Jeff Hawkins on Artificial Intelligence - Part 1/5

[koolanator]

I swear, 63,485 views of the total 64,532... were all me! ha-ha. 

[carbidutz]

For an AI person to hear the word "impossible" at the end of the video really puts me of watching the rest of his presentation..

[0biggaj0]

im watching this on my computer 0.0

[GamersDreamGame]

I'm working on a software to make it easy to create artificial brain parts and connect them. It also allows you to modify variables and run methods WHILE running, using reflection. When its done, I'm going to start working on creating an AI so this is very intressting to listen to :D

[michael616joaquin]

@GamersDreamGame You doing that in Python 2.6?

[GamersDreamGame]

@michael616joaquin no, java

[GodsChaingun]

Listen to what he says from 6:30 to 8:05 . Then listen to the researchers in charge of IBM's Watson AI here:

watch?v=d_yXV22O6n4

Amazing how far we're getting.

[PeterDewMedia]

I watched this guy and found the complete film to be inspiring stuff. Subsequently I invented a piece of code in my head one evening called "self aware opcode" - and as far as I found, the 'opcode' did indeed appear to render my laptop self-aware. So I uploaded "self aware laptop" to youtube, now have packard bell and an ibm computer successfully run "selfawaresilicon.exe" too, so it's exciting. However, it needs to be progressed further!

[WorldCollections]

Computers might give us answers, but it seems these will never come up with revealing questions; as those even a child might ask. Certainly, computers don't perceive the world as we perceive it.

[Cryptonic25]

@WorldCollections a more correct wording would be that 'current programs that you are aware of don't perceive the world as we perceive it'. and yes, that's true- but there's no reason for the impossibility of a computer program perceiving the world as we perceive it. But I do ask- why does it need to perceive the world as we do? intelligence takes many forms, and ultimately, it's about problem solving, not semantics.

[kenn]

My intelligence is artificial. ;>

[Theperfectlifechanel]

Hey people,

All MIT courses are available free online. If you're interested in becoming a seed AI programmer, take the 6-3 computer science degree. Its free. and you might make it.

[michael616joaquin]

@Theperfectlifechanel are you serious??

[astroboomboy]

@Theperfectlifechanel Where can I find the courses on AI at MIT? I went to their site, but only found course descriptions. 

[i2aven420]

The next person to say paper tape is getting pistol whipped

[pppoqqq63]

@i2aven420 Paper Tape :)

[daviddalbylive]

A 25 neuron network is smarter than most people and I still cannot make it laugh!

[lvll138inrs]

these faggots. i hate them.

[guadalupejoe1]

@lvll138inrs he might be a faggot but he definitely might be a reptilian as well...see his masking is in an out his face? yep

[FOFFLibs]

Wow! You are an arrogant POS!.. Lies, half truths, and unverifiable babbling.. You are a total Git and Wanker.. ha.. loser.

[mphello]

We've already GOT working robots in society: they're called sheeple.

They slave away for the worthless US dollar and keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. Clearly, they need a major fix.

[jbsegui]

This guy's name is Jeff and definitely he is not Stephen Hawking...OMG!

[Jacory069]

robots will kill humans

[caveatemp]

Amazing. intelligence is holographic. A three year old knows as much as an adult in one sense. Zappa had it right; information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom, wisdom is not truth, truth is not beauty, beauty is not love, love is not music,

MUSIC is the BEST!

[Dynose]

wasnt he in a wheel chair?

[rockyqw12]

@Dynose that's Stephen Hawking.

[averyaccordion]

@rockyqw12 no it is not. Jeff Hawking loks like steven hawking, but he is the founder of Palm Inc. and Steven hawking was 17 when he was speechless and paralysed by a disease. the camera on his glasses track his eye movements, and he has a screen with clusters of letters for different sounds. he lookes at the sound, and the computer speaks it.

[rockyqw12]

@averyaccordion

Dynose: wasnt he in a wheel chair?

@Dynose

rockyqw12: that's Stephen Hawking.

@rockyqw12

Pretentious prick: Fap! Fap! Fap!

[Th3oryOf3v3ryThing]

@averyaccordion

All of your facts are wrong in this post. Seriously, all of them are flat wrong, look it up.

[berlinbrown03]

Awesome

[conoba]

I smell a new nobel price laureate.

[sitandrelax]

Great insight.

