One thing the world has is an abundance of human minds. We actually do not need machines that think like humans—we have humans. What we need is two other things: machines that do thinking that humans find difficult (like the big number crunchers) and one-off machines that are experimental proofs-of-concept for understanding how a human brain works (like Blue Brain). As far as getting the glory for doing what many said was impossible and unveiling a mechanical human-like intelligence, forget the glory because they will just move the goal posts.
I believe that what is needed is to leave sequential operations and learn how to effectively use parallel operations. This would get close to a human intelligence and would also advance the power of computing of a non-human but useful kind.
I think you are so very right about the importance of prediction. !!! And looking forward to later posts.
One thing the world has is an abundance of human minds. We actually do not need machines that think like humans—we have humans.
Machines for doing dangerous and monotonous work which requires human or near-human levels of perception and judgment such as mining or driving trucks would have a clear utility, even though they’d just be machines that think (somewhat) like humans and would neither do superhuman feats of cognition nor advance the understanding of the mind design space.
One thing the world has is an abundance of human minds. We actually do not need machines that think like humans—we have humans.
We have an abundance of ordinary human minds. We don’t have an abundance of genius human minds. For all I know, machines that thought like Shakespeare or Mill or Newton could be a godsend.
One can make a case that genius is precisely the degree to which one does not think like a human mind (at least in a more useful and/or beautiful way).
Depends how broadly you’re drawing the line around the ‘human mind’ concept. I’d say that since Shakespeare, Mill and Newton’s minds were all human minds, that’s a prima facie case for saying they think like humans.
Well I’d agree we don’t want exact human clones. But then the majority of people don’t want the complex to use computers we have at the moment. Moving from serial to parallel won’t make the computer any easier to use or reduce the learning burden on the user. The beauty of interacting with a human is that you don’t need to know the fine details of how it works on the inside to get it to do what you want, even if it didn’t have the ability to do the task previously. This aspect of the human brain would be very beneficial if we can get computers to have it (assuming it doesn’t lead to negative singularity, extinction of the human race etc).
One thing the world has is an abundance of human minds. We actually do not need machines that think like humans—we have humans. What we need is two other things: machines that do thinking that humans find difficult (like the big number crunchers) and one-off machines that are experimental proofs-of-concept for understanding how a human brain works (like Blue Brain). As far as getting the glory for doing what many said was impossible and unveiling a mechanical human-like intelligence, forget the glory because they will just move the goal posts.
I believe that what is needed is to leave sequential operations and learn how to effectively use parallel operations. This would get close to a human intelligence and would also advance the power of computing of a non-human but useful kind.
I think you are so very right about the importance of prediction. !!! And looking forward to later posts.
Machines for doing dangerous and monotonous work which requires human or near-human levels of perception and judgment such as mining or driving trucks would have a clear utility, even though they’d just be machines that think (somewhat) like humans and would neither do superhuman feats of cognition nor advance the understanding of the mind design space.
We have an abundance of ordinary human minds. We don’t have an abundance of genius human minds. For all I know, machines that thought like Shakespeare or Mill or Newton could be a godsend.
One can make a case that genius is precisely the degree to which one does not think like a human mind (at least in a more useful and/or beautiful way).
Depends how broadly you’re drawing the line around the ‘human mind’ concept. I’d say that since Shakespeare, Mill and Newton’s minds were all human minds, that’s a prima facie case for saying they think like humans.
Well I’d agree we don’t want exact human clones. But then the majority of people don’t want the complex to use computers we have at the moment. Moving from serial to parallel won’t make the computer any easier to use or reduce the learning burden on the user. The beauty of interacting with a human is that you don’t need to know the fine details of how it works on the inside to get it to do what you want, even if it didn’t have the ability to do the task previously. This aspect of the human brain would be very beneficial if we can get computers to have it (assuming it doesn’t lead to negative singularity, extinction of the human race etc).
An AI that acts like people? I wouldn’t buy that. It sounds creepy. Like Clippy with a soul.
I didn’t say acts like people. I said had one aspect of humans (and dogs or other trainable animals for that matter).
We don’t need to add all the other aspects to make it act like a human.