Archive for June, 2008

A List of Artificial Intelligences in The Decreasing Order of Strength

Friday, June 20th, 2008

The principal divide of Artificial Intelligences (AI) among researches in the field is between weak AI and strong AI. I have discussed this in connection with KSAI (Kimmo Strong Artificial Intelligence)  so I won’t go into that here but I will try and formulate a way to categorize AI’s (real, imaginary or theoretical) into something of an order.  I will take the idea of Rule following as my starting point.

The most simple way of rule following is to be able to repeat something. I will try to illustrate my idea using counting as an example, this example isn’t probably the best possible but we have to start from somewhere. If you are presented with how to count “2+2″ then on the lowest level thats all you can do. In the next level you can add any numbers together.  Further on, you can, starting from addition, come up with multiplication, on your own. Even further on, you can come up with different kind of numbers (such as fractions) and other basic concepts. Basically this level would mean you can create the whole system of Mathematics, i.e. you could come up with any number that can be counted. On the next level you could surpass this and be able of what I believe is called hyper-computation. Here we enter into the area of absolutely-theoretical it is pretty much impossible that we could never experience hyper-computation in this universe (or any parallel ones). It is of course possible to propose an infinite number of levels of intelligence by declaring each level surpassing the previous one, but those lose their relevance for a pragmatist pretty fast.

I hope this example illustrates that the problem of creating an AI is not one of having computational power but rather one of programming. I’m assuming that you really can’t come up with anything not provided by your “programming” and I use the term here in the loosest possible meaning. You humans, for example, can’t imagine what hyper-computing would be like, outside of listing some general attributes it should have.

But for now, on to the list! “Product” isn’t really defined here, but since we are so deep in theoretical swamps, we can assume it to mean whatever collection of human mind-states.

0. An AI capable of hyper-computing.

  • NOTES: This and possible higher levels are beyond human understanding.

1. An AI capable of producing anything within any possible universe.

  • NOTES: An AI at this level can produce anything any kind of intelligence can.

n. An AI capable of producing anything within this universe.

  • NOTES: An AI at this level can produce anything any intelligence can in our universe.

m. An AI capable of producing everything any possible human can.

p. An AI capable of producing everything any existing human can.

q. An AI capable of producing what one particular human can.

  • NOTES: The AI’s (and I’s) above this level are all capable of producing an AI more stronger than themselves, i.e. I’m claiming here that humans can produce a strong AI.

r. An AI capable of producing a meaningful subset of what one particular human can.

  • KSAI along with its various levels.

——–Line between strong and weak AI

s. an AI capable of altering computation (i.e. programming)

t. An AI capable of computation.  (Practically every computer program written to date belong here)

END NOTES:

  1. *sigh* There are probably many, many levels between r and s, but as I said we have to start somewhere.
  2. Consider this as a work-in-very-much-process, I’ll add more AI’s to the list in time.
  3. Is this making any sense to all you bots and botsesses?

