You can write your own connective gag for these two links

Paul Raven @ 09-03-2011

Via Hack-A-Day, the oddballs at Backyard Brains demonstrate a prototype technoexoskeletal assembly for the remote control of insect pests on the move. Shorter version: RoboRoach!

RoboRoach

And via Kyle Munkittrick, (software) RoboLawyers:

The most basic linguistic approach uses specific search words to find and sort relevant documents. More advanced programs filter documents through a large web of word and phrase definitions. A user who types “dog” will also find documents that mention “man’s best friend” and even the notion of a “walk.”

The sociological approach adds an inferential layer of analysis, mimicking the deductive powers of a human Sherlock Holmes. Engineers and linguists at Cataphora, an information-sifting company based in Silicon Valley, have their software mine documents for the activities and interactions of people — who did what when, and who talks to whom. The software seeks to visualize chains of events. It identifies discussions that might have taken place across e-mail, instant messages and telephone calls.

Then the computer pounces, so to speak, capturing “digital anomalies” that white-collar criminals often create in trying to hide their activities.

For example, it finds “call me” moments — those incidents when an employee decides to hide a particular action by having a private conversation. This usually involves switching media, perhaps from an e-mail conversation to instant messaging, telephone or even a face-to-face encounter.

I should probably stop being so publicly disparaging about the legal industries, really, lest these expert systems crawl all my online witterings and decide to set me up for a fall…


What Watson did next

Paul Raven @ 24-02-2011

Impressed by Watson’s Jeopardy! victory? Found yourself with the urge to build your own (scaled down) supercomputer artificial intelligence in your basement using nothing but off-the-shelf hardware and open-source software? IBM’s very own Tony Pearson has got your back. [via MetaFilter; please bear in mind that not all basements will be eminently suited to a research project of this scale]

Meanwhile, fresh from whuppin’ on us slow-brained meatbags, Watson’s seeking new challenges in the world of medicine [via BigThink]:

The idea is for Watson to digest huge quantities of medical information and deliver useful real-time information to physicians, perhaps eventually in response to voice questions. If successful, the system could help medical experts diagnose conditions or create a treatment plan.

… while other health-care technology can work with huge pools of data, Watson is the first system capable of usefully harnessing the vast amounts of medical information that exists in the form of natural language text—medical papers, records, and notes. Nuance hopes to roll out the first commercial system based on Watson technology within two years, although it has not said how sophisticated this system will be.

Ah, good old IBM. My father used to work for them back in the seventies and early eighties, and it’s kind of amusing to see that their age-old engineering approach of building an epic tool before looking for a use to put it to hasn’t changed a bit…


Watson’s victory clear, but perhaps not as impressive as it seems

Paul Raven @ 17-02-2011

So, Watson won at Jeopardy!… by a pretty significant lead, too. Inevitably, lots of folk are keen to downplay this victory, and for a variety of reasons. Commonest complaint would have to be regarding Watson’s speed-to-buzzer advantage, but its minders designers say that it’s not really that big a deal:

Though Watson seemed to be running the round and beating Jennings and Rutter to the punch with its answers many times, Welty insisted that Watson had no particular advantage in terms of buzzer speed. Players can’t buzz in to give their questions until a light turns on after the answer is read, but Welty says that humans have the advantage of timing and rhythm.

“They’re not waiting for the light to come on,” Welty said; rather, the human players try to time their buzzer presses so that they’re coming in as close as possible to the light. Though Watson’s reaction times are faster than a human, Welty noted that Watson has to wait for the light. Dr. Adam Lally, another member of Watson’s team, noted that “Ken and Brad are really fast. They have to be.”

A re-run with some sort of handicap might prove this one way or the other, but I suspect the doubters will find new advantages to pin on the machine… which , to my mind, rather misses the point of the exercise, which was to demonstrate whether or not a machine could outperform humans at a particular task. Quod erat demonstrandum, y’know?

