Re: Forbes on next generation of AI

The thing that inspired me to start work on a solution where people would
store their own data and share links, back in 2000, was my grandfathers
counsins work on synapses (Eccles)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

Note also "status of the observer"
https://youtu.be/ZYPjXz1MVv0

(Temporal considerations therein, a bit like the double slit tests, which
can be thought of as ripples in a pond where the experiment is from a
static point of time and only two interference projection / input points,
obviously observational reality is far more sophisticated at any moment of
time let alone when accumulated temporally, etc. Therein, somewhat
"multidimensional" imo.).

A far longer, yet still fairly remarkable note is:
https://youtu.be/Xx0SsffdMBw

But I've collected a few, one playlist is:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCbmz0VSZ_voTpRK9-o5RksERak4kOL40


IMO, it's fundamentally about ensuring agency with respect to the continuum
linked to the ontological design function, whilst enabling a plurality of
"universes" subject to common (sense) rules.

Depending on course, the type of agent as is then associated to the
ideology of the system administrators / business rules.

Tethics or not to tethics, such an important question!

IMO, the hard but correct design, can support "reality check tech", the
ability to limit noise (or in a signal to noise ratio) as to ensure an
enhanced capacity to debate the nuances linked to reality, which will be
far higher bandwidth than mankind has a capacity to process for the
foreseeable future; with or without a neurolink (not a fan).

But the development pathway is very different pending how those sorts of
philosophical design questions are considered and resolved with some degree
of commitment.

Common sense / causality, both important.

Other than that, I still think AI is such a muddy term. It's almost like
ICT, just so broad...

Cognitive AI, does it encourage disassociative behaviours or act like a
parity ram, with protective mechanism to protect against errors?

One is far more energy efficient (less "consumptive") than the other, which
is impactful on productivity, imo...

Timothy Holborn.

On Fri, 3 Sep 2021, 1:33 pm Paola Di Maio, <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hay Dave and all
> I think that what is being proposed as the future of AI is promoting
> certain technical advances which are interesting but far from being
> intelligence, for a number of reasons which I expound elsewhere
> It is not AI, in the sense of autonomous intelligence, This intelligence
> is just the result of some clevel algorithm and execution of
> sophisticated maths. It is not intelligent at all,
> as you point out, it fails basic intelligence tests :-) It cannot produce
> anything that has not been encoded. It has no such ability.
> We should not confuse advanced computation with intelligence
> Can these methods deliver useful computational results and be applied
> usefully?
> Yes.  Are they intelligent? They Only encode some of the cognitive
> functions of their developers
> as well its limitations (Ie, if the programmer had designed a system
> capable of answering out of the box questions, the AI would be able to
> answer it)
>
> Intelligence by contrast is innate reasoning. Nobody programs the innate
> intelligence of sentient being other than perhaps the brain washing that
> comes with education/learning and its constraints
> The question then is, can such natural intelligence be engineered?
> It s not needed, and it is not desirable because innate intelligence in
> human
> is often suppressed and even punished. When individuals use their
> intelligence they
> start questioning the purpose of the machine/s (including society, imposed
> norms)
>
> It s a long discussion
> I reject that what is being purported as AI is intelligence at all
> Sitting naked in the forest, ergo sum
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
> <#m_-7074344953272062957_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 10:24 PM Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> What do you think about the ideas in Forbes article on the next
>> generation of AI?
>>
>> See:
>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/robtoews/2020/10/12/the-next-generation-of-artificial-intelligence/
>>
>> Forbes believe in unsupervised learning, federated learning, and
>> transformers for neural networks.
>>
>> Unsupervised learning (aka self-supervised learning) is based on
>> “predicting everything from everything else”, e.g. language models from
>> billions of documents. This avoids the bottleneck of having to label data
>> for supervised learning, and is more flexible in allowing the learning
>> system to figure out its own labels and "being able to explore and absorb
>> all the latent information, relationships and implications in a given
>> dataset.”
>>
>> Federated learning is about services that support privacy friendly
>> machine learning by a third party across training data without having to
>> transfer the data to that party. Instead, the learning process is applied
>> locally to the data, and the results transmitted to the third party for
>> aggregation with the overall model.
>>
>> Transformers are a technique for learning across sequences of things,
>> e.g. words in text or frames of video, that is readily executed in parallel
>> and computationally more efficient that previous techniques. This was first
>> applied to language models to predict text following a previous text
>> extract (e.g. BERT and GPT-3), but is now being applied more widely. e.g.
>> to video.
>>
>> Whilst GPT-3 is pretty amazing in the quality of the text it can
>> generate, it is limited in the kinds of reasoning it can apply. It knows
>> simple generalisations, but is very limited in respect to reasoning about
>> time, and is unaware as to what it doesn’t know. As an example, asking for
>> the sum of two large numbers returns a large number, but not the actual
>> sum, asking for the US president in 1610 returns a historical figure rather
>> than stating that the question doesn’t make sense as the USA wasn’t in
>> existence then.
>>
>> This is unsurprising as language models are not the same as higher level
>> reasoning that children are taught at school and through interaction with
>> their parents and peers.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
>> W3C Data Activity Lead & W3C champion for the Web of things
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>