For the most of my life, I have earned my living as a computer vision professional busy with image processing tasks and problems. In the computer vision community there is a widespread belief that artificial vision systems faithfully replicate human vision abilities or at least very closely mimic them. It was a great surprise to me when one day I have realized that computer and human vision have next to nothing in common. The former is occupied with extensive data processing, carrying out massive pixel-based calculations, while the latter is busy with meaningful information processing, concerned with smart objects-based manipulations. And the gap between the two is insurmountable. To resolve this confusion, I had had to return and revaluate first the vision phenomenon itself, define more carefully what visual information is and how to treat it properly. In this work I have not been, as it is usually accepted, biologically inspired . On the contrary, I have drawn my inspirations from a pure mathematical theory, the Kolmogorov s complexity theory. The results of my work have been already published elsewhere. So the objective of this paper is to try and apply the insights gained in course of this my enterprise to a more general case of information processing in human brain and the challenging issue of human intelligence.
This paper deals with the relationship between intelligent behaviour, on the one hand, and the mental qualities needed to produce it, on the other. We consider two well-known opposing positions on this issue: one due to Alan Turing and one due to John Searle (via the Chinese Room). In particular, we argue against Searle, showing that his answer to the so-called System Reply does not work. The argument takes a novel form: we shift the debate to a different and more plausible room where the required conversational behaviour is much easier to characterize and to analyze. Despite being much simpler than the Chinese Room, we show that the behaviour there is still complex enough that it cannot be produced without appropriate mental qualities.
Bryan Johnson is the founder and chief executive officer of the neuroprosthesis developer Kernel and the founder of OS Fund and Braintree. Through the past few decades of summer blockbuster movies and Silicon Valley products, artificial intelligence (AI) has become increasingly familiar and sexy, and imbued with a perversely dystopian allure. What's talked about less, and has also been dwarfed in attention and resources, is human intelligence (HI). In its varied forms -- from the mysterious brains of octopuses and the swarm-minds of ants to Go-playing deep learning machines and driverless-car autopilots -- intelligence is the most powerful and precious resource in existence. Our own minds are the most familiar examples of a phenomenon characterized by a great deal of diversity.
In an earlier blog article I wrote about how human intelligence differs from artificial intelligence, namely human intelligence is general intelligence while artificial intelligence is specialized intelligence. The article provides "food for thought" for those who fear technology evolution, and specifically AI. In today's article I offer more reflections on the evolution of AI. Put in simple words, AI is about Thinking Machines. The English computer scientist Alan Turing was the first academic who proposed to consider the question "Can machines think?" in 1950.
We never have been so closer to the future than we are now. There are news spreading across the media about the robots takeover of our jobs, driverless cars hitting the road with outstanding proficiency in driving standards, while at the same time, virtual assistants make us feel a bit less lonely telling us jokes and spending time with us. In fact, Siri, Alexa or Cortana have something machines didn't have before: a simulated human conscious capable of keep conversations with humans without being uncovered. AI is now at its most advanced development stage ever, but… do we need to worry about how smart are getting the robots? Will we ever need to?