In addition to Robert Fry's list:
(1) There is the human brain project supported by the EU by 1 billion Euro,
aiming at simulating the human brain within the next 10 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Brain_Project
(2) Resolution of brain scanners should in a couple of decades be high
enough to solve the 'software problem'
(a boring way of getting the right algorithm)
http://www.singularity.com/charts/page159.html
http://www.singularity.com/charts/page160.html
(3) Moore's law will solve the 'hardware problem' within a couple of
decades.
(4) Meanwhile we have a sound and complete theory of what rational
intelligence is
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.6153
which may well lead to practical AGI not based on emulating the human brain.
Some may categorize (2) and (3) as engineering/technology rather than
science,
but (a) they involve a lot of research and (b) it doesn't really matter
what leads to AGI.
A comment on "I took the stance that we have essentially failed":
This negative phrasing would (only) be justified if there was no hope
anymore,
e.g. no theoretical progress, no practical progress, no new ideas, the
end of Moore's law,
or a convincing argument that human-level AI is not possible.
None of this is the case. Given the steady progress in the last 60 years,
a more appropriate phrase would be that "we have not succeeded yet" and
claims it'll take more than 100 years to reach AGI seem quite radical
and unsupported.
Most people seem to be either skeptical about human-level AI or euphoric.
I can highly recommend David Chalmers' (famous philosopher of
consciousness and AI)
thoughtful and balanced article http://consc.net/papers/singularity.pdf
If you like this one, you may also like my response
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.6177
Cheers,
Marcus
______________________
Marcus Hutter, Professor
RSISE, Room B259, Building 115
Australian National University
Corner of North and Daley Road
Canberra ACT 0200, Australia
Phone: +61(0)2 612 51605 (time zone GMT+10:00)
Fax: +61(0)2 612 58651
Email: marcus.hut...@anu.edu.au
http://www.hutter1.net/
Richard E. Neapolitan wrote:
This is the best response I obtained arguing that an artificial brain is
on the horizon:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [UAI] Research indicating that we will have true
artificial intelligence in the next 10 to 100 years
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:01:14 -0400
From: Fry, Robert L. <robert....@jhuapl.edu>
To: Richard E. Neapolitan <richard.neapoli...@northwestern.edu>
Firstly, we have collectively failed at this endeavor so far. Unlike
the past,
however, there are clearly ongoing research threads that imply that
the 10 to 100 year is reasonable. This is of course an opinion based
on my own research and views. These threads include:
o The DARPA Physical Intelligence program
<http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/DSO/Programs/Physical_Intelligence.aspx>,
its goals, and its progress to
establish the physical basis for intelligence, e.g., the Carnot cycle
whereby
an open system extracts information from its environment reducing its
entropy and allowing it to make decisions to control its future.
o The recent April 2013 /Phys Rev. Lett./ paper by Wissner-Gross Causal
Entropic Forces
<http://www.alexwg.org/publications/PhysRevLett_110-168702.pdf>
and their take on the thermodynamic basis of intelligence. See their videos,
examples, and visit their start-up from MIT.
o The work of Karl Friston and his Free-energy model of the brain – see
his article
in Nature <http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v11/n2/abs/nrn2787.html>.
o My own research on a fundamental theory of computation
<http://www.nicta.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/25991/Another_Information_Revolution_3.0.pdf>
which I am
transitioning into a formal engineering framework. I can ostensibly
completely
reverse-engineer the cortical neuron viewing it as an autonomous intelligent
system. Might check out the short video I made for 5^th grades as part
of the
Flame Challenge that addresses the question “What is Time?”
<http://vimeo.com/60858372>
o Relationship of ALL the above to Maxwell’s Demon
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon>,Rolf Landauer’s
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle> work
and the like.
I believe it will be around 10-15 years max. Anyway, these are my views
Bob Fry
Prof. Robert Fry
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
*From:*uai [mailto:uai-boun...@engr.orst.edu] *On Behalf Of *Richard E.
Neapolitan
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2013 9:23 AM
*To:* uai@engr.orst.edu
*Subject:* [UAI] Research indicating that we will have true artificial
intelligence in the next 10 to 100 years
Dear Colleagues,
One of my publisher's asked me to review a proposal for a book. The
theme of the book is predicated on the statement that "it is widely
believed that in the next 10 to 100 years scientists will succeed in
creating human level artificial general intelligence." There is no
research that gives me any reason to believe this. In my recent AI
textbook I took the stance that we have essentially failed at this
endeavor. Does anyone know of any research that would make someone make
such a statement?
Thanks,
Rich
--
Richard E. Neapolitan, Ph.D., Professor
Division of Health and Biomedical Informatics
Department of Preventive Medicine
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine
750 N. Lake Shore Drive, 11th floor
Chicago IL 60611
_______________________________________________
uai mailing list
uai@ENGR.ORST.EDU
https://secure.engr.oregonstate.edu/mailman/listinfo/uai
_______________________________________________
uai mailing list
uai@ENGR.ORST.EDU
https://secure.engr.oregonstate.edu/mailman/listinfo/uai
