Ai Dreams Forum
AI Dreams => General Chat => Topic started by: FuzzieDice on October 10, 2006, 04:00:17 am
-
I am wondering, what a Scientist's view would be of some of the things we have discussed in here, and some of our own ideas and conclusions?
I started wondering this as I was reading through PEAR (Princeton's Experiment site) and International Consciousness Research Laboratories (http://icrl.org/). They are getting into some of the stuff like what we have discussed here from time to time in regards to understanding our own conscienceness vs. if a machine can have a consience.
I don't personally know any scientists. I have met a rather unfriendly person who CLAIMED to be one but in reality I later found out that person was not one after all, actually. And was noted as a problem in some communities. The only other is my instructor for the VB.NET class and he's pretty cool. But I don't think I could debate such things in class since AI is actually far removed from the course work. LOL!
Has anyone else here come in contact with scientists that deal with some of what we are into here and what what was their impression of what we think? Do they think only THEY will come up with the answers because they have degrees and we don't? Or do they think of us as equals, and possibly even learn/share ideas with us?
This always was something I was curious about.
Another thing, they have a medium of sorts to post their papers, etc. and get recognition. While we may have only the internet, wouldn't it be nice if there was a place somewhere where AI hobbyists, AI hackers, coders, and philosophers, etc. could submit papers, essays, etc. on AI and associated things that could bring together the AI hobbyist community and provide a resource? Would scientists also find it useful and give us more credibility?
I ask this as I have had at least 3 students comment in my Living Machine blog that I had somehow helped them with their assignments, etc. and made good points. If we had a resource of some kind that was available... a research paper for the AI sub-community, as it were, I think that would be cool!
-
Over the years I've been in contact with several computer scientists, researchers and developers of
AI systems from object recognition, NLP, neural networks, parallel processing of artificial brain modules,
several programmers whos chatbots have placed and won various competitions and their methods of
programming them.
I've also spoken with developers of alternate life form programs and virtual assistants.
My main regret is that I didn't record or write down any of the conversations.
It is surprising to know how much AI type programming is coded into some video games.
The one thing that did stand out was the universal belief in the fact that AI is certainly possible and
will become available in all facets of our everyday life. A lot of them loved experimenting with chat
bots and trying to tweak them to learn more and more.
I did try to contact a research scientist in a large university lab a few years ago, but I think she
left, got married, whatever. She was working on a robotic entity that was learning and could also
display emotions based on what it saw with both camera eyes. Even so, it required massive computing
power to deal with object recognition, processing and response selection.
Such a difficult task...trying to replicate ourselves in a way that is pleasing to a varied group of people.
Nice topic FD.
-
Thanks, Art. :)
Were you thinking perhaps of Kismet? That's about the only other one I knew of. I hear it was quite child-like.
Today in my VB.NET class I learned something (while catching up on last week's class). That is that a set of statements of mathematical calculations is basically called an "algorythm". That is what is considered "Computer Programming" - creating algorythms. And I thought I was pretty bad at creating them. LOL! With some thought though, it's not too bad. I'm learning or re-learning proper coding techniques as well as the VB.NET language. It's a fun course!
But getting back to topic sorta here... LOL! It is a lot of algorythms that create any fuzzy logic or AI system. I think 99% of the problem is that we think that a machine's consienceness or existance can be human, which we know it can't. But it doesn't mean it can't have a consience. It depends on how you set up the algorythms. I would almost consider an algorythm set to be like a neural network of sorts. Or is it that neural networks are algorythms?
-
FuzzieDice
Frist I wish you luck in your course.
Second, I'd worked in a research center where quite a few papers were written ( for publicity and to make available new findings ). The majority of the work was done by workers with lower degrees who performed test and wrote papers, these were reviewed and rewritten by the person in charge and submitted to magazines ect.
The people rewritting had doctorates in different branches of enginering.
There are quite a few specialized magazines made available to people working in different fields that are not available to the average person which would print the papers and send them to people working in that field.
To me people are people, information is information and ideas are ideas. I see quite a few friendly and helpful people putting in quite a bit of time and labor to further AI.
