problems unknown to them. They cannot infer, nor adjust their code for completely new situations.

As I said, a computer would have to be able to upgrade it's information without help of a human, and it would have to be able to debug itself if it were to even be close to human intelligence.

It would have to be 100% autonomous and have 100% self automaton to start.

I am surprised anyone would even begin to compare computers to human intelligence.

Edited by Tutorial Doctor
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for chess, I beat the hardest level on Chessmaster simply by playing an imperfect game. All they do is load all this information about all the different patterns of opening game, middle game, and end game, and have the computer sort through them to play the most optimal move possible. But I haven't that knowledge, and I am not restrained to playing the most optimal move. So I played a move that wasn't expected, that wasn't "supposed" to be played. The game froze for a sec, and made a terrible move. I then took the computer's queen. Then it froze indefinitely. 

 

Humans don't have glitches like that. And if we do get hung on something, we can go research it and use that information to upgrade our knowledge. 

 

I'd also say that a human could calculate 1,000,000! before they can build a computer to do be able to do it without imploding. 

 

Now, 1000! has around half a million digits. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for chess, I beat the hardest level on Chessmaster simply by playing an imperfect game. All they do is load all this information about all the different patterns of opening game, middle game, and end game, and have the computer sort through them to play the most optimal move possible. But I haven't that knowledge, and I am not restrained to playing the most optimal move. So I played a move that wasn't expected, that wasn't "supposed" to be played. The game froze for a sec, and made a terrible move. I then took the computer's queen. Then it froze indefinitely. 
 
Humans don't have glitches like that. And if we do get hung on something, we can go research it and use that information to upgrade our knowledge. 
 
I'd also say that a human could calculate 1,000,000! before they can build a computer to do be able to do it without imploding. 
 
Now, 1000! has around half a million digits.

And besides, a computer without a human is really a stupid, unintelligent piece of hardware.

What would your pc, smartphone be without a human programming it to do what it does? Nothing but a bunch of materials joined together with no function.
It's a human that makes it intelligent.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree. If I wanted to calculate 1000000! I wouldn't ask a mathematician to start sharpening his pencil, I'd write a library and I'd still beat the human.

 

EDIT: Even if the library was inefficient.

Edited by Paradigm Shifter
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree. If I wanted to calculate 1000000! I wouldn't ask a mathematician to start sharpening his pencil, I'd write a library and I'd still beat the human.
 
EDIT: Even if the library was inefficient.

But you'ld have to write it. Try telling your computer to write the program without your help then try telling a person to write it.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(long comparison of different fields)

 

Nice writeup. In summary, I think one must admit that while computers do have some fields where they clearly beat the human (in some fields in a stellar manner!), they still have large deficiencies at what one would commonly call "intelligence". Finding the shortest route is not intelligence, nor is minimizing a graph in general.

It's about doing things correctly (or mostly correctly) that you haven't been taught and which you've not been given a set of rules for, and it's about combining tasks and abilities in a sensible manner (again, without someone telling you).

 

For example, I could tell a human "Get me the book about that wizard kid from my room, please", and a human would almost certainly come back with the correct book. Failure rate pretty much 0%.

 

A computer might find the correct route to the room (or it might not know that my room is upstairs, or it might not be programmed to walk stairs) and it might not stumble on the stairs, might not bump into a closed door, and it might successfully identify the shapes of two dozen books in the room with an error rate of only 2%. It might even do OCR to read the book titles, but it will almost certainly fail to bring the correct book back anyway.

 

If that isn't enough, imagine I'm just reading a book by Tom Clancy, and I tell my favorite human to get me my Grisham book. And imagine that I'm saying: "Can you get me oh fuck it's snowing again my Grisham book?".

She will know that I don't mean to have intercourse, and she will know that "it's snowing again" isn't the book's title, and she will know that I mean Clancy, not Grisham.

 

A computer might know that I am reading Clancy, but it would still go for a Grisham book because that is what I ask for (or, it might reject the request because my syntax is wrong and won't go at all). Or, the computer might simply answer: "Yes I can".

Edited by samoth
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just scrolled through this thread and, after seeing the amount of derpage in it, I think the OP may be on to something. Perhaps computers can equal the intelligence of SOME people in a few years, but certainly not MOST people.

But computers only do what you program them to do so they cant possibly be more intelligent than the programmer.

 

And you cant program consciousness because it arises from quantum mechanics.

 

QED

 

no im not serious ;_;

Edited by Waterlimon
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(1) But computers only do what you program them to do so they cant possibly be more intelligent than the programmer.

(2) And you cant program consciousness because it arises from quantum mechanics.

