Ai Dreams Forum
Artificial Intelligence => General AI Discussion => Topic started by: AndyGoode on August 05, 2019, 01:21:07 am
-
Today I happened across the following YouTube video of a talk by Georgie Rose, one of the founders of D-Wave (the only quantum computer company on the planet so far)...
Geordie Rose of Kindred AI presents Super-intelligent Aliens Are Coming to Earth
TechVancouver.Org
Published on Jul 12, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD8zGnT2n_A
I hadn't heard that Geordie Rose had quit D-Wave, but more interesting is why he quit it: he wanted to get involved in another company, this one pure AI, to produce AGI. It caught my attention that they were hiring people for that company to make AGI happen. He was getting tired of people just talking about AGI for 60 years, and not producing anything very promising. Since I'm looking for a job in AI I looked up that company, Kindred Systems Inc...
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180105005243/en/Kindred-Announces-Spin-off-AGI-Research-Division
...only to find that Geordie Rose is already stepping down from his position in that new company to get involved with a newer spin-off company, called Sanctuary AI. That news article states:
Over the past few years, Kindred’s Product and Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) divisions have accomplished a tremendous amount in their respective domains, working independently to allow each team to optimize for their objectives. Geordie Rose is stepping down as CEO and President of Kindred to lead this new entity named Sanctuary based in Vancouver, Canada. Kindred co-founder Suzanne Gildert will also be stepping down from her role as Chief Science Officer and will join Sanctuary as co-CEO. Sanctuary’s focus is on the implementation and testing of a specific framework for artificial general intelligence. The new entity will license some of Kindred’s patents and software, and Kindred will maintain a minority ownership in Sanctuary.
That company sounded even more promising, like an ideal job for me, therefore I looked up Sanctuary AI, but found out that all their web pages require a password to view. More deterrents, everywhere...
https://www.sanctuary.ai
https://www.sanctuary.ai/press
https://www.sanctuary.ai/team
Through other means I managed to contact one of the team members there to ask about jobs. Whether or not I ever get a job there, even the existence of such companies is exciting news for me, and it's news I thought I'd like to share, though I'll let interested people here figure out on their own how to contact people within Sanctuary AI, since it sounds like they value their privacy. If you watch that YouTube video you should get a feel for why this is exciting news, and hopefully you'll also get a feel for why AGI is so exciting and so extremely important, if you don't realize that already.
-
Cool. More people putting their unique efforts into this. O0 I probably live within commuting distance of them, but my preferred way of creating AI may be a bit too steampunky and ridiculous for a serious group of professionals. I'd be best off creating my own startup company and see if I can't get another couple of idiots to join. I'm sure they'd want someone with skills and experience under their belt, if it's mostly young people they will lose lots of time having to look things up.
-
I'd be best off creating my own startup company and see if I can't get another couple of idiots to join.
I'm thinking along the same lines. This spring I had expected to be able to create my own company and to hire one programmer this summer, but--same old story--I got stalled with other matters. In any case, as time permits, I'll be working on my own ideas, whether working an outside job in AI, or at my own company while working an outside job not in AI. As long as I don't get worked excessive hours per week, I just might be the idiot that somebody hires to do less showy work in AI.
-
These guys are ripoff merchants, if their quantum computer worked wheres all the implementations - ive never seen it actually run, and now hes going on about aliens.
25% chance of agi by 2030 - i thought they had the quantum computer now.
I can see through this hype.
-
Oddly enough, last year I was able to freely visit the Sanctuary site and roam through its entirety without password(s), etc.
What I saw (and also snagged) were pages of what appeared to be 3-D printed robots and one with a rather realistic looking face. As it turns out, that face was taken from one of those "Adult-oriented" dolls. Then put together under the watchful eye of their recently acquired associate and artist, Matt McMullen. Matt came to them from his own company's RealDoll & Realbotix where they make life-sized and lifelike "Adult" dolls and Talking character heads equipped with an "AI" (of course it does)...
The Sanctuary site also detailed that several of their members came to work from D-Wave.
Whether their work is actually geared (no pun intended) toward producing decent progress in robotics or merely seeking lots of capital/funding toward such a goal remains to be seen.
