patrick.net

Peter P says

Not necessarily. AI perceives anything you supply, be it a video stream or a time series.

Machine Vision may be a moot point if there is no physical, objective reality. But that is just one application.

A video stream needs perception.

If all you provide is data, then by definition this data is meaningless. i.e. you will not have a program that understands what is going on. See Searle. See the history of AI (Cyc for example). The data becomes knowledge once it is anchored in perception.

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

Not necessarily. AI perceives anything you supply, be it a video stream or a time series.

Machine Vision may be a moot point if there is no physical, objective reality. But that is just one application.

A video stream needs perception.

If all you provide is data, then by definition this data is meaningless. i.e. you will not have a program that understands what is going on. See Searle. See the history of AI (Cyc for example). The data becomes knowledge once it is anchored in perception.

Sure. Machine perception presupposes an objective reality. However, machine learning does not. You can have AI play any game, real or not.

Peter P says

Sure. Machine perception presupposes an objective reality. However, machine learning does not. You can have AI play any game, real or not.

Sure, but the ontological layer is what is perceived.
There is no semantic outside of this.
AI would be pretty useless if not understanding the world in which we live. To understand it, it needs to perceive it.

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

Sure. Machine perception presupposes an objective reality. However, machine learning does not. You can have AI play any game, real or not.

Sure, but the ontological layer is what is perceived.

There is no semantic outside of this.

AI would be pretty useless if not understanding the world in which we live. To understand it, it needs to perceive it.

Of course AI has plenty of uses in the non-physical world. :-)

Peter P says

Of course AI has plenty of uses in the non-physical world. :-)

Like what? Playing chess?

On second thought, a belief in machine perception does not even presuppose an objective reality.

Two possibilities:

1. machine perception is an extension to your perception (you see that the machine is seeing)

2. machines can be thought of having their own realities that somehow correspond to ours

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

Of course AI has plenty of uses in the non-physical world. :-)

Like what? Playing chess?

;-)

Peter P says

1. machine perception is an extension to your perception (you see that the machine is seeing)

You can always see the machine senses as an extention of your own, but it doesn't change anything about what we said about AI.
The machine still needs to independently perceive a world. It doesn't just mean capturing a photo or video. It means use perception to form a model of this world and use this to 'think' about the world. It is 'intelligent' inasmuch as it makes relevant assertions about this world.

Peter P says

2. machines can be thought of having their own realities that somehow correspond to ours

This presupposes that there is a machine. This is meaningless outside a realist view of the world (realism).

You also have to explain how the machine world and your world just happen to be in sync.

Heraclitusstudent says

The machine still needs to independently perceive a world. It doesn't just mean capturing a photo or video. It means use perception to form a model of this world and use this to 'think' about the world. It is 'intelligent' inasmuch as it makes relevant assertions about this world.

Then it is no different from another person perceiving the world. :-)

And no, the machine does not have to form rigid models about the world. It will be a positivist/reductionist *only if* you program it so.

Heraclitusstudent says

You also have to explain how the machine world and your world just happen to be in sync.

Why? Your reality and mine are somewhat in sync. We all have our own biases, opinions, and narratives but I think the correspondence is there.

Peter P says

Dan8267 says

Peter P says

My perception only corresponds to *my* reality, which may or may not be the same as yours. You can never prove objectivity. It is unknowable.

Tell that to Einstein. He did exactly that.

Sir, with any empirically-derived theory one cannot escape having to leap from perception (actual or narrated) to reality. It is a chasm.

The proof is in the pudding. GPS would not work without that formula. Yet, GPS works. Peoples lives literally depend on working GPS. Emergency workers, drone strikes, commercial aviation all depend on GPS today.

In contrast, our country literally executes people based on lesser evidence. If only our court systems had as high of a standard for evidence as science does.

Again,

It's one thing to pontificate that the universe is all in your mind. It's quite another to actually believe that. The later is called mental illness.

Despite anything you say, you operate on the assumption that reality is objective.

