With the jaw-dropping magics of Hollywood portrait to all humans every year, I can't help to wonder how will the future looks like for robots & AI.
While some can argue that robots and AI are partly of two separate categories, this is where we discuss how 20-50 years down the road, whether those two are really different, or by then had merged into one entity.

On the general knowledge of the public, the opinions on the best robots today varies alot.
By usage, the best robots would be those in manufacturing factories, making cars and other jobs that would be troublesome for humans.
By research, perhaps its about those bi-pedal robots that were developed to mimic the human beings.

The same goes with AI.
Best of all AI? Perhaps its that chess computer.
Usage-wise? It depends again on what humans want them to do.

Then if we look into the future, its not possible that whatever we see in those sci-fi flicks, to become a reality.
From the human-like robots that is equipped with AI mimicking human emotions & mingle around with us everyday, to the human-robots/AI war possibility, due to the AI assuming position that humans are doing more harm to our planet than preserving them for the later generations.

This post has been edited by firedauz: Jul 1 2009, 01:31 PM

bi pedal humanoid robot is probably the worst type of robot there is out there if you've ask me.

Why walk when you can put wheels on yourself? Why build a head when you can contain everything within a 'torso' unit and protect with tons and tons of armor?

Reason for them to exist is technologist want to make them more 'human'. Logical perspective into consideration like cost, efficiency etc. Humanoid robot IMO is best used as, guess what? A non-organic pet

Artificial Intelligence is well, artificial. It's all scripted and the robot simply follows a logic path. A scenario in I-Robot where the main character(Will Smith) fell into the water with another small kid. The robot rescued him instead of the kid because analysis worked out that he has a better chance of survival and in that kind of scenario, all AI with the same code/script/design will do the same thing. Human intelligences permit other outcome to such scenario even if we're given the odds of survival.

Self learning robot is still far from reality. Scientist claim they're able to make robot learn by themselves. I take another scenario. A self-learning robot picks up a cube, using sensor and determined it as a cube, what if I remove the programming that was placed inside of it's processor before activation to recognize cube? Well, the bot can take out the encycloped... oh wait, do they even know what a book is?

What's behind the scene that drives human intelligence is something eluded scientist. I don't believe we're anywhere near in developing it, let alone perfecting it. Robots and AI still need the creator, us(humans) to give them the power of thought. The infamous fictional Skynet can be a reality one day, it's dangerous to have too much intelligence(even artificial one) minus the proper amount of humanity backing it up.

Some videos of robotics R&D:

+1..
We humans need to create a brain that functions like a human brain for the robots to function like us and we are nowhere close to that..
The human brain is way too complex to be constructed..

ya.. agree.. so its IMPORTANT

Folks,

Are you thinking like as SCIENTIST or ENGINEER??

A) SCIENTIST

This does not pass the TURING test. Hence, this is NOT AI.

B) ENGINEER

What can I use this for?? Who cares if this is not 100% AI??

http://store.irobot.com/category/index.jsp...09_floorwashing

I am waiting for the floor washing robot to be reliable enough for me to buy a few at home. And, when the price went down to USD $200, we can replace quite a few of those foreign maids.

Dreamer

Well, we're not talking about just any robot that fulfill a single role, it's more about robots that have sentient mind without artificial scripts programmed by human.

SeaGates,

Here we go again.. If it works, who cares whether it is SENTIENT??

Now, what is SENTIENT to begin with??

Awareness?? Consciousness?? Most human beings live like a robot to begin with. Aka with no awareness and consciousness.

Given that some human being only fill one role to begin with. Aka, sweep the floor. So, why should we expect the robot to go above that??

<<without artificial scripts programmed by human. >>

We are BRAIN WASHED aka PROGRAMED by our society and education system aka human being. So, how different is this from robot anyhow??

You are DEBATING from philosophical standpoint aka SCIENTIST point of view. I am looking from Engineering aka FUNCTIONAL MODEL. If it works, I do not care what is inside.

Dreamer

To all.