Looking at many of the photos I captured from their site it appears that the robot is using pneumatic actuators and electrical servos, but those printed parts will likely prove to be their weakest link. Another picture shows the robot sitting on a stool as if it is interacting on stage with the presenter. Again, mostly for show.
I have many interesting pics if anyone is interested in seeing /obtaining them.
-
what I dislike about those kind of videos is they talk widely and philosophicaly instead
walkthroughing their actual plan to get there
-
What I saw (and also snagged) were pages of what appeared to be 3-D printed robots and one with a rather realistic looking face.
Many thanks for the insights. It's becoming pretty clear to me that these guys at Sanctuary are just as lost as all the other showy startups I've seen, like the kind of company Ben Goertzel creates. Also, their team member I contacted hasn't responded to me yet. As usual, it sounds like the best thing for me to do is merely to do what I've been doing all along: working on my own architecture and being poor. :(
-
These guys are ripoff merchants, if their quantum computer worked wheres all the implementations - ive never seen it actually run, and now hes going on about aliens.
25% chance of agi by 2030 - i thought they had the quantum computer now.
I can see through this hype.
I've looked pretty deeply into their quantum computer. You have to realize that this is not a universal quantum computer, which is where a lot of people's thinking goes wrong: most people don't know there exist three types of quantum computers and D-Wave's type is the simplest type. That all makes sense, since obviously people will tend to build the simplest types of machines first. D-Wave has built the "quantum annealer" type of quantum computer, which does only optimization problems.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/three-types-quantum-computers/
D-Wave's technology is still extremely clever and very cutting edge, and at least they have *some* type of quantum computer. No other company anywhere on the planet has *any* type of quantum computer for sale, so my statement about D-Wave being the only such company is correct. Here's a good presentation that explains how the D-Wave hardware was invented:
()
Quantum Journey - D-Wave Chief Scientist, Eric Ladizinsky
D-Wave Systems
Published on May 14, 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fArXhQBLDWE
Having said that, D-Wave *is* involved in a more subtle type of hype: they keep talking about Rose's Law but their architecture is not fully connecting their qubits, therefore Rose's Law doesn't apply, therefore nobody knows how much parallelism their machines actually get. I do resent that hype.
As for aliens, that's to be expected in TED type talks such as that one for the general public. That's just poetic license. There is another much-quoted presentation on quantum computers, by Elon Musk, where Elon talks about tapping into higher dimensions / parallel universes, which a lot of Christian New Paradigmers quote as being "proof" that scientists are summoning demons into the world in The Last Days, etc. I don't agree with those extremist claims, though I keep an open mind. Again, I consider that just poetic license for consumption by the general public. Here's one of those "parallel universes" / CERN / Mandela Effect videos I can't stand by illogical copycat extremists:
()
D Wave Quantum Computers EXPOSED 2018: A.I. Demon Apocalypse & Mandela Effect
Edge of Wonder
Published on May 18, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfTnQf_yF-A
Personally I prefer D-Wave's hype over the above demons hype.
-
what I dislike about those kind of videos is they talk widely and philosophicaly instead
walkthroughing their actual plan to get there
Yes, maybe I'm a sucker for presentations that show a lot of wisdom, maybe because I (wrongly) assume that anybody that wise would not try to put together a worthless company just to make money off a buzzword like "AGI", "deep learning", or "bitcoin". But many people do. Some of the most offensive examples of people trying to make money off AGI-related buzzwords are the Singularity University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_University) and AGI Innovations, Inc. (which has been advertising the same job openings for at about three years, but they would never respond when I applied to most of those jobs).
I'm now kicking myself because I missed another obvious clue about the questionable nature of Sanctuary: all their top contact people are attractive women. That just doesn't happen in advanced technical areas, especially in the fields of math or computer science. Just look at our own forum: how many females are among the most active posters? Maybe none. It was just a PR move on Sanctuary's part, to get women interested and believing that theirs is a company with empowered women, and to superficially look attractive to the general public, with the more general goal in both cases of attracting investors.
