"Brain-like", as it markets well, while failing to mention the human brain is likely simultaneously both quantum and organic, something you can't build in a microprocessor lab from silicon. A discussion for another time.
One of the problems I have with the term AI is that it really hasn't become an intelligence at this point. Current AI techniques are just another way to process data that mimic some operations in the brain. This really has nothing to do with intelligence in the same way that a normal computer program solving a problem for you does not represent intelligence.
As for the quantum world that is a very real concern in modern semiconductor processes. It wouldn't be impossible to leverage quantum realities to produce an AI chip that performs with unique capabilities. I'm still not sure that would mean "intelligence" in the sense of a human being.
Yeah, I don't think it would. I used be a concrete materialist kind of guy and so with an interest in physics I've been looking into physics for a number of years now and have become basically convinced there's more than materialism and in turn I have gravitated I would submit quite naturally to a sense that complexity by itself won't bring awareness to a system. So, no, I don't believe it would be intelligent in how we think of intelligence. It may be a system that learns for itself from how it was setup. It would perform complex pattern matching and super-quickly analysing truly huge amounts of data, comparing and contrasting to give of an illusion of awareness. It will solve problems and provide solutions but won't be alive and kicking, essentially.
"Brain-like", as it markets well, while failing to mention the human brain is likely simultaneously both quantum and organic, something you can't build in a microprocessor lab from silicon. A discussion for another time.
One of the problems I have with the term AI is that it really hasn't become an intelligence at this point. Current AI techniques are just another way to process data that mimic some operations in the brain. This really has nothing to do with intelligence in the same way that a normal computer program solving a problem for you does not represent intelligence.
As for the quantum world that is a very real concern in modern semiconductor processes. It wouldn't be impossible to leverage quantum realities to produce an AI chip that performs with unique capabilities. I'm still not sure that would mean "intelligence" in the sense of a human being.
Yeah, I don't think it would. I used be a concrete materialist kind of guy and so with an interest in physics I've been looking into physics for a number of years now and have become basically convinced there's more than materialism and in turn I have gravitated I would submit quite naturally to a sense that complexity by itself won't bring awareness to a system. So, no, I don't believe it would be intelligent in how we think of intelligence. It may be a system that learns for itself from how it was setup. It would perform complex pattern matching and super-quickly analysing truly huge amounts of data, comparing and contrasting to give of an illusion of awareness. It will solve problems and provide solutions but won't be alive and kicking, essentially.
Anything procedural or that can be bound by a protocol can be represented on silicon. Of course a computer must do better than humans, that's all of its reason of existence. They don't need to look or act like the brain, they don't have to imitate the brain. Actually we humans are capable of designing better "intelligences" than our own, because we possess the mathematical understanding to do that. Prior to computers, large numbers were multiplied by hand using logarithm tables. We got bored with that and invented computers that perform multiplication as a series of dumb additions but do it much faster than humans using logarithm tables. Here are two "intelligences" that achieve the same goal: both are the results of the human intellect.
That mathematical understanding that allows us to create "better intelligences" also tells us that those "better intelligences" will continue to be better and better than humans but will never be identical to the human intelligence some day. Having no fear of such apocalyptic scenarios, we will just continue to design better intelligences than our own.
I wonder if this doesn't imply that the future of computing will be machines that are built around a CPU, GPU, AIPU combo.
We can reasonably infer that future architects will increasingly use multiple (>=3) processing units, and that dedicated A.I. will eventually infiltrate each of them. After that point, expect emergent behaviour from these systems — and a reactionary public paranoia about robots taking over.
Drop the Artificial part (it's either intelligence or it isn't), and let's call it the iPU. Hmm, on second thought…
artificial |ˌärdəˈfiSHəl|
adjective - made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally
Everything inside a computer is artificial. Should be referring to artificial memory as well? Artificial storage? Artificial logic?
LOL Is that meant to be a joke or a real rebuttal?
"Brain-like", as it markets well, while failing to mention the human brain is likely simultaneously both quantum and organic, something you can't build in a microprocessor lab from silicon. A discussion for another time.
One of the problems I have with the term AI is that it really hasn't become an intelligence at this point. Current AI techniques are just another way to process data that mimic some operations in the brain. This really has nothing to do with intelligence in the same way that a normal computer program solving a problem for you does not represent intelligence.
As for the quantum world that is a very real concern in modern semiconductor processes. It wouldn't be impossible to leverage quantum realities to produce an AI chip that performs with unique capabilities. I'm still not sure that would mean "intelligence" in the sense of a human being.
Yeah, I don't think it would. I used be a concrete materialist kind of guy and so with an interest in physics I've been looking into physics for a number of years now and have become basically convinced there's more than materialism and in turn I have gravitated I would submit quite naturally to a sense that complexity by itself won't bring awareness to a system. So, no, I don't believe it would be intelligent in how we think of intelligence. It may be a system that learns for itself from how it was setup. It would perform complex pattern matching and super-quickly analysing truly huge amounts of data, comparing and contrasting to give of an illusion of awareness. It will solve problems and provide solutions but won't be alive and kicking, essentially.