What dreamer101 meant is this:









































Sure, you're a human.







































But compared to an A.I built robot, what makes you think you ACTUALLY have a soul?

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Jul 7 2009, 01:39 AM

and feelings too

vivienne85,

1) How many human beings CHOOSE to feel to begin with??

2) Philosophically, how many human being choose to LIVE instead of pure existence only??

Are you LIVING now??

Most human beings ONLY exists. They live without DREAM or PASSION. They just exists. So, there is NO DIFFERENT between most human being and robot.

So, do you LIVE or EXIST?? Do you know the difference??

Before you start flaming me, I spent substantial amount of time studying psychotherapy. And. the MAJOR problem with most people is they CHOOSE not to feel.

Dreamer

dude...i am not flaming you...
dun be so perasan abt it...

This post has been edited by vivienne85: Jul 7 2009, 11:49 AM

All humans choose to feel . You are lying if you say humans dont feel. Its just different kinda emotions humans experience. That is all.

So what if you spent substantial amount studying psychotherapy. That doesnt make you an immediate expert in this topic.

People chose to NOT FEEL at certain situations not all situations. So your arguement is baseless

have a nice day

What's with all the post bashing in a science labs? Dreamer merely state his view from the engineering point of view which is valid.


Anyway, I don't think robots and AI are the same thing, and this topic is somewhat ambiguous.
Robots can include a variety of things including those robotic arms that put pieces together in an assembly line, or those explorer bots that are sent into narrow/dangerous-to-human places to search for survivors. In essence, robots carries out a series of pre-programmed task.

What is AI on the other hand is still a highly debatable subject. The arguments about souls, feelings, sentient, minds, they are all part of the big debate about AI if anyone is interested to talk about.
The Turing Test which is essentially propoesed to test for machine intelligence has been conceived since 1950 and until now none has been able to passed the test. This just shows how little we understand about AI and how far away we really are from those sci-fi books and movies. Btw I don't agree with the Turing test concept, I'm a strong proponent of the Chinese Room Argument.

So what is Artificial Intelligence?
Are we just commenting on those seemingly intelligent robotic pets that can response to their owner or otherwise show their moods on lcd screens or those AI bots on the internet that you can apparently chat with?

Biological creations are the best model ever. Be it physically(hardware) or mentally(software). Why aren't human or any living objects moving with wheels-like limb in the first place ?

One of the good example I found is the one developed by Boston Dynamics.




Even when we talk about A.I , an ideal A.I itself is trying to imitate some/little human mind/brain functions like you said self learning.

I like the way Michael Crichton wrote about A.I and nanotechnology in Prey.

A frequently mentioned reason for the likelihood of human-equivalent AI being created within decades rather than longer is the fact that affordable computing power is approaching most estimates of human brain processing power.

100 billion neurons firing at 200 Hz — this is a basic neurological fact. Yes, there are many additional shades of complexity, including dendritic spines, neurotransmitter concentrations, and so on. Still, all of these put together seem to change the estimated computational requirements by no more than 2-3 orders of magnitude.

I can tell that I am speaking with an ideologue when they are unaware of the facts mentioned above, are informed of them, but that information then has no impact whatsoever on their subjective probability estimates of human-equivalent AI being created in the next few decades. Many people seem to act as if computing power has no influence whatsoever.

In contrast, Ray Kurzweil, Hans Moravec, and some other advocates of strong AI have seemingly acted as if computing power is everything — that when we have human-equivalent computing power, we’ll immediately have human-equivalent AI. That is wrong too.

It is easy to take the middle path. Particularly when the notion of human-equivalent computing power being available is combined with neural data from extremely high-resolution brain scans (a brute force argument for the eventual plausibility of human-equivalent AI if there ever was one), critics begin to sound incredulous when they do not revise their probability estimates for AI whatsoever.