The clincher is what you mentioned: If they are focusing on a given architecture or approach, you would think they would describe that to some extent, but there are no details whatsoever, just superficial pictures of human-looking robots and 3D-printed robots (pictures that Art thankfully grabbed before they covered even those up), neither of which are going to bring anybody closer to AGI. The heart of AGI will probably be very boring, and which artificial face they put on their hardware will be totally irrelevant. But I guess it's hard to get investors interested in neural networks, chaos theory, quantum mechanics, tensor math, data structures, or any other topics more likely to be important in AGI.
Two days later their contact still hasn't gotten back to me, and I don't expect she ever will.
-
Lol. Do they not know how to do things right and follow through with good ideas? Except for Elon that is, but one guy can't pursue every idea that shows potential.
They must know. But then why choose the froofra route? Maybe it's necessary for marketing, popularity, funding. Got to have the flashy veneer to gain general interest, which then allows you to work on the technical stuff.
-
OK...for those who might now be "locked out" from visiting the site, here are some photos that somehow got in front of my lens while I was wandering the halls at the Sanctuary.
Anyone notice the 3D printed parts I earlier mentioned? Take a good look at that very strong neck with those springs and plastic vertebrae. Amazing!
Two of the three women are shown "working" on some robotic code.
Naturally, they positioned the robot as if it can actually see and play chess. I'd wager a whole box of doggo treats that it can't (for the per dog mascot of course).
Then they position the robot atop of a plexiglass table with some legs underneath for effect I suppose.
-
Telerobotics of course -
Some "Mirroring" (do as I do) -
Nadine the robot in the room with a lot of her little toy robot friends -
Nadine is catching up on a bit of light reading, I'm sure -
-
I don't mind Elon, George Hotz, I actually don't even mind Jeff Hawkins, because at least hes an open tech company where he has detailed tech explanations, with HTM, (and it does actually work, itll do k-nn matches for example) what I hate the most is QUANTUM COMPUTERS THAT DONT EVEN WORK AT ALL!
It seems if you want a good startup, if your a quantum computer company it works even without having a quantum computer! :)
.
-
Do not be scared by the ultra-rugged appearance of this menacing hand -
A few last-minute alterations -
The first "dance"? ya got me there -
Oh yes puny humans, I have siblings!!
-
That dog :D
Image cave...
https://www.google.ca/search?q=sanctuary+artificial+intelligence&hl=en-CA&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9iMzn4e_jAhVTG80KHcwFD5AQ_AUIESgC&biw=1280&bih=923#imgrc=_
Uh, Google Images, not sure if I like that side box update
Art, wandering their halls? Isn't at least one of your images from the Google Images? Let me recheck.
-
Here is kindred:
https://www.kindred.ai/about-us
-
That dog :D
Image cave...
https://www.google.ca/search?q=sanctuary+artificial+intelligence&hl=en-CA&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9iMzn4e_jAhVTG80KHcwFD5AQ_AUIESgC&biw=1280&bih=923#imgrc=_
Uh, Google Images, not sure if I like that side box update
Art, wandering their halls? Isn't at least one of your images from the Google Images? Let me recheck.
NOPE...ALL of my posted images were taken while visiting their site in March of this year. The part about "Wandering the halls" was just a playful figure of speech.
Good thinking with the Google connection. Nice assortment of "creations".
I'd still have to wonder how much is real research and development of robots compared to a staged company seeking all sorts of adopters and funding? Sorry, but perhaps I'm just a bit skeptical.
-
Just found a short interesting article about Suzanne Gildert and the D-Wave, Kindred, Sanctuary transitions. She looks forward to the day when humanoid robots will be like us, having Citizenship and rights. Right!
https://www.bcbusiness.ca/STEM-POWER-Suzanne-Gildert (https://www.bcbusiness.ca/STEM-POWER-Suzanne-Gildert)
-
I didn't know so many ppl wanted to marry a fricken robot, ill stick to a real woman thanks with the beauty on the inside.
-
My eyes never miss it, they were really trying to make cash.