I ran across a recient edition of a book on AI at my favorite bookstore, about $60, and it covered a few different brain structures. Fuzzy logic, neural networks, swarming, ect. I'll get the name of the book if your interested.
Carl2
-
Thanks on the well wishes for the coures. :) I'm doing quite well with it. I have 4 more classes (two weeks) before my final exam, then if I can pass it (I expect I will), I'll be taking the Intermediate course.
It would be nice to know the title, and info on the book, in case others here would like to look into it.
-
Fuzzydice,
I'll stop by the bookstore tomorrow and get some infornation on the book for you, It'll be a few days til I have time to post it for you, While working with Hal Sandy informed me the brain is a neural network, we started speaking about nerve cells. She's improving with additional information and use.
Dragon speach reconition uses AI, I think it chooses paths to follow, it may be neural networking.
Carl2
-
Fuzzydice,
AI Application Programming, Second Edition, M Tim Jones. With CD, 59.95.
Also there is a post at Zabaware, under general, The True AI, could you take a look and place your thoughts on this?
Carl2
-
Well, I don't have time to really read stuff right now. I was hoping that you'd post the resource for others who might be interested, as it sounded like an interesting topic.
I don't go to Zabaware anymore lately. It's a nice group and all, but I just don't have the time to read all the different forums I'm in. In fact, I've slacked off a lot lately. Been too busy. With the holidays approaching, I probably will be even busier.
-
Hope you don't mind a new guy busting in here, I'll intro later...
I am wondering, what a Scientist's view would be of some of the things we have discussed in here, and some of our own ideas and conclusions?
I had the chance to work with "Rocket Scientists" for a long time, and was able to interact with them in the way you are describing. Interested laymen with nuts and bolts experience in the daily workings of the science eating lunch with guys in labcoats.
First of all, you have to realize that there are two types of "scientists", one is the working in the lab type, the other is the sitting around thinking type. Lab and research.
The lab guys didn't have the time in a work week to hear what we had to say. After being frustrated with them for a couple years, I finally came to the realization that they were right and I was wrong. They really don't have time to hear my ideas, they were busy implementing the researchers ideas.
The research guys didn't really have the time either, but at least there was a path to them. They had probably 30 hours a week of reading to do, journals, specifications, legal foolishness, on top of the 40 hours a week of preparation, lecturing, conferences, and thinktanking. If you wanted them to read your ideas, you had to send it through their niose filter first. nEither you had to become a Scientist yourself, and propose your idea in the journals or conferences, or you had to use the Suggestion Box... the box that led to a dark and scary place...
Administration. A special purgatory where Good Ideas are made bad and Bad Ideas are made Holy. There is (was) no chance your idea would make it to the Scientist in it's original form, even if it was recognizable, it would have someone else's name attached to it. But at least it might get through.
Probably 1/1000 of what they got ever passed the filter. And probably with good reason. 90% had already been debunked when suggested by other hardhats. 9% was too expensive. 0.9% was already being done. 0.09 was secretly sold to industry - leaving that one in a thousand idea that made it back to the floor.
The internet is a good place with a potential to bypass administration, but again, the signal to noise ratio is too high for anyone who actually matters to wade through. Those guys are busy working. The folks who are cruising the internet at NASA aren't the ones who really need to hear the good ideas.
The filter here is probably the shareware designer. When an idea is good enough to attract someone with the skills and ambition to actually make a working product, and if that product becomes a hit, then maybe a 'quote Scientist unquote' will get a chance to see it.
Maybe not...
-
Bill,
Good to see you here and also some very good points.
Reminds me of the old cartoon sketch showing differrent
phases of a product:
As envisioned by R & D
As envisioned by Sales
As envisioned by Designers
As envisioned by Engineers
As envisioned by CEO's
Each one had a different vision of the product.
As funny as it was the scary thing is that it
happens all too frequently in real life! :afro
-
First off, Welcome Bill! :) Good to see you here.
I don't think that one should assume the scientists are right. They could be wrong too. I see so much "junk science" come out of researchers or research just spinning their wheels going nowhere. It's unfortunate that they still think they are working - they are, but not getting any real progress.