One particular confused meme that has been making the rounds for decades is the notion that some fundamental breakthrough in computing would be necessary to implement human-equivalent AI. A digital computer can simulate any possible analog signal, as long as it has the computing power — the inverse is not true. This is proven thousands or millions of times daily as old VHS and other magnetic tapes are converted into the digital medium.

If I had a computer faster than most expert estimates of human brain computing power and an extremely high resolution scan of the human brain, the burden of proof would be on the critics to say why I couldn’t create a human-equivalent AI immediately. The objections here tend to circulate around dualism, mysticism, biology-worship, quantum mumbo-jumbo, etc.

Yet, if we had sufficiently high-resolution scanners, we could just copy the brain’s design without understanding it.

People can't help themselves to NOT feel, dreamer101.

To LIVE, they have to stop worrying about SURVIVAL.

I've said earlier, specialist robot is the best for what it do. The entire sentience thingy is related to creating a robot that THINKS like a human and not for only a specialist purpose.

We are programmed by our society and education system, but we can still defy and question what has been said. Given an AI with 10000 times the power of a single human brain, they wouldn't conceive basic thoughts that sparks many scientific breakthrough we've seen. AI is still a piece of software that will work only within it's parameter.

Well this topic is about robot and AI anyway, I was discussing about AI and since you do not care I don't think you should be discussing anything about it, no?

1) Everybody can feel, and inevitably they can't escape feeling everything around them. The only way to defy that law is to live in a state of denial but when it's in denial it's a world fabricated out of one's fantasy, that's no longer science.

2) Existence is physical, meaning if you're dead, people still know you. Living is part of existence.

You said most, that means not all, and with the option to CHOOSE to feel or not that's the biggest difference between us and an AI system. AI system can't be selective in what it absorb; A chess playing AI will never put up a bluff in a poker game UNLESS it's scripted to do so.

Biological creations are the best model only when they fit the intended function. I am saying a bi-pedal robot is the worst possible design in specialist function because they're made into jack of all trade.

I gave example when I said wheels, now tell me, is running on 2 legs faster than 2 wheels if you were tasked to move through every single city of Europe?

SeaGates,

<<I was discussing about AI and since you do not care I don't think you should be discussing anything about it, no?>>

You as in all other SCIENTIST type is trying to create AI in an image of HUMAN BEING. But, why??

There are MORE THAN one way to view and define INTELLIGENCE.

From Engineers' point of view, as long as something FUNCTION intelligently, we do not care whether it use the same method as human being.

<<AI system can't be selective in what it absorb;>>

Who say so?? Human being IGNORE things and event all the times. That is ONE of the greatest sign of intelligence. Knowing what is important.

<<I gave example when I said wheels, now tell me, is running on 2 legs faster than 2 wheels if you were tasked to move through every single city of Europe?>>

If you are SUPERMAN, it won't matter.

Dreamer

Guys. Dreamer 101 has a point.

The question here is simple:

Just because you're a human, what makes you think that you have a soul, compared to an A.I. built robot?

+1..
We may be able to copy the brain design in the future yet we may not be able to understand the intricate design of the brain completely.

This post has been edited by vivienne85: Jul 8 2009, 09:45 AM

true AI will need to be able filter out noise from information (ignore certain things, if you will) even more than humans due to their higher sensitivity sensors.

true AI will also need to notice things outside of their design parameters and report back anomalies. how that is to be achieve, i have no idea, perhaps some form of neural network decision making system.

lin00b,

From a SCIENTIST POV, it is interesting to argue and define what TRUE AI is.

But, for an ENGINEER POV, FAKE AI or not close to 100% AI might be more useful.

For example, we may not be doing a TRUE 100% HUMAN EQUIVALENT robot. But, replacement mechanical heart is keeping many people alive.

So, the QUESTION is

A) Is it MORE POWERFUL and FUNCTIONAL to create 100% TRUE AI??

Or

B) Create something that work along human beings that EXPAND and AMPLIFIES human processing and thinking power??

The same question is posed on the robotic side too. Bionic arms and legs and so on...

SCIENTIST like to argue and debate until the hell freeze over.

