News & Analysis

Opinion: Time for another AI reality check?

Bill Schweber

4/2/2008 2:58 PM EDT

I love to read stories about how software and hardware that will emulate the brain is just around the corner. Of course, this "corner" always seems to be 2, 5, 10, or even 20 years away. A recent example was presented at the International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC), "Keynoter says chips will someday mimic human brain," where computer expert Jeff Hawkins said great progress has been made, and gave some specifics.

I love these stories because they actually prove that we really haven't got a clue about how the brain works. Look at research papers from brain and artificial intelligence experts: Despite the progress, there are embarrassing gaps in understanding.

Consider the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency competition, which brings together very innovative and proficient teams to develop a self-driving vehicle using megaflops of processor power, kilowatts of dissipation, millions of lines of code and an array of sensors to do what just about any person can do, under a wider set of circumstances and environments: drive a car.

All we need is a three-pound, 75-watt processor supplemented by a few peripheral actuators with position and motion feedback. And unlike Darpa vehicles, our input sensor is just a visible-light array without sonar, thermal, laser, radar or other supplemental imaging support.

We don't know if the brain actually translates and stores information, and, if it does, in what format. Does it digitize all the images, sounds and experiences? If so, at what resolution? (Highly unlikely: There's no MSPS, high-resolution A/D and D/A subsystem.)

How does the brain organize, sort, search, pattern-match and retrieve memories and information? How does it do this so quickly? How does it implement background searches so the name of that movie you are trying to recall finally "pops" into your memory an hour later?

How does the brain figure out how to do what has to be done? How does it learn to learn, and dynamically reconfigure itself for different tasks and priorities? How is it able to recall and regenerate sounds, images, movies or songs with so little apparent effort?

Why can we drive, run and catch a ball with relative ease? There is no megaflop processor and no organized code listing. Even if we postulate, for simplicity, that the brain is a parallel processor with near-infinite memory, how does it do what it does?

Clearly, the brain is configured and works in ways we don't grasp. All those live-action brain scans, which we now see everywhere, obscure that reality. Perhaps someday, artificial intelligence plus radically new computer architectures will allow us to build brain-like systems.

But until we acknowledge our gaps in understanding—and they are huge—more powerful processors, slightly different architectures and better software won't do it.





boy howdy

4/2/2008 11:49 PM EDT

We certainly do have clues about how the brain works. Check out any current neuroscience book. As far as AI is concerned, a good eye opener is to check out books from the 60s that predicted that automatic language translation was impossible. Seems it isn't so impossible after all.

Sign in to Reply



bcarso

4/3/2008 2:57 PM EDT

It was Bar-Hillel who suggested in 1960 that machine translation would be impossible WITHOUT a "universal encyclopedia" because of the multiple meanings of words. In lieu of this some statistical approaches have had some success, but progress has been slow. Context dependence is still subtle. And this is one of the simpler problems of AI!

I see a lot of AI looking like a problem of having a hammer and looking for something like a nail---failing that we bang away on wahtever's at hand. We get a bit of neurology and a bit of computer science, and marry them in however ill-suited a union---because it's all we have. Von Neumann machines were ridiculously ill-suited but that didn't stop the heady predictions. With parallel processing the fit may be little better, but we plough ahead with still little to show.

Thinking about neurons has evolved from connectivity supposedly explaining everything to the exploration of activity on a finer level. But still any sense of a solution to the "hard" problem of consciousness seems just as far away as ever. I'm pretty pessimistic overall.

Sign in to Reply



ManOnBlog

5/5/2008 10:43 AM EDT

First a couple of comments on the comments:
- Dianetics, give me a break!
- "The Emperor's New Mind" please! In it Penrose proposes that we will never have AI due to some quantum secret sauce in our brains, but the problem with his thesis is that it is pure conjecture on his part.

A terrific read on the history of robotics and AI by a researcher in the field is Hans Moravec's "ROBOT: mere machine to transcendent mind". True he predicts the "singularity" (robots taking over the world) will happen, but you can make of that whatever you like after you hear him out. A very informative and freewheeling discussion, I can't recommend the book highly enough.

Sign in to Reply



Please sign in to post comment

Navigate to related information

EE Buzz DesignCon

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)

Feedback Form