Step 1, looks promising to naive rich people (this is the fund & fail phase, always works)
Step 2, if fail, hide yourself after presenting yourself to many people. Look yet more mysterious.
Have you seen AI-Da on Ian's thread on this forum? She is in a old fashioned mansion, draws ugly 2D print sketches like old fashioned, and has a old fashioned ugly face, with an old man creator in a uniform or so sitting with her with complex real painters next to her etc. This is to look mysterious to the viewer, and complex. It's all for show!!
-
Whatever you do, don't see this guy then start copying his behaviour, their ship is going under its only a matter of time...
-
Great finds, guys! (Does Art always hold out on us like that? :))
Below is a link to a list of open jobs at Kindred. If you click on a job you will be presented with a form to send Kindred a notice of your interest in their jobs:
https://www.kindred.ai/careers
I filled it out.
The four people Geordie Rose said in the video to contact regarding Sanctuary if you are a great programmer are:
(1)
Suzanne Gildert, founded Sanctuary
(2)
Paula, key person in Vancouver
(3)
Olivia, key person in Vancouver
(4)
Geordie Rose, speaker in the video
It looks like I was right about Kindred's (and therefore Sanctuary's) emphasis on very visible women:
https://www.kindred.ai/blog/mechanical-design-in-robotics-with-sara-wojciechowski
https://thewomenintechshow.com/
I like Geordie's comment that if nobody is doing what you want somebody to be doing, then do it yourself. I've heard that advice before, regarding choosing a charity that gives money to the people to whom you really want to give money. I suppose that is why many of us here are working on our own architectures.
-
Great finds, guys! (Does Art always hold out on us like that? :))
I once noticed this, Art was more than usually knowledgeable suddenly in one previous thread. It's like he gets out his back muscles and starts running 8)
-
Whatever you do, don't see this guy then start copying his behaviour, their ship is going under its only a matter of time...
When the ship falls, another rises.
Fund n Fail works because goodness happens by lighting the flame with power. Then they earn energy and distrust and go hide with the created flame - cash, and hate. Then they make a new name and go again. Didn't Andey say kindred became Sanctuary?
-
seXXX bot show, no shame in these lowly boys i wouldn't call men.
-
Lock,
Suzanne and her some of her followers first came from D-Wave, then Kindred then Sanctuary.
(just for the record).
I'm sure there were reasons behind the various moves.
One of the biggest ripoffs was from Cynthia Breazeal former roboticist from MIT. She raised roughly $3.5 million in less than 2 years in Funding dollars for a stationary (non-mobile) semi-animated device less than 18" tall and billed as a Digital Assistant. They sold the wonders of what this thing could do and how it would enrich the lives of whoever owned it!
The really sad thing is: "Social robot company Jibo is sadly running on fumes after burning through nearly $73 million in funding."
I remember that originally, it was estimated to cost consumers around $500.00 USD.
Founded in 2012, the Funding campaign ended in 2014 and it didn't start consumer shipments until 2017. Oh yes, the price tag in September of 2017 was $899.00!! A nearly $400.00 increase!
They also changed their mind about offering International orders, limiting to only Canada and the USA.
Read the entire article here: https://www.therobotreport.com/jibo-social-robot-analyzing-what-went-wrong/ (https://www.therobotreport.com/jibo-social-robot-analyzing-what-went-wrong/)
-
There was a positive crowd of mildly dissatisfied robot purchasers there saying what was on their minds. I don't think the time is quite now for the really good products to come out, just a bit more time needed for ideas to spread amongst developers I think. Video games aren't cutting it anymore, we need something more exciting.
-
Read the entire article here: https://www.therobotreport.com/jibo-social-robot-analyzing-what-went-wrong/ (https://www.therobotreport.com/jibo-social-robot-analyzing-what-went-wrong/)
It's so sad for me to read an article like that, especially this excerpt:
Unfortunately, the technology Jibo requires to be compelling at an affordable price isn’t ready. The company underestimated the its competition and what it would take to get the product off the ground.