A more interesting point is that even Watson’s creators aren’t entirely sure how Watson achieves what it achieves. George Dvorsky:

Great quote from David Ferrucci, the Lead Researcher of IBM’s Watson Project:

“Watson absolutely surprises me. People say: ‘Why did it get that one wrong?’ I don’t know. ‘Why did it get that one right?’ I don’t know.”Essentially, the IBM team came up with a whole whack of fancy algorithms and shoved them into Watson. But they didn’t know how these formulas would work in concert with each other and result in emergent effects (i.e. computational cognitive complexity). The result is the seemingly intangible, and not always coherent, way in which Watson gets questions right—and the ways in which it gets questions wrong.

As Watson has revealed, when it errs it errs really badly.

This kind of freaks me out a little. When asking computers questions that we don’t know the answers to, we aren’t going to know beyond a shadow of a doubt when a system like Watson is right or wrong. Because we don’t know the answer ourselves, and because we don’t necessarily know how the computer got the answer, we are going to have to take a tremendous leap of faith that it got it right when the answer seems even remotely plausible.

Dvorsky’s underlying point here is that we shouldn’t be too cocky about our ability to ensure artificial intelligences think in the ways we want them to. They’re just as inscrutable as another human mind. Perhaps even more so… which is why he and Anders Sandberg (among others) believe we should foster a healthy fear of powerful AI systems.

But the most interesting point I’ve seen made about Watson’s victory is a skeptical stance over at Memesteading:

When Alex Trebek walked by the 10 racks of 9 servers each, said to include 2880 computing cores and 15 terabytes (15,000 gigabytes) of high-speed RAM main-memory, I couldn’t shake the feeling: this seems like too much hardware… at least if any of the software includes new breakthroughs of actual understanding. As parts of the show took on the character of an IBM infomercial, the feeling only grew.

[…]

An offline copy of all of Wikipedia’s articles, as of the last full data-dump, is about 6.5GB compressed, 30GB uncompressed – that’s 1/500th Watson’s RAM. Furthermore, chopping this data up for rapid access – such as creating an inverted index, and replacing named/linked entities with ordinal numbers – tends to result in even smaller representations. So with fast lookup and a modicum of understanding, one server, with 64GB of RAM, could be more than enough to contain everything a language-savvy agent would need to dominate at Jeopardy.

But what if you’re not language savvy, and only have brute-force text-lookup? We can simulate the kinds of answers even a naive text-search approach against a Wikipedia snapshot might produce, by performing site-specific queries on Google.

For many of the questions Watson got right, a naive Google query of the ‘en.wikipedia.org’ domain, using the key words in the clue, will return as the first result the exact Wikipedia article whose title is the correct answer.

[…]

With a full, inverse-indexed, cross-linked, de-duplicated version of Wikipedia all in RAM, even a single server, with a few cores, can run hundreds of iteratively-refined probe queries, and scan the full-text of articles for sentences that correlate with the clue, in the seconds it takes Trebek to read the clue.

That makes me think that if you gave a leaner, younger, hungrier team millions of dollars and years to mine the entire history of Jeopardy answers-and-questions for workable heuristics, they could match Watson’s performance with a tiny fraction of Watson’s hardware.

All of which isn’t to demean Watson’s achievement so much as to suggest that perhaps the same results could be reached with a much smaller hardware outlay… though there is an undercurrent of “Big Iron infomercial” in there, too.


How I learned to stop worrying and love the Singularity

Paul Raven @ 21-01-2011

Fetch your posthumanist popcorn, folks; this one could roll for a while. The question: should we fear the possibility of the Singularity? In the red corner, Michael Anissimov brings the case in favour

Why must we recoil against the notion of a risky superintelligence? Why can’t we see the risk, and confront it by trying to craft goal systems that carry common sense human morality over to AGIs? This is a difficult task, but the likely alternative is extinction. Powerful AGIs will have no automatic reason to be friendly to us! They will be much more likely to be friendly if we program them to care about us, and build them from the start with human-friendliness in mind.

