Comments on: Brain on a Chip

By: eiskrystal

eiskrystal — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 07:34:51 +0000

Like self replicating robots? Or do you mean in another way?

Another way.

I meant merely that putting money into studying and trying to replicate earlier and simpler creatures before tackling the more complicated would probably reap more benefits. I mentioned evolution as a ready made path of successes.

I feel people get much more excited about human-type AI than the other research in this field.

By: HHC

HHC — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:12:42 +0000

FACETS project is for rapid computer processing. “Emotional” responses would not be useful in a computer generated decision.

By: kvsherry

kvsherry — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 05:00:09 +0000

I’m having trouble understanding how the FACETS project or others can lead us to create AI when we don’t fully understand our own consciousness. For it to be “true AI” wouldn’t it need to be more than just feelings we programmed?

By: HHC

HHC — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:27:55 +0000

The FACETS Project will teach us about programmed logical thought and AI processing. If the silicon chip is able to perceive and respond, this would be a limited form of consciousness. Perception and responses would be mechanized through programming.

By: tmac57

tmac57 — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:15:12 +0000

Steve,
What do you think about the possibility of an autonomously creative AI ; a robot inventor , so to speak?

By: Watcher

Watcher — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:20:26 +0000

If we are going to build these up then it seems sensible to follow evolution. It has already been successful and it is currently being studied.

Like self replicating robots? Or do you mean in another way?

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:48:42 +0000

Ben – such silicon AI would only have the emotions we built into them. There is no reason to think that specific emotions will emerge out of consciousness itself. We have human emotions because human brains evolved to have them, and they are produced by specific structures and pathways in the brain.

Silicon AI would not necessary have to have any survival instinct, or anger, need to be loved, or anything else.

I do wonder if certain mental states, like boredom, do just emerge out of being conscious combined with a sense of time. AI will be fascinating because I think it will teach us a great deal about the nature of consciousness itself.

Of course, this also brings up the notion of the 3 laws of robotics – we probably should build into the AI architecture basic safety features, like a reticence to harm humans.

By: eiskrystal

eiskrystal — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:29:44 +0000

If we are going to build these up then it seems sensible to follow evolution. It has already been successful and it is currently being studied. The technology may also help fill in some of the voids we have about our ancestors.
Going straight to humans will not i think reap as many benefits over the long run, fascinating as it is (and a serious slap in the face to religion).

We don’t need more humans. Metal or otherwise.

By: Phospholipid

Phospholipid — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:13:21 +0000

Did I say unexpectedly? I meant unsurprisingly. My bad.

By: Phospholipid

Phospholipid — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:10:34 +0000

I saw a presentation from Markrams group at a conference last year (can’t remember if it was SFN or EMBC) and the thing I still don’t get is what the point of the virtual cortical column really is. In essence, they’re trying to simulate Markrams multiple patch-clamp experiments at a much bigger scale, but what they constantly and unexpectedly find is that the simulation doesn’t correspond to reality. So they tweak it and start over. My problem is (and if someone can shed some light on this I’d be much obliged) that they always seem to be just far enough behind on the tweaking that, even when they get a better simulation than the last try, they can never make a prediction of anything that hasn’t allready been predicted by a simpler method (in their own lab, no less). What’s the point in Really Cool Science that doesn’t give us any new knowledge, other than the knowledge to do that specific Really Cool Experiment? Like you said in your post, it’s an artificial brain that requires far more computational power than that of the brain it’s simulating.

On the other hand, even a very big and clunky computer that could Hello Dave me satisfactory would be pretty awesome.