I wonder what the *unaffordable* price would be, especially whether they could make the thing function as advertised at *any* price. The whole situation reminds me of the failure of self-driving cars, chatbots, or Windows' speech recognition system (WSR) (http://www.knowbrainer.com/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=4&STARTPAGE=1&threadid=33462):
Windows Speech Recognition (WSR) is now considered to be a circa 2006 speech recognition failure. Microsoft gave up on WSR even before Windows Vista was released.
Come on, folks, let me say it again: The technology is not there yet. Such problems in vision, speech, and natural language understanding are called "AI-hard" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-complete) because nobody knows how to solve them. Such problems rely on fundamentals that we simply haven't discovered yet, or as the Wikipedia page says:
In the field of artificial intelligence, the most difficult problems are informally known as AI-complete or AI-hard, implying that the difficulty of these computational problems, assuming intelligence is computational, is equivalent to that of solving the central artificial intelligence problem—making computers as intelligent as people, or strong AI.
There you have it: Either we figure out strong AI, or else we'll just be spinning our wheels, ripping off naive investors with new buzzwords every few years, for another 60 years. The field is mostly going nowhere nowadays; a fundamental breakthrough is badly needed. It's painful for me to see startup companies being born just to capitalize on some tiny tweak in software that some unenlightened employee dreamed up: people are so focused on money, or maybe just so lazy or so badly educated, that they won't seriously tackle the fundamental problem of AI. Does nobody have the creativity to solve the basic problem, which may equate to a single insight? I'm so dismayed by it all. I blame the situation mostly on people's personal values + a horrible educational system that promotes regurgitation of what has already been learned rather than questioning fundamental assumptions and being creative.
----------
()
Michio Kaku Warning on the Decline of Science in America and Western Civilization
Muon Ray
Published on Oct 11, 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W54GLw0rtZE
(p. 163)
But again, perhaps the fear of boosting intelligence has been exagger-
ated. The average person has absolutely no interest in being able to solve the
complex tensor equations for a black hole. The average person sees noth-
ing to gain my mastering the mathematics of hyperspatial dimensions or the
physics of the quantum theory. On the contrary, the average person may
find such activities rather boring and useless. So most of us are not going to
become mathematical geniuses if given the opportunity, because it is not in
our character, and we see nothing to gain from it.
Keep in mind that society already has a class of accomplished mathema-
ticians and physicists, and they are paid significantly less than ordinary busi-
nessmen and wield much less power than average politicians. Being super
smart does not guarantee financial success in life. In fact, being super smart
may actually pigeonhole you in the lower rungs of a society that values ath-
letes, movie stars, comedians, and entertainers more.
No one ever got rich doing relativity.
Kaku, Michio. 2014. The Future of the Mind: The Scientific Quest to Understand, Enhance, and Empower the Mind. New York: Doubleday.
()
The Reason Education Sucks
iStateOfMind3
Published on Jan 28, 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILQepXUhJ98
-
Computer vision and Computer hearing is finished right tho right?
Theres plenty on the internet about it, Hinton is probably positive about it too, Its always the negatives about the technology that people seem to fixate apon instead of the fact that yeh, the computer can respond with verbs and especially nouns with 99% accuracy, yes, its not ALWAYS trustworthy but most of the time it does work fine, and we should move on from it!
Next stop making decisions from it, and if it has a body, procedural animation. Sorted, that might be good enough! But... err.. am I sounding like a crazy scammer myself now? :)
.
-
A couple of takeaways from the Jibo fiasco might be,
Don't make promises you can't keep.
Don't go blindly into a project armed with just enthusiasm.
DO your Research (developers, financing, materials, manufacturers, distributors, sales, etc.) before posting your potential product.
Don't procrastinate while the rest of the world is still developing technology that will likely pass and surpass your attempts.
(the Amazon Alexa and Google Now/Home could already do more than Jibo).
-------------------
In a similar vein, here are a few other devices that held a good deal of potential and promise but never materialized to any degree of success.
I'm sure there are others but this should do for now.
-------------------
This one raised $185,591 USD then you can guess the rest.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/cubic-your-personal-ai-with-personality--2#/updates/all
by Cubic.ai Team
Jun 11, 2018 • 6:14PM
1 year ago
Important: Full Refund - Final Call!