Engineer tend to ask what give us BEST FUNCTION and PERFORMANCE with the technology that we have now.

I just want a robot to wash my floor. And, I am still waiting....

Dreamer

for low level job, yes, simple programming is adequate. what about a robot to take care of a baby? or to maintain a factory? explore uncharted area?

Assuming we managed to do that, doesn't that mean we just cloned the human brain? Would you call that artificial intelligence or just an artificially created human brain?


IMHO I think the fundamental advantage of AI is the ability to learn and adapt to new task/environment.
Application wise this means the same floor washing robot can also be taught to mow the lawn or a variety of other tasks by some simple instructions/examples similar to how you'd perhaps teach a human child. Of course from the Engineering POV, Dreamer's right, AI hasn't reach such level of technology yet to be applicable.

---

Added on July 8, 2009, 3:55 pmA certain amount of computing power can be thought of as equivalent to the human brain processing power if we assume the human brain processing power to be a roughly finite number, nothing wrong about that.


So are you taking the middle path?
A lot of computing power appears to be great but is it the essential ingredient in order to have intelligence?
As a programmer I do not see how by just having much more computing power is considered as intelligent since the computer only executes what it is programmed to do.
Some have suggested it's not the amount of teraflops of computing power but the amount of information that can be stored, retrieved and reconstructed that give rise to intelligence i.e. the memory prediction hypothesis.
If such is really the case, then the amount of computing power becomes irrelevant as to when we'll be able to develop human-equivalent AI. We may just need the right neural structure or perhaps the right language to write an AI program.


No, the burden of proof would be on the proponent of the idea to proof that it has the intelligence equivalent of a human, or it's just another faster computer or fancy machinery. That's what the Turing Test is for - to test for machine intelligence.

This post has been edited by tgrrr: Jul 8 2009, 03:55 PM

Why you asked? It's nature for human to explore every possibility. Why don't you ask the scientist who are pursuing the same thing too?

Yes you're right and you're just bringing back all my points that artificial intelligence is different from human intelligence(I already said something along that line in my 1st(2nd in thread) post).

Human being IGNORE things and event, but can an AI system do that, give enough confusing/clashing input to an AI system and it'll crash. Human simply takes a time out and slowly figure out everything. If I were to bet on whether an AI system or a human brain is able to come out with the theory of everything, I put my bet on the human brain. If you feed an AI system both law of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, it won't come up with anything like String Theory.

Scientist don't obey the rule of engineering that 'if it works, why fix it?' Science QUESTION everything. What is there to discuss here if everybody just say forget it since everything is working, why fix it?

And superman is the most irrelevant thing I've read in this thread so far. It's being totally ridiculous.

We're not discussing soul here, but human intelligence and comparison of AI to human intelligence.


Already answered you on the first quote.

Computing power is the shortcut to human like intelligence, the computer generates all the possible outcome of an event and choose the best. Very basic AI system still uses this pure brute force method.

Somehow, I feel that this thread doesn't have a clear direction.
And the TS ain't providing any further input or guidance beyond the first post ain't helping either.
We'll just end up wasting our time and energy continuing this headless debate.

I read a few months back that some group in Japan is trying to make a real working life size Gundam... as close as possible to a real one. But the furthest they got was on the movement, nothing else so far... must be a billions wasted on trying to make a robot ...

SeaGates,

<< Yes you're right and you're just bringing back all my points that artificial intelligence is different from human intelligence(I already said something along that line in my 1st(2nd in thread) post).

Human being IGNORE things and event, but can an AI system do that, give enough confusing/clashing input to an AI system and it'll crash. >>

You are using HUMAN INTELLIGENCE view point to judge AI. Is that the RIGHT WAY to do it??

Human has PROCESSING POWER running at low speed at much less than 1KHz. Computer is running at above 1GHz aka 1 million times faster. Human is good at ignore things and focus on key stuff. Computer is good at look at and processing multiple things very very fast. Those are just the basic differences.

