Reply With QuoteAs an aside, in other languages the disconnection scene is very very strange.Originally Posted by AlphaOmega
In French it freaks me out slightly. "J'ai peur". The song, appropriately, is Au Clair de la Lune.
http://youtu.be/Gdi5PqMm4jQ
Voice recognition and speech systems are coming on in leaps and bounds and I am pretty sure that next release of Windows will have some of this stuff in it.
Security forces around the world are investing massively in face recognition and companies like Selex already have really good systems for object recognition i.e. number plates and other stuff!!!
As for AI - it will come to some extent,
Music defo, as it can be broken down in to algorithms, ditto activities like riding a bike or crossing the road. The only thing that prevents it today is accuracy and speed of sensors and the ability of computers to crunch the numbers quickly enough to make it real time.
Also people might also be put off by the thought of placing their lives in the hand of a machine, without considering they do this already – aircraft being a very good example.Serioulsy the pilot is only there to comfort the passengers
The future will see more and more robotics performing more and more complex tasks, but will a machine ever become “self aware” in the same way we are, I doubt it unless new technologies are invented – Organic Memory being one.
I suppose the only way to really answer the question whether AI will be achieved is to firstly define what is “intelligence”. If its
logic – then YES , abstractthought – maybe (but only within defined parameters), understanding– YES (providing it has parameters to work within), self-awareness– unlikely (see above), communication – YES, (again depending upon parametersand knowledge base) , learning - YES, emotional knowledge – unlikely (but not really sure what they mean by this) , ,planning – YES , and problemsolving - YES.
Time to start dreaming of electric sheep perhaps.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
As an aside, in other languages the disconnection scene is very very strange.
In French it freaks me out slightly. "J'ai peur". The song, appropriately, is Au Clair de la Lune.
http://youtu.be/Gdi5PqMm4jQ
I worked on voice recognition systems for Air Traffic Control twenty years ago. At that point we had to train the machine to recognise the individuals voice. Any time a controller had a cold or had been down the pub the machine couldn't recognise him or her. I believe that more modern systems use phoneme recognition and some of these systems were tested for inclusion in modern fighter cockpits. Problem is that when the pilot is under environmental stress the place doesn't recognise him or her. I still think we are at the stage where we are asking the human to modify their behaviour in order to get the machine to recognise a command and act in a manner which conforms to the humans expectations. I don't see massive improvements in the technology since, if there were I don't think I would have to use a telephone keypad to interact with a call centre and Apple wouldn't have to many problems with Siri.
They may be investing but I don't see a system that can tell you from me with the same degree of accuracy that my 4 year old son could. If my security or personal liberty is based on a lower hit rate than a toddler then I for one am concerned if there are no checks or balances for such systems. We have already seen drones becoming more and more prevalent - mix this type of technology with flaky recognition and you have a recipe for disaster.
Hmm the devil may be in the detail or in this case extent. Technologists have been over-estimating machine intelligence and capability since the sixties. If they make a claim about intelligence I think that they ought to specify what this is and how they intend to achieve and demonstrate it. Of course this is exceptionally difficult and as far as I can see technologists and scientists have failed to understand human intelligence let alone create any new forms.
Technologists always insist that music is the product of some sort of blind rule following or machine like construction. I can only suppose that they neither play instruments nor compose music. Whilst there are rules for composition, harmony and the craft of composition, the emergent property of music to evolve and rebel against the rules of the last generation to 'revolt into style' is beyond computer composition. Melly argues that all artists rebel against the styles and genres of the previous generation. There is a constant flow of ideas as artists react against previous forms to form new genres - for example expressionism arising from romanticism which arose from classicism etc (apologies for this crass and inaccurate overgeneralisation but it is just an illustration). Computer generated music seems to me to be similar to Mozart's Würfelspiel, it is an emulation of an artistic form which seems to provide endless mechanical (or in this case chance) variation but which relies on a human agent for its creation and composition. The means might be mechanical but the creation is human. I don't see computers composing anything let alone creating artistic movements and genres or revolting against any paradigm to create styles of their own. The same goes for literature which is another art form where unrealistic claims for computer generation have failed to materialise in a convincing manner. In short computers don't understand music, art or literature, why on earth do we think that they could create it?
