<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Comments for entry "My Crackpot Theory of Intelligence" at Dilbert.com Blog]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/818]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Regular thoughts and updates from Dilbert.com]]></description>
<language><![CDATA[en-us]]></language>
<generator><![CDATA[VPI.Net MyBlogAbout]]></generator>
<managingEditor><![CDATA[]]></managingEditor>
<webMaster><![CDATA[]]></webMaster>
<ttl><![CDATA[5]]></ttl>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from fghdff]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1773573]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[2012 comes, in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style, varieties, low price and good quality, and the low sale price. Thank everyone  Welcome to ====  http://www.proxy4biz.com ==
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35
Jordan (1-22)&amp;2009 shoes $45
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&amp;G) $30
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $14
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $16
Biki ni (Ed hardy, polo) $18  
FREE SHIPPING
 http://www.proxy4biz.com 

 http://www.proxy4biz.com 

  http://www.proxy4biz.com 

 http://www.proxy4biz.com 
 http://www.proxy4biz.com 

 http://www.proxy4biz.com 

  http://www.proxy4biz.com 

 http://www.proxy4biz.com 

===ï¼ˆ http://www.proxy4biz.com ï¼‰===

===ï¼ˆ http://www.proxy4biz.com ï¼‰===

===ï¼ˆ http://www.proxy4biz.com ï¼‰===

===ï¼ˆ http://www.proxy4biz.com ï¼‰===

===ï¼ˆ http://www.proxy4biz.com  ï¼‰===

===ï¼ˆ http://www.proxy4biz.com  ï¼‰===
This is a shopping paradise
We need your support and trust
ã€
]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatPMCDTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1773573]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from gypsyranger]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1766320]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I'm with Scott on this, pattern recognition is what it is all about. Scott obviously knows this beyond a theoretical perspective, after all he plays with our own abilities of pattern recognition in every strip. I figure one of the tricks Scott has to engage is leading us to see a larger pattern than we would normally do. The fact he can do it with such minimal input is what really impresses me. Sure Lord of the Rings says a lot about humanity, but it takes an encyclopedia of words to outline it.  to say more with less is the true art of communication and on my first day on this site, reading Scott's thoughts on different issues, i feel Scott is one of our great social satirists.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCDTE_Rndnd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1766320]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from PeterWhelan]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1762138]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[The 2004 to 2009 Battlestar Galactica series is one  interpretation of what will happen when robots become self aware and intelligent.  With streaming backup of their memories to multiple locations, they could be reborn to a new shell/body when needed.  What kind of plans would you be making if you knew your life awareness could outlast the billion or so years that this solar system will continue to exist?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1762138]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from ZHD]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1759952]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[The brush with which you paint &quot;pattern recognition&quot; is far too broad. 

Is all logical inference considered pattern recognition? 

Recently, I was lucky enough to get to experience what happens in a lot of my dreams. See I'm pretty skeptical about what actually goes on during REM sleep and if it has any significance. Then a few months ago one of my roommates said that he has seen me talking through a problem while I was in my sleep, and making hand motions and rebutting myself as if I were teaching a class. Usually I remember my dreams, but I didn't remember that. So I called !$%*!$%*!$%*!$%* then last week I was blessed with a pot of boiling cooking oil spilling on to my hand. The pain was so constant that during REM, I woke up. But I was still dreaming. I could literally roll around my bed and sit up while witnessing these dreams going on. And indeed, I was working through various problems and writing stuff down on some notepad (imaginary notepad)

Perhaps this was like your bubble sort.

If you consider pattern recognition and inference the same thing then I might be inclined to agree. 

However the biggest sticking point to that argument is Einstein's inference of thought experiment to theory.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1759952]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from bard3189]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1758984]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I thought perception   pattern matching was my own theory of intelligence. Have you mentioned this before? I am doubting whether I came up with this theory independently.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1758984]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from DilgalLives]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1758815]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Most standard I.Q. tests validate your theory that intelligence is at least in part related to pattern recognition. But we see true genius in those who can start with pattern recognition, and creatively expand it beyond mere repetition. You've mentioned having just a few fundamental blocks for humor - a robot could certainly learn those. And a robot could learn to mimic a comic and repeat a joke so it's funny. But it's much, much harder to creatively put those humor building blocks together in a new and surprising way that makes people laugh. 

My second comment regards the purpose you mention giving robots. The world wouldn't function well if everyone had the same skill sets and life purpose. Similarly, if robots just all started with the same pool of data and purpose, they'd all wind up doing the same thing toward the same end. The trick would be creating different models of robots with distinctly different purposes. Set one model on improving everything related to food production - creating larger crops, with higher nutrition, less pesticide, longer shelf life, better taste, etc. Another model tackles the clean water problem, and then there's energy, transportation, etc. Maybe their senses vary based on purpose. The one tackling energy probably doesn't need taste buds, but the one working on food does. And I'm looking forward to being cared for by the robots whose purpose it is to aid the elderly.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1758815]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from uhmdown]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1758813]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[How would we evaluate a robots performance if it saw patterns that were irrational?

