\$10

### Image of the Day Submit

IOTD | Top Screenshots

## human intelligence

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.

97 replies to this topic

### #1lomateron  Members

Posted 24 January 2014 - 06:35 AM

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

### #2Álvaro  Members

Posted 24 January 2014 - 07:48 AM

POPULAR

No. People in this forum posses enough human intelligence to know that's not likely.

I'll prove you wrong in a few months.

### #3LennyLen  GDNet+

Posted 24 January 2014 - 07:50 AM

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.

### #4krinosx  Members

Posted 24 January 2014 - 11:05 AM

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...

Edited by krinosx, 24 January 2014 - 11:06 AM.

### #5Tutorial Doctor  Members

Posted 24 January 2014 - 11:14 AM

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, 24 January 2014 - 11:17 AM.

They call me the Tutorial Doctor.

### #6Álvaro  Members

Posted 24 January 2014 - 12:59 PM

I don't find anything compelling in Tutorial Doctor's arguments. My own point of view is that computers are already better than humans at many tasks: arithmetic, finding primitives of functions (a.k.a. indefinite integrals), playing many board games like chess or checkers, making investment decisions, playing Jeopardy, etc. The list will just expand over time until there is nothing a human can do better than a computer. I don't know if "replicating" human intelligence is relevant at all, once computers are better at everything. In any case, it won't be a matter of months.

Ideas about code that can debug itself, or modify itself or similar things were very prominent in early attempts at AI (that's why Lisp was popular in the field). Those attempts failed miserably, probably because that line of thinking is completely misguided. Your introspection about how you reorganize a shelf is just not very insightful, that's all. You certainly didn't have to perform brain surgery on yourself to be able to finish the task, which is the analogous situation to code that debugs itself.

The central problem of AI is how to make decisions. A solution to this problem has existed for at least 50 years: The best decision is one that maximizes the expected value of a utility function. The devil is in the details, of course.

There have been several areas where AI has been successful recently: machine translation, visual object classification, self-driving cars... Most of those areas have seen enormous advances thanks to the availability of large amounts of data and the ability to process it using machine learning.

[EDIT: By the way, 1,000,000! only has about 5.5 million digits. I am sure it's not that hard to compute, but I don't know what point you were trying to make: Do you know of any human that can compute it?]

Edited by Álvaro, 24 January 2014 - 01:00 PM.

### #7samoth  Members

Posted 24 January 2014 - 01:03 PM

Some of the most advanced AI created by humankind is able to drive an automated motor vehicle according to human commands coming from a different planet at the amazing speed of almost 90 meters per hour, all without causing the 6-wheeled vehicle to topple or crash into larger obstacles. That's more than twice the maximum cruise speed of Helix aspersa.

The same AI is further able to abstain from moving for nearly one month without human intervention in case of a connection loss, keeping the vehicle reliably in one place (and in one piece).

So yeah, AI is impressive, but some humans will argue that they can do comparably. It may still take a few weeks before AI considerably outperforms the human.

By the way, 1,000,000! only has about 5.5 million digits. I am sure it's not that hard to compute, but I don't know what point you were trying to make: Do you know of any human that can compute it?

That's actually a good example for showing intelligence, though. A computer will certainly beat a human (or at least most humans) at computing numbers or at playing chess (which, too, is only computing numbers and maximizing a utility function).

A truly intelligent computer playing chess would offer a tough challenge, but would let the human win (and it would figure this out on its own!) because humans who keep losing against a computer program are likely to delete the program or smash the computer to pieces.

On the other hand, being told to compute 1,000,000!, a computer (assuming the human who built the program thought of including an arbitrary precision library!) would likely start working, and eventually, after a long time, find a solution or abort with an error.

A human would tell you right away: Wait, what? Fuck you, this is totally pointless! It's a really big number, OK? Do it yourself if you really want to know the exact value.

It's the difference between what you can do and what you will do because you immediately realize that it doesn't make any sense (or the insight that any 10k-digit number or any 1-million-digit number is exactly identical to any 5-million-digit number for all practical purposes).

