Can artificial intelligence come alive?

An AI humanoid robot that could "read the room" and decide what to say or not say in a given environment would be very useful. I believe that they can be trained to "read faces," determining the mood of the person(s) with whom they are interacting. In positions as support staff, the ability to respond appropriately to a person laughing, crying, screaming, moaning, griping, etc. could be very beneficial to isolated individuals, in my opinion. "Hey Sophia, I need a hug!"
 

Another worthwhile essay to read on the incredible rise of AI. As noted, last months have been reading and rereading Ray Kurzweil's 2014 best seller How to Create Mind. He also leads Google's AI science work. A key development the last 2 decades has been the discovery that our human neocortex brains are not wired as was previous expected by neuroscience but rather is a 6 layer structure of 350 million or so repeating similar cortical columns that each have myriad interwoven identical sub-units of about 100 neurons that are essentially empty at birth and are filled by our experiences and learning via neural plasticity dendrite connections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocortex

Thus the old narrative of IQ is far less relevant and instead what we become is more dependent on how and what we fill our mind's with. That is why some with high IQ's end up so illogical with flawed thinking, garbage in garbage out. It is this new understanding that when implemented in AI that is exploding by self learning processes those designing AI per below have limited understanding of.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...e-learing-natural-language-processing/661401/

Science fiction, and our own imagination, add to the confusion. We just can’t help thinking of AI in terms of the technologies depicted in Ex Machina, Her, or Blade Runner—people-machines that remain pure fantasy. Then there’s the distortion of Silicon Valley hype, the general fake-it-’til-you-make-it atmosphere that gave the world WeWork and Theranos: People who want to sound cutting-edge end up calling any automated process “artificial intelligence.” And at the bottom of all of this bewilderment sits the mystery inherent to the technology itself, its direct thrust at the unfathomable. The most advanced NLP programs operate at a level that not even the engineers constructing them fully understand.

But the confusion surrounding the miracles of AI doesn’t mean that the miracles aren’t happening. It just means that they won’t look how anybody has imagined them. Arthur C. Clarke famously said that “technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.” Magic is coming, and it’s coming for all of us. But the sorcery of artificial intelligence is different. When you develop a drug, or a new material, you may not understand exactly how it works, but you can isolate what substances you are dealing with, and you can test their effects. Nobody knows the cause-and-effect structure of NLP. That’s not a fault of the technology or the engineers. It’s inherent to the abyss of deep learning.

I recently started fooling around with Sudowrite, a tool that uses the GPT-3 deep-learning language model to compose predictive text, but at a much more advanced scale than what you might find on your phone or laptop. Quickly, I figured out that I could copy-paste a passage by any writer into the program’s input window and the program would continue writing, sensibly and lyrically. I tried Kafka. I tried Shakespeare. I tried some Romantic poets. The machine could write like any of them. In many cases, I could not distinguish between a computer-generated text and an authorial one.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top