Artificial Intelligence near ?

[OinkBoink]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_blue_brain_project

A longer term goal is to build a detailed, functional simulation of the physiological processes in the human brain: "It is not impossible to build a human brain and we can do it in 10 years," Henry Markram, director of the Blue Brain Project said in 2009 at the TED conference in Oxford.In a BBC World Service interview he said: "If we build it correctly it should speak and have an intelligence and behave very much as a human does."

 

[lyssword]

no

 

[Nox51]

Honestly, we are a long distance away from being able to precisely enough reverse engineer the brain.

 

[Arcadio]

Right now we are far from developing true AI, but the advances in computing are growing at an exponential rate, so AI should be achievable within our lifetimes.

 

[Miramonti]

Of course. Based on most articles about new developments and break thru's across all industries, everything is obtainable in "5-10 years".

 

[Fritzo]

Just as long as it doesn't talk like C-3PO. God that would be annoying.

 

[ichy]

Right now we are far from developing true AI, but the advances in computing are growing at an exponential rate, so AI should be achievable within our lifetimes.

You don't know much about how computers work, do you?

 

[Arcadio]

You don't know much about how computers work, do you?

I actually do. Care to explain why you think I don't? I'm going to take a guess and say that you think the current progress in computing will always move at the same rate. Don't worry, most people make that mistake, due to the fact that, in the short term, exponential growth behaves just like linear growth...

You might want to do some reading.

 

[ichy]

I actually do. Care to explain why you think I don't? I'm going to take a guess and say that you think the current progress in computing will always move at the same rate. Don't worry, most people make that mistake, due to the fact that, in the short term, exponential growth behaves just like linear growth...

You might want to do some reading.

Computer power isn't what's limiting our ability to develop "artificial intelligence." At the end of the day the way that computer logic works remains the same, regardless of how many transistors you can cram into a piece of silicone.

Also, it's likely that increases in computing power will slow down rather than accelerate as transistor sizes start approaching the size of individual atoms. There's enough engineering trickery to keep Moore's law going for a while longer, but eventually we're going to run into a wall.

 

[DougK62]

I have no doubt that we're close to machines that can appear to actually be "living", but I think that humans will always have an advantage since we can think beyond 0's and 1's.

 

[ichy]

I have no doubt that we're close to machines that can appear to actually be "living", but I think that humans will always have an advantage since we can think beyond 0's and 1's.

Exactly. No matter how powerful we make computers they aren't going to function the same way as the human brain, so trends in increasing computer power are irrelevant.

 

[OinkBoink]

This is not just about computers becoming faster.

It's a collaboration between biology and computer science.


There are quite a few videos about it on YT :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS3wMC2BpxU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rPH1Abuu9M

"The Blue Brain Project is an attempt to create a synthetic brain by reverse-engineering the mammalian brain down to the molecular level.

The aim of the project, founded in May 2005 by the Brain and Mind Institute of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (Switzerland) is to study the brain's architectural and functional principles. The project is headed by the Institute's director, Henry Markram. Using a Blue Gene supercomputer running Michael Hines's NEURON software, the simulation does not consist simply of an artificial neural network, but involves a biologically realistic model of neurons.It is hoped that it will eventually shed light on the nature of consciousness." -Wiki

 

[Malak]

The trend in computer development will decline suddenly in the near future.

 

[SunnyD]

I actually do. Care to explain why you think I don't? I'm going to take a guess and say that you think the current progress in computing will always move at the same rate. Don't worry, most people make that mistake, due to the fact that, in the short term, exponential growth behaves just like linear growth...

You might want to do some reading.

We have technology with computational power which outstrips the human brain a million-fold. What our technology can't do is compute in the same way a brain can, nor ever will. The amount of parallelism and abstract computation that a brain, even that of a small insect, can do is far beyond the scope of any technology we currently have an likely will have for the next 100 years. This has been proven time and again, as attempts to produce any sort of realtime general purpose adaptive computing have pretty much failed. Artificial Intelligence is another topic all together.

 

[OinkBoink]

Once again, this is NOT about computational power. The project in itself needs fast computers to model neuronal behaviour. But that's another thing.

It's more of a neuroscience,genetics project.