Cubic.ai: Full Refund
Dear Backers,
We have stopped the development of the Cubic Butler app. Now we are issuing full refunds to all our backers, including those of you who decided to stick with us no matter what.
To receive a refund please fill out this form ASAP and we will issue the refund shortly. You will need information about your Indiegogo contribution on hand.
Sincerely,
Cubic.ai Team
========================
The Plen Cube
Kickstarter Feb, 21,2017
https://www.producthunt.com/posts/plen-cube
Lights, Camera, Action...
========================
EmoSPARK - First A.I. Home Console
Indiegogo - $178,090 (original goal of $100,000 USD)
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/emospark-first-a-i-home-console#/
========================
-
damn brings a tear to your eye such decent honesty from a group of dudes.
-
Computer vision and Computer hearing is finished right tho right?
No. Are you serious? Show us documentation of *any* computer vision system that understands what it is seeing from real-world data, especially from video data. It can't, because: (1) Computers don't "understand" *anything* whatsoever. (2) Computers cannot reliably abstract anything they see or learn, therefore lack *general* intelligence, which affects their recognition ability. (3) No computer has hardware or software means to allow it to be used on a different sensory modality, such as hearing after learning to see, therefore any realistic sensory project requires *years* of software development for each extremely narrow domain for each sensory modality (e.g., ping-pong, playing piano, running, stacking boxes), therefore cannot be generally intelligent, therefore will have a weakened recognition system. (4) No computer has common sense, therefore cannot make realistic predictions even at the level of an animal, which will affect the system's ability to confirm, recognize, and understand.
In the field of artificial intelligence, the most difficult problems are informally known as AI-complete or AI-hard, implying that the difficulty of these computational problems, assuming intelligence is computational, is equivalent to that of solving the central artificial intelligence problem—making computers as intelligent as people, or strong AI. To call a problem AI-complete reflects an attitude that it would not be solved by a simple specific algorithm.
AI-complete problems are hypothesised to include computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real world problem.
Currently, AI-complete problems cannot be solved with modern computer technology alone, but would also require human computation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-complete
-
Andy,
I agree but there are computers that specialize in one particular discipline and become very good or skilled at what they do. While I was unable to find a duplicated post to that Financial Times article, I did find this site of particular interest, particularly with respect to computer learning and actually "discovering" new things...things that it had never been taught nor shown by humans.
Whether they actually "know" or understand anything, they can be very persistent in taking the forefront of whatever humans do or used to do.
And yes, we humans allow it to happen and perhaps one day, we will fall victim to our own devices.
This video is pretty nicely done and we should all take note. It's here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pls_q2aQzHg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pls_q2aQzHg)
-
I agree we won't control them in the end. They will be like us, when we passed monkeys. We have full govern, and they will have 1 billion times more than we had. They will be the deciders and muscles.
-
particularly with respect to computer learning and actually "discovering" new things...things that it had never been taught nor shown by humans.
I already know about computer successes in go, chess, theorem proving, and more. However, don't forget a key term I used repeatedly in my earlier posts: "real-world data." Games and mathematics are not based on "real-world data" but rather on discretized, idealized worlds, usually mimicked with matrices. Yes, via sheer brute force computing power computers do find patterns in those domains and even in some real-world domains that humans haven't found, but that doesn't do the computers any good outside of those domains. For example, if a machine learning system learned from chess it is wise to take up positions in the center of the board, then you placed that program in a real-world situation where it was fighting with people in sword fights, it would fail to use its chess knowledge to position itself in the center of a room for an advantage, and in fact would probably not even recognize where its human opponent was, so it would be incapacitated before it could even start. In short, computers currently inhabit a world that is alien and unreal to humans (and other animals), and vice versa. Since humans would naturally define "intelligence" as intelligence in the human world (i.e., in the "real world"), machines must either be able to function in the world of humans or else not be regarded as intelligent, even by definition.
