Skip to main content

Home/ Artificial Intelligence Research/ Group items tagged Comes

Rss Feed Group items tagged

thinkahol *

YouTube - Dr. Antonio Damasio on Self Comes to Mind - 0 views

  •  
    "What Inspired You to Write Self Comes to Mind?"
mikhail-miguel

Vizcom - Draw & watch your creations come alive quickly! (vizcom.ai). - 0 views

  •  
    Vizcom: Draw & watch your creations come alive quickly! (vizcom.ai).
thinkahol *

Future Intelligence | Watch Free Documentary Online - 0 views

  •  
    Catch a first-time glimpse at smart technology that will put android helpers in the home, network commuters and entire cities to the Web, and bring us entertainment systems that can virtually make dreams come true. Advances in artificial intelligence are creating machines with near human-like mental agility. Intelligence will be embedded everywhere - even in our clothing, thanks to smaller, more powerful computers. Soon, we will be able to build computers with artificial intelligence and processing power that rivals the human brain. Intelligence will be everywhere, in our clothing, our vehicles and homes. Intelligent robots will serve us - until they don't feel like doing so anymore. And what happens then…?
Philip Solars

The Must Have Solar Equipment - 0 views

Due to the increasing cost of electricity bills, I have finally decided to switch to solar energy. Aside from being free, it also helps save mother earth. I must admit that at first I was confused ...

started by Philip Solars on 28 Sep 12 no follow-up yet
Matvey Ezhov

On Biological and Digital Intelligence - 0 views

  • In essence, Hawkins argues that, to whatever extent the concept of “consciousness” can’t be boiled down to brain theory, it’s simply a bunch of hooey.
    • Matvey Ezhov
       
      Not true!
  • in which conscious experience is more foundational than physical systems or linguistic communications
  • Conscious experiences are associated with patterns, and patterns are associated with physical systems, but none of these is fully reducible to the other. 
  • ...22 more annotations...
  • He makes the correct point that roughly-human-level AI’s will have dramatically different strengths and weaknesses from human being, due to different sensors and actuators and different physical infrastructures for their cognitive dynamics.  But he doesn’t even touch the notion of self-modifying AI – the concept that once an AI gets smart enough to modify its own code, it’s likely to get exponentially smarter and smarter until it’s left us humans in the dust.
    • Matvey Ezhov
       
      Совершенно не имеет отношения к теме, подход Хокинса легко масштабируется до сверх- и сверх-сверх-сверхчеловеческого интеллекта.
  • therefore if AI closely enough emulates the human brain it won’t radically self-modify either
  • Rather, I think the problem is that the field of AI has come to focus on “narrow AI” – programs that solve particularly, narrowly-defined problems – rather than “artificial general intelligence” (AGI). 
  • cognitive science, artificial general intelligence, philosophy of mind and abstract mathematics
    • Matvey Ezhov
       
      т.о. Гортзел признается, что вообще принимает и не считает нужным принимать нейронауку в расчет, т.е. опирается только на эмпирические представления о том, как работает сознание.
  • So what we’re doing is creating commercial narrow AI programs, using the software framework that we’re building out with our AGI design in mind.
    • Matvey Ezhov
       
      и в этом его большое отличие от платформы Хокинса, которая имеет одинаковую структуру для всех ее применений
  • I tend to largely agree with his take on the brain
  • I think he oversimplifies some things fairly seriously – giving them very brief mention when they’re actually quite long and complicated stories.  And some of these omissions, in my view, are not mere “biological details” but are rather points of serious importance for his program of abstracting principles from brain science and then re-concretizing these principles in the context of digital software.
  • One point Hawkins doesn’t really cover is how a mind/brain chooses which predictions to make, from among the many possible predictions that exist.
    • Matvey Ezhov
       