 

[rivan]

We have technology with computational power which outstrips the human brain a million-fold. What our technology can't do is compute in the same way a brain can, nor ever will. The amount of parallelism and abstract computation that a brain, even that of a small insect, can do is far beyond the scope of any technology we currently have an likely will have for the next 100 years. This has been proven time and again, as attempts to produce any sort of realtime general purpose adaptive computing have pretty much failed. Artificial Intelligence is another topic all together.

Pretty bold statement. I don't see why not.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Arcadio, you are off base.

The major difference between human and computer "intelligence" is in what they are good at. Biological brains are horrible at big numbers, complex math, statistics, probabilities, etc which computers excel at. That makes sense too. We created computers to help us solve these problems that we weren't good at or took a long time to calculate the answer to. Perhaps you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence#Problems

 

[kyrax12]

I wondered if we are looking at a battlestar galactica scenario if AI are actually created and are made into machines.

 

[Alienwho]

10 years? Not a chance. AI that mimics human intelligence is going to be the next "flying cars" of the 50's.

 

[OinkBoink]

" When asked when the simulation would come up with something artistic or an invention, Professor Markram said it was simply a matter of money. "It's not a question of years, it's one of dollars. The psychology is there today and the technology is there today. It's a matter of if society wants this. If they want it in 10 years, they'll have it in 10 years. If they want it in 1000 years, we can wait." "

http://coyoteprime-runningcauseicantfly.blogspot.com/2009/04/artificial-intelligence-blue-brain.html

 

[SunnyD]

Pretty bold statement. I don't see why not.

*Implied: In our lifetimes. Sorry bout that.

 

[rivan]

*Implied: In our lifetimes. Sorry bout that.

Still - I'm not sure why not. As it's been mentioned in this thread, we've got plenty of computing power.

I do think it'll take a shift in programming. My guess would be that someone much smarter than I am will come up with a way to make a child's brain and give it input, a goal of making sense of that input and a way to make new code itself, and let it loose.

Something like the self-programmed FPGAs that were posted about here a while back - I'll see if I can find the link.

The nature of that shift in programming, however, makes it the sort of thing that might be right around the corner, or another 100 years off.

 

[DrPizza]

How do you teach a computer creativity? They're getting better and better at having a computer mimic the knowledge aspect of human intelligence, and better at using language similar to the way a human would speak. But, higher level orders of thinking? I don't think so.

 

[SunnyD]

Still - I'm not sure why not. As it's been mentioned in this thread, we've got plenty of computing power.

I do think it'll take a shift in programming. My guess would be that someone much smarter than I am will come up with a way to make a child's brain and give it input, a goal of making sense of that input and a way to make new code itself, and let it loose.

Something like the self-programmed FPGAs that were posted about here a while back - I'll see if I can find the link.

The nature of that shift in programming, however, makes it the sort of thing that might be right around the corner, or another 100 years off.

I get what you're saying, but linear code isn't really capable of handling the abstracts that the human consciousness can. The other problem is we have no proof of concept of rational spontaneity/imagination when it comes to code. Any sort of AI that we produce will be limited to an output that is the result of physical inputs.

(*Again, at this time. Innovation happens, but I don't think we're quite "there" yet when it comes to playing god)

 

[Arcadio]

Arcadio, you are off base.

The major difference between human and computer "intelligence" is in what they are good at. Biological brains are horrible at big numbers, complex math, statistics, probabilities, etc which computers excel at. That makes sense too. We created computers to help us solve these problems that we weren't good at or took a long time to calculate the answer to. Perhaps you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence#Problems

I admit that there are serious obstacles to overcome before a true AI will be developed, but what I don't agree with is the common view that those problems will not be solved any time soon. If we use current technology to try to solve them, then yes, they won't be solved in the near future. But if our progress in understanding the brain and the advances in computational resources accelerates, then we will get closer and closer to solving those problems. Technological progress is exponential.

Now, some of you mentioned the fact that the brain doesn't work the same way as a computer. I disagree. The brain is just a type of computer we don't fully understand yet. We will find ways to mimic the way it works with developing technologies. At least that's what I believe we'll do. In fact, we will be able to build better, faster, more complex brains. Then those better, faster, more complex brains will develop even better, faster, more complex brains. This process will continue until we reach a point of incredibly fast progress and enlightment. We'll be able to transfer our puny, biological brain into more advanced intelligent entities thereby eliminating the need for a biological body and all it's limitations.

Disclosure: I'm a certified singularitarian.