So, if we want to use computer to function INTELLIGENTLY, we would not let computer work the same way as human. Aka emulating human being.

Are we going about the WRONG WAY to begin with?? Aka, this is NOT the best way to approach computer based INTELLIGENCE. We need to think outside the box of HUMAN INTELLIGENCE.

This has been going for 20+ years. And, we have seen very little break through in this area. We might be going the wrong way all this times.

I do not have the RIGHT answer. Intuitively, I feel that computer based intelligence is SUBSTANTIALLY different from any kind of human based intelligence in term of processing.

Dreamer

Yes. In the past, a lot of focus has been on processing power, getting more and more processing power. But in the end does it really answer how does more processing power give rise to intelligence.
One can say by using brute force, but the Chinese Room Argument clearly highlights proof of intelligence has to include proof of the machine being capable of comprehension or perhaps even self-awareness before it can be said as having any kind of intelligence.

thats why its ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. ie, to emulate human intelligence. we already have computer intelligence.

first huddle is to find some algorithm to assign importance to stuff so the AI will know what to ignore, what to focus, what to KIV, and what to forward to seek advise from others.

lin00b,

It is ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. It is NOT ARTIFICIAL HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. So, it does not have to emulate HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. So, some people are studying INSECT INTELLIGENCE and try to emulate that.

Dreamer

I'm curious though, whats the definition of soul and why can't AI somewhat emulate that?

i would guess thats its a case of start simple, then move up? first insects, then other complex animals (fish?dogs?) and finally human?

No I think insect intelligence or swarm intelligence is a bunch of independent simple units that interacts with each other and the environment and producing a self-organizing and seemingly intelligent behaviour. It's like the main antagonists in the "Prey" by the late Micheal Crichton. For example some ant species can build monumental and very architecturally challenged structure without having the same kind of human intelligence.
Perhaps the simplest account of self-organizing behaviour is prey flocking, where simple-minded organism will flock together in the presence of predator and apparently confuse predator from isolating out and attacking individual prey.

Hmm I wonder how that would work trying to program algorithms to mimic insects and confuse predators ... hmm

Somehow I have the feeling that success using swarm behaviour is discovered through trial and error. Which means that the particular organism should have enough intelligence to see merits in that systems and to continue such a behaviour and even pass in down to the next generation.

This post has been edited by Thinkingfox: Jul 10 2009, 02:37 PM

But if they are pure trial and error, there would be many failures before they get one that's works and nature is seldom that inefficient. Like for example those 8 meters tall termite monoliths built by 1cm size termites.
The interesting thing is, even if they had the whole blueprint in their DNA, they still need to coordinate their building effort, or a loop sided structure can easily go tumbling down.

U have a point la. WHile the day to day lives of the insects seem general as a whole, its as if theres some kind of intelligence governing these long term aspects like hive building.

I'm sure it's not pure trial and error, but also governed by instincts. But I'm also quite sure not all ants build structures which are identical, right? I'm sure the same species in different areas (with different environments) have slightly different methods of doing things. These differences are probably due to different results from trial and error.

Thinkingfox,

I assume that when you say INSTINCT, you meant what is programed in the DNA. Now, given that we have LITTLE KNOWLEDGE as what most of the human being's DNA do, how do we know that our INTELLIGENCE is not based on INSTINCT aka programed by DNA??

We do not know. Human intelligence might just be a computer will a huge program based on DNA's information.

Dreamer

---

Added on July 11, 2009, 11:02 pmThinkingfox,

I assume that when you say INSTINCT, you meant what is programed in the DNA. Now, given that we have LITTLE KNOWLEDGE as what most of the human being's DNA do, how do we know that our INTELLIGENCE is not based on INSTINCT aka programed by DNA??

We do not know. Human intelligence might just be a computer will a huge program based on DNA's information.

Dreamer

This post has been edited by dreamer101: Jul 11 2009, 11:02 PM

We haven't yet clearly define what is intelligence.
The definition of trial and error itself imply there could be some kind of learning process, whereby the same error is not repeated and this could very well indicate some kind of intelligence.
But many other animals could have the same kind of intelligence, except they are made of a single organism.