Humans overestimate our robustness. Conditions have to be just right for us to keep living. If AGIs decided to remove the atmosphere or otherwise alter it to pursue their goals, we would be toast. If temperatures on the surface changed by more than a few dozen degrees up or down, we would be toast. If natural life had to compete with AI-crafted cybernetic organisms, it could destroy the biosphere on which we depend. There are millions of ways in which powerful AGIs with superior technology could accidentally make our lives miserable, simply by not taking our preferences into account. Our preferences are not a magical mist that can persuade any type of mind to give us basic respect. They are just our preferences, and we happen to be programmed to take each other’s preferences deeply into account, in ways we are just beginning to understand. If we assume that AGI will inherently contain all this moral complexity without anyone doing the hard work of programming it in, we will be unpleasantly surprised when these AGIs become more intelligent and powerful than ourselves.

We probably make thousands of species extinct per year through our pursuit of instrumental goals, why is it so hard to imagine that AGI could do the same to us?

In the blue corner, Kyle Munkittrick argues that Anissimov is ascribing impossible levels of agency to artificial intelligences:

My point is this: if Skynet had been debuted on a closed computer network, it would have been trapped within that network. Even if it escaped and “infected” every other system (which is dubious, for reasons of necessary computing power on a first iteration super AGI), the A.I. would still not have any access to physical reality. Singularity arguments rely upon the presumption that technology can work without humans. It can’t. If A.I. decided to obliterate humanity by launching all the nukes, it’d also annihilate the infrastructure that powers it. Me thinks self-preservation should be a basic feature of any real AGI.

In short: any super AGI that comes along is going to need some helping hands out in the world to do its dirty work.

B-b-but, the Singulitarians argue, “an AI could fool a person into releasing it because the AI is very smart and therefore tricksy.” This argument is preposterous. Philosophers constantly argue as if every hypothetical person is either a dullard or a hyper-self-aware. The argument that AI will trick people is an example of the former. Seriously, the argument is that  very smart scientists will be conned by an AGI they helped to program. And so what if they do? Is the argument that a few people are going to be hypnotized into opening up a giant factory run only by the A.I., where every process in the vertical and the horizontal (as in economic infrastructure, not The Outer Limits) can be run without human assistance? Is that how this is going to work? I highly doubt it. Even the most brilliant AGI is not going to be able to restructure our economy overnight.

As is traditional, I’m taking an agnostic stance on this one (yeah, yeah, I know – I’ve got bruises on my arse from sitting on the fence); The arguments against the risk are pretty sound, but I’m reminded of the orginal meaning behind the term “singularity”, namely an event horizon (physical or conceptual) that we’re unable to see beyond. As Anissimov points out, we won’t know what AGI is capable of until it exists, at which point it may be too late. However, positing an AGI with godlike powers from the get-go is very much a worst case scenario. The compromise position would appear to be something along the lines of “proceed with caution”… but compromise positions aren’t exactly fashionable these days, are they? 🙂

So, let’s open the floor to debate: do you think AGI is possible? And if it is possible, how likely is it to be a threat to its creators?


Watson’s Jeopardy warm-up went well

Paul Raven @ 14-01-2011

Remember me mentioning IBM’s Watson, the artificial intelligence system trained to play – and kick meatperson arse – at Jeopardy? Watson’s big showdown with the top-rated Jeopardy players is scheduled for next month, but a practice run for a press conference yesterday saw Big Blue’s big box beat the humans by a reasonable lead. I wonder what the bookies’ odds are on a complete victory?

Reports that Watson, at this crucial breakthrough juncture in its career, has been invited to appear in this summer’s run of Oh My God I’m a Marginal Celebrity Survivor With Talent On Ice In the Jungle Get Me An Agent are said to be unfounded, and were in fact made up by me a few seconds ago.


« Previous PageNext Page »