From: Jochen.Fromm@t-online.de
> >
> > * create an adaptable or adaptive system
> > (with the right kind of internal architecture)
> > * place the system in an artificial environment
> > which is complex enough
> > * let the system learn and grow
> >
>
> I think you are absolutely right, but that's kind of like describing
> the steps to landing a man on the moon as:
>
> * create a device capable of travelling to the moon
> * launch the device
>
>
Interesting analogy. The rocket must be fast enough, just
like the artificial world must be complex enough. And the
task is to heavy for a single person, too.
It was NASA with the german Wernher von Braun who
build the Appollo rockets. Von Braun was one of the
designers of the V2, the german "vengeance weapon" in
the second world war ( interestingly it took them
over 65,000 failures until they developed a reliable rocket -
how many failures will we need until we develop a
kind of true AI ? ). But in fact the whole country was involved
in bringing a man to the moon and back, it required the
construction of new computers and other things.
If a huge company like Microsoft would concentrate on just
one thing - building an AI system - they could do it.
But they won't do it, because of course they concentrate
themselves on making money. Microsoft is one of the
few companies who would have the power to do it.
Large companies are like huge oil tankers or aircraft carriers.
You can't change their course from one minute to the other,
but once you have changed it, nothing can stop them to go
in that direction.
By the way, do you know this story about the aircraft carrier
USS Lincoln :
This is the transcript of the actual radio conversation of a US Naval ship
with the Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in Oct 1995.
Radio conversation released by chief of naval operations 10/10/95.
Canadians: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the south to avoid a
collision.
Americans: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the north.
Canadians: Negative. you will have to divert your course 15 degrees to
the south to avoid a collision.
Americans: This is the captain of a US navy ship. I say again, divert
your course.
Canadians: No. I say again, divert your course.
Americans: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS LINCOLN, THE SECOND
LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES' ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE
ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS AND NUMEROUS
SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE
15 DEGREES NORTH -- I SAY AGAIN, THAT'S ONE FIVE DEGREES NORTH --
OR
COUNTER-MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY
OF THIS SHIP.
Canadians: We are a lighthouse. Your call.
The comparison with the flight to the moon is interesting
for another reason. Building systems with artificial intelligence
which are able to "think" has often been compared with building things
with wings which are able to "fly". But planes don't work the
same way as birds, jets don't flap their wings. Compared to the
elegant wings of birds, modern airplanes work with brute force,
and they reach much faster velocities with this method.
Just as all attempts to construct symbolic AI systems without
contact to reality failed (the symbol grounding problem), all attempts
to construct "Icarus" systems with flapping wings failed.
Birds and planes rely on the aerodynamic principle of lift.
It was important to discover the aerodynamics principles, and
with the power of oil engines we achieved the ability to fly.
In AI, it is important to discover the fundamental principles, and
with the power of computers, networks and the internet,
systems will probably achieve the ability to "think".
[ comp.ai is moderated. To submit, just post and be patient, or if ]
[ that fails mail your article to , and ]
[ ask your news administrator to fix the problems with your system. ]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