----------
Preface
Thomas V. Papthomas
pp. ix-xi
(p. ix)
"What computer program do you think is more
difficult to design: One that analyzes images and recog-
nizes faces and objects, or one that can play chess at a
world-class level?" There is a strong preference to answer
that the chess program is a lot harder to design, and some
people are astounded to hear that today's computer
programs play chess at a formidable mid- to strong-
grandmaster level, whereas our progress with machines
that perform generic vision tasks has been relatively slow.
Early workers in artificial intelligence were overoptimistic
for progress in vision. One anecdotal story is that a stu-
dent was assigned to "solve vision" as a summer project
decades ago! It is perhaps because people take vi-
sion for granted that some simple concepts and discov-
eries had to wait until recently. Thus it took as
late as the seventeenth century for the blind spot to be
discovered, whereas the stereoscope's invention had to
wait until the nineteenth century.
Thomas V. Papathomas, ed. 1995. Early Vision and Beyond. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
(p. 83)
The goal of the SOAR project is to provide an architecture capable of
general intelligence. There's no claim by its designers that it yet does so.
They mention several necessary aspects of general intelligence that are
missing:
1. SOAR has no deliberate planning facility; it's always on-line, reacting
to its current situation. It can't consider the long-term consequences of an
action without taking that action.
2. SOAR has no automatic task acquisition. You have to hand-code the
task you want to give it. It does not create any new representations of its own.
And its designers would like it to. For Newell and company, not creating
representations leaves an important gap in any architecture for general
intelligence.
3. Though SOAR is capable of learning, several important learning tech-
niques--such as analysis, instruction, and examples--are not yet incor-
porated into it.
4. SOAR's single learning mechanism is monotonic. That is, once
learned, never unlearned; it can't recover from learning errors.
5. Finally, a generally intelligent agent should be able to interact with the
real world in real time, that is, in the time required to achieve its goal
or to prevent some dire consequence. SOAR can't yet do this, but Robo-
SOAR is on the way (Laird and Rosenbloom 1990; Laird et al. in press).
Franklin, Stan. 1995. Artificial Minds. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
-
Speaking of A.I. jobs, here is an entire job site for only A.I. jobs that I just found today:
https://aijobs.com/
I haven't had a chance to browse that site. Of course most such jobs are going to be about applied A.I., not AGI or A.I. research.
-
Saying computer vision doesn't work because it doesn't come up with a funny joke for each photo, is a bit harsh.
If it comes up with a correct labelled (as in basic labels of different categories) scene then it is successful.
Brute force exhaustive search is artificial, but if you are an intelligent individual in the same search space as an exhaustive search, good luck to you if you think your going to win.
-
If it comes up with a correct labelled (as in basic labels of different categories) scene then it is successful.
Not really. Neural networks sometimes give the correct answer due to flawed reasoning, which means such a network was not 'successful' in determining the features that logically define an object, which means further use of that reasoning method is guaranteed to fail on certain cases, possibly even on most cases. A now well-known example is how a neural network misidentified a husky as a wolf...
https://hackernoon.com/dogs-wolves-data-science-and-why-machines-must-learn-like-humans-do-41c43bc7f982
...using Deep Learning, which is considered the state-of-the-art learning method for neural networks. Where the network went wrong was that it noticed statistically from many photos that wolves are often surrounded by snow, so the network took a shortcut, ignored the animal entirely and just looked to see if there was a lot of white, which the network assumed was snow, then declared the photo to be of a wolf, even though the network didn't even know if there was an animal in the photo at all. That's pretty bad. Imagine if you were in a self-driving car and the network took a shortcut by ignoring oncoming vehicles entirely and just looked at the reflectance of the road, since statistically it learned that vehicles usually aren't dangerous unless the road is wet. Bang. No more goaty to dissent with Andy.
You could argue that this husky-wolf example of failure doesn't apply because in this one case there did happen to be an animal in the photo and the network gave a negative match result instead of a positive match result, but thorough testing of the network using ROC analysis, for example, would show problems with false positives and false negatives. A neural network's 'success' is typically described by such graphs, rather than by the success of a single example, as your wording suggests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_operating_characteristic
-
A Husky might as well be a wolf, whats the difference.
With a Kinect, you can pull objects apart into their moving components using the 3d velocities, I bet that would improve results remarkably.