Anything procedural or that can be bound by a protocol can be represented on silicon. Of course a computer must do better than humans, that's all of its reason of existence. They don't need to look or act like the brain, they don't have to imitate the brain. Actually we humans are capable of designing better "intelligences" than our own, because we possess the mathematical understanding to do that. Prior to computers, large numbers were multiplied by hand using logarithm tables. We got bored with that and invented computers that perform multiplication as a series of dumb additions but do it much faster than humans using logarithm tables. Here are two "intelligences" that achieve the same goal: both are the results of the human intellect.
That mathematical understanding that allows us to create "better intelligences" also tells us that those "better intelligences" will continue to be better and better than humans but will never be identical to the human intelligence some day. Having no fear of such apocalyptic scenarios, we will just continue to design better intelligences than our own.
I wonder if this doesn't imply that the future of computing will be machines that are built around a CPU, GPU, AIPU combo.
We can reasonably infer that future architects will increasingly use multiple (>=3) processing units, and that dedicated A.I. will eventually infiltrate each of them. After that point, expect emergent behaviour from these systems — and a reactionary public paranoia about robots taking over.
Drop the Artificial part (it's either intelligence or it isn't),...
Then it's not. None of this is intelligence. It's just a bunch of algorithms. It does not think.
I wonder if this doesn't imply that the future of computing will be machines that are built around a CPU, GPU, AIPU combo.
We can reasonably infer that future architects will increasingly use multiple (>=3) processing units, and that dedicated A.I. will eventually infiltrate each of them. After that point, expect emergent behaviour from these systems — and a reactionary public paranoia about robots taking over.
Drop the Artificial part (it's either intelligence or it isn't), and let's call it the iPU. Hmm, on second thought…
artificial |ˌärdəˈfiSHəl|
adjective - made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally
Everything inside a computer is artificial. Should be referring to artificial memory as well? Artificial storage? Artificial logic?
LOL Is that meant to be a joke or a real rebuttal?
Bit of both, though tbh I don't think your point was much deserving of a rebuttal; in fact the very idea that you consider either your post or mine as any degree of debate I find somewhat bizarre.
Anyway, since we're here... it's "artificial intelligence" in common parlance, but the term artificial being in there is clearly somewhat redundant when the subject is already defined as computing, though I can't much say I care either way, people will say what they want to say. The truth behind my point was that posting a dictionary definition as a response to someone making a fairly glib point that contributes to a (also rather silly and pointless, though sometimes fun) conversation about the naming of an Apple product strikes me as rather tedious boredom.
Do you really think Apple cares about the dictionary definition of "artificial" in the naming of their custom processors? Have they shown much observance of the dictionary in the past (see: "funnest", and their weird product grammar)? Did Sony care about the dictionary definition of "emotion" when they named their PS2 CPU the "Emotion Engine"?
In short: everyone knows the definition of "artificial", stop being a pompous prick please.
I wonder if this doesn't imply that the future of computing will be machines that are built around a CPU, GPU, AIPU combo.
We can reasonably infer that future architects will increasingly use multiple (>=3) processing units, and that dedicated A.I. will eventually infiltrate each of them. After that point, expect emergent behaviour from these systems — and a reactionary public paranoia about robots taking over.
Drop the Artificial part (it's either intelligence or it isn't), and let's call it the iPU. Hmm, on second thought…
artificial |ˌärdəˈfiSHəl|
adjective - made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally
Everything inside a computer is artificial. Should be referring to artificial memory as well? Artificial storage? Artificial logic?
LOL Is that meant to be a joke or a real rebuttal?
Bit of both, though tbh I don't think your point was much deserving of a rebuttal; in fact the very idea that you consider either your post or mine as any degree of debate I find somewhat bizarre.
Anyway, since we're here... it's "artificial intelligence" in common parlance, but the term artificial being in there is clearly somewhat redundant when the subject is already defined as computing, though I can't much say I care either way, people will say what they want to say. The truth behind my point was that posting a dictionary definition as a response to someone making a fairly glib point that contributes to a (also rather silly and pointless, though sometimes fun) conversation about the naming of an Apple product strikes me as rather tedious boredom.
Do you really think Apple cares about the dictionary definition of "artificial" in the naming of their custom processors? Have they shown much observance of the dictionary in the past (see: "funnest", and their weird product grammar)? Did Sony care about the dictionary definition of "emotion" when they named their PS2 CPU the "Emotion Engine"?
Nothing about his comment came across as glib. His comment read that it should all be called intelligence because it has the capability to learn in whatever extent it was designed to learn.