      тут он вроде бы прав...
  • Hawkins proposes that there are neurons or neuronal groups that represent patterns as “tokens,” and that these tokens are then incorporated along with other neurons or neuronal groups into larger groupings representing more abstract patterns.  This seems clearly to be correct, but he doesn’t give much information on how these tokens are supposed to be formed. 
  • So, what’s wrong with Hawkins’ picture of brain function?  Nothing’s exactly wrong with it, so far as I can tell.
  • But Edelman then takes the concept one step further and talks about “neural maps” – assemblies of neuronal groups that carry out particular perception, cognition or action functions.  Neural maps, in essence, are sets of neuronal groups that host attractors of neurodynamics.  And Edelman then observes, astutely, that the dynamics of the population of neuronal groups, over time, is likely to obey a form of evolution by natural selection.
  • How fascinating if the brain also operates in this way!
    • Matvey Ezhov
       
      да нифига... слов нет
  • Hawkins argues that creativity is essentially just metaphorical thinking, generalization based on memory.  While this is true in a grand sense, it’s not a very penetrating statement.
  • Evolutionary learning is the most powerful general search mechanism known to computer science, and is also hypothesized by Edelman to underly neural intelligence.  This sort of idea, it seems to me, should be part of any synthetic approach to brain function.
  • Hawkins mentions the notion, and observes correctly that Hebbian learning in the brain is a lot subtler than the simple version that Donald Hebb laid out in the late 40’s.   But he largely portrays these variations as biological details, and then shifts focus to the hierarchical architecture of the cortex. 
  • Hawkins’ critique of AI, which in my view is overly harsh.  He dismisses work on formal logic based reasoning as irrelevant to “real intelligence.” 
  • So – to sum up – I think Hawkins’ statements about brain function are pretty much correct
  • What he omits are, for instance,   The way the brain displays evolutionary learning as a consequence of the dynamics of multiple attractors involving sets of neural clusters The way the brain may emergently give rise to probabilistic reasoning via the statistical coordination of Hebbian learning
  • Learning of predictive patterns requires an explicit or implicit search through a large space of predictive patterns; evolutionary learning provides one approach to this problem, with computer science foundations and plausible connections to brain function; again, Hawkins does not propose any concrete alternative.
  • crucial question of how far one has to abstract away from brain function, to get to something that can be re-specialized into efficient computer software.  My intuition is that this will require a higher level of abstraction than Hawkins seems to believe.  But I stress that this is a matter of intuitive judgment – neither of us really knows.
  • Of course, to interpret the Novamente design as an “abstraction from the brain” is to interpret this phrase in a fairly extreme sense – we’re abstracting general processes like probabilistic inference and evolutionary learning and general properties like hierarchical structure from the brain, rather than particular algorithms. 
    • Matvey Ezhov
       
      наконец-то он сказал это
  • Although I’m (unsurprisingly) most psyched about the Novamente approach, I think it’s also quite worthwhile to pursue AGI approaches that are closer to the brain level – there’s a large space between detailed brain simulation and Novamente, including neuron-level simulations, neural-cluster-level simulations, and so forth. 
Matvey Ezhov

Mapping the brain - MIT news - 2 views

  • To find connectomes, researchers will need to employ vast computing power to process images of the brain. But first, they need to teach the computers what to look for.
  • to manually trace connections between neurons
  • want to speed up the process dramatically by enlisting the help of high-powered computers.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • To do that, they are teaching the computers to analyze the brain slices, using a common computer science technique called automated machine learning, which allows computers to change their behavior in response to new data.
  • With machine learning, the researchers teach computers to learn by example. They feed their computer electron micrographs as well as human tracings of these images. The computer then searches for an algorithm that allows it to imitate human performance.
  • Their eventual goal is to use computers to process the bulk of the images needed to create connectomes, but they expect that humans will still need to proofread the computers’ work.
  • Last year, the National Institutes of Health announced a five-year, $30 million Human Connectome Project to develop new techniques to figure out the connectivity of the human brain. That project is focused mainly on higher level, region-to-region connections. Sporns says he believes that a good draft of higher-level connections could be achieved within the five-year timeline of the NIH project, and that significant progress will also be made toward a neuron-to-neuron map.
    • Matvey Ezhov
       
      draft of human connectome within five years
  • Though only a handful of labs around the world are working on the connectome right now, Jain and Turaga expect that to change as tools for diagramming the brain improve. “It’s a common pattern in neuroscience: A few people will come up with new technology and pioneer some applications, and then everybody else will start to adopt it,” says Jain.
Pump Wat

