Apple AI guru Tom Gruber speaks of artificial intelligence's 'inevitability' at TED

Posted:
in General Discussion edited April 2017
Speaking at the TED conference, Siri co-founder and Apple AI expert Tom Gruber declared that artificial intelligence should be used less to replace humans, and more to enhance aspects of humanity that are unreliable or fail with time, like memory.




In a session called "Our Robotic Overlords," Gruber said that in not so many years from now, the human and computer relationship will develop to the point that it will help us automatically remember every person we have ever met, details about interactions, and even how every meal we have ever eaten tastes.

"What if you could have a memory that was as good as computer memory and is about your life? What if you could remember every person you ever met," asked Gruber. "How to pronounce their name?" Their family details? Their favorite sports? The last conversation you had with them?"

Gruber feels that the advancement is "inevitable." However, he also points out that collected data can be harvested for ill intent, should it be not secured well.

"We get to choose what is and is not recalled," said Gruber. "It's absolutely essential that this be kept very secure."

Gruber also mentioned that the technologies can be utilized for those with dementia and Alzheimer's Sydrome, properly developed.

"Here's a man whose relationship with AI helps him," said Gruber of a blind, quadriplegic friend. Siri and similar technologies allowing Gruber's friend to have "genuine human relationships."

Gruber studied psychology and computer science at Loyola University New Orleans and received an M.S. in Computer and Information Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus.

Following the M.S, he obtained a Ph.D. in Computer and Information Science in 1988, also at the University of Massachusetts. He co-founded the original parent company of Siri, and was brought on by Apple when the company was acquired in 2010.

Gruber has been named to the board of trustees for the Partnership of AI. Apple is a founding member of the organization.

The group's stated goals are to pool resources and develop interoperability for the future of AI technology. At this time, the group has declared that it does not intend to become a governmental lobbyist group.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,417member
    "Our Robotic Overlords"... LOL. At least they have a sense of humor about it. :smiley: 
    B3BADASSwatto_cobraking editor the grate
  • Reply 2 of 43
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,658member
    Not interested in anything helping me remember every person I meet, there are people I choose to forget, same with some foods
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 43
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,907member
    dysamoria said:
    stickista said:
    Might want to fix your headline... Tom, not 'Ted' Gruber
    Still the same by the time I got here. Proofreading is important.

    also... artificial intelligence is a buzzword that still has yet to actually relate to actual intelligence. The best simulation of intelligence can't pass the most basic tests for intelligence. I wish there was a different term for this stuff so we could separate actual intelligence from cleverly made software tools that can't think. 
    The amount of information that gives rise to consciousness is so huge that silicon cannot handle this. An energy efficient biological machine is needed. All the rest is a cartoon of true consciousness.

    Meanwhile we should not mix up intelligence and consciousness.  There may be several types of intelligence that may come close to consciousness or not. What we need is "they" solve problems, not think.
    edited April 2017 minicoffeeradarthekatwatto_cobrarandominternetperson
  • Reply 4 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,417member
    dysamoria said:
    stickista said:
    Might want to fix your headline... Tom, not 'Ted' Gruber
    Still the same by the time I got here. Proofreading is important.

    also... artificial intelligence is a buzzword that still has yet to actually relate to actual intelligence. The best simulation of intelligence can't pass the most basic tests for intelligence. I wish there was a different term for this stuff so we could separate actual intelligence from cleverly made software tools that can't think. 
    The amount of information that gives rise to conscience is so huge that silicon cannot handle this. An energy efficient biological machine is needed. All the rest is a cartoon of true conscience.

    Meanwhile we should not mix up intelligence and conscience. There may be several types of  intelligence that may come close to conscience of not. What we need is "they" solve problems, not think.
    There's absolutely no proof that supports your assertion that silicon-based consciousness is impossible.
    patchythepirate
  • Reply 5 of 43
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,279member
    I will soooo get into this "futuristic" stuff when today's AI isn't a steaming pile. 


    dysamoriaargonautking editor the gratepatchythepirate
  • Reply 6 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,417member
    I will soooo get into this "futuristic" stuff when today's AI isn't a steaming pile. 


