Don't be taken in by marketing ploys that pretend to be science.

[Binkie The Clown]

[Sailor65x1]

1. Don't be taken in by Google and Facebook Shills...

"When real AI is developed by the likes of Google and Facebook." He leans on it so much you could turn it into a drinking game. David Hanson himself has called Sophia an "AI in its infancy." Hanson has placed solid AI out 5-10 years, which is actually a pessimistic outlook considering where we actually are.

This guy bashes Hanson as producing a product meant to pitch his company, while pitching Google and Facebook himself. At least Hanson is marketing his own product, and not suckling at the teat.

I've been designing/writing intelligent systems for quite some time now. This guy is full of bologna, we absolutely do have the processing power. All that's left is to make it smaller. And as for the central model of AI being developed by Google and Facebook? No thank you.

[Binkie The Clown]

3. When I became a professional programmer in 1964, human level AI was 5 to 10 years out.

Or so the experts said.

Then in the 70s, it was 5 to 10 years out.
Then in the 80s, it was 5 to 10 years out.
Then in the 90s, it was 5 to 10 years out.
etc. etc.

In the 54 years since I started programming human-level AI has been perpetually "5 to 10 years out".
Human level AI is perpetual vaporware.

And if you've watched the Hanson promo videos on YouTube they are selling something that does not exist. They are blatantly misleading, and their intent is dishonest at best.

And he wasn't "pitching" Google and Facebook, but using them as examples of true state-of-the-art AI. And it has nothing to do with plastic female smiles and canned responses to scripted "dialogs".

I think we will have to simply disagree that "we have the processing power." In my considered opinion, no, we don't.

[ismnotwasm]

4. Whats that quote?

“I’ll start to worry about intelligent computers when they start to worry about worn out parts” something like that

[Binkie The Clown]

5. I was thinking of this one:

High-tech true believers are espicially hard to convince because they think they have "science" on their side.

[Sailor65x1]

6. Fair, but I think you missed what I meant by quoting his 5-10 years.

The point is that Hanson has consistently done the opposite of the claim made by bitsbytesbobs.

I have seen the videos. In the robotics world we watch all this stuff with great interest. Yes, they certainly are promotional in nature, but you are missing the fact that you are looking at almost identical behavior to the the "Big AI" producers that BBB is so fond of. Google's "AI" behavior is really also simply the result of running input against stored data. Worse than that, Google's AI is dependent upon full interconnection to all the data stored pretty much everywhere. It is in no way a standalone package. It depends on lots and lots of remembered "Experience."
And that is one of the big paradoxes in AI. The uninitiated make the claim that AI isnt AI because it doesnt have "Human experience;" completely missing the fact that both AI and humans run every input scenario against a long chain of remembered events. But, where a human has no choice but to spend years gaining experience to process against, AI can receive all of it almost immediately.

My post also reflected the fact that I am building systems that ALREADY go past what Sophia does, at least on an audible and finite motion level. The real advances have been in turning the output into visual expressions. We aren't quite there yet (As evidenced by those heinous facial expressions!), but gaining fast with explosive growth in synchronous motion technology.

Your experience is the 70s or 80s is different from most, because none of us in the budding AI/Robotics world was claiming "Human" AI in 5-10 years (Not in the 90s either, really). But we did see it somewhere over the horizon. I think our fundamental disagreement is really in the meaning of "Human style AI." We know a lot more now than back in your days about how human thought works. And as a result, our progress becomes more and more exponential. When I was working on my first Master's in EE, i was already fascinated by the possibilities, which was part of the reason I took my second one in ME.

As far as present capabilities, all I can do is reiterate that in my field, we are already pushing that kind of power, albeit not in quite a small enough package. My colleagues and I work with it every day.

[Binkie The Clown]

7. Time will tell. I guess I'm a pessimist, but I fully expect that in 10 to 15 years,

the leaders in the field will be saying "Human-level AI is just 5 to 10 years in the future."

Or, more likely, in 10 to 15 years people will be saying, "Whatever happened to running water and electricity? Do you remember running water and electricity? Why, back in my day, before the climate went crazy and destroyed civilization, we had all kinds of magical toys."

[Sailor65x1]

8. Sadly you may have hit on the real question

Will we ever get the chance to find out?

[BigmanPigman]

2. The sex robots at a recent

tech fair weren't treated very well by some attendees. Maybe these robots should be on the W House staff so the women will be spared.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/610ec648-b348-423a-bd3c-04dc701b2985
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/samantha-sex-robot-molested_us_59cec9f9e4b06791bb10a268