Dan8267 says

The proof is in the pudding. GPS would not work without that formula. Yet, GPS works. Peoples lives literally depend on working GPS.

The Office (US) is one of the best TV shows ever!

JH says

Dan8267 says

The proof is in the pudding. GPS would not work without that formula. Yet, GPS works. Peoples lives literally depend on working GPS.

Of course, the error was human navigation in that case, not the physics and math of the GPS. And this, albeit fictional, case does illustrate that we all accept that reality is objective no matter what anyone pontificates.

Dan8267 says

Despite anything you say, you operate on the assumption that reality is objective.

Practically, yes.

Dan8267 says

The proof is in the pudding. GPS would not work without that formula.

Not proof. But observations. The "fact" that "reality" fits into formulas further illustrates that it is a matter of linguistics.

Dan8268 said: Tell that to Einstein.
Tell that to Heisenberg....

EBGuy says

Tell that to Heisenberg....

You mean Walter White?

Peter P says

Then it is no different from another person perceiving the world.

And we go back to "other person perceiving the world" implying that there is a world.

Peter P says

Why? Your reality and mine are somewhat in sync. We all have our own biases, opinions, and narratives but I think the correspondence is there.

Your argument is crumbling under its own weight: yes I can communicate with other people and they see more or less the same as I do, which makes it very likely there is a common reality being observed. Maybe there is no bias in perception, or opinions, but that's irrelevant: the point is there is a common reality.

The mere fact that you are posting means you assume I exist.

Peter P says

And no, the machine does not have to form rigid models about the world. It will be a positivist/reductionist *only if* you program it so.

A photo in a computer is a model of an image. Every higher level notions will also be some kind of model. A computer thinking about high level concepts means it has a model of these concepts.
Not sure what you mean by rigid. If anchored in perception, then by definition the model is fluid and changing. But there has to be a model.

Peter P says

Practically, yes.

And that's all that matters. Sure, you could be living in the Matrix and it could be in your best interest to dive off the Empire State Building, but you aren't going to make any decisions based on that premise. Nor are you going to act on the possibility that the only way to save the universe from popping out of existence is to suck Ozzy Osbourne's dick. Sure, sucking Ozzy's dick makes perfect sense if there's even a remote chance that the universe will pop out of existence if you don't, but you act on the premise that there isn't even a remote possibility of that happening.

Peter P says

Not proof. But observations. The "fact" that "reality" fits into formulas further illustrates that it is a matter of linguistics.

If you get ridiculous, nothing is provable, not even a priori matters. You might as well argue that this proof that the square root of two is an irrational number is incorrect. After all, all proofs are based on assumptions, even this one is based on the assumption that there are no contradictions in mathematics.

If you're going to accept that nonsense then the word proof becomes meaningless and you end up not being able to do jack shit like formally verifying the correctness of the code running the nuclear reactor, so you don't, and the reactor goes critical killing millions. Best not to be ridiculous.

Heraclitusstudent says

A computer thinking about high level concepts means it has a model of these concepts.

Not necessarily. It can pick up nuances without structures. Concept is a matter of language. It does not require a model.

Mathematics is about taking certain things as granted.

Evidence still has a place in life. It alters the expected payoff of any bet or speculation.

Even formally verified systems can fail due to factors outside of that formal system. At some point, you have to draw a line and accept some unknowns.

Remember, the set of axioms is either incomplete or inconsistent.

Dan8267 says

Nor are you going to act on the possibility that the only way to save the universe from popping out of existence is to ...

To me, the universe going out of existence has the same negative payoff as me being struck by lightning. I still walk in the rain.

Peter P says

It can pick up nuances without structures. Concept is a matter of language. It does not require a model.

Vacuous pontification.
Explain how you can represent concepts, including language, in the memory of computer without structures.

Peter P says

Remember, the set of axioms is either incomplete or inconsistent.

Godel's theorem is restricted to mathematical first order logic in its common formulation.