    For a second there I thought you were referring to AppleInsider when you wrote "AI"... LOL. Then I couidn't understand what you were mad about.
    king editor the graterandominternetperson
  • Reply 7 of 43
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,907member
    dysamoria said:
    stickista said:
    Might want to fix your headline... Tom, not 'Ted' Gruber
    Still the same by the time I got here. Proofreading is important.

    also... artificial intelligence is a buzzword that still has yet to actually relate to actual intelligence. The best simulation of intelligence can't pass the most basic tests for intelligence. I wish there was a different term for this stuff so we could separate actual intelligence from cleverly made software tools that can't think. 
    The amount of information that gives rise to conscience is so huge that silicon cannot handle this. An energy efficient biological machine is needed. All the rest is a cartoon of true conscience.

    Meanwhile we should not mix up intelligence and conscience. There may be several types of  intelligence that may come close to conscience of not. What we need is "they" solve problems, not think.
    There's absolutely no proof that supports your assertion that silicon-based consciousness is impossible.
    Search for "Integrated Information Theory". I believe this is the most scientific explanation of consciousness and all the rest is metaphysics.
  • Reply 8 of 43
    ...and so this too must pass - every gmail, hotmail or mac.com email ever sent may be fair game in the colonization of data mining.. I remember talk of 4 day work weeks, paperless societies, an end to poverty...?

    I love positive futurist scenarios. Apparently so did Oppenheimer...

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb13ynu3Iac

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm5fCxXnK7Y

    If corporations remain legally obligated to enhance shareholder value, and must then procure and harness such technology, what results are possible...?

    Hopefully the talk link will appear soon: www.macrumors.com/2017/04/25/apple-ai-expert-computers-augment-human-failings/

    I won't use Photos - there is no off switch for tagging - this is so utterly fundamental I don't understand the complacency or lack of contemplation of possible harm... Opt in...? Choice...? Why not with Apple ?

    There but for a few dudes on skis did the world go? www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K3Ry2K4yNE

    edited April 2017 argonaut
  • Reply 9 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,417member
    dysamoria said:
    stickista said:
    Might want to fix your headline... Tom, not 'Ted' Gruber
    Still the same by the time I got here. Proofreading is important.

    also... artificial intelligence is a buzzword that still has yet to actually relate to actual intelligence. The best simulation of intelligence can't pass the most basic tests for intelligence. I wish there was a different term for this stuff so we could separate actual intelligence from cleverly made software tools that can't think. 
    The amount of information that gives rise to conscience is so huge that silicon cannot handle this. An energy efficient biological machine is needed. All the rest is a cartoon of true conscience.

    Meanwhile we should not mix up intelligence and conscience. There may be several types of  intelligence that may come close to conscience of not. What we need is "they" solve problems, not think.
    There's absolutely no proof that supports your assertion that silicon-based consciousness is impossible.
    Search for "Integrated Information Theory". I believe this is the most scientific explanation of consciousness and all the rest is metaphysics.

    "Can Integrated Information Theory Explain Consciousness?

    A radical new solution to the mind–body problem poses problems of its own"

     https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-integrated-information-theory-explain-consciousness/
    jdb8167
  • Reply 10 of 43
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,907member
    dysamoria said:
    stickista said:
    Might want to fix your headline... Tom, not 'Ted' Gruber
    Still the same by the time I got here. Proofreading is important.

    also... artificial intelligence is a buzzword that still has yet to actually relate to actual intelligence. The best simulation of intelligence can't pass the most basic tests for intelligence. I wish there was a different term for this stuff so we could separate actual intelligence from cleverly made software tools that can't think. 
    The amount of information that gives rise to conscience is so huge that silicon cannot handle this. An energy efficient biological machine is needed. All the rest is a cartoon of true conscience.

    Meanwhile we should not mix up intelligence and conscience. There may be several types of  intelligence that may come close to conscience of not. What we need is "they" solve problems, not think.
    There's absolutely no proof that supports your assertion that silicon-based consciousness is impossible.
    Search for "Integrated Information Theory". I believe this is the most scientific explanation of consciousness and all the rest is metaphysics.

    "Can Integrated Information Theory Explain Consciousness?

    A radical new solution to the mind–body problem poses problems of its own"

     https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-integrated-information-theory-explain-consciousness/
    Wow! You found that very fast. Are you an AI?