In short: everyone knows the definition of "artificial", stop being a pompous prick please.
Today PED is pouring cold water on the possibility of an Apple AI chip anytime soon, basing that on comments by Craig Federighi during an interview a few days ago at WWDC 17:
Gruber: We talk about GPUs and obviously graphics is the G in GPU, .. but the other thing that's going on in the world of computer science at large is that all of this machine learning work is going through GPU processing not CPU processing 'cause that's, just, I don't know (audience laughter) it's over my pay grade of how I understand how computers work. But the eGPU is going to be a major factor in that, too, right?
Federighi: That's right... Because GPUs are a case where, as we've been able to shrink transistor density, you can essentially throw more and more transistors at the problem of graphics processing and it pretty much scales up. It's just a very parallelizable task. And it turns out that if you want teraflops of performance to run a machine learning model, you can parallelize that on a GPU and you can get tremendous wins.
I wonder if this doesn't imply that the future of computing will be machines that are built around a CPU, GPU, AIPU combo.
We can reasonably infer that future architects will increasingly use multiple (>=3) processing units, and that dedicated A.I. will eventually infiltrate each of them. After that point, expect emergent behaviour from these systems — and a reactionary public paranoia about robots taking over.
Drop the Artificial part (it's either intelligence or it isn't), and let's call it the iPU. Hmm, on second thought…
artificial |ˌärdəˈfiSHəl|
adjective - made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally
Yes, but should we refer to sofas as artificial seating surfaces? Gasoline is produced by humans from the natural resource oil. Should we call that artificial fuel? I've just never been convinced we need the descriptor for the realm of intelligence. Why is it any more special than anything else made or produced by humans? Call it machine intelligence if you want to differentiate. That, to me, makes sense.
I wonder if this doesn't imply that the future of computing will be machines that are built around a CPU, GPU, AIPU combo.
We can reasonably infer that future architects will increasingly use multiple (>=3) processing units, and that dedicated A.I. will eventually infiltrate each of them. After that point, expect emergent behaviour from these systems — and a reactionary public paranoia about robots taking over.
Drop the Artificial part (it's either intelligence or it isn't), and let's call it the iPU. Hmm, on second thought…
artificial |ˌärdəˈfiSHəl|
adjective - made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally
Yes, but should we refer to sofas as artificial seating surfaces? Gasoline is produced by humans from the natural resource oil. Should we call that artificial fuel? I've just never been convinced we need the descriptor for the realm of intelligence. Why is it any more special than anything else made or produced by humans? Call it machine intelligence if you want to differentiate. That, to me, makes sense.
1) Yes, sofas are artifical since they don't occur naturally in nature.
2) "Machine intelligence" doesn't occur in nature so it's artificial, but more importantly it's the fucking term. You speak English so you're clearly familiar with the excessive idioms, loanwords, and some general etymology of the language. Do you take umbrage with terms like hamburger because the beef was sourced from cows in Hamburg? I'm guessing you don't look up the city or farm in which you get ground beef and then call it <name>-er because, and I quote, "That, to me, makes sense."
I wonder if this doesn't imply that the future of computing will be machines that are built around a CPU, GPU, AIPU combo.
We can reasonably infer that future architects will increasingly use multiple (>=3) processing units, and that dedicated A.I. will eventually infiltrate each of them. After that point, expect emergent behaviour from these systems — and a reactionary public paranoia about robots taking over.
Drop the Artificial part (it's either intelligence or it isn't),...
Then it's not. None of this is intelligence. It's just a bunch of algorithms. It does not think.
Define 'think.' A machine could devise 'an opinion, belief or idea about something or someone,' as a human does and as we define thinking. The particular mechanism for doing so may differ, but the result may be similar. Sufficiently so to pass a Turing test. We can debate consciousness separately, but thinking, I think, is something machine intelligence has already demonstrated.
Today PED is pouring cold water on the possibility of an Apple AI chip anytime soon, basing that on comments by Craig Federighi during an interview a few days ago at WWDC 17:
Gruber: We talk about GPUs and obviously graphics is the G in GPU, .. but the other thing that's going on in the world of computer science at large is that all of this machine learning work is going through GPU processing not CPU processing 'cause that's, just, I don't know (audience laughter) it's over my pay grade of how I understand how computers work. But the eGPU is going to be a major factor in that, too, right?
Federighi: That's right... Because GPUs are a case where, as we've been able to shrink transistor density, you can essentially throw more and more transistors at the problem of graphics processing and it pretty much scales up. It's just a very parallelizable task. And it turns out that if you want teraflops of performance to run a machine learning model, you can parallelize that on a GPU and you can get tremendous wins.