A pattern could be argued to be useful even though it doesn't have scientific basis.
Lets say a robot comes up with this pattern that there must be a God that takes care of us (bear with me for a moment...). Lets say it does this because that way it doesn't have to spend CPU cycles on figuring out the laws of nature, it doesn't have to stress about the bigger questions and can spend its cycles on other stuff that has more immediate benefits.

Would we dump the robot at the nearest scrapyard?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TuePMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1758813]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from EMU]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1758787]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I don't know whether &quot;pattern recognition&quot; is the same but I'd say, intelligence goes a bit like this:
You've got knowledge. This is a network of facts connected by relations (Tee: hot, water, leaves. Leaves: vegetarian, bush, green. Green: ...)

Now, at any point in time you receive sensory input (outside: food. Inside: hungry, memory: yes, the food is mine and I had intended to have lunch) and jump along associations until you arrive at a response.

The jumping speed determines the amount of associations you can evaluate until you have to react (&quot;Why didn't you think of that?&quot; gets asked, if you're slow in that regard). And the heuristics by which you decide on he order determines, how much jumping you need until you arrive at a satisfactory course of action. Withnin certain limits, the two can compensate for each other.

Which of the two is intelligence? No idea but the latter one I'd sort more into the &quot;experience&quot; or &quot;wisdom&quot; corner. (as opposed to &quot;knowledge&quot;)

The first one determines how you react in really unknown situations and possible your learning speed. Maybe this is &quot;mental flexibility&quot;.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1758787]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from uhmdown]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1758715]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@ marcoklaue

Thats actually not true!
Google has been researching neural networks and AI and their computers learned that there exists an object that we humans know as the &quot;cat&quot;. The computer discovered the &quot;cat pattern&quot; on its own by watching youtube videos, without being pre-fed with cat pictures or videos. After that, it could recognize cats in youtube videos.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/06/27/google_computers_learn_to_identify_cats_on_youtube_in_artificial_intelligence_study.html]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1758715]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from jjfoley]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1758196]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Scott -- the project you're talking about exists, in some form.  It's called Cog, and it was a project under Prof. Rodney Brooks at MIT in the CSAIL (Computer Science AI Lab) to build a humanoid robot , give it as many sensory inputs as possible, and give it some algorithms to interact with the world around it, and see what happens.  When I say &quot;algorithms,&quot; I'm talking about -- according to the research paper -- &quot;visual-motor routines (smooth-pursuit tracking,
saccades, binocular vergence, and vestibular-ocular and opto-kinetic reflexes), orientation behaviors, motor control techniques, and social behaviors (pointing to a visual target, recognizing joint attention through face and eye finding, imitation of head nods, and regulating interaction through expressive feedback).&quot;

I know this because a roommate and good friend of mine was heavily involved in the project.  He told me about some of the fun stuff that Cog would do, and how he would &quot;learn&quot; to pay attention to some things more than others, like an infant -- a rainbow colored slinky would always grab his attention away from someone doing a funny dance, for instance.  

Google &quot;Cog Rodney Brooks MIT&quot; and you'll certainly find the main site for the project.  The research paper is also interesting, albeit densely written in academic-ese.  There are videos showing Cog interacting with others.

But definitely check out the FAQ -- clearly the lab agrees a bit with your definition of us humans as moist machines:

Q: Is Cog conscious?

A: We try to avoid using the c-word in our lab. For the record, no. Off the record, we have no idea what that question even means. And, still, no.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1758196]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from proscriptus]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757996]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I think you underestimate the importance of processing power--as well as the sensing abilities of many vertebrates. Take fish, for example, with their massive suites of chemical, pressure and electrical sensors. Sharks, as an example, meet your input and pattern recognition criteria excellently but while they're not dumb, they're certainly not on the octopus level of intelligence. And if they were going to evolve intelligence (what's our definition, anyway? Self-awareness?) they've had ample opportunity to do so--hundreds of millions of years.