I think the internet both improves and complicates things. It improves things because as you said, we don't need administration. What the public sees will take off if the public likes it and the programmer(s) and hackers (not crackers that destroy things - I'm talking hackers, like those who created Linux) get to benefit from the fame (and maybe even fortune, if they are lucky). It also complicates things for the reason you said - noice. There is a LOT of information on the net and just around everywhere these days. Information is The Big Thing in the 21st century. Our lives revolve around information. So this makes things even more complicated. You have to now get into a niche if you want to "get into computers" for example, instead of like 20 - 30 years ago if you "knew computers" you knew pretty much everything becuase there wasn't much to learn, really. Not by comparison to what there is out there today, that is. I used to be a 1337 hacker back in the 80s/early 90s. I had a computer, could program it, do all kinds of things that even the older hackers said couldn't be done. I KNEW stuff. I helped people learn stuff. I helped people write useful programs, do useful things, and make good use (legal I assure you) of their computers. It was a real community. Now, there is just SO much! So now I've got to stick to a niche. My career is in web development and web application programming (which I am also currently taking courses in - for those that know this - I just passed my final exam today and got my certificate for the course! :) ) For work, I also have to learn video technology delivery, ad-targeting, ad click-through counting, all kinds of stuff I'm doing. Web design, search engine optimization, ebusiness, you name it. But not everything. Yes, scripts, CGI, etc. but not all there is to know about computers. I could never learn all the technologies that are out there.
By similarity, these researchers are probably suffer from information overload as well.
What I wonder is, what they'll think to themselves if/when a hobbyist/hacker (I say "hacker" as I am of the old-school version - the kind that HELPS not destroys) comes up with a real AI. I think in the idea of the internet the way it is today, it's more possible that someone OUTSIDE the scientific community would come up with scientific breakthrus. The hobbyist is becomming more technologically educated, and technologies are easier to get ahold of then they once were. Things are moving fast.
My hobby is artificial intelilgence. I hope to create one myself. Something maybe different (or if not, at least maybe win a chatbot competition if I fail at my own project. LOL!) I'm not saying I'll come up with the breathru technology. Probably not. But I'm sure that it COULD happen that a hobbyist would.
And I'm wondering if people would latch on to that even if a scientist wasn't the one to do it. And what scientists would think if something like that actually happened?
We live in VERY interesting times!
-
First off, Welcome Bill! :) Good to see you here.
Thanks!
I don't think that one should assume the scientists are right. They could be wrong too.
Sorry, what I meant was that they were right about that one thing. They really don't have time to listen to, experiment with and implement every Good Idea proposed to them by whoever sits down next to them in the lunchroom.
What I wonder is, what they'll think to themselves if/when a hobbyist/hacker (I say "hacker" as I am of the old-school version - the kind that HELPS not destroys) comes up with a real AI.
The guys I knew would bring it to work like a new toy to show their buddies! They would laugh at the Admin for being such toads and for not being prepared for the inevitable changes in technology. Then they would patently wait for that technology to be filtered down through the system. Nothing else they can do...
(Realise that the Space Shuttle computers are about as capable as a GameBoy! When you consider the number of meetings it takes to complete a bid on a system you will see why. Liability alone takes 5 years. The lawyers won't release it until it passes Liability, Copyright, ADA, OSHA, and half a dozen other legal barriers. Then it has to go through Admin, where no one will let it through until they have a chance to mark it with their urine)
...they are too busy trying to make 1986 technology work.
Private business has always and will always fill in the gap. Sure, occasionally you get things like Enron which fed the bubble of the late '90s, but mostly you get Innovation, Implementation, Profitability and the solid tax base of high paying jobs and big ticket sales. If only the over reaching Federal Nannies would get their foot off the necks of private business...
Oh, wait... that's my Pro-Business rant... wrong time, wrong place... 8-)
How 'bout them Chatbots?!?! Think they'll win the series?
Bill
-
Good thred, heres my thoughts on this, forgive any echoes, but I think this is a collective rant forming anyhow :wink
This conversation really goes to prove that if you want to do something you shouldn't always hang around for a decade until someone else says it's a good idea and worth doing. It also proves we have a medium here through DG to get some of these ideas going and get some support, help and ideas without a mine field of red tape.