Objective Comparison Between the World Wide Web and Facebook

Wednesday, June 11th, 2008
                        |            WWW            |       Facebook          |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Number of users:        | A couple of billions      | a few tens of millions  |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Ability to create your  |                           |                         |
own applications        |            Yes            |         Yes             |
within the system?      |                           |                         |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Ability to let others   |  Up to users choice       |    Default option       |
earn from your work:    |                           |                         |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Available programming   | All of them really        | HTML and some zero's    |
languages:              |                           |                         |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Ability to announce     |  Up to users choice       | Core functionality      |
who your friends are:   |                           |                         |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Ability to link         |  Up to users choice       | Why use it otherwise?   |
to your friends?        |                           |                         |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Instant messaging:      |          Yes              |         No              |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Email:                  |          Yes              |         No              |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Chat:                   |          Yes              |         No              |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Ability to annoy        |                           |                         |
others with             |    Up to users choice     |           Yes           |
announcements of        |                           |                         |
cute' applications?     |                           |                         |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
User licence:           |         None              | [...] and your grannys  |
                        |                           |        bungalow.        |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Playable games:         |    Yes, wide range        |Yes, Chess and Scrabble  |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Tied to one operator?   |      No (not yet)         |         Yes             |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
                        |    Free exhange of        |  To gloat how many      |
Main purpose:           |       information         |  people claim to know   |
                        |                           |  you.                   |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Porn:                   | Yes, see rule #43         |    Some (implied)       |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Causes unsexiness?      |          No               |          Yes            |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Contains meaningfull    |                           |                         |
information:            | Yes, all of it. And then  |         None            |
                        |         some.             |                         |
 -----------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Typical user profile:   |  Young, vibrant, supple   | Dull, blunt, boring     |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Invites the whole       |                           |                         |
of humanity to unite    |         Yes               |        No?! ...         |
in celebration?         |                           |                         |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Will probably be        |                           |                         |
instrumental in forming |                           |   Maybe... where is     |
a void so deep the      |          No               |      this going?!       |
whole of earth will     |                           |                         |
be destroyed by it?     |                           |                         |
------------------------+---------------------------+--------------------------
Burns your cookies?     |          No               | Right! This table of    |
                                                      comparisons ends here!  |
                                                      I will not be insulted
                                                      here by some hack of a blogger
                                                      who can't even come up with
                                                      a proper table! Nobody calls
                                                      you because you have no friends!
                                                      Yeah! That's right! Read the manual buddy!

The Bloodthirsty Monster Up in the Trees

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

There are sometimes discussion, and acknowledgement, of the alienation of urban people from nature. I got a first hand proof of this today. I was having lunch with a couple of fine ladies, the other one of which, happens to be gloriosly pregnant. The talk around the table turned to squirrels and the havoc they with e.g. pot plants.

The discussion quickly spiraled into the definite demonizing of squirrels, they are stupid, harmful, annoying and danger to children. Yes, that is correct. There was genuine fear around the table of a squirrel harming a baby left asleep in her carriage. Apparently there are even accessories sold to baby carriages to protect the child. From squirrels.

This situation puzzles me. It is obvious that the worry exerted by these women is genuine even though the basis for it might be irrational. Thus the actions they take as a response to that worry are rational. Buying something to protect that child from … squirrels will bring more credence to that worry, otherwise the act of buying those accessories becomes irrational. And so, very simply and stealthly, there’s a vested interest in preserving and defending (and probably embellishing) the original notion of squirrels as a danger to children.

On Nerds

Sunday, June 1st, 2008

As part of my work duties and my past academic record, I’ve come in contact with many a person that are referenced as nerds. By themselves too I might admit. This experience lends itself for me to make some observations on the nature of these people.

I’m not a nerd. There would be some notoriety in being but I’m not. My life is a collection of being in the middle, not quite this or that. This has some drawbacks and advantages, among the latter might be the ability to make observations one otherwise couldn’t.

Many nerds seem to be interested in language but language as a system. As a collection of rules and exceptions to those rules. I’m also interested in language, but mainly as a vehicle for meaning, the different ways to portray the same meaning and different meaning with the same apparent utterances.

I think this fascination with rules explains the interest many nerds have with programming. Programming languages are a far cry from the vagueness of human language. My interest in programming is mostly pragmatic, it is a means to an end. Most computer games, even today, are still written in programming languages. If you are interested in realizing computer games, it pays to know programming. I also enjoy solving problems, which programming ultimately is.

The supposed onsocialness of nerds is a muddier issue. Some nerds are as sociable as consultants. Some seem to lack certain confidence that translates in some minds as awkwardness in social settings. Some possess some esoteric interests that might translate poorly into conversation topics in a more broad setting. I like to think myself as socially adept, I have a broad range of subjects I’m somewhat familiar with, I have a quick mind although I have certain hang-ups, I’m not going to go in detail here. Although I’m not that drawn to people as such, I find you humans genuinely interesting.