Welcome to AI book reviews, a series of posts that explore the latest literature on artificial intelligence. Recent advances in deep learning have rekindled interest in the imminence of machines that can think and act like humans, or artificial general intelligence. By following the path of building bigger and better neural networks, the thinking goes, we will be able to get closer and closer to creating a digital version of the human brain. But this is a myth, argues computer scientist Erik Larson, and all evidence suggests that human and machine intelligence are radically different. Larson's new book, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do, discusses how widely publicized misconceptions about intelligence and inference have led AI research down narrow paths that are limiting innovation and scientific discoveries.

He discussed his personal AI journey--from games to scientific discovery, some of his breakthrough results in complex games of strategy, and some of the exciting ways that lessons from the world of games are helping to accelerate scientific discovery.

The Transform Technology Summits start October 13th with Low-Code/No Code: Enabling Enterprise Agility. Recent advances in deep learning have rekindled interest in the imminence of machines that can think and act like humans, or artificial general intelligence. By following the path of building bigger and better neural networks, the thinking goes, we will be able to get closer and closer to creating a digital version of the human brain. But this is a myth, argues computer scientist Erik Larson, and all evidence suggests that human and machine intelligence are radically different. Larson's new book, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do, discusses how widely publicized misconceptions about intelligence and inference have led AI research down narrow paths that are limiting innovation and scientific discoveries.

Welcome to AI book reviews, a series of posts that explore the latest literature on artificial intelligence. Recent advances in deep learning have rekindled interest in the imminence of machines that can think and act like humans, or artificial general intelligence. By following the path of building bigger and better neural networks, the thinking goes, we will be able to get closer and closer to creating a digital version of the human brain. But this is a myth, argues computer scientist Erik Larson, and all evidence suggests that human and machine intelligence are radically different. Larson's new book, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do, discusses how widely publicized misconceptions about intelligence and inference have led AI research down narrow paths that are limiting innovation and scientific discoveries.

Scientists and researchers always try to make the world a better place through their discoveries. Here are some of the top anticipated scientific discoveries. Concussions and head injuries are major health hazards for football players.

Welcome to AI book reviews, a series of posts that explore the latest literature on artificial intelligence. Recent advances in deep learning have rekindled interest in the imminence of machines that can think and act like humans, or artificial general intelligence. By following the path of building bigger and better neural networks, the thinking goes, we will be able to get closer and closer to creating a digital version of the human brain. But this is a myth, argues computer scientist Erik Larson, and all evidence suggests that human and machine intelligence are radically different. Larson's new book, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do, discusses how widely publicized misconceptions about intelligence and inference have led AI research down narrow paths that are limiting innovation and scientific discoveries.

Welcome to AI book reviews, a series of posts that explore the latest literature on artificial intelligence. Recent advances in deep learning have rekindled interest in the imminence of machines that can think and act like humans, or artificial general intelligence. By following the path of building bigger and better neural networks, the thinking goes, we will be able to get closer and closer to creating a digital version of the human brain. But this is a myth, argues computer scientist Erik Larson, and all evidence suggests that human and machine intelligence are radically different. Larson's new book, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do, discusses how widely publicized misconceptions about intelligence and inference have led AI research down narrow paths that are limiting innovation and scientific discoveries.

Say you're driving with a friend in a familiar neighborhood, and the friend asks you to turn at the next intersection. The friend doesn't say which way to turn, but since you both know it's a one-way street, it's understood. That type of reasoning is at the heart of a new artificial-intelligence framework – tested successfully on overlapping Sudoku puzzles – that could speed discovery in materials science, renewable energy technology and other areas. An interdisciplinary research team led by Carla Gomes, the Ronald C. and Antonia V. Nielsen Professor of Computing and Information Science in the Cornell Ann S. Bowers College of Computing and Information Science, has developed Deep Reasoning Networks (DRNets), which combine deep learning – even with a relatively small amount of data – with an understanding of the subject's boundaries and rules, known as "constraint reasoning." Di Chen, a computer science doctoral student in Gomes' group, is first author of "Automating Crystal-Structure Phase Mapping by Combining Deep Learning with Constraint Reasoning," published Sept. 16 in Nature Machine Intelligence.

Kevin Yager (front) and Masafumi Fukuto at Brookhaven Lab's National Synchrotron Light Source II, where they've been implementing a method of autonomous experimentation. In the popular view of traditional science, scientists are in the lab hovering over their experiments, micromanaging every little detail. For example, they may iteratively test a wide variety of material compositions, synthesis and processing protocols, and environmental conditions to see how these parameters influence material properties. In each iteration, they analyze the collected data, looking for patterns and relying on their scientific knowledge and intuition to select useful follow-on measurements. This manual approach consumes limited instrument time and the attention of human experts who could otherwise focus on the bigger picture.

Uncertain information is being taken into account in an increasing number of application fields. In the meantime, abduction has been proved a powerful tool for handling hypothetical reasoning and incomplete knowledge. Probabilistic logical models are a suitable framework to handle uncertain information, and in the last decade many probabilistic logical languages have been proposed, as well as inference and learning systems for them. In the realm of Abductive Logic Programming (ALP), a variety of proof procedures have been defined as well. In this paper, we consider a richer logic language, coping with probabilistic abduction with variables. In particular, we consider an ALP program enriched with integrity constraints `a la IFF, possibly annotated with a probability value. We first present the overall abductive language, and its semantics according to the Distribution Semantics. We then introduce a proof procedure, obtained by extending one previously presented, and prove its soundness and completeness.