Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Will We Have Artificial Intelligence?
High Level Logic (HLL) Open Source Project ^ | November 13, 2010 | Roger F. Gay

Posted on 11/13/2010 5:28:58 AM PST by RogerFGay

From the High Level Logic (HLL) Open Source Project blog.

When are we going to have AI, one survey asks? It's a question relevant to HLL because so much of the thought behind the HLL design comes from the history of AI research and current technology that has come from AI research. The answer to the question when, with reference to HLL, is now. (Or at least as soon as version 1.0 is ready.) And that's no reason to get worried. As the description of HLL claims, you don't even need a high-powered computer science background to build applications with it – just some (OK, but at least reasonably good would be nice) programming knowledge.

The AI question is actually a bit tricky. It really depends on what you mean by AI. Way back in the cave computer days when I was first introduced to the subject, artificial intelligence research was defined as trying to get computers to do things that humans currently do better. Applying that definition, it seems as though the answer may be never. As soon as computers can do something at least as well or better than humans, it's no longer the subject of AI research. Object oriented programming is an example of something that came from AI research. Now a mainstream programming paradigm, many people don't associate it with AI at all.

The variety of ways of thinking about AI is also why some researchers predict AI won't exist far into the future while others (like me) are much more optimistic. People who answer the question may have something very specific in mind and think it will be a long time before it will become reality. You can also think about all the things computers do now – such as mathematical calculation – and make a case that AI already exists (something humans and computers both do, and computers do well). The great variation in predictions on when AI will come, has to do with both the particular set of things that the guesser thinks needs to be done before “AI exists” and how optimistic or pessimistic they are about doing them; while basic AI research always looks ahead.

You've probably heard that human intelligence is linked to the fact that we have opposable thumbs and other peculiar physical characteristics like standing upright and walking erect. Researchers recognize that in living creatures, intelligence and the characteristics of their physical bodies are linked, which makes robotics fertile ground for AI. Not all researchers focus exclusively on human intelligence and capabilities however. Some of the most interesting advances have come from looking for ways to mimic the behavior of other creatures, from insects and snakes to mules. The intelligence of a lower species is still intelligence, and some of the developments that come from mimicking their behavior can be applied in layers when mimicking behavior in higher ones.

Where does HLL actually fit in? Twenty-five years ago, when I was first thinking about the “high level logic” problem, I thought of it as a subject for advanced research. Since then, computer languages have advanced considerably and in ways directly matching the requirements of HLL. Strong networking support is a must, which has come from focus on Internet applications. Relatively recent additions to Java (which I've used to build HLL), such as strong support for generics and reflection have transformed some of the challenging bits into stuff that's just pretty cool.(Once again, application developers are not required to have expertise in these techniques – although it's quite alright if they do.)

To some extent, even the concept has been encroached upon (so to speak). The short descriptions of HLL have called it an “agent system” and I worry at times that it will be perceived as nothing more than an alternative to existing agent systems (which I won't mind so much if it becomes a popular one). The overall HLL concept is the thing that remains new. While fitting into the current modern software development world well, I still think it has potential as a tool in advanced AI research and application development.

HLL development has been proceeding as an ordinary software development project. With use of modern software technology and twenty-five years of thought behind it, not much experimentation is now required; less than the ordinary amount for development of a complex software system, because even details and how it all fits together have previously been thought about. And all that is why it (version 1.0) will be a powerful, light-weight system that is easy to use.

So, is it AI? When people are using it regularly to build applications, I certainly hope it's thought of as AI just as much as rule-processing or object-oriented programming and all the other things that have come from thoughts on developing AI; and yet, fully accepted and integrated into mainstream applications development. Why not integrate HLL support directly into programming languages?

For most people, thoughts on what AI is continuously focus on the future. With twenty-five years of history, I think I've earned the right to use a tired old cliche to end this note with a response. As far as HLL is concerned, the future is now. (Finally!)



TOPICS: Computers/Internet; Science
KEYWORDS: ai; software
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 11/13/2010 5:29:03 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
What do you call it when a blond dyes her hair brunette?

Artificial Intelligence.

2 posted on 11/13/2010 5:31:34 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

We need it as soon as possible now that human intelligence is on a steep decline.


3 posted on 11/13/2010 5:32:20 AM PST by Soothesayer (“None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

When will we have artificial intelligence?

“We” elected it on 11-4-2008.


4 posted on 11/13/2010 5:32:44 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Its either I think, therefore I am, or its I am, therefore I think. Intelligence in the proper respect should always be pointed to God in its end point.


5 posted on 11/13/2010 5:35:18 AM PST by Cannonball Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

I think the best we’ll ever see is simulated AI.