What you will do or won't do doesn't even necessarily have to be logical at first sight (or at second sight, or at all) to be "intelligent".

Edited by samoth, 24 January 2014 - 01:24 PM.

### #8/ Nathan2222_old   Members

Posted 24 January 2014 - 01:22 PM

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.

UNREAL ENGINE 4:
Total LOC: ~3M Lines
Total Languages: ~32

--
GREAT QUOTES:
I can do ALL things through Christ - Jesus Christ
--
Logic will get you from A-Z, imagination gets you everywhere - Albert Einstein
--
The problems of the world cannot be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. - John F. Kennedy

### #9Tutorial Doctor  Members

Posted 25 January 2014 - 02:12 AM

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, 25 January 2014 - 02:16 AM.

They call me the Tutorial Doctor.

### #10Tutorial Doctor  Members

Posted 25 January 2014 - 02:27 AM

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.

They call me the Tutorial Doctor.

### #11/ Nathan2222_old   Members

Posted 25 January 2014 - 07:51 AM

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.

UNREAL ENGINE 4:
Total LOC: ~3M Lines
Total Languages: ~32

--
GREAT QUOTES:
I can do ALL things through Christ - Jesus Christ
--
Logic will get you from A-Z, imagination gets you everywhere - Albert Einstein
--
The problems of the world cannot be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. - John F. Kennedy

### #12Álvaro  Members

Posted 25 January 2014 - 01:54 PM

POPULAR

I am not interested in this conversation, but I think I should clear up the misinformation spewed about factorials.

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.

It took me 1 minute to find and install GMP, 2 minutes to write this code:

#include <gmpxx.h>
#include <iostream>

int main() {
mpz_class f=1;
for (int n=1; n<=1000000; ++n)
f *= n;
std::cout << f << '\n';
}

2 more minutes to figure out the right g++ invocation, a few seconds to compile and less than 2 minutes to run it.

Now, 1000! has around half a million digits.

1000! has 2568 digits. The precise value is

40238726007709377354370243392300398571937486421071463254379991042993851239862902
05920442084869694048004799886101971960586316668729948085589013238296699445909974
24504087073759918823627727188732519779505950995276120874975462497043601418278094
64649629105639388743788648733711918104582578364784997701247663288983595573543251
31853239584630755574091142624174743493475534286465766116677973966688202912073791
43853719588249808126867838374559731746136085379534524221586593201928090878297308
43139284440328123155861103697680135730421616874760967587134831202547858932076716
91324484262361314125087802080002616831510273418279777047846358681701643650241536
91398281264810213092761244896359928705114964975419909342221566832572080821333186
11681155361583654698404670897560290095053761647584772842188967964624494516076535
34081989013854424879849599533191017233555566021394503997362807501378376153071277
61926849034352625200015888535147331611702103968175921510907788019393178114194545
25722386554146106289218796022383897147608850627686296714667469756291123408243920
81601537808898939645182632436716167621791689097799119037540312746222899880051954
44414282012187361745992642956581746628302955570299024324153181617210465832036786
90611726015878352075151628422554026517048330422614397428693306169089796848259012
54583271682264580665267699586526822728070757813918581788896522081643483448259932
66043367660176999612831860788386150279465955131156552036093988180612138558600301
43569452722420634463179746059468257310379008402443243846565724501440282188525247
09351906209290231364932734975655139587205596542287497740114133469627154228458623
77387538230483865688976461927383814900140767310446640259899490222221765904339901
88601856652648506179970235619389701786004081188972991831102117122984590164192106
88843871218556461249607987229085192968193723886426148396573822911231250241866493
53143970137428531926649875337218940694281434118520158014123344828015051399694290
15348307764456909907315243327828826986460278986432113908350621709500259738986355
42771967428222487575867657523442202075736305694988250879689281627538488633969099
59826280956121450994871701244516461260379029309120889086942028510640182154399457
15680594187274899809425474217358240106367740459574178516082923013535808184009699
63725242305608559037006242712434169090041536901059339838357779394109700277534720
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000


Edited by Álvaro, 25 January 2014 - 01:57 PM.