Instead, what's resulted is the equivalent of a really, really good version of one of today's machine intelligences. Extremely good at what it does, almost unbeatably so,  but not displaying what we would consider the hallmarks of intelligence. Think of it as code that's been running a self-improvement control loop for essentially infinite time. It's the most streamlined, perfect code you can imagine, but not an AI.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757996]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from mhlong47]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757966]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[In the last several years, I've started playing golf a little more seriously (instead of 6-8 times per year, it's now about 35-45 or more).  While I'm approaching my next shot, I'm reviewing the mechanics of my previous shot.  And now I'm beginning to wonder if there's a part of the brain that works semi-independently (subconscious?) from whatever part is what we think of as consciousness.  As in, I address the ball on the tee, pointing my body (feet, hips, shoulders) straight down the fairway.  The ball slices to the right.  I tee up another ball, rotating my body to the left about 10-15 degress. I slice the ball to almost the same spot.  I tee up another, rotate again left about 10 degrees, and slice the ball to basically the same spot (all three balls wound up about 225 yds and within 25 feet of each other).  That episode was the most pronouced example, but I'm recognizing others now not quite as pronounced, but almost as obvious. Is a part of my brain trying to compensate for what is happening with the view, contrary to what I'm consciously trying to achieve?  Is it semi-independently forcing my motions to act contrary to my expressed desires?   How can something like that possibly be written into artificial intelligence?  How can something like that possibly be measured, let alone replicated?  Or from another perspective, will some future AI artifice be able to make the same mistake several times, and NOT learn from it?  To me, AI may exceed human intelligence in many areas, but will never be able to duplicate it.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757966]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from marcoklaue]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757945]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[There's a lot of things you'd think computers can do well, but they can't.  They can recognize human voices, and they can generally recognize if there's a human face in a digital photograph.  But they can't recognize if there is, for example, a chair or a ship in a digital photograph.  All the processing power and pattern-recognition algorithms haven't yet managed to get a computer to answer the question, &quot;is there a chair in this picture?&quot;, which any three-year-old human can do.  

They have to resort to &quot;cheating&quot;, like having the computer test for things it CAN recognize (&quot;does the picture look like the lighting is typical of an office?  Is there water in the picture?&quot;) and taking a stab at whether there is a chair or a boat in the picture.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757945]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from meblackstone]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757943]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I'm disappointed. I figured after a few days of posting, some irrational person would have had a Blog post entitled &quot;Dilbert Author Scott Adams says being blind, deaf, or having other sensory input disabilities makes one retarded&quot;.

The loonies on the web are falling down on the job.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757943]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from uhmdown]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757825]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[How much might pattern recognition be able to potentially explain?
How about like, Emotions? Motor Control? Self-Esteem?

&quot;Also, our ability to reuse pattern in other context, is it a pattern very deep down in us or something else?&quot;
Thats like abstract thinking, right? That might like being able to recognize partial patterns?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757825]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from uhmdown]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757755]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Part of our patter recognition ability is the ability to prioritize which patterns are important and which are not. If you're overloaded with stimulus, but unable to prioritize, you'll burn out real quick. For an autist, the threshold for which patterns to ignore must be a lot higher.

But yeah, if a robot isn't presented with new stimulus, then it may never move beyond its comfort zone. Humans also don't always move beyond their comfort zone, but I suppose thats because their concern for safety overrides their desire to learn. So I wonder whether curiosity is hard-wired into us, or whether we must learn a pattern saying that moving beyond your comfort zone makes you stronger.
Robots also need some way of unlearning patterns, because they won't always be able to get it right, just like us humans.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757755]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Labreck]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757665]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Well, I think you got half of it. I always says that intelligence is adaptation and reusing previous knowledge. Adaptation is pattern recognition, so on that we are saying exactly the same. But I see people with a lot of learning ability just failing miserably once out of their comfort zone. They can recognize and learn new pattern very vast, but not without help. 

Most of our great knowledge as human come from pure luck and once acquired need to be transmit. All the difficulty for a robot, make so that they can detect that a pattern is really a pattern and know to what else it could potentially apply. The best luck is probably trying to program the method of rationality in their basic code. Good luck with that.

Also, our ability to reuse pattern in other context, is it a pattern very deep down in us or something else?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757665]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from blampow]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757540]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[&gt;You'd also want your robot seeded with some basic objectives, the way babies are born with the desire to eat and feel comfort from being held. If the robot had no basic impulses, it would just sit around.

The pattern recognition idea is very interesting, but I think the ideal set of &quot;basic objectives&quot; here has already been determined: survive and reproduce.

Start with imitating life, then work your way up to human - and you'll probably have to pass through some variation of multicelled, mammal, sentient, etc.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757540]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from UnregisteredUser]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757523]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[It is called &quot;embodied cognition&quot;.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition

Maybe the motivation problem could be solved by making the machine &quot;curious&quot;...]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757523]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from workerant]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757194]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Babies can do something that (so far) machines can't - rewire their brains according to the sensory input using reward/pain means. Pain = hungry, reward = food. Pain=separation, reward = smile. Language skills are similarly acquired and even affects hearing. The Chinese are unable to differentiate L from R after a certain age. Maybe a Heuristic Algorithmic Logic computer could do it.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SunPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1757194]]></guid>
</item>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<lastBuildDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></lastBuildDate></channel></rss>