Anyway those termites monolith are regarded as one of the seven natural architectural wonder of the world.
The rough comparison given is humans would have to be building 1km tall skyscrapper but human can't scale walls and I'm no architect so I can't verify that.

Thats pretty cool, but it doesnt walk yet. I can't wait to see the one that actually walks... but that would cost incredible amounts of money to do. I mean honda just has a walking on that costs billions, it would be astronomical to see this large one walking... wow.. thanks

i suppose to make it walk would just be a matter of upscaling asimo (yes, i make it sound a lot easier than it is); making it fly, and putting a fusion reactor in it, add a beam gun and lightsaber, thats the tough part

When I watched the terminator since last time until the sarah connor's chronicles, what i can see is that the most advantages that a cyborg has is emotional-proof.
If they have a target or objective they will do it without having the emotional or feelings affected their way. They have a strong mind because they don't have emotions.
This means a human who don't have emotions can be considered as robot? hehe

When I see all these kind of films (robots, cyborg, artificial intelligence) it made me want to learn more about myself.

This post has been edited by hazairi: Jul 13 2009, 06:40 AM

Developing AI brain is very hard..there are many method..one of them is the neural network..last time, my final project is based of neural agent using C++ for driving automation in simulation where it can learn from the past and copy it from sensor to its hard drive..damn hard..but manage to get thru..that is the only software part, but for the hardware..true humanoid form must mimic human body exactly to function like human..

We do not know for sure, yet. But our ability to learn and improve our technologies, shows, to some extent, that we do not know all at once. If the human intelligence is a computer with a huge programme based on DNA, why did we have to progress in stages? For example, if we knew that it would be more efficient to use electrical engines, why did we ever use steam-engined trains? And why did we use magnetic computer storage instead of using blue-ray or the best possible technology immediately?

Thinkingfox,

Based on the BEST available research, normal people only use 3% of their brain. Genius like Einstein use 6% of his brain. So, even in the best case, 94% of our brain is UNUSED. So, it is entirely possible that our so called learning is NOTHING but discovering and using part of our brain that we have not used.

For example, we do not know how to use electricity is because we have not discover the knowledge about electricity in our brain.

So, we do not know for sure. It STILL can be pre-programed....

Read MORE science fiction stories. All those possibilities have been explored extensively in fictions.

Dreamer

You said normal people only use 3% of the brain, may I know according to what method did the researchers arrive at that percentage?

This post has been edited by Thinkingfox: Jul 13 2009, 08:18 PM

Thinkingfox,

I thought they use MRI to scan the brain. But, the point is STILL VALID. We DO NOT KNOW how much of our brain is used. And, a lot of our so called "KNOWLEGDE" could be something that is pre-existing in our brain.

Dreamer

AI and robotics are very exciting topics.

http://brainconnection.positscience.com/to...n=fa/brain-myth

This post has been edited by Thinkingfox: Jul 13 2009, 11:26 PM

These figures were made up through MRI scan plotting area with activity peaks. If we only use 3-6% of our brain, why would we need such a big brain to start with?

A simple injury to one tiny part of your brain will kill you and I don't think that support the above mentioned theory at all.

SeaGates,

<<A simple injury to one tiny part of your brain will kill you>>

A simple injury to CERTAIN part of your brain will kill you. While injury to other part of your brain will leave you alive but in a coma state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma

So, we DO NOT USE ALL part of our brain to stay alive.

Dreamer

Maybe it is the way we define 100%.

We can say 100% of our brain which means that 100% of area/volume of the brain is used. But we CANNOT definitely say that we use 100% of the POTENTIAL capacity of the associated area.

How can we say that at a certain age we use 100% and yet later in our lives, we can still learn more things?


ps. keyword is potential, not capacity.