[erionmema1]

dumb people. you dont even know how to read your own brain how can you create intelligence !@#$%^&*()_

[UnowMe00]

@erionmema1 they at least can pretend being intelligent. They must be able to create artificial pretend intelligence...

[nevereverBFF]

brains! that's going to be my new word, using it instead of "darn it!" or "crap!"

[ZirconCode]

Thanks a lot for Uploading, Seriously

[pebre79]

@ZirconCode You're welcome! :)

[caughtinalie22]

brilliant lecture! but a child can only tell a dog from a cat after 5 years of conciousness. maybe if you left a computer on that long, it would be able to collect enough "knowledge about the world".

[faunflynn]

@caughtinalie22 Once knowledge is in the substrate of smart machines we can dub it off like cassettes in microseconds. Much better to get all that pre adult screwing around over with as fast as possible. Then we become immortal. Yay !

[Peter1992t]

@LvnAction

Robots and computers are so beautiful...

Besides, your using one right now.

[LvnAction]

I'm tired of man making robots and computers.Create meaningful work for people..

[SixthtySixthSix]

what suggests to you enthusiasts of AI that man can manufacture something of equal (or greater) intelligence value than himself? perhaps you will be satisfied with a squirrel-sized AI? can't we defer to the physical limit imposed as demanding any AI fall short of the order of man? is the order of man clearly defined? yes, evidincedly, mathematically so (i.e.- fibonacci); explicitly however, how could we even identify such for self-reference.

[IntellSpire]

@SixthtySixthSix stop with your defeatist attitude, we don't yet understand nearly enough to make such claims. And besides, what happens when we encounter a weight that's too heavy to lift? WE BUILD A CRANE!

[SixthtySixthSix]

@IntellSpire

i must disagree, this must be easily defined as self-reference, however...

suppose we argue that 2 persons worked on a project, or three, etc...

could a superior number of people satisfy?

i argue that the explicit order or degree of the product could not be advanced beyond man... yes?

[IntellSpire]

@SixthtySixthSix superior number of people COULD satisfy, think about all our technology, no single person could have EVER created everything. Each person exceeds in their own field intellectually, and the sum of all these fields creates the greater whole. I will agree with you when/IF we reach our limit. While im looking at the exponential growth of our technology, i have NO reason to think that we wont meet and exceed all of our own abilities (the crane was just one small piece of the puzzle)

[IntellSpire]

@SixthtySixthSix You could call our technology an extension of ourselves, each new extension allows us to reach even further. Its like compounded interest!

[jchunchu]

A machine can pass Turing test if man cannot differentiate b/w human and machine by asking questions. Sir does this test guarantee us ? i.e. will it not depend upon the person who is asking question. if the knowledge of machine/computer is more than the knowledge of the person who is asking. then i think the person will infer that machine is intelligent .i think intelligent is relative. pls clear my doubt.

[lwanatt]

anyone have any updates for us? its been like two years now.

[DSBrekus]

@lwanatt There is a new lecture he did at UBC, you can find it on youtube, it has some new ideas and information. Sorry in advance if you don't want me replying to a three month old comment :P

[pebre79]

@DSBrekus Thanks for the info DSBrekus. I did see that new lecture. I am still processing all the new insights he presented.

[olympicstyles]

In other words, every single argument in religion, and ethical principles comes down to one premise. Is cause and affect of "things" regardless of the physical laws logical? I would even go further and say that because of this all ethical arguments are ones of religious "right and wrong" and materialist "beneficial and non-beneficial." I've even gone as far as to raise the question "is intelligence important. Is logic logical." Most pious debaters were very contradictory in their answers.

[olympicstyles]

Oh, but it is that simple. A spot is put on a dogs nose. The dog looks into a mirror. The dog doesn't notice the spot. A chimp looks into a mirror. It realizes its looking at itself, and wipes the spot off. The chimp is self-aware. This is all that consciousness is. If we ride the slippery slope down to the partical level, consciousness plays no factor and thus neither does ethics. I am not a true determinist either. The only law is cause and affect of "material" "things."

[BobbynEdward]

All life on Earth collaborated to form higher intelligence; an unbroken line back to our primordial beginnings.

Life cannot be contained, it must burst forth. Consciousness is the same. It cannot be contained (especially within a box of human conception). We look at the wondrous plants and animals of this planet, and know them as myriad expressions of an elemental happening. Maybe consciousness is also a singular event; one that human, technological, planetary, and cosmic are all joined.

[wedizzle04]

wow...your on youtube.  No one cares what you have to say, wether smart or not.

