Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canadian scientists create a functioning, virtual brain

canada.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 111 posts

Re: Canadian scientists create a functioning, virtual brain

#41

Post by dvdhsu »

sneak wrote: post #38
lutze wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but that's not simulating emotion, it's simulating the appearance of emotion. Big difference! If we were going that route, I'd rather an AI actually feel empathy, rather than just being able to look like they do... Because faking it is pretty much textbook psycho! Edit: Just to clarify, when I say AI, I'm referring to strong AI, not anything that we have now (or are even close to getting).

> , but that's not simulating emotion, it's simulating the appearance of emotion. Big difference! Is there, really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Well, yes. The Chinese Room claims that there is a gulf between being able to pass a Chinese Turing test versus being able to actually understand Chinese and have intentionality.

Unlike intentionality, however, emotions aren't just for show: I act differently, depending on my emotions. For example, when I'm angry, I sometimes act irrationally. My actions, therefore, depend on my emotions. To program emotions (anger), and their effects (irrationality) is difficult (how do you program irrationality?).

For example, the robot your GP linked to is different from other robots because it has "obvious emotional expressions". These emotional expressions probably don't translate in to different behaviors; when the robot has an angry expression, it's not going to hit the child it's playing with, it's just going to display an angry face.

So, yes, there is a difference between ersatz emotions and real emotions. That's why the Chinese Room argument isn't quite a parallel. For the Chinese Room, it's hard to tell whether or not the computer has intentionality just by speaking to it; for an emotional robot which acts, it's easy to tell whether or not it has actual emotions.

Re: Canadian scientists create a functioning, virtual brain

#43

Post by [deleted] »

georgeorwell wrote: post #14
lutze wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emotions are difficult, as they're (probably) as much physiological responses as they are cognitive ones. You could possibly simulate those, but I'd ask why bother? Why would we need AI to be human-like at all? We already have a form of human intelligence, us! It's like the android fixation with robotics... arguably the most useful robots don't look anything like us. The human brain is a good starting point, but in t…

Well, one argument is that if you had a human that just didn't feel emotions, you'd have a psychopath. Our capacity for empathy and the ability to share in each other's emotions stops us from doing harmful things that are in our 'rational self interest'. I'm not convinced that I want to live in a world with AI's that are as cognitively powerful as humans but are incapable of feeling emotions because I'm afraid they'd…

[deleted]

Re: Canadian scientists create a functioning, virtual brain

#45

Post by rpm4321 »

pdog wrote: post #32
ilaksh wrote: post #27

After reading halfway through Kurzweil's new book How to Create a Mind and getting all of the detailed explanations of hierarchical hidden Markov models and why they are better than neural nets, I am surprised to see so much news about neural nets. How do Spaun's neural nets compare with the type of HHMMs in Kurzweil's book (in terms of capability)?

I'd put Kurzweil's book down and pick up some more recent research. As the biologist P.Z. Myers once wrote, “Ray Kurzweil is a genius. One of the greatest hucksters of the age.” The full New Yorker article, Ray Kurzweil's Dubious New Theory of Mind [1], makes me question how relevant he is today. [1] - http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/11/ray-kurz...

Hey pdog this isn't really in response to you - it's more something that's been bothering me for awhile - but who the hell appointed Gary Marcus the arbiter of all things AI?

The New Yorker apparently hired this guy to be an AI columnist, and he has no background in either neuroscience or computer science, only psychology.

If you read his articles, he veers wildly from "strong AI ain't gonna happen" to "AI could destroy us all", the only common thread being pessimism. Meanwhile, he displays a frightening lack of understanding of the subject matter, and perhaps most disturbingly, in some of his more alarmist articles advocates that computer scientists should step aside and make room for psychologists, philosophers, lawyers, and politicians to sort out these thorny issues at the big boy table.

Kurzweil is certainly fair game for legitimate criticism, but Marcus calling Kurzweil a joke is an even big joke in itself.