Also people might also be put off by the thought of placing their lives in the hand of a machine, without considering they do this already – aircraft being a very good example.Serioulsy the pilot is only there to comfort the passengers
Human pilots remain on the flight deck for a very good reason. Whilst simple management of flight is within the limited capability of machines dealing with emergencies and unusual events are not. Pilots are there because they are better at picking up the pieces if and when the machine screws up. Most aircraft themselves are subject to a sophisticated Air Traffic Control System which provides rules and airspace structures for the separation and guidance of aircraft in the air and on the ground. These structures are enforced and maintained by Air Traffic Controllers who again are largely there to ensure that unusual events and emergencies are handled safely. The system is so good that human ATC has maintained a 100% safety record in UK airspace since the late 1940s and I hope it continues to do so even though there is great pressure to automate the system.
The issue are those aspects of humanity which appear to be emergent properties of existence: humour, love, emotion, inspiration, storytelling, artistic creation etc. (the list is long and almost as infinitely varied as human existence itself). You have lumped them all under emotional knowledge and admit that you don't know what they are. I think that most technologists share your confusion and like you they dismiss them as a sort of after-thought. They are too hard to quantify, assess and replicate therefore we just set them aside as some form of flaky human behaviour that is unimportant. I would argue that they are crucial - these are the things that make us human, conscious and intelligent. Without understanding this and addressing it, AI is just another version of the Würfelspiel or the Turk. Clever? Perhaps. Competent? Up to a point. Trustworthy? Not to my way of thinking.
"Eyes Wide Shut" - best Christmas movie ever. Not a great film by any means, but better than some give it credit for.
As for "2001" - saw it for the 1st time as a kid in 1969 and still love it. Have seen it 20+ times and still pull new things out of it. I don't think Kubrick was trying to do anything overly philosophical. He just wanted to take the viewer on a journey no director had ever taken a moviegoer before and make them think a little bit. he certainly did that.
And even with special effects that are over 40 years old, the space scenes still look terrific.
I dreamt about a unicorn last night!
Agreed.
I suppose that any shots of a spaceship flying through a vacuum would be silent. As should a ship firing a laser - although presumably there would be sound in the pressurised cockpit of the craft. Still, any long shots showing combat between two ships should really be in silence, too...
Sounds spot on GQ - at least according to dreammoods.comI dreamt about a unicorn last night!
Unicorn
To see a unicorn in your dream symbolizes high ideals, hope and insight in a current situation. It also symbolizes power, gentleness, and purity.
A real one or a small origami one?I dreamt about a unicorn last night!
As an aside, does anyone (else) remember why the computer was called 'HAL'?
Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer :)
Or was it this one?I dreamt about a unicorn last night!
Or one letter shift to the left from IBM?
Or it means you are a Nexus 6 with implanted memories.
Yes, 2001 was the first film to have 'product placement' hence the PanAm shuttle, Parker pen, and Coke machine in the shuttle. IBM was the sponsor for the computer but got cold feet and didn't want to be associated with a psychotic computer, so the initials were changed.
So, did anyone buy (or still have) the Airfix PanAm Orion III?
What he said! Trying to understand mediums 30/40 years later is impossible. Its like trying to understand Sgt Pepper or Anarchy in the UK unless you were there man don't bother.
I thought Barbarella and Girl on a motor bike were fantastic way back, but they look shit now
The opening scene with Jane Fonda in her bubble getting her kit off is still tweaking at my schoolboy fantasy almost 40 years on...What he said! Trying to understand mediums 30/40 years later is impossible. Its like trying to understand Sgt Pepper or Anarchy in the UK unless you were there man don't bother.
I thought Barbarella and Girl on a motor bike were fantastic way back, but they look shit now
LOL! Awesome costume! :-DOr was it this one?
Posting Permissions