[thomasford]

You cared enough to comment on it.

[moonisveri]

woud it be cool at every people have some artificial intellice on computers

[RymvTheGod]

Human beings, contrary to popular belief, have much less choice of what they are doing than they think.

You, over the course of your whole life, will never make a piece of art with absolutely no influence. As in, you are only changing the nature of something real in your mind in a certain way and re-expressing it changed according to some kind of parameter - something you could definitely teach a machine to do.

[BobbynEdward]

The real creators on this earth are so few and, since their vision is not based upon redundancy, so beyond understanding.

I agree with you though. Just as a snowflake needs a nucleus of dust to form around, an intelligent system needs SOMETHING upon which to begin. Where an AI system would exceed human ability is in the number of imagined implications it could apply to any one idea; it would take us a million years!

[griptapesequel]

NO! AI can never exceed the number of algorithms (imagined implications) that have been input into its one or many processors that would otherwise allow the AI to exceed human ability. This is the reason no AI could ever "take over humanity" save for the POSSIBILITY of the hypothesised "hive mind" phenomena.

[BobbynEdward]

AI systems already do (in a number of different fields from medical diagnosis to stock speculation). Computers achieving 1.026 petaflops, or just over one million billion calculations per second?

The age of quantum computing is just around the corner.

Proposals for quantum computation rely on superposed states implementing multiple computations simultaneously, in parallel, according to quantum linear superposition (e.g., Benioff, 1982; Feynman, 1986; Deutsch, 1985, Deutsch and Josza, 1992).

[Juefawn]

What a about an AI that could re-circuit itself? Would that variable increase the chances?

[BobbynEdward]

A newborn infant's neuro-circuitry is three times as dense as an adults so they can establish routes while experiencing their world (later some connections become more robust as others atrophy). With AI, over design the hardware for the evolving software to utilize.

[MGX890]

they may be intelligent in some logically constructed way but the real human intelligence and conscience, and the idea that robots will have that seems absurd as we have no proper definition or knowledge of human intelligence, and consciousness is a completely different story. We just have ideas.

[Igneous01]

exactly. Humans follow 2 scripts of code, the logical (left side of brain) and creativity, self awareness, and to know that we think (consciousness)

machines can only operate on logical instructions, that dictate how they operate, they cannot choose

[zacharyvince]

consciousness manifests itself naturally as a being becomes more intelligent. and yes, its not necessary that machines will have to have consciousness, but if they simulate the way the brain works then it follows that they will

[BobbynEdward]

Check out The Age Of Spiritual Machines, by Ray Kurzweil (good stuff).

[Juefawn]

Yeah, his other book is excellent as well. The singularity is near.

[BobbynEdward]

Man! That was a great book! I talk about that "Moore's Law" thing all the time.

Have you read Elegant Universe by Brian Greene? (totally off the topic, but still very cool)

[MrBrightSide622]

Ehh ok ok. Don't get mad I was just reading it off of a book.

[MrBrightSide622]

I wish in the future u cud have A. I. Classes in school and you can create an avatar with Artificial Intelligence and you can talk to it and teach it just like u wud teach a child.

[mroddy0862]

Great this is the start of Cyberdyne systems..!!!! LOL

[b0w5er]

dogs have long things at the front. (noses) tell the windows pc that

[fascista1933]

I HAD ENOUGH. I WANT SMART ROBOTS NOW!!!!!!!!! I'm really bored waiting for it.

[faunflynn]

@fascista1933 Me also !

[UnowMe00]

@fascista1933 look for zombies. We will release those bots in our fight against that army!

[segrum]

@fascista1933 Tarotnames will deliver

[ltzul2vi7l]

@fascista1933 maybe you should start developing the robots you want :D

[Juefawn]

@fascista1933 Have you seen the Asmio and Icup projects. We really don't need intelligent robots, all they would do is work for us. We just need machines that can move for us, imagine what you could do if you had a machine that moved because you simply using controls at home? Or even an the slightly hypothetical emg reader?

[gamotousKolalbanous]

@fascista1933 then try to make one

[Omniscientus]

@fascista1933 No, you don't.

[shebotnov]

@fascista1933 apply for phd in robotics.

[shebotnov]

@shebotnov NOW!!!!

[coppersreno]

If you are a logical person then you should realize that human beings are organic artificial intelligences, i.e. made in the image of outside influences based on the physics of the smallest of particles, beings without choice, simply a result of an infinite game of Tetris. "divine creation" "intelligent design" or generally "its to complicated to be explained" doesn't seem to fit in a world that provides us with cause-effect answers to real life problems.

