Genius Edward Witten, could he help intensify artificial intelligence research?

Homepage Forums Small Talk Genius Edward Witten, could he help intensify artificial intelligence research?

This topic contains 3 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Strega Strega 6 days, 3 hours ago.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3988

    Part A – Artificial Intelligence and human-kind, in 2 sentences.

    Artificial Intelligence is unavoidably exceeding humans in cognitive tasks, and some projections observe human level brain power in artificial machines/software by at least 2020 (Wikipedia exascale computing source).

    Artificial Intelligence is already solving many of human kind’s problems.

     

     

     

     

     

    Part B – Crucial difference between Edward and Tegmark

    Edward Witten is quite the human being/physicist.

    Max Tegmark is also, quite the human/cosmologist.

    Both have phd physics degrees.

    The urgent difference?

    (1) Max presents consciousness as a mathematical problem... Although Max Tegmark is not an artificial intelligence pioneer nor is officially trained as an artificial intelligence researcher, Max is already contributing important work, helping to organize the theory of deep learning (A hot paradigm in Artificial Intelligence now).

    A sample of Max’s AI work: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08225

    Max describing consciousness as a mathematical problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzCvlFRISIM

    (2) Edward Witten believes we will never truly understand consciousness

    Human-Level AI Are Probably A Lot Closer Than You Think

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Part C – How components approached by Edward’s genius applies in AI today

    Edward Witten’s work concerns some deep stuff on manifolds. (Sample:
    https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9411102

    In artificial intelligence, models are observed to be doing some form of manifold representation, especially in the euclidean regime. (And are already demonstrated to be strong candidates for ‘disentangling problems’ of which many problem spaces occur)

    As an unofficial AI researcher myself, I am working on AI, as it relates to super-manifolds.(I recently invented something called ‘thought curvature‘, involving yet another invention of mine called the ‘supermanifold hypothesis in deep learning‘, built atop Yoshua Bengio’s manifold work)

    So I happen to have a brief, concise description somewhere, where manifolds are shown to non-trivially relate to artificial intelligence (you can see also Deep Learning book by bengio, or Chris Olah’s manifold explanation):
    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Manifold-Hypothesis-in-Deep-Learning/answer/Jordan-Bennett-9

     

     

     

     

     

    Some months ago, I had personally contacted Witten, advising him that his genius could apply in AI. (No response though)

    Why does Edward Witten allow his belief (as shown in the video above) to block himself from possibly considerably contributing to artificial intelligence, one of human-kind’s most profound tools, even despite contrasting evidence that manifolds apply in machine learning?

     

    #4013
    Profile photo of notSimple
    notSimple
    Participant

    This sort of touches on the periodic discussions over at biologist Jerry Coyne’s blog (whyevolutionistrue) about whether we are fully deterministic or not (Jerry advocates for determinism). I’m comp sci, but not in the AI field. Nonetheless, I am still unconvinced that we are truly approaching artificial intelligence, instead we’re getting pretty good simulated intelligence. Nor, will we ever get true artificial intelligence until we jump outside the Turing model of computation. Using IBM’s Watson as an example, it has access to huge amounts of data, and successfully became a Jeopardy champ, but it still understands nothing. There is not spark of comprehension, just highly efficient pattern matching.

    Which comes back to Coyne’s discussions. With consciousness not understood, there is a huge bit of our knowledge missing, too much missing to currently confidently answer the free will question.

    #4043

    This sort of touches on the periodic discussions over at biologist Jerry Coyne’s blog (whyevolutionistrue) about whether we are fully deterministic or not (Jerry advocates for determinism). I’m comp sci, but not in the AI field. Nonetheless, I am still unconvinced that we are truly approaching artificial intelligence, instead we’re getting pretty good simulated intelligence. Nor, will we ever get true artificial intelligence until we jump outside the Turing model of computation. Using IBM’s Watson as an example, it has access to huge amounts of data, and successfully became a Jeopardy champ, but it still understands nothing. There is not spark of comprehension, just highly efficient pattern matching. Which comes back to Coyne’s discussions. With consciousness not understood, there is a huge bit of our knowledge missing, too much missing to currently confidently answer the free will question.

    Life is literally patterns (literally particular configurations of particles), and our brains are unavoidably efficient pattern recognizers…

     

    There are already initial approximations of general intelligence, ranging from deep learning algorithms for heart irregularity diagnosis, to Deep mind’s Atari Q player, Alpha go (its underlying mechanisms are generally applicable),  or Deepmind’s path net.

    #4181
    Profile photo of Strega
    Strega
    Moderator

    Maybe one day we will evolve to see through the trickery that carries the label, “free will”.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.