NetFlap.com - {the tech blog}

Is it possible for a machine to think and solve problems the same way we do? 

Are we able to create a system (AI) equally as complex as the system (our brains) we are using to create it?

These questions sound very deep and would maybe strike some people as being legitimate question, but they’re not.  When it comes to creating a system which exhibits generalized intelligence, we have the distinct advantage of having a fully functional system which does exactly what we’re looking to do… our brains.  Being able to disect brains, and watch (to some extent) the brain in action means that we we are not simply given the task of “thinking about how we think”, we also get MANY biological clues as to how the brain performs the amazing tasks that it does.  This basically presents us with a puzzle of which we have a lot of the pieces and we have a decent idea of what the end picture should look like, but we have no idea how they go together or what pieces we’re missing.  I’m in no way trying to trivialize the task of creating artificial intelligence by comparing it to a puzzle, I’m saying that it’s not about “can we do it” it’s about “how and when will we do it”.

The most significant road-block to this problem being solved is not the problem itself, but the people (like me) who are trying to solve it.  Those who take interest in this problem are primarily software developers who see that ENORMOUSLY complex things can be done using computer software.  The problem is that software developers always want to “create a program that does X” and when you create artificial intelligence, you need to “create a program that does anything”.  Understanding the difference between creating a program which solves a problem and creating a program which solves all problems (or almost all) is where most AI projects fail.  You see the projects all the time which I call “supermaket navigation systems” which are written to do one thing and one thing only.  I’m sure that those in charge of the project originally meant to create the universal intelligence, but over time the developer’s need to solve the problem will take over and he/she will begin to focus on solving one problem.  This is the point at which the only thing the software can do is pick out objects from a pictures or navigate a supermarket.  These are great accomplishments, but they do not bring us any closer to truely generalized artificial intelligence.  You show me the software that can navigate a supermarket AND pick out objects from a picture (using the same system) and that is what I would consider true progress.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying that software developers can’t solve the problem, I’m saying that software developers need to know that they are their own worst enemy when it comes to solving this problem.  I firmly believe that it will be a software developer who figures out the secret and I also believe that it won’t be nearly as complex as most people believe.

TrackBack to 'Artificial intelligence - Are developers the problem?'.

So I was reading in the news today about this NetFlix competition where they are offering a million dollars for the first person/team to improve the accuracy of their movie suggestion algorithm by 10%.

Now, NetFlix is a pretty big company and I’m sure they have some pretty smart people working for them.  The question for people entering this contest is, just how smart are the Netflix engineers?

From a business point of view, this move by NetFlix is extremely smart.  It will make thousands of people try to solve an extremely difficult problem.  Since the problem has been worked on for years now and little progress has been made recently, it is more than likely that the next major advancement will come by moving away from the current top solution and using a completely different technique.  This contest should fuel new thought and innovation and I believe NetFlix should be commended for funding research in this way.

Now the question is… should I try?  A seemingly impossible task with a million dollar reward… that’s right up my alley.

I’ll have to look into it a little more…

TrackBack to 'The NetFlix competition'.

I seem to be writing a lot of rants lately, but hey, that’s just how it goes.  Another question I have about users is why is it that whenever something goes wrong with a computer, it’s the computer’s fault.  People have the impression that computers are there to do things for them, when really, a computer is just a tool.  A computer helps a person with mundane tasks to accomplish a goal

The underlying problem here is that the big software companies (you know who) have tried to make the computer a friendly device which acts more like a co-worker than a typewriter.  People treat the computer like another person because it asks them questions and cute little paper-clips talk to them.  The function of asking questions and talking to them is simply a method of extracting information from people who can’t tell the computer what they want.  But from the user’s point of view, the computer is talking to them and therefore is doing things for them.  This is where things break down.

You see, so the user ends up thinking the computer is doing something for them when really they are using the computer to do something for themselves.  So when something goes wrong, it’s the computer’s fault, because the computer was doing it.

Now there are some cases where software or hardware is defective and in those cases, yes, the computer is to blame.  But when someone is using a program that is known to crash often, and they still continue to use it… can they really blame it when they lose their file?

TrackBack to 'It’s the computer’s fault'.