Post by Hannes Vilhjalmsson on Mar 8, 2011 18:13:01 GMT -5
On Monday we will be joined by Kristinn R. Thórisson, who is one of the co-founders of CADIA at Reykjavík university and currently the director of the Icelandic Institute for Intelligent Machines (IIIM). The reading that he has assigned is the following:
Thórisson, K. R. (2009). From Constructionist to Constructivist A.I. Keynote, AAAI Fall Symposium Series: Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures, Washington D.C., Nov. 5-7, 175-183. AAAI Tech Report FS-09-01, AAAI press, Menlo Park, CA.
Post your questions here before Monday and Kris will get a chance to sort through them. Comments and other discussion points are also welcome.
Post by grimurtomasson on Mar 12, 2011 11:15:35 GMT -5
How does moving to a massively parallel meta-programming system affect model checking - verifying that the software system does what it is intended to.
Have there been any studies on the ability of humans to think in terms of a very high level of concurrent processes, small as they may be? In other words, how viable is it to have humans create the bootstrapping part of the general AI?
- Is it possible to convert an already developed constructionist system in a constructivist one or you should start again from 0, throwing away all the code? - Do you think that a general AI could obtain the same result (in terms of efficiency and optimality) than an AI specialized on a specific problem? An example using humans: could a scientist (that have a huge generic knowledge) be better than workers specialized in a particular domain (drivers, mathematicians, artists..)?
Post by kristofer kristofersson on Mar 13, 2011 10:01:30 GMT -5
1. what is HeLD 2. is I disagreeumption right that from the viewpoint of the writer that the A.I programs that we have now are not true A.I's since they are made to do only specific things (today's A.I's are built specifically for a specific problem instead of trying to make an A.I that can learn to do anything) and only a true general A.I that could learn to do anything should be called a true A.I
Post by Ásgeir Jónasson on Mar 13, 2011 10:31:35 GMT -5
Do you think there will be a greater need for systems with general A.I. in the future ? Most A.I. systems today have a specific job to do and only need to be able to do a subset of the things humans can do. So, do you think industry will start to demand systems with more general intelligence ?
The article states that an intelligent system must have a sense of external and mental time and understand how these relate. Has this generally been a big concern in the past when constructing A.I. systems and how greatly does, for example, ASIMO factor in time when making decisions ?
...the annual Robot Challenge competition at AAAI calls for competing teams to create a social robot that, starting at the conference building’s entrance, can locate the registration counter and register for the conference, ﬁnd its way to the proper lecture hall and give a two-minute lecture about itself, as well as take questions from its (all-human, as of yet) audience
Post by Elín Carstens on Mar 13, 2011 17:00:23 GMT -5
1) Would it be possible to verify theories, in psychology and other social sciences for example, using Constructivist methods, where the theories would “emerge” from the system in some way? If so, would the results be considered valid?
2) What kind of new general-intelligence architectures/systems do you expect to emerge from / because of Constructivist methods? Would they be human-/ animal-like or something completely different?
1) In the paper it's written "some developed by the same team during the same periods (e.g. the visual perceptors modules in the Cognitive Map) while others are developed in separate parts of the world by separate companies (e.g. speech recognition)." In your opinion and/or experience, do you think that development works better when it's done by the same team in the same period or when it's developed by seperate companies in seperate places? 2) In these AAAI competitions, are there any AI machines that have performed exceptionally well that you know of? Does the audience have a certain range of subjects that it can question the machine, and if so, what are these subjects?