Hi all,

I believe TS should seperate robotic and AI as 2 are different branch and can have their own discussion. Robot do not necessary to be intelligence as our large factory or a small mechanical arm can be consider a robot. While AI is completely another branch of science that research on human brain and how to emulate the human being intelligence.

I believe the 3% brain usage things is a misconceptions as there is a very limited proof on this. Many readings can be found on this and one can judge on his own.

I believe our 'science' is still in a very young age, and using this young knowledge to define another field of knowledge will certainly get a narrow results. Which is why i believe near future AI will be nothing more that a 'field specific'-intelligent-robot, compare to now 'field specific'-robot.

So back to the topic, unless we human matured on our thinkings, i always tend to agree with all the movie's ending, aka to save the earth and all the livings, robot had to resort on mass killing humans...

But how do we quantify potential? Is it measurable? If the 3 or 10% is talking about potential, I'm really interested to know how they arrive at the figure because from my Googling, I have yet to stumble across any of such articles.

And we also do not know how our brain is being used.
I'm disappointed nobody is interested in memory-prediction framework hypothesis.

True. What sort of parameters justify this quantification? Or is it just blindly measuring neurons firing electrochemical signals in the brain, or heat generated from use??

i think...how deep u think into something defines how much u used ur brain... so it aint constant...
its like someone telling u... "Use ur brain IDIOT"...means u have to think more..

AND FYI.. AI doent think... If they could think. they would have created a better themselves and invent stuff.. that will be like LOLZZ

This post has been edited by decarusz: Jul 17 2009, 05:07 PM

It's a myth. We use 100% of our brain. The idea that we only use 10% of our brains is probably such an enduring myth because it's comforting to think we have spare capacity. The 'unused' 90% could take up the slack after brain injury or offer the possibility for miraculous self-improvement. This flexible factoid has been used not only to sell products to enhance our brain's performance, but also by psychics like Yuri Geller to explain mystical cutlery bending powers.

1.If we only use 10% of our brains then damage to some parts of our brains should have no effect on us. As any neurologist will tell you, this is patently not true.

2.From an evolutionary perspective it is highly unlikely we developed a resource-guzzling organ, of which we only use 10%.

3.Brain imaging such as CAT, PET and fMRI shows that even while asleep there aren't any areas of our brain that completely 'switch off'.

4.Parts of the body that aren't used soon shrivel and die. Same goes for the brain. Any neurons we weren't using would soon shrivel and die.

The structure of the brain and its metabolic processes have also been carefully examined, along with the diseases that afflict it. None of this work has suggested there is a hidden 90% that we're not using. Unfortunately.

Anyone who still maintains we only use 10% of our brains after this fusillade of fact has to come up with a counter-argument for each one of these. Actually, you might argue that imaging technology is rubbish or the neurons are only working at 10% capacity, but refuting all four, taken together? Now that's tricky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth

erm... have any of you guys here watched The Matrix? I kinda like their concept there about AI...

lol, i like this post. B) FTW!

anyway, instead of focusing on how complex/fast we can get a single AI unit to be, why add up multiple albeit simpler units. Bah, i suck at putting my thoughts in coherent words. here:



From Simple Rules, Complex Behaviour

Add the conclusions generated from the trial & error by the simple units, and whala, a reasonable learning mechanism. Sort of like getting 10 ppl with IQ of 20, 10 x 20 = 200 IQ, genius!!!

It'll be really ineffecient, but hey, someone wanted their super maybe sentient AI.