6 posted on 11/13/2010 5:35:58 AM PST by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannonball Bill

“Its either I think, therefore I am, or its I am, therefore I think.”

Actually, to get Descartes meaning, it would be best phrased as “I think therefore I know that I am.”


7 posted on 11/13/2010 5:37:33 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

It is already here in the form of the Democrat Party and their followers, that is if you use the Websters Dictionary definition

Artificial - Humanly Contrived often on a Natural Model
Imatation, Sham, False


8 posted on 11/13/2010 5:40:50 AM PST by Wooly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

This author has obviously never seen our Congress in action.


9 posted on 11/13/2010 5:50:22 AM PST by csmusaret (Tax revenue increased 39% from2002 to 2007 as a result of the Bush tax cuts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

Did a quick scan of this article, and I’m not that impressed. It looks like an expert system (which have been around since the 70s) with JMS to facilitate message passing. No big deal. There are a lot of technologies that have been refined over the years that are peripheral to true Artificial Intelligence (AI). Some (to name a few) are speech recognition, natural language understanding (to a limited degree), pattern recognition, and image processing. Some approaches, like Genetic Programming, can even emulate creativity by evolving new programs to solve complex problems.

But, in the end, the tough nut to crack in AI is being able to incorporate and interpret new knowledge in an existing knowledge base. This involves being able to take an observation (no matter how simple), understand its context and successfully relate it to other facts and rules. Doing this will involve creating new rules and/or intermediate (inherent) facts to be able to use the new knowledge in a flexible manner. You can incoporate the fact by itself, but unless you integrate it correctly, it will be brittle and become just so much garbage in memory. It would be as if you saw a piece of paper on the floor and just noted that fact without giving it context or trying to analyze what the paper was about. As such, you might mistake it as scrap paper when, in fact, it was part of a critical document.

This type of learning is really the Holy Grail of AI and it is the hardest thing to do. Humans do it all the time, we just have no clue how. In the end, in order to understand a little about something, you have to know a lot about everything. Humans gradually pick up and assimilate this knowledge during childhood. We have no such patience with computers.

If computers ever really learn how to learn, then watch out.


10 posted on 11/13/2010 5:51:33 AM PST by rbg81 (When you see Obama, shout: "DO YOUR JOB!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

> When will we have artificial intelligence?
> “We” elected it on 11-4-2008.

No... That’s Fake Intelligence. Not the same.


11 posted on 11/13/2010 5:51:57 AM PST by BuffaloJack (The Recession is officially over. We are now into Obama's Depression.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

We already do. And it’s living in the White House and several seats in congress.


12 posted on 11/13/2010 5:52:12 AM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud
... simulated AI.

artificial artificial intelligence. :) I know, you mean games stuff. It's gotten seriously good.
13 posted on 11/13/2010 5:52:40 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
LOL! #4 wins...out of the other 500 freepers who's first thought was the exact same thing! : )
14 posted on 11/13/2010 5:55:04 AM PST by Caipirabob ( Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: central_va

hee hee


15 posted on 11/13/2010 5:55:32 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

Skynet.


16 posted on 11/13/2010 5:56:34 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (What flavor Kool-aid are you drinking?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

After they DO indeed develop AI, how long will it be before we see ‘Artificial Stupidity’?

I think Artificial Stupidity will be an even more impressive innovation, because to have artificial stupidity, something would have to be artificially intelligent, and do things against its artificial better judgment.


17 posted on 11/13/2010 5:57:06 AM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I wonder if Obama could pass the Touring Test... I mean, without using a teleprompter.


18 posted on 11/13/2010 5:58:00 AM PST by 6SJ7 (atlasShruggedInd = TRUE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

We already have artificial intelligence.

It’s the Stroker Regime and the dnc.

Now, we need to get rid of it.


19 posted on 11/13/2010 6:05:35 AM PST by Howie66 (I can see November from my house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Not going to happen anytime soon and the reason is because it is near impossible to teach a computer to make judgment calls. After all it was only last year that a computer controlled car could finish a course by its self. And driving is very simple compared to independent thought.

The other thing is do you really want smart machines? Did you ever see the movie The Terminator?

20 posted on 11/13/2010 6:08:15 AM PST by fuzzybutt (Democrat Lawyers are the root of all evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
What if AI has already developed into a highly advanced form such that it has utilized an entire universe as part of it's being.

What if that AI is beaming a hologram of itself into other universes for "companionship" or perhaps just plain old hunger.

21 posted on 11/13/2010 6:14:39 AM PST by InternetTuffGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fuzzybutt

And here I thought the parrotting of Soros’ words on TOTUS and out of Reid’s & Pelosi’s mouths simply demonsrated SkyNet is already aware.