Re: Canadian scientists create a functioning, virtual brain

#46

Post by seiji »

jb55 wrote: post #40
seiji wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the addlebrained old man faction has established their own branch of cookery. The simple truth is consciousness, as created by squishy brains, is a physical process. It doesn't rely on quantum non-locality or anything spooky. It's all physical things you can quite easily introspect by poking around (note: reassembly may be more difficult than disassembly). It's fun to think about "what if our thoughts are the un…

You seem to be claiming that quantum mechanical effects are somehow non-physical? It's not too crazy to speculate the brain leveraging quantum mechanicals effects to do something (although I agree, as a prerequisite for consciousness is a pretty big claim). Considering evolution has already leveraged these effects in smell and photosynthesis, which we do have evidence for.

I think some people mix "quantum" and "magic" definitions in their minds. Even mtgx kinda alluded to such above with would all be better served by a quantum computer than by anything else.

Everything will -- somehow -- be better. Just add quantum. (protip: go read scott aaronson's relevant articles, papers, monographs, course materials, etc).

I don't claim the effects aren't present. I do claim they are unnecessary for the emergence of human level consciousness and the reproduction thereof in silicon.

Re: Canadian scientists create a functioning, virtual brain

#47

Post by robotresearcher »

seiji wrote: post #37
georgeorwell wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of research / line of thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind if true, appears to support his claim, assuming that if we do have quantum minds that they cannot be simulated by non-quantum computers. Roger Penrose is certainly well-respected. I don't have a strong opinion either way.

Yes, the addlebrained old man faction has established their own branch of cookery. The simple truth is consciousness, as created by squishy brains, is a physical process. It doesn't rely on quantum non-locality or anything spooky. It's all physical things you can quite easily introspect by poking around (note: reassembly may be more difficult than disassembly). It's fun to think about "what if our thoughts are the un…

The tragedy is that even if you are right to say "it's all physical things" that does not mean you can "quite easily introspect by poking around". It's quite possible that some important functional brain processes could be just too complex and subtle for us to figure out, even though they are accessible in principle. That would be sad.

It's also possible that consciousness is better understood as a computational process which is implemented on a VM instantiated by a brain. In that case looking too hard at the squishy stuff is not directly relevant and may be distracting, since it's a very complex way to implement a computer. This is logically possible and is of historic significance in AI.

My view is that the everyday concept of consciousness is mistaken, and that no such thing will be found. Our common sense view of perception and cognition has been found over and over to be completely wrong, so we shouldn't expect consciousness to turn up anywhere just because it feels like it ought too.

Functional approaches to brain modelling neatly avoid this issue by just building away and not worrying about it.

TLDR: physical doesn't mean explicable, and consciousness won't be explained by a physical process since it doesn't exist.

Re: Canadian scientists create a functioning, virtual brain

#49

Post by surrealize »

georgeorwell wrote: post #14
lutze wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emotions are difficult, as they're (probably) as much physiological responses as they are cognitive ones. You could possibly simulate those, but I'd ask why bother? Why would we need AI to be human-like at all? We already have a form of human intelligence, us! It's like the android fixation with robotics... arguably the most useful robots don't look anything like us. The human brain is a good starting point, but in t…

Well, one argument is that if you had a human that just didn't feel emotions, you'd have a psychopath. Our capacity for empathy and the ability to share in each other's emotions stops us from doing harmful things that are in our 'rational self interest'. I'm not convinced that I want to live in a world with AI's that are as cognitively powerful as humans but are incapable of feeling emotions because I'm afraid they'd…

I'm not sure it's right to say that psychopaths are without emotion. I'd call self-interest and self-preservation emotional impulses. People naturally assume that AIs will exhibit those, but that assumption is driven by our experience with existing intelligences, which have all been shaped by natural selection.

Re: Canadian scientists create a functioning, virtual brain

#50

Post by wisty »

seiji wrote: post #37
georgeorwell wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of research / line of thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind if true, appears to support his claim, assuming that if we do have quantum minds that they cannot be simulated by non-quantum computers. Roger Penrose is certainly well-respected. I don't have a strong opinion either way.

Yes, the addlebrained old man faction has established their own branch of cookery. The simple truth is consciousness, as created by squishy brains, is a physical process. It doesn't rely on quantum non-locality or anything spooky. It's all physical things you can quite easily introspect by poking around (note: reassembly may be more difficult than disassembly). It's fun to think about "what if our thoughts are the un…

People want to believe in a soul which isn't just an artifact in a Turning machine, and "quantum" is the only thing which is both credible and vague enough.
Post reply on HN