[infectuz000]

That's the most stupid piece of text that I have ever red. It looks fancy at first sight but it's stupid as hell. Congratulations on calling some other dumb fat asses stupider than you.

[qn5r]

lol "ORGANIC" "ARTIFICIAL" intelligences? That's an oxymoron. Tetris wtf????

[empemitheos]

I'm not a supporter of intelligent design but it's not as simple as that. Consciousness has no place in simple chemical reactions and cannot arise by chance in a mathematical way per say. Read up on Godel's incompleteness theories and read The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

[zacharyvince]

agreed, consciousness isnt just chemical reactions - its based in the transferral of electrical signals, but its the whole massive network of these within the brain that allows the manifestation of consciousness

[furQ]

The transferral of electrical signals in the brain is also the product of chemical reactions.

[griptapesequel]

emmm, maybe you didnt finish your degree or something that allows you to say something so ignorant, but, the transferRENCE (not transferral) of electrical signals within organic material (such as the brain) constitutes chemical reaction; so youre comment about consciousness being not just chemical reaction is inaccurate at best.

[zacharyvince]

i'm aware of the fact that the mechanism isn't as simple as being solely electrical or chemical. all i was implying is that consciousness is manifested by the way the brain manages and stores information in all its complexity - regardless of the base mechanism for information transferral which the brain "runs" on.

[MonakoSM]

Alot of people act as if this is stupid when in realty there just to closed minded to even consider the idea of what your sayign to be a realstic turth. Its sad.....

[superdog797]

@coppersreno Hey! But to reply to your comment on Jeff Hawkins - Artificial Intelligence: it's possible that chance has a large influence in our choices too. On the quantum level, it seems randomness may exist. Thus, it could be a dichotomy of randomness vs. determinism, rather than simply determinism.

[johan28]

It seems funny to be that we're building the lifeforms that will replace us, and they're not even human. If we were trying to improve humans the way we improve robots, we'd have to perform genetic engineering and become cyborgs. That will never happen! So what do we do? We do it in a way that won't make us afraid, but ironically, it will ultimately obsolete us. We shouldn't let fear rule us. Do we want to be here in 500 years? Or do we rather want robots to be here?

[ecreif]

i dont really care... if i could watch the world when i am dead i want robots to rule the world in 500 years otherwise it would be boring to watch humans do silly and borings things they already did 500 years ago...

[dojohansen123]

But it's not about life forms - it's about machines. What makes something a living thing is not intelligence but the ability to self-replicate. And intelligence is not emotion, so intelligent machines would not have desires, fears, ambitions, hopes or dreams.

What is scary is that such technology could be extremely powerful, and in the hands of humans who DO have those emotions they could potentially do much good but also much evil.

[kimflie]

the cat/dog thing is definitely possible today

[LetoAtreides82]

Do you know which software/AI can do it?

[deadleg22]

any programming language can replicate A.I. so long as the logic is correct. for basic A.I programming with robots search NXT robots.

[qn5r]

lol Not really AI

[futuregirl45]

good! must watch it again when I am also not simultaneously testing software

[velation]

Actually the reason we know mary wanted the puppy isn't because of any comparison between puppies and windows, it's because of the grammar of the sentence.

[LetoAtreides82]

"I'm not certain about that. The subject could either be the puppy or the window, we assume it's the puppy because we don't care about windows. An AI, with no emotions, would have a hard time understanding this concept.

[retrocareermelted]

that was the most crushing introduction. i feel like an organic robot now haha

[JayTsunDayVis]

got news for you, you are a biological robot.

[BoyintheMachine]

If you are a religious person then you should realize that human beings are organic artificial intelligences, i.e. 'made in the image' of their creator.

[goldensleeves]

This guy makes great points. So many people think consciousness is like invisible magic. I think human thought is just chemistry, but it is very complex and difficult to mimic. It fascinates me to imagine a computer trying to build a brain instead of the other way around. Yet, I think that's exactly what's happening because human brains are a computer trying to build a brain.

[cybernako088]

Heretic Heretic.....you lie to meeeeeeeee.....JK but ya its all true. But i believe that the connections between the soul(a living electrical entity), the brain,and body are the elements for paranormal ability and post-human pontential. I think cells are like living breathing nanobots that are massed together in a organic complex machine.

[DJLorenzen]

very great watch