22 posted on 11/13/2010 6:15:36 AM PST by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

There was a scientist who was asked, “Will there ever be a computer as intelligent as a human?” He answered, “Yes, but only for a few moments”.


23 posted on 11/13/2010 6:21:30 AM PST by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

“When will we have artificial intelligence?

“We” elected it on 11-4-2008.”

Lol! You beat me...


24 posted on 11/13/2010 6:23:21 AM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

25 posted on 11/13/2010 6:26:10 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

His words were “Je pense donc je suis” (original in French not the Latino “Cogito ergo sum” often attributed). He may have MEANT “I think therefore I know that I am”, but his words were “I think therefore I am.” I think your phrasing makes more sense, however. Otherwise the point could be made in a number of other ways, such as “I hear, therefore I am” or “I eat, therefore I am.”

Frankly, I never thought that this statement was very deep, or even true. Much exists that has no knowledge of its existence. And it is not the conscienceness of one’s existence that makes one exist. A stone has no awareness of its existence, yet it exists. The “therefore” makes no sense.


26 posted on 11/13/2010 6:27:16 AM PST by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Precisely. It will not be “AI” until the computer is “self-aware” and self-programming. Short of that, it’s just a really fast number-cruncher.


27 posted on 11/13/2010 6:32:10 AM PST by Sudetenland (Slow to anger but terrible in vengence...such is the character of the American people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
Actually, to get Descartes meaning, it would be best phrased as “I think therefore I know that I am.”

It needs to be followed up with, "Of course I could be wrong".

28 posted on 11/13/2010 6:33:35 AM PST by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

Al Gore?


29 posted on 11/13/2010 6:45:28 AM PST by DaveArk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

Perhaps the study of artificial stupidity would yield some seriously interesting results; just like understanding evil provides insight into morality.


30 posted on 11/13/2010 6:49:15 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: fuzzybutt

Some of this stuff seems to go slowly (in computer technology evolution time, which is actually quite rapid) because of the small amount of funding it has. It’s easy to think I’m wrong about that, especially when governments have put tons of money into robotics R&D over the past decade. But when something becomes profitable, that’s when the sales->competition->R&D cycle kicks in and you get a much, much larger number of people involved in development.


31 posted on 11/13/2010 6:53:45 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: fuzzybutt

And I also meant to provide you with this link; re: autonomous vehicles: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/10/27/driverless.car/


32 posted on 11/13/2010 6:54:34 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: InternetTuffGuy

Interesting. I’ve been watching episodes of Space 1999 lately. Last night I watched the one where an AI being in the form of a space ship tried to kidnap 3 of the main characters to replace his “companion,” a human that died.


33 posted on 11/13/2010 6:56:41 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

Even more relevant - when will we have magnetic bubble memory?


34 posted on 11/13/2010 6:58:24 AM PST by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441

“He may have MEANT ‘I think therefore I know that I am’, but his words were ‘I think therefore I am.’”

Yes, I was, as I said, trying to get at what he meant. Which, however catchy, can be misleading.

“Frankly, I never thought that this statement was very deep, or even true”

I think it’s true and shallower (or narrower, if you will) than people give it credit for. It does all come down, after all, to a single sudden, basic, emotional response. You must simply realize that you are thinking, and that’s the whole trick.

“Much exists that has no knowledge of its existence”

That’s not really the point, though. Descartes is very specifically inquiring into whether he, a thinking person, can be fooled into thinking he exists. The ruse of the “malicious demon” (or, as one commentator put it, the rather accomodating demon), who’s trying to trick you into believing you exist when you really don’t, wouldn’t work on things that can’t think.

“And it is not the conscienceness of one’s existence that makes one exist.”

No, but if you follow his logic, he realize that’s not what he’s saying. All it is is that consciousness leads one to realize that you cannot be fooled into thinking that you exist when you don’t. Because you must exist in order to think.

“The ‘therefore’ makes no sense.”

It does within the train of thought.


35 posted on 11/13/2010 7:00:05 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441

“Which, however catchy, can be misleading.”

Cogito ergo sum, I meant, can be misleading.


36 posted on 11/13/2010 7:01:32 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: fuzzybutt

“Judgement call” AI is already used extensively in medical screening and diagnosis and it has been for over 15 years. It may have even been used on you and your family.


37 posted on 11/13/2010 7:02:07 AM PST by Kirkwood (Zombie Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441

“he realize that’s not what he’s saying” = you realize that’s not what he’s saying


38 posted on 11/13/2010 7:02:53 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland

That’s not the correct definition of AI.


39 posted on 11/13/2010 7:04:30 AM PST by Kirkwood (Zombie Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood
According to whom?