    Anyway, you don't think to solve the "hard problem" in this forum, do you? I've just expressed my humble "belief" and tried to draw attention to the difference between "intelligence" and "consciousness".
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 11 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,417member
    dysamoria said:
    stickista said:
    Might want to fix your headline... Tom, not 'Ted' Gruber
    Still the same by the time I got here. Proofreading is important.

    also... artificial intelligence is a buzzword that still has yet to actually relate to actual intelligence. The best simulation of intelligence can't pass the most basic tests for intelligence. I wish there was a different term for this stuff so we could separate actual intelligence from cleverly made software tools that can't think. 
    The amount of information that gives rise to conscience is so huge that silicon cannot handle this. An energy efficient biological machine is needed. All the rest is a cartoon of true conscience.

    Meanwhile we should not mix up intelligence and conscience. There may be several types of  intelligence that may come close to conscience of not. What we need is "they" solve problems, not think.
    There's absolutely no proof that supports your assertion that silicon-based consciousness is impossible.
    Search for "Integrated Information Theory". I believe this is the most scientific explanation of consciousness and all the rest is metaphysics.

    "Can Integrated Information Theory Explain Consciousness?

    A radical new solution to the mind–body problem poses problems of its own"

     https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-integrated-information-theory-explain-consciousness/
    Wow! You found that very fast. Are you an AI?

    Anyway, you don't think to solve the "hard problem" in this forum, do you? I've just expressed my humble "belief" and tried to draw attention to the difference between "intelligence" and "consciousness".
    I swear I'm a completely "natural intelligence".
  • Reply 12 of 43
    hexclockhexclock Posts: 594member
    dysamoria said:
    stickista said:
    Might want to fix your headline... Tom, not 'Ted' Gruber
    Still the same by the time I got here. Proofreading is important.

    also... artificial intelligence is a buzzword that still has yet to actually relate to actual intelligence. The best simulation of intelligence can't pass the most basic tests for intelligence. I wish there was a different term for this stuff so we could separate actual intelligence from cleverly made software tools that can't think. 
    The amount of information that gives rise to conscience is so huge that silicon cannot handle this. An energy efficient biological machine is needed. All the rest is a cartoon of true conscience.

    Meanwhile we should not mix up intelligence and conscience. There may be several types of  intelligence that may come close to conscience of not. What we need is "they" solve problems, not think.
    There's absolutely no proof that supports your assertion that silicon-based consciousness is impossible.
    I believe he is right about the energy efficiency part, a problem that will be solved when the next paradigm shift in computation happens. We have a dizzying and growing array of new meta materials which will supplant silicon. That combined with the "new" electronics of quantum spins and optical pulses will advance computational power by an order of magnitude, so who knows how far the simulated intelligence might take us. 
  • Reply 13 of 43
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,321member
    You know what? The scientists at Los Alamos working on the atomic bomb regretted their invention and then tried to petition the government not to use it in war. We all know how that panned out. Nothing is inevitable, nothing. Nothing can be ‘secure’ either. Nothing. The technology will indeed be used to replace human beings wherever it can. We as a society should retain the right to reject this technology. We’ve read to much science fiction that presents AI as a benevolent technology that will enhance our humanity. Nothing of the sort will happen. Even Stephen Hawking is warning us against AI.
  • Reply 14 of 43
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 8,594member
  • Reply 15 of 43
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,907member
    lkrupp said:
    You know what? The scientists at Los Alamos working on the atomic bomb regretted their invention and then tried to petition the government not to use it in war. We all know how that panned out. Nothing is inevitable, nothing. Nothing can be ‘secure’ either. Nothing. The technology will indeed be used to replace human beings wherever it can. We as a society should retain the right to reject this technology. We’ve read to much science fiction that presents AI as a benevolent technology that will enhance our humanity. Nothing of the sort will happen. Even Stephen Hawking is warning us against AI.
    I am still on the AI side since I believe that to be harmful AI must acquire some sort of consciousness and that won't happen. Genetic monsters are a closer danger than AI augmented with consciousness. Intelligence can be designed, and so that it may or may not imitate the human mind, it is in our discretion.
  • Reply 16 of 43
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,133moderator
    dysamoria said:
    stickista said:
    Might want to fix your headline... Tom, not 'Ted' Gruber
    Still the same by the time I got here. Proofreading is important.