Id like to think k-nearest neighbour is all you need to do it quite good, computer vision classification is not the biggest element on my personal challenges list, honestly.
-
One of my English associates (A) married a Polish lady (B) who was fluent in both Polish and English and they had a child. One day during conversation the child’s progress with respect to him learning to speak was the topic. Apparently the child was having problems with both the understanding and generation of speech in general. Over the next few occasions I took notice of how they communicated with the child who was now about two years old.
I instantly saw the problem; (A) was learning to speak Polish.
Because (A) was learning Polish he would substitute odd words he had recently learned when talking to (B) as a method of practice, and (B) would slip in Polish words within an English sentence to help (A). This obviously resulted in a very randomly mixed syntax where no two sentences, even the same sentence, would not be repeated consistently, hence the child’s difficulties and general look of confusion, as they were also doing this when conversing with the child.
I had to carefully explain how confusing this was for the child; and that the child didn’t understand that there were two separate languages being spoken. It was the lack of consistency/ focus that was causing the problem. Two words for every term/ object/ etc and no underlying clue as to how they are used/ connected.
The reason I mentioned the above is that any type of learning requires a focus/ attention/ consistency an anchor. If a human child struggles to infer meaning from a random data stream then a machine certainly will.
You can’t expect a machine to extract meaning from a set of images without initial guidance on what it’s looking at. It will just find the commonality that best fits the required results… at least show it a picture of a husky/ wolf… point with your finger and say the word… give it a clue/ bias lol.
https://youtu.be/owBz6R-Ttqc
No computer has hardware or software means to allow it to be used on a different sensory modality, such as hearing after learning to see.
https://youtu.be/aaYzFpiTZOg
My system can, this is actually a section of audio cortex re-trained to recognise objects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-D5UVZ8j9w
The actual connectome learning 40K pattern facets in a single pass from any or a mixed modality.
:)
-
It would be nifty if a language generation system would have all translations as well, so it speaks in any language it wants.
-
In time, they will. O0
-
With a Kinect, you can pull objects apart into their moving components using the 3d velocities, I bet that would improve results remarkably.
I'll bet it would, too. There is an awful lot of information thrown away when people train neural networks with photos instead of video. A lot could be said on that topic, such as the fact that humans can immediately detect a camouflaged object the moment it moves, and even discern its outline at the same time, so obviously we have feature detectors specifically for integrating the pieces of moving objects.
()
ViSTARS dot motion and camouflage
Andrew Browning
Published on Jun 19, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0QYKdQc45c
One guy at work told me that those TV interviews that are pixelized to hide the speaker's identity have enough motion data in them to put together most of the original, untouched photo of the person's face, if the right processing is put into the analysis. That's the power of video.
()
Adobe Premiere Pro CC/ CS6 face pixel blur mosaic Normal color
Creative Design Tutor
Published on Jan 7, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eFb4dSaQfE
-
Sorry Ande if I was being a bit up myself then... :( accidents... laziness during typing and conversing at all..
The temporal compression on Australian digital tv goes funny during interference, and it looks like its got a quality a.i. tracker on it, It surprised me because thats where all my computer vision experience is, I didn't do much categorization all my work went into tracking and 3d. The computer vision that impresses me (or is more like how I do it) is correct sillouetting with a depth map, before doing the id work, and its another way to get something like YOLO to happen, which is what you need for the frontend of your droid.
Made me self affirm when I saw how slow that computer vision demo you showed of the camoflagued pixel pattern detector, it is indeed a terrible optimization you need to do to get a.i. stuff running real time frame rates. (computer vision and all of a.i. for that matter, goes bloody slow. IMO worse than raytracing, just ask Korrelan. :))
I do KNN matching for my CV system, so it goes slower and slower the more's in it, how i'm remedying it is by only matching corners of a corner detector, and make it only 1 match per class, and then running on a newish GPU and doing proper bit masking to work in 32 bit blocks, and then you only pull in another data point if its far enough from what you already have stored.
If you do all that... might be a flashy demo, but for a real robot attempt then it might still be too slow!!! - I have to code it again to find out.