Artificial Intelligence Mind

Why it’s hard to model robots on human behavior

Spread the love

Coloured robot design Free Vector As robotics engineer Ken Goldberg explains,

What has working with robots taught you about being human?

It has taught me to have a huge appreciation for the nuances of human behavior and the inconsistencies of humans. There are so many aspects of human unpredictability that we don’t have a model for. When you watch a ballet or a dance or see a great athlete and realize the amazing abilities, you start to appreciate those things that are uniquely human. The ability to have an emotional response, to be compelling, to be able to pick up on subtle emotional signals from others, those are all things that we haven’t made any progress on with robots.

What’s the most creative thing a robot has done?

One of my favorites is by the engineer and media artist Raffaello D’Andrea. He worked with a sculptor and they designed a chair that would suddenly collapse. There was a pause and then all the pieces would start to move, find each other, and reassemble into a chair. There’s something very elegant about this idea of a chair that’s designed to fall apart and come back together on its own. It brings up all these whimsical ideas of magic and yet it’s a beautiful and very complex machine.Jeanne Carstensen, “Robots Can’t Dance:
Why the singularity is greatly exaggerated.
” at Nautilus

It’s also entirely oblivious, in a way that no life form is.

Yes, that was 2016 but nothing much has changed. It’s a feature.

See also: Hell is a “parasocial” place Where your “friends” may not even exist. Consumer digital hells can be dreadful indeed but they are mostly of our own making. The companies that profit from them are not forcing us to live in them. That said, students should be taught in school that the internet’s virtual world features a great deal of fakery, including fake friends.

Sometimes the ‘bots turn out to be (underpaid) humans That “lifelike” effect was easier to come by than some might think

Will AI liberate or enslave developing countries? Perhaps that depends on who gets there first with the technology. Karl D. Stephan: Zimbabwe, an African country well-known for its human-rights abuses, has received advanced Chinese AI technology from a startup company in exchange for letting the firm have access to the country’s facial-recognition database. So China is helping the government of Zimbabwe to keep tabs on its citizens as well.

So what happened to Google Glass? We are told that the “wetware” (humans) got in the way. It bears repeating: A technology is adopted when it solves problems as identified by users rather than problems as identified by developers.

5 Replies to “Why it’s hard to model robots on human behavior

  1. 1
    FourFaces says:

    Human-level intelligent robots are coming and will surprise everyone, skeptics and scientists alike. But the most surprising thing of all will not be that they have arrived in our lifetimes. The most surprising thing will be where the science of the robot’s intelligence came from. It will blow everyone’s socks off. Just saying.

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    FF, that, I suspect, depends considerably on how you understand intelligence and how it arises. I suggest that computation is not to be conflated with rational, reflective, creative, insightful contemplation. Never mind, that we may very well mechanise and program inference processes. KF

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    a few notes;

    Artificial Intelligence and Human Exceptionalism: Dr. Robert Marks – video (Feb. 2018)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvAg-NY5eQ

    Podcast: (AI) Robert Crowther “Why Artificial Intelligence Will Never Replace Humanity,” Interview with Robert J Marks, ID the Future, December 18, 2017.
    https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2017/12/why-artificial-intelligence-will-never-replace-humanity/

    Podcast: (AI) Robert Crowther “The Dangers, Limits and Promise of Artificial Intelligence.” Interview with Robert J Marks, ID the Future, January 8, 2018.
    https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2018/01/the-dangers-limits-and-promise-of-artificial-intelligence/#more-33468

    podcast – Don’t Raise the White Flag to Our AI Overlords Just Yet – January 22, 2018
    https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/intelligentdesign/episodes/2018-01-22T08_58_45-08_00
    On this episode of ID The Future, computer engineer Robert Marks,,, Yes, computing power doubles every couple of years or so, but Dr. Marks insists that a qualitative gulf separates humans from computers, a difference that no amount of computing power can ever overcome.
    Robert Marks on the Lovelace Test – January 23, 2018,
    Marks explains the Lovelace test which, unlike the better-known Turing test, focuses precisely on this hard limit to what computer algorithms can do. AI cannot, in this sense, truly create.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/robert-marks-on-the-lovelace-test/

    Observation of Unbounded Novelty in Evolutionary Algorithms is Unknowable – 2018
    Eric Holloway and Robert Marks
    Abstract. Open ended evolution seeks computational structures whereby creation of unbounded diversity and novelty are possible. However, research has run into a problem known as the “novelty plateau” where further creation of novelty is not observed. Using standard algorithmic information theory and Chaitin’s Incompleteness Theorem, we prove no algorithm can detect unlimited novelty. Therefore observation of unbounded novelty in computer evolutionary programs is nonalgorithmic and, in this sense, unknowable.
    http://robertmarks.org/REPRINT.....ovelty.pdf

    Robert Marks: Some Things Computers Will Never Do: Nonalgorithmic Creativity and Unknowability – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm0s7ag3SEc

    Of related note: Computers simply can’t do ‘context’! A subjective mind is required in order to take an overall context into consideration.

    A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature – Book Review
    Excerpt: They focus instead on what “Methinks it is like a weasel” really means. In isolation, in fact, it means almost nothing. Who said it? Why? What does the “it” refer to? What does it reveal about the characters? How does it advance the plot? In the context of the entire play, and of Elizabethan culture, this brief line takes on significance of surprising depth. The whole is required to give meaning to the part.
    http://www.thinkingchristian.n.....821202417/

    What Is a Mind? More Hype from Big Data – Erik J. Larson – May 6, 2014
    Excerpt: In 1979, University of Pittsburgh philosopher John Haugeland wrote an interesting article in the Journal of Philosophy, “Understanding Natural Language,” about Artificial Intelligence. At that time, philosophy and AI were still paired, if uncomfortably. Haugeland’s article is one of my all time favorite expositions of the deep mystery of how we interpret language. He gave a number of examples of sentences and longer narratives that, because of ambiguities at the lexical (word) level, he said required “holistic interpretation.” That is, the ambiguities weren’t resolvable except by taking a broader context into account. The words by themselves weren’t enough.
    Well, I took the old 1979 examples Haugeland claimed were difficult for MT, and submitted them to Google Translate, as an informal “test” to see if his claims were still valid today.,,,
    ,,,Translation must account for context, so the fact that Google Translate generates the same phrase in radically different contexts is simply Haugeland’s point about machine translation made afresh, in 2014.
    Erik J. Larson – Founder and CEO of a software company in Austin, Texas
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....85251.html

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”
    – Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010)

    “In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind.,,, Mind is separate from matter.”
    Kurt Gödel – Hao Wang’s supplemental biography of Gödel, A Logical Journey, MIT Press, 1996. [9.4.12]

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    “If you have no God, then you have no design plan for the universe. You have no preexisting structure to the universe.,, As the ancient Greeks held, like Democritus and others, the universe is flux. It’s just matter in motion. Now on that basis all you are confronted with is innumerable brute facts that are unrelated pieces of data. They have no meaningful connection to each other because there is no overall structure. There’s no design plan. It’s like my kids do ‘join the dots’ puzzles. It’s just dots, but when you join the dots there is a structure, and a picture emerges. Well, the atheists is without that (final picture). There is no pre-established pattern (to connect the facts given atheism).”
    Pastor Joe Boot – 13:20 minute mark of the following video
    Defending the Christian Faith – Pastor Joe Boot – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqE5_ZOAnKo

  5. 5

    Here is my summary of a very interesting article on Artificial Intelligence I ran across just a day or two ago.

    https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2018/08/25/mimicking-a-neural-network-an-exercise-in-intelligent-design/

Leave a Reply