Posted 25 January 2014 - 02:09 PM

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, 25 January 2014 - 02:10 PM.

"Most people think, great God will come from the sky, take away everything, and make everybody feel high" - Bob Marley

### #14Nypyren  Members

Posted 25 January 2014 - 04:24 PM

It seems to me that humans and computers currently are good at what the other one's bad at:

Vision/Hearing (humans MUCH better than computers in all aspects):
- Humans have a massive parallel signal processing network which recognizes an astounding amount of different kinds of features in visual/audio input VERY quickly.
- Computers have a tough time with this because we don't have hardware that's as good as human eyes/ears yet, parallelism that's massive enough to process the signal quickly, or the wide variety of different types of feature recognizers that humans have.

Control (robots are better in controlled situations, humans are better in novel situations):
- Robots are better for speed and precision.
- Humans are better for adaptation (for instance, if a servo/muscle stop functioning, robots often cannot perform their task anymore, whereas a human can probably figure out an alternate way to perform the task)

Natural languages (neither human nor computer is very good at this):
- NLP systems have thousands of individual systems all working together to handle typos, solve ambiguities, reason about likely meanings, and learn new meanings on the fly. Humans have lots of trouble getting their intended meaning across to other people. Computers have trouble dealing with imperfect grammar, meanings, ambiguity, error correction, and learning.

Logic and reasoning:
- Computers quickly follow the rules they're given, and have problems when the rules they've been provided aren't sufficient. Humans are slow at following rules but can adapt to cases they haven't seen before. Computers won't make mistakes. Humans make lots of mistakes.

Arithmetic:
- Computers are much better in all aspects.

System Interop:
- AI research has typically been approached one isolated piece at a time (vision, NLP, control, logic/reasoning, planning). Lots of complex AI problems need to be solved by having the different systems help each other out, but generally AI researchers focus only on their individual problems without seeking to interop with other fields. For example, when attempting to handle NLP input, you won't get very far without a logic/reasoning system to help resolve ambiguities and likely meanings. When handling vision, recognizing characters from a language requires dealing with different orientations/mirroring/perspective changes, stylistic variations, and reasoning about what a heavily corrupted glyph probably is based on the other glyphs around it.

Edited by Nypyren, 25 January 2014 - 04:35 PM.

### #15/ Nathan2222_old   Members

Posted 25 January 2014 - 04:30 PM

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.

UNREAL ENGINE 4:
Total LOC: ~3M Lines
Total Languages: ~32

--
GREAT QUOTES:
I can do ALL things through Christ - Jesus Christ
--
Logic will get you from A-Z, imagination gets you everywhere - Albert Einstein
--
The problems of the world cannot be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. - John F. Kennedy

### #16samoth  Members

Posted 25 January 2014 - 06:18 PM

(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, 25 January 2014 - 06:20 PM.

### #17Tutorial Doctor  Members

Posted 26 January 2014 - 01:31 AM

it was fear tactics. smh. haha

They call me the Tutorial Doctor.

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:09 PM

POPULAR

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.

Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer of Intrinsic Algorithm LLC

Professional consultant on game AI, mathematical modeling, simulation modeling
Co-advisor of the GDC AI Summit
Co-founder of the AI Game Programmers Guild
Author of the book, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI

Blogs I write:
IA News - What's happening at IA | IA on AI - AI news and notes | Post-Play'em - Observations on AI of games I play

"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

### #19Waterlimon  Members

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:30 PM

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, 27 January 2014 - 09:41 AM.

o3o

### #20Tournicoti  Prime Members

Posted 26 January 2014 - 01:03 PM

I'm afraid this topic is a complete nonsense.

Computers are finite-state machines, human brain is not.

Comparing them makes no sense ...

And it will probably end in a sterile flame war in which I don't want to participate

The power of the (human) brain is that it can optimize the decisions, like a muscle can be stronger.

The power of a computer is that it can compute faster and without the factor "error".

"In some mounths" .... serioulsy ? Simulating a neural population that represents a single neo-cortical column needs a super-computer ...

They are so different machines !

Edited by Tournicoti, 26 January 2014 - 01:43 PM.

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.