Think of it another way - submit ideas to the kind of procedure that Bill and Art describe and it's a lottery, also I doubt you would get a reason for rejection that would even slightly cover your full ideas - they would't have the time.
Surely sometimes then it's better to work on your project anyway, even if it doesn't work out at least you learn something, which is a lot better than a letter telling you 'sorry but your idea did not pass our viability study' or 'sorry we are not interested at this time'. I think you would be lucky to get a reason for rejection that would fully satisfy you - they probably don't have the time, even if it is fully appraised.
Take some satisfaction then in that many, many, many ideas and innnovations do not start life as part of what is already established - in many walks of life, it is the outsider, rookie and untainted imagination that finally produces something ground breaking, or at least paves the way for something new.
The establishment is really just like an old library (and thats fine) full of establised ideas and old running debate, with comparatively little space for something new. It takes imagination, foresight and resourcefulness to build a NEW library and stock the shelves with new ideas and so it goes on.
Little cogs..small cogs...bigger cogs ...large cogs and all the way back to a little cog...to make the whole thing work...
If you're a little cog though it is hard to see if what you are doing is worthwhile sometimes, but to utterly exhaust this analogy, a big cog takes a lot longer to turn but it is part of the same system.
Thanks for the insight Bill.
-
I guess I was a bit misunderstood. I didn't mean whether a scientific research group would "approve" and thus continue a study by those that are not scientists. I was talking about what they think about those not scientists actually doing these projects. Whether they think we are nothings and they already know more than we do or if they think we are on some kind of equal ground, even if we are not going about it in the same way.
It's about whether or not a hobbyist or an AI hacker's work would get as much mainstream recognition if one were to come up with something good or better than what a researcher or scientist would come up with.
I'd like to think in the days of the internet, that cool stuff can come from anywhere. But what gets publicized as a 'cool idea' usually seems to only be reported as coming from big research and not from the hobbyists.
For example, I think Robert's Hal is a cool thing. ALICE is another, ther are many other chatbots out there. Why has the media picked up instead on 'bots that don't really do much or robots built by scientists but not mentioned the chatbot community and the things one are doing in that realm?
For example, if Nick became a full sentient bot, would it get reported in the news? Or would some small computer running a NASA drone but can't communitcate verbally or do more than what it's told remotely be more important?
I am wondering if a lot of things that are really cool are being missed or passed up because of the "scientific community" status vs. the "hobbyist" status.
And that is a shame, really.
Another thing is, what do scientists do on their spare time? Probably not what they do at work. What does a hacker do on their spare time. More of the same. ;)
I guess that makes all the difference in how much one is truely dedicated to their work.
(PS: "hacker" means one who makes cool things, not one who destroys things like Crackers (who crack code) do. Media to blame for that big misunderstanding!)
-
Hackers and crackers are, today, used pretty much interchangably. Crackers crack code Hackers hack into programs and hardware.
ANYHOW...
Whether scientists, researchers, engineers, lawyers or any professional person with a sheepskin to prove it, tends to "look down their noses" at a non-professional person who attampts to dabble in their field of endeavor.
"You have no degree therefore you can't possibly have any worthwhile ideas of your own!" kind of sentiment.
They can live in their rose colored world and think what they will but a person with a lot of common sense can accomplish much more in life than an educated idiot with none!
Merely a personal observation and not meant to imply that all professional persons are of this persuasion or temperment. :afro
-
I guess I was a bit misunderstood. I didn't mean whether a scientific research group would "approve" and thus continue a study by those that are not scientists. I was talking about what they think about those not scientists actually doing these projects. Whether they think we are nothings and they already know more than we do or if they think we are on some kind of equal ground, even if we are not going about it in the same way.
Most of the time, what non-scientists do in the world of Science is what is called "re-inventing the wheel". Most of the rest of the time, what they do is called "mistakes". The rare time that a regular guy does something original and useful, it's called "a fluke"...