All it shows is that there are paradoxes, which happen only for knowledge about knowledge itself. Paradoxes don't happen in the physical universe, nor in arithmetic.

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

It can pick up nuances without structures. Concept is a matter of language. It does not require a model.

Vacuous pontification.

Explain how you can represent concepts, including language, in the memory of computer without structures.

Data structures are probably needed to implement various AI algorithms and supporting systems.

However, concepts are not necessarily modeled in formal constructs.

Heraclitusstudent says

Paradoxes don't happen in the physical universe, nor in arithmetic.

Only because the modernist/reductionist/positivist understanding of reality does not allow them.

Peter P says

However, concepts are not necessarily modeled in formal constructs.

You are aware that everything in the memory of a computer is a formal construct, right?

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

However, concepts are not necessarily modeled in formal constructs.

You are aware that everything in the memory of a computer is a formal construct, right?

There are:

1. Constructs designed by human intelligence to implement AI, such as chips, memory, arrays, data structures

2. Constructs formed by AI to perceive/comprehend/reason/speculate

(2) are not necessarily formal structures.

For example, we need to use "formal constructs" to implement algorithms, e.g. a denoising autoencoder.

However, the machine does not need models about features to extract information regarding such features from an image.

Peter P says

2. Constructs formed by AI to perceive/comprehend/reason/speculate

(2) are not necessarily formal structures.

You don't know much about programming, do you?

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

2. Constructs formed by AI to perceive/comprehend/reason/speculate

(2) are not necessarily formal structures.

You don't know much about programming, do you?

What kind of AI are you building?

Peter P says

What kind of AI are you building?

One based on programming structures, like other programs.

Peter P says

This is why we must live at the frontier of its development. He who controls AI controls the human destiny.

Not even sure if the frontier is needed. The current development of personal digital assistants, already have a lot of implementation arcs where in effect, an organization can add more work while also laying ppl off. In the past, that strategy usually failed because customers became aware that their support efforts went downhill, as well as the general quality of work. Thus, a loss of let's say 25% of a firm's staff, usually resulted in a loss of output. In only a few short years, it'll be more like a 25% layoff will not only add to the bottom line but also increased output for those who're left behind. Add a few more product generation cycles on this and soon, we'll have a very limited white collar workspace.

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

What kind of AI are you building?

One based on programming structures, like other programs.

IMO, there are several types (stages) of Artificial Intelligence:

1. Programs (written in a programming language), you give the machine exact instructions to perform a task

2. Supervised Machine Learning, you teach a machine what things are

3. Unsupervised Machine Learning, the machine teaches itself with or without your guidance

Obviously, (3) is the most interesting because machines can move beyond its programming. This is where true emergence can occur.

Which one are you talking about?

There are other interesting views on intelligence. Some equate it with entropy maximization. Perhaps the universal will-to-power is all about maximizing future possibilities?

So exciting! :-)

This video is intriguing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL0Xq0FFQZ4

Rin says

Add a few more product generation cycles on this and soon, we'll have a very limited white collar workspace.

Pretty much jobs will no longer exist. Soon enough, machines can do practically anything a human can do, only better and cheaper. Moreover, self-replicating robotic law enforcement can maintain peace in ANY environment, effectively and without moral confusion.

It is going to be interesting. :-)

Peter P says

Obviously, (3) is the most interesting because machines can move beyond its programming. This is where true emergence can occur.

Which one are you talking about?

(2) and (3) are always included in (1). They are programs like any other.
(2) and (3) are both necessary for intelligence. They just play different roles.

Heraclitusstudent says

Peter P says

Obviously, (3) is the most interesting because machines can move beyond its programming. This is where true emergence can occur.

Which one are you talking about?

(2) and (3) are always included in (1). They are programs like any other.

(2) and (3) are both necessary for intelligence. They just play different roles.

Yes, they build on one another. (2) and (3) are programs but not in the same sense as (1). You as the programmer further removed from the problem (as its solver) in (2) and (3) then in (1).