QED

 

I think that is a bit too strict. According to (1) a child could not possibly ever become more intelligent than its parents and its teachers at school. At least the second part of that is demonstrably wrong. A lot of children become adults that are more intelligent (and more knowledgeable) than their school teachers. One of the big differences between a computer and a child is that eventually a child will decide to do something else than what it's told. Also, it will eventually realize that not everything it is told is necessarily true.

 

Though what you are saying is somewhat correct, nevertheless. Although things like fuzzy matching exist, computers are generally very inflexible in doing any such thing, or in doing meaningful things on their own, without an a-priori well-defined set of rules for every possible case. But I think it is this ability to take a decision (not simply by following a programmed ruleset, but really taking a decision) which is what distinguishes an intelligent being.

 

About (2), I daresay that nobobdy knows where consciousness comes from (or what exactly "makes" intelligence). Nobody even knows even remotely how our brain works.

Sure, we know there are synapses and stuff, and we kind of know how they work and how they react to certain chemicals, from a bird's eye perspective. We also have a somewhat rough overview of what regions in the brain are connected to what others, and what they most probably do. Or, we think that we know that -- what we really know is that there is electrical activity in certain regions when a person does certain things, and that non-lethal defects in certain regions tend to have certain failures (but with a huge variance and a huge regeative ability in using different regions). Everything else is just conclusions and theories, but not something that we truly know.

 

None of what we know happens in the brain can't be simulated. The only thing that is still forbidding is the immense complexity of the brain.

 

However, it it was really that simple, someone would have created a very simple artificial brain with a concience a long time ago. It needed not be the fastest, most brilliant brain in the world, as long as it has a concience. Maybe an artificial brain that has half the intelligence of a very stupid dog. It would even be enough of a sensation if such a brain placed into a robot with some unknown wiring learned that being shown a red triangle means it's going to be beaten in a moment (which gives a "negative" stimulus) and if it learned to walk away without someone telling it how to do that -- solely by observation and learning that sending certain impulses will move a "thing" in its body and create a certain stimulus, which corresponds to where it is in the world. Alas, no such thing has happened.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simulating a neural population that represents a neo-cortical column needs a super-computer...


Saying we have to simulate neurons to simulate intelligence is like saying that we need to simulate what every transistor is doing in order to make a SNES emulator. We can do things as differently as we want, as long as the resulting behavior does what we want it to. It does not need to be identical in every way.

The people who are making neuron simulations are doing it to better analyze and understand biological brains, not because they want to make an AI by simulating neurons. They're really just doing reverse engineering at this point. Edited by Nypyren
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying we have to simulate neurons to simulate intelligence is like saying that we need to simulate what every transistor is doing in order to make a SNES emulator. 

How to do reverse ingeneering if we can't say nowadays if neurons are communicationg via frequence of spikes or by delaies between spikes ?  

If Nature, through Evolution, is using neuron to manifest intelligence, it should be probably for a good reason. Even if we can't understand why yet.

 

The question is : What do you mean when you are talking about intelligence ?

Is it the ability to do something, or the ability to learn something ?

Edited by Tournicoti
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to do reverse ingeneering if we can't say nowadays if neurons are communicationg via frequence of spikes or by delaies between spikes ?


The purpose of reverse engineering is to find out how something's implemented. You can discover novel tricks and interesting deficiencies in systems this way. Another goal of making biological models is to identify new ways of treating people with hard-to-understand disorders.
 

If Nature, through Evolution, is using neuron to manifest intelligence, it should be probably for a good reason. Even if we can't understand why yet.


The reason things exist in evolution is because they work. Not necessarily because they are the best. Evolution works if the offspring of an organism survive. Drastic mutations that completely change the architecture of any organ are unlikely to survive. Neurons haven't been replaced with semiconducting transistors because there hasn't been an evolutionary path to do so - not because either method is superior.

If you think about evolution as if it were a software design process, the method is "randomly change a few lines of code and hope it outperforms its peers" rather than "OK, this system is turning out to be inefficient - rewrite the whole thing from scratch".

Although if you consider computers to be an indirect form of human offspring (because we create them), then computer development could be considered an unusual form of evolution...

 

The question is : What do you mean when you are talking about intelligence ?
Is it the ability to do something, or the ability to learn something ?


To me, "intelligence" just means "data processing". To other people, it means something different. It's an extremely overloaded term, which makes its actual meaning in a conversation vague. Since it's vague, each person is free to interpret it based on their own understanding.

Discussions about intelligence which don't burrow down into the more specific and clearly defined topics are doomed to make hasty generalizations and use overly simplified words that don't have a concise meaning. That's why in my first post, I focused on a few specific topics which could be discussed more clearly, and broken down further if the conversation wants to focus on any of them. Edited by Nypyren
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