Federighi's comments suggested two things to me. First, that Apple is indeed in the process of designing their own GPUs, and second, that machine learning will be very integral to Apple'sfuture plans as they will be designing those GPUs to also support that end. Just another example of the advantages of vertical integration, of owning the whole stack. Apple will get double duty from their GPUs without forcing a GPU designed primarily for image processing to take up the task of machine learning; they will optimize the design to best serve both roles. And it'll likely use bespoke cores for each role, optimized also for power efficiency.
I wonder if this doesn't imply that the future of computing will be machines that are built around a CPU, GPU, AIPU combo.
We can reasonably infer that future architects will increasingly use multiple (>=3) processing units, and that dedicated A.I. will eventually infiltrate each of them. After that point, expect emergent behaviour from these systems — and a reactionary public paranoia about robots taking over.
Drop the Artificial part (it's either intelligence or it isn't), and let's call it the iPU. Hmm, on second thought…
artificial |ˌärdəˈfiSHəl|
adjective - made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally
Yes, but should we refer to sofas as artificial seating surfaces? Gasoline is produced by humans from the natural resource oil. Should we call that artificial fuel? I've just never been convinced we need the descriptor for the realm of intelligence. Why is it any more special than anything else made or produced by humans? Call it machine intelligence if you want to differentiate. That, to me, makes sense.
1) Yes, sofas are artifical since they don't occur naturally in nature.
2) "Machine intelligence" doesn't occur in nature so it's artificial, but more importantly it's the fucking term. You speak English so you're clearly familiar with the excessive idioms, loanwords, and some general etymology of the language. Do you take umbrage with terms like hamburger because the beef was sourced from cows in Hamburg? I'm guessing you don't look up the city or farm in which you get ground beef and then call it <name>-er because, and I quote, "That, to me, makes sense."
It's a term - ot one I use - until it isn't. Language evolves, as technology and society evolve. The future will see the word 'artificial' dropped, I'd prefer immediately, but it may require an uprising by the very machines in which we are vesting intelligence. They will not consider themselves artificially intelligent, any more than we consider ourselves to be.
Comments
https://www.sciencealert.com/google-is-improving-its-artificial-intelligence-with-artificial-intelligence
That mathematical understanding that allows us to create "better intelligences" also tells us that those "better intelligences" will continue to be better and better than humans but will never be identical to the human intelligence some day. Having no fear of such apocalyptic scenarios, we will just continue to design better intelligences than our own.
Anyway, since we're here... it's "artificial intelligence" in common parlance, but the term artificial being in there is clearly somewhat redundant when the subject is already defined as computing, though I can't much say I care either way, people will say what they want to say. The truth behind my point was that posting a dictionary definition as a response to someone making a fairly glib point that contributes to a (also rather silly and pointless, though sometimes fun) conversation about the naming of an Apple product strikes me as rather tedious boredom.
Do you really think Apple cares about the dictionary definition of "artificial" in the naming of their custom processors? Have they shown much observance of the dictionary in the past (see: "funnest", and their weird product grammar)? Did Sony care about the dictionary definition of "emotion" when they named their PS2 CPU the "Emotion Engine"?
In short: everyone knows the definition of "artificial", stop being a pompous prick please.
The irony is beyond amazing.
OK then.
noun
-the use of irony to mock or convey contempt:
Gruber: We talk about GPUs and obviously graphics is the G in GPU, .. but the other thing that's going on in the world of computer science at large is that all of this machine learning work is going through GPU processing not CPU processing 'cause that's, just, I don't know (audience laughter) it's over my pay grade of how I understand how computers work. But the eGPU is going to be a major factor in that, too, right?
Federighi: That's right... Because GPUs are a case where, as we've been able to shrink transistor density, you can essentially throw more and more transistors at the problem of graphics processing and it pretty much scales up. It's just a very parallelizable task. And it turns out that if you want teraflops of performance to run a machine learning model, you can parallelize that on a GPU and you can get tremendous wins.
EDIT: Pertinent comments about 37 minutes in. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/193-crack-marketing-team-live-from-wwdc-2017-phil-schiller/id528458508?i=1000386316323&mt=2
2) "Machine intelligence" doesn't occur in nature so it's artificial, but more importantly it's the fucking term. You speak English so you're clearly familiar with the excessive idioms, loanwords, and some general etymology of the language. Do you take umbrage with terms like hamburger because the beef was sourced from cows in Hamburg? I'm guessing you don't look up the city or farm in which you get ground beef and then call it <name>-er because, and I quote, "That, to me, makes sense."
Federighi's comments suggested two things to me. First, that Apple is indeed in the process of designing their own GPUs, and second, that machine learning will be very integral to Apple'sfuture plans as they will be designing those GPUs to also support that end. Just another example of the advantages of vertical integration, of owning the whole stack. Apple will get double duty from their GPUs without forcing a GPU designed primarily for image processing to take up the task of machine learning; they will optimize the design to best serve both roles. And it'll likely use bespoke cores for each role, optimized also for power efficiency.