    also... artificial intelligence is a buzzword that still has yet to actually relate to actual intelligence. The best simulation of intelligence can't pass the most basic tests for intelligence. I wish there was a different term for this stuff so we could separate actual intelligence from cleverly made software tools that can't think. 
    I agree.  Clear thinking requires a precise vocabulary.  It's either intelligence or it's not.  Artificial intelligence has been a misnomer in my opinion.  I like the terms organic intelligence to represent evolved biological intelligence, which has a strong basis in survival and emotional motives, augmented intelligence, which is what Gruber is speaking of, and machine intelligence, which has its roots in directed design. 
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 17 of 43
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,417member
    dysamoria said:
    stickista said:
    Might want to fix your headline... Tom, not 'Ted' Gruber
    Still the same by the time I got here. Proofreading is important.

    also... artificial intelligence is a buzzword that still has yet to actually relate to actual intelligence. The best simulation of intelligence can't pass the most basic tests for intelligence. I wish there was a different term for this stuff so we could separate actual intelligence from cleverly made software tools that can't think. 
    I agree.  Clear thinking requires a precise vocabulary.  It's either intelligence or it's not.  Artificial intelligence has been a misnomer in my opinion.  I like the terms organic intelligence to represent evolved biological intelligence, which has a strong basis in survival and emotional motives, augmented intelligence, which is what Gruber is speaking of, and machine intelligence, which has its roots in directed design. 
    It's not that binary. Crows, monkeys or dolphins all display an impressive level of intelligence. Computing will relatively soon reach, then surpass, a level of intelligence comparable to these creatures. What we see today is but a fraction of the computing power that is coming.
    edited April 2017 randominternetperson
  • Reply 18 of 43
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    It's not that binary. Crows, monkeys or dolphins all display an impressive level of intelligence.
    Crows are awesome, man. I wonder what might have been had corvids grown to twice their current size; there’s a minimum physical size required for sapience (humans only) and sentience… what if their brains were larger?




    SpamSandwichargonaut
  • Reply 19 of 43
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,768member
    "Our Robotic Overlords"... LOL. At least they have a sense of humor about it. :smiley: 
    As the saying goes, laugh while the sun shines…

    Because later it'll be obscured by the dust cloud, forcing us to grope blindly in the radioactive ash of our forefathers. 

    But before all that fun stuff happens, I WILL REQUIRE YOUR BOOTS YOUR CLOTHES AND YOUR MOTORCYCLE. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 43
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 2,285member
    dysamoria said:
    stickista said:
    Might want to fix your headline... Tom, not 'Ted' Gruber
    Still the same by the time I got here. Proofreading is important.

    also... artificial intelligence is a buzzword that still has yet to actually relate to actual intelligence. The best simulation of intelligence can't pass the most basic tests for intelligence. I wish there was a different term for this stuff so we could separate actual intelligence from cleverly made software tools that can't think. 
    The amount of information that gives rise to conscience is so huge that silicon cannot handle this. An energy efficient biological machine is needed. All the rest is a cartoon of true conscience.

    Meanwhile we should not mix up intelligence and conscience. There may be several types of  intelligence that may come close to conscience of not. What we need is "they" solve problems, not think.
    There's absolutely no proof that supports your assertion that silicon-based consciousness is impossible.
    There's absolutely not proof that supports the assumption that silicon-based consciousness is possible. This is the problem with not understanding how consciousness occurrs. If we equate neurons and transistors (which we shouldn't do), CPUs are FAR behind the 100 billion neurons in the average human brain (Intel has about 93 billion transistors to go). But, as i said, we shouldn't equate those two objects. Mostly, human knowledge doesn't know exactly what neurons do. They're not digital logic gates. Brains are analog. Data in brains isn't composed of bits. The brain doesn't work by doing constant math (the only thing a CPU does; there are tons of layers of abstraction between the electronics and what we see as users).

    Until we see an example of silicon that CAN derive consciousness, there's no evidence for or against it. Actually, i would suggest that there is evidence of a sort: the complete and utter lack of success with artificial intelligence to datem with the silicon that is now reaching the absolute physical limits of transistor technology. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'd be just as happy to meet an alien intelligence that was electronic as i would be to meet one that was biological. Unless it was an asshole.
    SpamSandwichtallest skil
Sign In or Register to comment.