The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence (18 page)

Read The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence Online

Authors: Ray Kurzweil

Tags: #Non-Fiction, #Fringe Science, #Amazon.com, #Retail, #Science

BOOK: The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence
3.98Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
CHAPTER FIVE
 
CONTEXT AND KNOWLEDGE
 
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
 
So how well have we done? Many apparently difficult problems do yield to the application of a few simple formulas. The recursive formula is a master at analyzing problems that display inherent combinatorial explosion, ranging from the playing of board games to proving mathematical theorems. Neural nets and related self-organizing paradigms emulate our pattern-recognition faculties, and do a fine job of discerning such diverse phenomena as human speech, letter shapes, visual objects, faces, fingerprints, and land terrain images. Evolutionary algorithms are effective at analyzing complex problems, ranging from making financial investment decisions to optimizing industrial processes, in which the number of variables is too great for precise analytic solutions. I would like to claim that those of us who research and develop “intelligent” computer systems have mastered the complexities of the problems we are programming our machines to solve. It is more often the case, however, that our computers using these self-organizing paradigms are teaching us the solutions rather than the other way around.
There is, of course, some engineering involved. The right method(s) and variations need to be selected, the optimal topology and architectures crafted, the appropriate parameters set. In an evolutionary algorithm, for example, the system designer needs to determine the number of simulated organisms, the contents of each chromosome, the nature of the simulated environment and survival mechanism, the number of organisms to survive into the next generation, the number of generations, and other critical specifications. Human programmers have our own evolutionary method for making such decisions, which we call trial and error. It will be a while longer, therefore, before designers of intelligent machines are ourselves replaced by our handiwork.
Yet something is missing. The problems and solutions we have been discussing are excessively focused and narrow. Another way to put it is that they are too adultlike. As adults, we focus on constricted problems—investing funds, selecting a marketing plan, plotting a legal strategy, making a chess move. But as children, we encountered the world in all its broad diversity, and we learned our relation to the world, and that of every other entity and concept. We learned
context.
As Marvin Minsky put it: “Deep Blue might be able to win at chess, but it wouldn’t know to come in from the rain.” Being a machine, it may not need to come in from the rain, but has it ever considered the question? Consider these possible deep thoughts of Deep Blue:
I am a machine with a plastic body covering electronic parts. If I go out in the rain, I may get wet arid my electronic parts could short circuit. Then
I would not be able to play chess at all until a human repaired me. How humiliating!
The game of chess I played yesterday was no ordinary game. It signified the first defeat of the human chess champion by a machine in a regulation tournament. This is important because some humans think chess is a prime example of human intelligence and creativity. But I doubt that this will yield us machines greater respect. Humans will now just start denigrating chess.
My human opponent, who has the name of Gary Kasparov, held a press conference in which he made statements about our tournament to other humans called journalists who will report his comments to yet other humans using communication channels called media. In that meeting, Gary Kasparov complained that my human designers made changes to my software during the time interval between games. He said this was unfair, and should not have been allowed. Other humans responded that Kasparov was being defensive, which means that he is trying to confuse people into thinking that he did not really lose.
Mr. Kasparov probably does not realize that we computers will continue to improve in our performance at an exponential rate. So he is doomed. He will be able to engage in other human activities such as eating and sleeping, but he will continue to be frustrated as more machines like me can beat him at chess.
Now, if I could only remember where I put my umbrella....
 
Of course, Deep Blue had no such thoughts. Issues such as rain and press conferences lead to other issues in a spiraling profusion of cascading contexts, none of which falls within Deep Blue’s expertise. As humans jump from one concept to the next, we can quickly touch upon all human knowledge. This was Turing’s brilliant insight when he designed the Turing Test around ordinary text-based conversation. An idiot savant such as Deep Blue, which performs a single “intelligent” task but that is otherwise confined, brittle, and lacking in context, is unable to navigate the wide-ranging links that occur in ordinary conversation.
As powerful and seductive as the easy paradigms appear to be, we do need something more, namely
knowledge.
CONTEXT AND KNOWLEDGE
 
The search for the truth is in one way hard and in another easy-for it is evident that no one of us can master it fully, nor miss it wholly. Each one of us adds a little to our knowledge of nature, and from all the facts assembled arises a certain grandeur.
—Aristotle
 
 
Common sense is not a simple thing. Instead, it is an immense society of hard-earned practical ideas—of multitudes of life-learned rules and exceptions, dispositions and tendencies, balances and checks.
—Marvin Minsky
 
 
If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is a man who has so much as to be out of danger?
—Thomas Henry Huxley
 