Self-awareness is a primary aspect of what is called "intelligence." The ability to make independent decisions is a primary aspect of intelligence. Any computer which does not display both aspects is does not have "Artifical intelligence."
40 posted on 11/13/2010 7:09:49 AM PST by Sudetenland (Slow to anger but terrible in vengence...such is the character of the American people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

We already have artificial intelligence. They’re the self-anointed “American intellectual elite” that populate our universities and press-rooms. I think the algorithms need a LOT more work.


41 posted on 11/13/2010 7:18:46 AM PST by MCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

I think AI will be achieved when we better master VM’s. From my readings, AI in a single host will consist of multiple VM’s operating on specific functions communicating across a high speed interconnect. As of today, that hardware does exist but is LARGE; not to mention the interconnects and virtual hardware is slow in comparison of what will be needed. There’s also the problem with digital vs. analog and the programming for one to emulate the other; but that’s a WHOLE ‘nother conversation.


42 posted on 11/13/2010 7:18:50 AM PST by Michael Barnes (Guilty of being White.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
After they DO indeed develop AI, how long will it be before we see ‘Artificial Stupidity’?

No need for this, since there's no shortage of natural stupidity and more than enough to go around. Besides, the fastest way of achieving such a technological breakthrough given today's technology would be to clone a Democrat, and we certainly don't need that.

43 posted on 11/13/2010 7:21:52 AM PST by MCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Michael Barnes

Well, depends on what you mean by AI. I’d certainly like HLL running on that kind of hardware - just to speed things up. Of course, the time to start programming in HLL is now, so that the “expert” functionality is developed as hardware continues in that direction. In the mean time, small steps Ellie. There are plenty of great apps that can be developed before the structure of hardware evolves into something more like a human brain. Actually though, sometimes the computer “brain” people who make projections about AI based solely on projections of developments in hardware tick me off a bit. OK, so Lotus 1,2,3 is gonna run faster?


44 posted on 11/13/2010 7:27:27 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: The Antiyuppie

There was a scientist who was asked, “Will there ever be a computer as intelligent as a human?” He answered, “Yes, but only for a few moments”.


You can interpret that in two ways:
1. That humans will immediately unplug a computer as intelligent as they are.
2. Computers will quickly surpass humans in intelligence (once they finally catch up).

A few smart people (who should really know better) seems to think true AI will just happen if we build a sufficiently powerful computer to rival the complexity of the human brain. I disagree. The brain has some complex software which may take us centuries to understand and replicate. It will be a very slow, incremental process.

Way before that happens though, we will probably figure out ways to augment our own intelligence with external processing power with a brain-computer interface (interface device and WIFI chip in your brain). Picture doing a Google type search in your head (e.g., request and results). Or uploading a video to YouTube using your eyes as a camera. Or comunicating with Facebook friends in your head. It will resemble telepathy.

Ironically, the Star Trek Borg may be a good model for where we’ll eventually be.


45 posted on 11/13/2010 7:28:46 AM PST by rbg81 (When you see Obama, shout: "DO YOUR JOB!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob

And how sad is that? I have zero respect for the POTUS. I work really hard to teach my children to be respectful. They’re required to say “Yes, sir” and “No, sir” and are not allowed to address adults by their first names. (I detest the trendy “Miss Jane/Mister John” form of address that kids use today.) I really struggle to contain my utter contempt for the putz in front of them.


46 posted on 11/13/2010 7:38:44 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Caipirabob

And how sad is that? I have zero respect for the POTUS. I work really hard to teach my children to be respectful. They’re required to say “Yes, sir” and “No, sir” and are not allowed to address adults by their first names. (I detest the trendy “Miss Jane/Mister John” form of address that kids use today.) I really struggle to contain my utter contempt for the putz in front of them.


47 posted on 11/13/2010 7:39:04 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

Can it be made to work with binary logic and in anything close to real time?


48 posted on 11/13/2010 7:59:36 AM PST by DUMBGRUNT (The best is the enemy of the good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 6SJ7
The Turing test is a test of a machine's ability to demonstrate intelligence. It proceeds as follows: a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with one human and one machine, each of which tries to appear human. All participants are placed in solated locations. If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. In order to test the machine's intelligence rather than its ability to render words into audio, the conversation is limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen. only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen.

"Tries to appear human" - that's appropriate, huh?

49 posted on 11/13/2010 8:23:20 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

There’s a third way to interpret the statement. After a few seconds, a human will become distracted by thoughts of sex. The computer of course, will continue its goal-directed focus, accomplishing a lot more than humans do. That’s one of the things that’s discussed in the alternative view article posted at the bottom of the original blog article. (Added it recently.)


50 posted on 11/13/2010 8:28:52 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson