|
Mike Lee Williams, Software Engineer at Cloudera, describing AI ML programming with PyMC3, said: [^] :Quote: You don’t find yourself writing a lot of for loops, or the order in which things need to happen: you simply describe the world and press go, and the probabilistic programming language figures out the implications of that.
William has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, and there's content on statistics (history, Bayes, Monte Carlo etc.) in the podcast I really enjoyed.Quote: Salvador Dali said: "Intelligence without ambition is a bird without wings."
My question is: can a PyMC3 bird you just pressed "go" on fly ?
I marvel at the "brave new world" of these exotic new programming tools, methods, algorithms, languages ... I imagine them as "Eaters of Streams" (EOS), which, for me, resonates with the image of the "dawn horse," Eohippus. But, maybe that's unfair, because that dog-sized forest herbivore went extinct after less than beaucoup de millenia, before they even had a chance to put their hoof down (they had toesies).
But, I am not troubled by the likelihood I will exit this adventure in consciousness in the biological fun-house of a hominid body without seeing the future "stallions" evolved from these prototypes that I suspect will create as much of a "black swan" discontinuity for homo saps as did the domestication of the horse in the great steppes of central Asia.
I will now descend to lower altitudes 
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
modified 31-Jul-19 6:08am.
|
|
|
|
|
intelligence itself... I would say no, this is a quality.
But to improve and be "more clever", I say yes. To start learning the unknown (for you at least) requires a certain ambition.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Intelligence no, knowledge yes.
|
|
|
|
|
I fully agree with this. However, I also like to argue, so...
Could you not argue that although your maximum capacity for intelligence may be fixed, you would only be able to achieve you full potential if you keep your brain active and in shape? (This would be were the ambition/motivation comes in to play).
|
|
|
|
|
musefan wrote: Could you not argue
You can.
By intelligence, I assume the OP wanted to talk about fluid intelligence (the ability to think new without relying on previous experiences).
When it comes to crystallized intelligence one must apply previous experiences (knowledge) to newer situations, in that case, you'd be correct to point out that ambition is necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
GKP1992 wrote: fluid intelligence (the ability to think new without relying on previous experiences)
Neurologically, this is nonsense; however you may be pointing to the variation of awareness of context during intelligence manifested/enacted/experienced.
It is very interesting that some recent studies indicate more intelligent people may have fewer connections between neurons: [^]
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
I'll have to take a closer look at the study, but from the article, it seems they've ignored a lot of variables.
|
|
|
|
|
What is happening in neuroscience right now is amazing, and a lot of old assumptions are getting thrown out (as well as studies considered "classics" that cannot be replicated).
It's up for grabs whether "intelligence" is a useful construct, given how many ways it is defined, measured, compared, and given the 'baggage" of cultural chauvinism the concept carries.
Find me a study of intelligence that hasn't ignored a lot of variables 
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Find me a study of intelligence that hasn't ignored a lot of variables
That's precisely why I do not invest much time in discussions related to intelligence metrics. For me a person who is really good with art and not reasoning is as intelligent as a person that is good with reasoning.
Its again the correlation-causation debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Well ya see, Norm, it’s like this… A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That’s why you always feel smarter after a few beers."
-Cliff Clavin
But I never wave bye bye
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: evolved
There you have the keyword. Evolution, up to now the only algorithm that has produced anything like intelligence, is aimless. It's goal is survival by being fitter than any competition. Intelligence is just a byproduct, just another way to be 'fitter'. Claws and teeth may work just as well.
You can try to usher the algorithm towards producing a higher intelligence, but that would result in an AI that is only fit for the protected environment in which it was evolved. This way we might get great computer controlled characters in a game, but how far would an artificially intelligent Skyrim player get in the real world?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
You are right (as is Dawkins) in pointing to the absence of a "teleological engine" in evolution. S. J. Gould emphasized that existing functional traits can be abandoned, as well as new mutations thriving, in the right circumstances.
Given the simple life-forms homo saps evolved from, I see no reason to conclude that these early in the game software tools may never evolve into "whatevers" that are now the plots of innumerable sci-fi, and horror, movies. I believe machine/computational consciousness is possible, and probable, although I believe I will not see it in my lifetime.
It took six-million years and 250k generations for Saps to to get from gorilla to hominid: along the way we somehow chose the species suicidal strategy of big heads that had trouble getting through the birth canal, a female menstrual cycle (of around 5000 mammal species: unique to Homo Saps) involving enough loss of blood to threaten anemia during famine, short guts, and giving birth to "living fetuses" that require long periods of total care while their big brains got juiced-up:Quote: In comparison to other apes, we are born prematurely, and this can be measured very clearly in neural growth, which, while it slows sharply after birth in chimpanzees, continues at a rate of a quarter of a million neurons per minute in human babies until the age of one.
Timothy Taylor, "The Artificial Ape." [^]
Homo Saps, through technology, has insulated itself from the qualitative selection pressures other life-forms face. We are outside the classic Darwinian paradigm.
I think an interesting hypothesis is that at some point Homo Saps becomes the biological agents of artificial intelligences: we carry out the genetic engineering to create the symbiotic embodiments (hardware, wetware, software) instrumental to the further evolution of the AI's. Animal-human hybrids: coming up, now: "Human-animal hybrids are to be developed in embryo form in Japan after the government approved controversial stem-cell research." [^].
Perhaps an analogy is the way the life cycle of the parasite toxoplasma gondii [^] has "engineered" mice to be less afraid of cats as a method of replicating in its desired site, the cat brain.
Cat => Mouse => Cat : AI => Saps => AI
Landing gear lowered.
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
modified 31-Jul-19 14:15pm.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Homo Saps, through technology, has insulated itself from the qualitative selection pressures other life-forms face. We are outside the classic Darwinian paradigm.
No. That's the biggest mistake of all. Most people still are as much subject to the forces of nature, to hunger and disease as we always were. Perhaps the top 15 percent really have access to medicine, adequate nutrition and live a sheltered life. Besides that, we may play on a different stage, but the rules have not changed. If anything, the competition may even be fiercer.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
The moments the early Hominids became more than amateur rock throwers, learned to control fire, learned to chip a sharp edge on a rock ... was the start of discarding the necessity for a physical structure that enables our relatives (chimps, gorilas) to be five to fifteen times physically stronger than we are, the start of becoming the weak-jawed, small canines, weak biting, critter we are now.
Protection from predators was a powerful selection pressure, as much as the necessity to forage and hunt to get food, and our evolving hominid ancestors responded to it by the very risky strategy of cognitive development at the enormous risk of big-head birth through a narrower pelvis.
Of course, evolution has not stopped, and, many people today are as subject to existential threats to life as ever. But, very few people today are not using tools which, considered in an evolutionary time scale, are as remarkable as Homo Saps is.
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
modified 1-Aug-19 3:06am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, but successful ambition requires intelligence.
Just make sure you don't assume morality in your definition of intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
an interesting post-priori way of looking at these hard to define constructs: perhaps ambition is what drives the development of intelligence ?
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
we're apes with a parlor trick on a spinning ball of mud. it helps to have perspective. i like yours.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the monster, codewitch wrote: apes with a parlor trick on a spinning ball of mud
wonderful image ! imho, the greatest trick is ... drum roll ... language.
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
I interpret the fall of man story in the Torah and in the old testament as in part, a lesson on what separates man from the rest of the animals.
Interestingly enough, the story seems to put it at the ability to develop and communicate moral frameworks or IOW, the knowledge of good and evil.
It's an interesting way to look at it in any case. Sometimes it's even elegant, as you pick it apart you realize that all the functionality that goes into that, language, the ability to see past our choices etc, could be argued as the things that make us human.
Anyway, just an aside. I like stories. =)
At one point, I put our parlor trick at the ability to negotiate, which is almost correct but not quite complete enough.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just curious: have you read Pinker's "The Language Instinct" ? Are you aware of the interesting intellectual slug-fest between Chomsky/Pinker and Everett over the extent to which human language is innate ? [^].
Of course, I am prejudiced: as a poet since age 11, language has been my "thang"
cheers, Bill
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not, although I tend to believe that language for us forms the basis of our thoughts, so it is pretty intrinsic.
I married a polyglot who is into linguistics and and anthropology, so your question should be fielded to him.
He calls Chomsky "a f*cking genetivarist"
I am a little easier on him because his grammar hierarchy is inherently useful in computer science.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the monster, codewitch wrote: genetivarist
I'm curious as to what that means ? If what is meant is someone who advocates "Generative Semantics," that is a theory that opposes Chomsky's ideas.
Chomsky, due to his charisma, and high-profile liberal public political views and activities, is something of a bugaboo for many people. That has nothing to do with the discussion of the extent to which the theory of an "innate universal grammar engine" is the critical factor enabling the remarkable velocity of human children acquiring language/grammar.
fyi: Pinker, originally strongly influenced by Chomsky (one of his key mentors), later disagreed with many of his core concepts [^]
I will not respond to any further mentions of your significant other's knee-jerk reactions
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
Someone who endorses the idea of generative grammars.
Generative grammar - Wikipedia[^]
Type-0 and Type-1 languages on the Chomsky scale, Chomsky presumably believes in a (theoretically possible) formal rule based system that could solve all the permutations of a language (in theory, in practice it takes forever - this is about the math tho)
I don't. I believe in particular what chomsky thinks are recursively enumerable languages actually defy the ability to completely formalize them mathematically.
but then I am not a generativist. =)
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
i meant generativist, sorry
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