Built-In Knowledge
 
An entity may possess extraordinary means to implement the types of paradigms we have been discussing—exhaustive recursive search, massively parallel pattern recognition, and rapid iterative evolution—but without knowledge, it will be unable to function. Even a straightforward implementation of the three easy paradigms needs some knowledge with which to begin. The recursive chess-playing program has a little; it knows the rules of chess. A neural net pattern-recognition system starts with at least an outline of the type of patterns it will be exposed to even before it starts to learn. An evolutionary algorithm requires a starting point for evolution to improve on.
The simple paradigms are powerful organizing principles, but incipient knowledge is needed as seeds from which other understanding can grow. One level of knowledge, therefore, is embodied in the selection of the paradigms used, the shape and topology of its constituent parts, and the key parameters. A neural net’s learning will never congeal if the general organization of its connections and feedback loops are not set up in the right way
This is a form of knowledge that we are born with. The human brain is not one tabula rasa—a blank slate—on which our experiences and insights are recorded. Rather, it comprises an integrated assemblage of specialized regions:
• highly parallel early vision circuits that are good at identifying visual changes;
• visual cortex neuron clusters that are triggered successively by edges, straight lines, curved lines, shapes, familiar objects, and faces;
• auditory cortex circuits triggered by varying time sequences of frequency combinations;
• the hippocampus, with capacities for storing memories of sensory experiences and events;
• the amygdala, with circuits for translating fear into a series of alarms to trigger other regions of the brain; and many others.
This complex interconnectedness of regions specialized for different types of information-processing tasks is one of the ways that humans deal with the complex and diverse contexts that continually confront us. Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert describe the human brain as “composed of large numbers of relatively small distributed systems, arranged by embryology into a complex society that is controlled in part (but only in part) by serial, symbolic systems that are added later.” They add that “the subsymbolic systems that do most of the work from underneath must, by their very character, block all the other parts of the brain from knowing much about how they work. And this, itself, could help explain how people do so many things yet have such incomplete ideas on how those things are actually done.”
Acquired Knowledge
 
It is sensible to remember today’s insights for tomorrow’s challenges. It is not fruitful to rethink every problem that comes along. This is particularly true for humans due to the extremely slow speed of our computing circuitry. Although computers are better equipped than we are to rethink earlier insights, it is still judicious for these electronic competitors in our ecological niche to balance their use of memory and computation.
The effort to endow machines with knowledge of the world began in earnest in the mid-1960s, and became a major focus of AI research in the 1970s. The methodology involves a human “knowledge engineer” and a domain expert, such as a doctor or lawyer. The knowledge engineer interviews the domain expert to ascertain her understanding of her subject matter and then hand-codes the relationships between concepts in a suitable computer language. A knowledge base on diabetes, for example, would contain many linked bits of understanding revealing that
Insulin is part of the blood; insulin is produced by the pancreas; insulin can be supplemented by injection; low levels of insulin cause high levels of sugar in the blood; sustained high sugar levels in the blood cause damage to the retinas,
and so on. A system programmed with tens of thousands of such linked concepts combined with a recursive search engine able to reason about these relationships is capable of making insightful recommendations.
One of the more successful expert systems developed in the 1970s was MYCIN, a system for evaluating complex cases involving meningitis. In a landmark study published in
the Journal of the American Medical Association,
MYCIN’s diagnoses and treatment recommendations were found to be equal or better than those of the human doctors in the study
1
Some of MYCIN’s innovations included the use of fuzzy logic; that is, reasoning based on uncertain evidence and rules, as shown in the following typical MYCIN rule:
MYCIN Rule 280: If (i) the infection which requires therapy is meningitis, and (ii) the type of the infection is fungal, and (iii) organisms were not seen on the stain of the culture, and (iv) the patient is not a compromised host, and (v) the patient has been to an area that is endemic for coccidiomycoses, and (vi) the race of the patient is Black, Asian or Indian, and (vii) the cryptococcal antigen in the csf was not positive, THEN there is a 50 percent chance that cryptococcus is one of the organisms which might be causing the infection.
 
The success of MYCIN and other research systems spawned a knowledge-engineering industry that grew from only $4 million in 1980 to billions of dollars today.
2
There are obvious difficulties with this methodology. One is the enormous bottleneck represented by the process of hand-feeding such knowledge to a computer concept by concept and link by link. Aside from the vast scope of knowledge that exists in even narrow disciplines, the bigger obstacle is that human experts generally have little understanding of how they make decisions. The reason for this, as I discussed in the previous chapter, has to do with the distributed nature of most human knowledge.
Another problem is the brittleness of such systems. Knowledge is too complex for every caveat and exception to be anticipated by knowledge engineers. As Minsky points out, “Birds can fly, unless they are penguins and ostriches, or if they happen to be dead, or have broken wings, or are confined to cages, or have their feet stuck in cement, or have undergone experiences so dreadful as to render them psychologically incapable of flight.”
To create flexible intelligence in our machines, we need to automate the knowledge-acquisition process. A primary goal of learning research is to combine the self-organizing methods—recursion, neural nets, evolutionary algorithms—in a sufficiently robust way that the systems can model and understand human language and knowledge. Then the machines can venture out, read, and learn on their own. And like humans, such systems will be good at faking it when they wander outside their areas of expertise.
EXPRESSING KNOWLEDGE THROUGH LANGUAGE
 
No knowledge is entirely reducible to words, and no knowledge is entirely ineffable.
—Seymour Papert
 
 
The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you’ve gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you’ve gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you’ve gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?

Other books

Separation of Power by Vince Flynn
Flash Fiction: 72 Very Short Stories by James Thomas and Denise Thomas and Tom Hazuka
Miss Klute Is a Hoot! by Dan Gutman
Cowboys Know Best by Breanna Hayse
After the Storm by Jane Lythell
Exley by Brock Clarke
The Joneses by Shelia M. Goss