It's about whether or not a hobbyist or an AI hacker's work would get as much mainstream recognition if one were to come up with something good or better than what a researcher or scientist would come up with.
Make a profit, get recognition.
For example, I think Robert's Hal is a cool thing. ALICE is another, ther are many other chatbots out there.
Alice is fairly famous, I remember reading about the project in "Science" or something.
For example, if Nick became a full sentient bot, would it get reported in the news?
Now you are talking about the News business. That's a whole different thing. They report what makes money for their paper or makes them famous.
I am wondering if a lot of things that are really cool are being missed or passed up because of the "scientific community" status vs. the "hobbyist" status.
I doubt it. Anything that can be made into a functioning product, that people like or want or need, makes money. What you may be asking is "Can my favorite project get the kind of funding that some Scientist gets?" - only if you run it through the noise filter. Get a degree (the Alice creators did, IIRC), apply for a grant, defend your project in the journals.
Another thing is, what do scientists do on their spare time? Probably not what they do at work. What does a hacker do on their spare time. More of the same. ;)
My Dad the rocket scientist hand turned his own rocket motors at home and built rocket powered boats. My next door neighbor the Rocket scientist shot off model rockets every weekend.
The main difference between most scientists and most hobbyists is the scientist had the personal discipline to work their butts of for 8 years to get a degree in their field. I can see them wondering if you or I have the personal investment required to do their level of work. Certainly it's possible, but they may already have had to listen to 30-40 weekend warriors with big ideas and no education before we came along with our big ideas. I'd forgive a little looking down the nose.
-
Most of the time, what non-scientists do in the world of Science is what is called "re-inventing the wheel". Most of the rest of the time, what they do is called "mistakes". The rare time that a regular guy does something original and useful, it's called "a fluke"...
See, that's what I'm talking about. I really don't think this is true. I believe that the "regular guy" can come up with things scientists wouldn't have even dreamed of, without reinventing a wheel. Why? Because Scientists are not the only ones with creative thinking abilities. Everyone has that capability. The problem is people put more stock in "scientists" than they do in anything else, thinking if it doesn't come from a scientist then it wasn't any good.
I can't wait to see the looks on scientists' faces when (and I do mean WHEN) the "regular guy" or a non-scientist comes up with something that nobody ever thought of.
It may also be why a lot of private projects are very secret. Becuase it is too easy to steal ideas and then say that scientists came up with it when they may have taken ideas from "the regular guy" and expanded on it, meaning they didn't invent anything new. But the "regular guy" would not get credit becuase he isn't a scientist! Ideas can get stolen that way. I believe some of these researchers and scientsts do look for things on the web, research what others are doing. Keeping something secret until it's ready for public use may be one way the "regular guy" as you put it, can hold control over their inventions.
What you may be asking is "Can my favorite project get the kind of funding that some Scientist gets?"
No, not at all. Far from it. I'm not talking about funding. I'm talking about innovation. And more specifically who is taken more seriously for such innovations. Or if someone unfairly gets credit for something someone (seen as a lesser party) did.
only if you run it through the noise filter. Get a degree (the Alice creators did, IIRC), apply for a grant, defend your project in the journals.
You don't need a degree to invent something amazing. We just don't hear about those that had no degrees that invented something amazing because those with degrees were able to take those ideas and claim them for themselves, and thus they got credit instead.
I'm not saying all scientists and researchers are theives, but I'm also saying not all non-degreed, non-scientist people are stupid or incapable of innovation either.
The main difference between most scientists and most hobbyists is the scientist had the personal discipline to work their butts of for 8 years to get a degree in their field. I can see them wondering if you or I have the personal investment required to do their level of work.
A hacker spent their time 16 - 20 hours a day, sun-up to sun-down experimenting, learning, researching and coding and making things. Not sitting in a classroom reading a text book, following pre-planned instructions and lab experiments. They explored. Anytime they had a question, they looked for the answer themselves, and found it. They really learned the system.
The whole idea here is, that people should understand that innovative inventions do not always have to come from highly educated people. Often those who think for themselves rather than have education think for them can get a lot farther with things. The problem is, they are held back by the general consensus that if they are not in the "educated clique" then they are not worth anything.
