Despite nearly 65 years of failed promises, interest in artificial intelligence (AI) is once again picking up in the venture/startup world.
One of the most talked about VC deals in March, for example, was a $40 million round for Vicarious FPC, an artificial intelligence company that had so much hype around it that the biggest names of the tech world – including Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk (and Ashton Kutcher) – lined up to participate. And that comes just two months after Google made a monster $400 million bet on DeepMind, an AI start-up based in London. __WP
Behind the scenes, Jeff Hawkins and his company Numenta continue working hard on the approach to artificial intelligence spelled out in Hawkins’ 2004 book, “On Intelligence.”
The road to a successful, widely deployable framework for an artificial mind is littered with failed schemes, dead ends, and traps. No one has come to the end of it, yet. But while major firms like Google and Facebook, and small companies like Vicarious, are striding over well-worn paths, Hawkins believes he is taking a new approach that could take him and his colleagues at his company, Numenta, all the way.
For over a decade, Hawkins has poured his energy into amassing enough knowledge about the brain and about how to program it in software. Now, he believes he is on the cusp of a great period of invention that may yield some very powerful technology. __Jeff Hawkins and His Brain-Like AI
Ramez Naan says: “Not so fast. The Singularity is Further Than it Appears” .
The most successful and profitable AI in the world is almost certainly Google Search. In fact, in Search alone, Google uses a great many AI techniques. Some to rank documents, some to classify spam, some to classify adult content, some to match ads, and so on. In your daily life you interact with other ‘AI’ technologies (or technologies once considered AI) whenever you use an online map, when you play a video game, or any of a dozen other activities.
None of these is about to become sentient. None of these is built towards sentience. Sentience brings no advantage to the companies who build these software systems. Building it would entail an epic research project – indeed, one of unknown length involving uncapped expenditure for potentially decades – for no obvious outcome. So why would anyone do it?
… IBM’s ‘Blue Brain’ project has used one of the world’s most powerful supercomputers (an IBM Blue Gene/P with 147,456 CPUs) to run a simulation of 1.6 billion neurons and almost 9 trillion synapses, roughly the size of a cat brain. The simulation ran around 600 times slower than real time – that is to say, it took 600 seconds to simulate 1 second of brain activity….
… the IBM Blue Brain simulation uses neurons that accumulate inputs from other neurons and which then ‘fire’, like real neurons, to pass signals on down the line. But those neurons lack many features of actual flesh and blood neurons. They don’t have real receptors that neurotransmitter molecules (the serotonin, dopamine, opiates, and so on…
…. consider three more discoveries we’ve made in recent years about how the brain works, none of which are included in current brain simulations.
First, there’re glial cells. Glial cells outnumber neurons in the human brain. And traditionally we’ve thought of them as ‘support’ cells that just help keep neurons running. But new research has shown that they’re also important for cognition. Yet the Blue Gene simulation contains none.
Second, very recent work has shown that, sometimes, neurons that don’t have any synapses connecting them can actually communicate. The electrical activity of one neuron can cause a nearby neuron to fire (or not fire) just by affecting an electric field, and without any release of neurotransmitters between them. This too is not included in the Blue Brain model.
Third, and finally, other research has shown that the overall electrical activity of the brain also affects the firing behavior of individual neurons by changing the brain’s electrical field. Again, this isn’t included in any brain models today.
… I think the near future will be one of quite a tremendous amount of technological advancement. I’m extremely excited about it. But I don’t see a Singularity [(super)-human level AI] in our future for quite a long time to come. __Singularity? Not Yet
One can find all of these arguments — and a lot more — in the Al Fin blog archives on Artificial Intelligence. But then, anyone who depends upon the mainstream for information is always the last to know — and the most misinformed.
The human brain is a massively complex puzzle — from the structure to real-time gene expression to its multiple levels and types of communication and modulation. Since the homo sapiens brain is the only working prototype of human-level intelligence, and since we are not even close to understanding how the brain makes the thing we call intelligence, it is not surprising that all of the purely abstract and disconnected approaches to artificial intelligence are only frail and mocking shadows compared to the brain of a human infant — and much less when compared to the brain of a competent and adaptable adult.
That is likely to remain the case for at least the next half century — until humans learn to train ambitious multi-competent, polymath human minds with advanced practical skills and lively creative imaginations.
It is never too late to have a dangerous childhood. Even for a lazy, self-satisfied species.