This post has been edited by ngwinnie: Aug 1 2009, 12:59 AM

if we can emulate the way the brain of human babies work, maybe we will create a truly learning AI...

there is an effort of emulating human brain called The Blue Brain Project which is the first comprehensive attempt to reverse-engineer the mammalian brain, in order to understand brain function and dysfunction through detailed simulations.

http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/

Actually, I think that movies like Terminator serve as warnings to us. You see, AI are getting more and more intelligent. Even human chess players can't beat the super computer AI chess player any more. Well, of course, why worry? It is only chess right? But you see, can chess be considered a kind of virtual war game? Since Ai can master this virtual war game so well, who dare to guarantee that one day later AI will not master the technics of realistic wars? If their intelligence really achieve to that extent, we humans are doomed. What were showed in Terminator will happen to this world. Without us realizing, we are depending more and more to AI in our daily lifestyle. Of course, scientists make more and more intelligent AI to work for us humans to ease our burdens. It seems that their intelligence is directly proportional to our cosy lifestyle. Let us see the relation. Humans are smarter than buffaloes, hence buffaloes work for humans. AI are not smarter than humans (yet), hence AI (still) work for humans. But, what happens when AI is smarter than humans. Do you think they will still be working for us? Or vice versa?

AI aka Artificial Intelligence - a computer that simulate INTELLIGENT LIVING THINGS' BEHAVIOR. In other words, it responsible on simulating something mentally.

Robotics - a machine that simulate INTELLIGENT LIVING THINGS' MOVEMENT. In other words, it responsible on simulating something physically.

---

Added on August 7, 2009, 9:06 amFrom wikipedia:
Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, TO THINK ABSTRACTLY, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn.

A.I. can't think, they just follow the algorithms and rules coded and execute it. So, A.I. can never be smarter than human or any other creature in the universe.

---

Added on August 7, 2009, 9:23 amFor me, A.I. and robotics are both serve as tools that helps human solve their problems.

Scientist will always argue on something stupid and invent or come out with something new from the argument.

Engineer will apply the new proven research from the scientist (not all the time, of course) on something that is useful in life or industry.

Without scientist most probably the progress on improvement of technology will be slowed down while without engineer all the invention from the scientist is just a waste.

So, scientist that argue on making a 100% human intelligence might seems silly but other than that, they most probably found lots of other interesting knowledge that will really helps in improving human's life.

This post has been edited by Dark Lord: Aug 7 2009, 09:26 AM

Agree with tentenko and Dark Lord. AI is just a program, where we define their intelligence. Some industry tend to overuse the word "intelligence" in their product. Like, this equipment is intelligence, it has self-diagnosis system, linked with world wide web, automatic send a email to your account on any information that you want, got this sensor, that sensor. Just plug and play. Very intelligence... Ya, I have heard that many many times.

But the fundamental of this intelligence is just a special program. But for real AI, it is suppose to have self-programming ability, where it can learn new skills (basically the program, rewrite a new program on itself).

Implementation on robotics, like humanoid is still too far-fetching. When the programmer (human) is still unable to program a humanoid that can mimic human movement, like of a soccer player, how are they suppose to write a program, that can self-program on this movement?

About human brain, I think I read, or watch, in ripley before, where a man lost half of his brain due to serious accident. Yet after he recover, he didn't lost his ability to think or move around. So, can we say that we only use 50% of our brain? Maybe our brain has redundancy also... like a back-up or something...

Probably robots will put us all out of work.

any BMI major here?

No BMI major but harnessing brain signals for textual input in Instant Messaging and integrating with Google Glass.

google rich enough to buy all technologies and integrate into products. no difference from microsoft did before.

brain signal to control devices technologies are too common. too many academic students did already

So?

And then?

techonologies become products is good, but will soon enter the stage like mp3 player, very common. more and more api and tailor made chips will be available if one party dominate the market or share. guess taiwan is making this chips now.

area worth to explore further in academic sector, perhaps is to explore the ............back to the basic. that is the hint.

That's a good motivation! So, are you basically inventing the BMI thing?

developed ages ago.

Good! So, what kind of technological developments have you successfully commercialized in the market?

few ones, but secret!

Do you mean to carry the fascinating secret to the grave? Can we buy your inventions?

Making Low-Cost Robots Mimic the Human Hand

This is not the Great Pretender electronic cyborg t.t., but the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), has developed an advanced two-armed robot that can change a tire using a tool. DARPA is planning to design a robot arm and hand that can search for an improvised explosive device by touch.



Via: New York Times