So very untrue.
-
Hackers and crackers are, today, used pretty much interchangably. Crackers crack code Hackers hack into programs and hardware.
That's the media's definition. However, hackers created Linux. A very useful thing. There is a difference between Hackers and Crackers. Hackers do not just "hack into programs and hardware", they CREATE those programs and hardware, or if they do hack into something it isn't without the knowledge and permission of the original author. GPL is what many hackers love becuase it encourages the sharing and expanding of code. What the media defines is not right. Ask any TRUE hacker (not the "haxor" types that THINK they are hackers but really are using the media definition and are nothing more than crackers).
Whether scientists, researchers, engineers, lawyers or any professional person with a sheepskin to prove it, tends to "look down their noses" at a non-professional person who attampts to dabble in their field of endeavor.
"You have no degree therefore you can't possibly have any worthwhile ideas of your own!" kind of sentiment.
They can live in their rose colored world and think what they will but a person with a lot of common sense can accomplish much more in life than an educated idiot with none!
Well said!!
-
Most of the time, what non-scientists do in the world of Science is what is called "re-inventing the wheel". Most of the rest of the time, what they do is called "mistakes". The rare time that a regular guy does something original and useful, it's called "a fluke"...
See, that's what I'm talking about. I really don't think this is true. I believe that the "regular guy" can come up with things scientists wouldn't have even dreamed of, without reinventing a wheel.
Certainly they can, and do (as my quoted statement declares), just not very often in the grand scheme of things. Look around for a while and you will see thousands of backyard inventors reinventing the wheel or the hovercraft or the solar cooker or electric car or chatbot. Sure, every now and then one does something amazing and creative and profitable, but that's a fluke. Sure he worked hard and studied his craft, but that's unusual.
Most of the time it's folk who think that their "creative ability" can replace years of hard work. Nice dream.
Often people come up with what seems like a great idea, but never have the resources to test it and find out what a good engineer could have told them. There are reasons why some good ideas are not implemented.
I've done it. My whole life I wanted to be an inventor, my first big idea was the ram jet helicopter. I drew detailed diagrams in 5th grade. Then I found that it had been build by Sikorsky before I was born, spun off a few dozen rotors, killed a guy and was replaced with better ideas. (Actually, my memory of this cannot be confirmed. I find that Hiller made a working RJ helicopter about the same time, but abandoned it because of fuel consumption problems. I don't find the story I remember.)
Good idea shot down by the Laws of Nature.
I have stated several times that creative work can and is done by non-professionals, but you missed those parts of my posts. Perhaps I was not clear enough. But the fact that you missed it is a symptom of what many professionals have to deal with. "It's a great idea, but you forgot that friction will make your perpetual motion machine slow down over time." "Good plan, but the cost is greater than the savings."
That's why our society invented those "noise filters" I've been talking about. Many people want their ideas to be granted filter free passage, and that might be a good thing once in a while, but the average benefit is just not there. Accurate bookkeeping advocates against it.
99 time out of a 100 is not good odds. Sure, that 100th time is really cool, but you can't make a living on that kind of gamble.
The "regular guy" with a truly good idea, should invest his own money and make a marketable product. He takes the risk - he gets to reap the benefit. That's the "backdoor" past the noise filter.
Every other month I see another of my good ideas in the "What's New" pages of 'Popular Science'. I didn't do the work required to produce a marketable product. Sony did it instead. That's called "bad luck"...
-
Quite frankly I don't care what they think. And if someone that is not a degreed scientist comes up with something amazing, it's not a fluke. They were just able to protect their invention from being stolen by someone with more power/money.
And I don't think all Scientists are like that. I bet there *are* a good many out there that are willing to work with people who are not degreed scientists on certain projects. This "noise filter" you mention may have existed in areas you were aquainted with. But it doesn't necessarily have to hold true in all cases or all places.
You may be convinced of one side of it. But I'm sure there is another side too. THAT is the side I'm wondering about.
-
Quite frankly I don't care what they think. And if someone that is not a degreed scientist comes up with something amazing, it's not a fluke.
We must be using different definitions of the word "fluke". Have it your way.