Best Quality Clean Water Pumps - 1 views

In the previous months, I was looking for quality water pumps for my house that will ensure safe drinking water for my family. I have asked several friends where I could possibly look for the best ...

water pumps

started by Pump Wat on 15 Sep 11 no follow-up yet
Matvey Ezhov

Do Bayesian statistics rule the brain? - 0 views

  • Over the past decade, neuroscientists have found that real brains seem to work in this way. In perception and learning experiments, for example, people tend to make estimates - of the location or speed of a moving object, say - in a way that fits with Bayesian probability theory. There's also evidence that the brain makes internal predictions and updates them in a Bayesian manner. When you listen to someone talking, for example, your brain isn't simply receiving information, it also predicts what it expects to hear and constantly revises its predictions based on what information comes next. These predictions strongly influence what you actually hear, allowing you, for instance, to make sense of distorted or partially obscured speech.
  • In fact, making predictions and re-evaluating them seems to be a universal feature of the brain. At all times your brain is weighing its inputs and comparing them with internal predictions in order to make sense of the world.
Matvey Ezhov

Is this a unified theory of the brain? (Bayesian theory in New Scientist) - 1 views

  • Neuroscientist Karl Friston and his colleagues have proposed a mathematical law that some are claiming is the nearest thing yet to a grand unified theory of the brain. From this single law, Friston’s group claims to be able to explain almost everything about our grey matter.
  • Friston’s ideas build on an existing theory known as the “Bayesian brain”, which conceptualises the brain as a probability machine that constantly makes predictions about the world and then updates them based on what it senses.
  • A crucial element of the approach is that the probabilities are based on experience, but they change when relevant new information, such as visual information about the object’s location, becomes available. “The brain is an inferential agent, optimising its models of what’s going on at this moment and in the future,” says Friston. In other words, the brain runs on Bayesian probability.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • “In short, everything that can change in the brain will change to suppress prediction errors, from the firing of neurons to the wiring between them, and from the movements of our eyes to the choices we make in daily life,” he says.
  • Friston created a computer simulation of the cortex with layers of “neurons” passing signals back and forth. Signals going from higher to lower levels represent the brain’s internal predictions, while signals going the other way represent sensory input. As new information comes in, the higher neurons adjust their predictions according to Bayesian theory.
  • Volunteers watched two sets of moving dots, which sometimes moved in synchrony and at others more randomly, to change the predictability of the stimulus. The patterns of brain activity matched Friston’s model of the visual cortex reasonably well.
  • Friston’s results have earned praise for bringing together so many disparate strands of neuroscience. “It is quite certainly the most advanced conceptual framework regarding an application of these ideas to brain function in general,” says Wennekers. Marsel Mesulam, a cognitive neurologist from Northwestern University in Chicago, adds: “Friston’s work is pivotal. It resonates entirely with the sort of model that I would like to see emerge.”
  • “The final equation you write on a T-shirt will be quite simple,” Friston predicts.
  • There’s work still to be done, but for now Friston’s is the most promising approach we’ve got. “It will take time to spin off all of the consequences of the theory – but I take that property as a sure sign that this is a very important theory,” says Dehaene. “Most other models, including mine, are just models of one small aspect of the brain, very limited in their scope. This one falls much closer to a grand theory.”
Volucer Volucer

Bigger not necessarily better, when it comes to brains - 1 views

  •  
    "In fact, the models suggest that counting could be achieved with only a few hundred nerve cells and only a few thousand could be enough to generate consciousness. "
1 - 10 of 10
Showing 20 items per page