Sunday, January 12, 2014

A leap in artificial intelligence ? Continued 3

In this saga about our (yours and mine)  

Artificial intelligence that learns from associated parallel streams of information

today's reflexions are about the order in which we would like this AI to learn things.

Despite that we still don't know much about what this new AI should do (see previous post) the show must go on. (But feel free to still add your contributions to my previous post).

Spending a little bit of grey energy on what this AI should learn first might by handy.

Ever thought about why we use smiley's?

Have a look at this short video showing twice the Dutch phrase "Ja, ja" (in English: "Yes, yes" as you might have guessed):

The first case is a double affirmation / agreement, the second on the other hand means something like: "talk as much as you want, but I don't believe you".

Another striking example has been posted by +Maya Davis in mai 2013, about the pronunciation of Shakespeare's work.

In the field of computational linguistics we know very well that interpreting written text is confronted with the issue of highly complex structural relationships (as opposed to linear order). Making unambigous interpretation extremely difficult.

Obviously something important is lacking in written text:

The extra things we have in spoken text: pitch, stress, pauses, etc.
And body language if we can see the person.

But we do understand written text, don't we? So what's up?

My interpretation is that when we read we imagine what the melody, intonations etc are (or are supposed to be). Sometimes we imagine the corresponding body language also.
Smiley's are one way to fill in the gaps in expressiveness of text compared to the spoken word.

In evolution?
As a baby, did you start writing or seeing and listening?
Language could be as old as 100,000 years, where as writting appeared around 3200 BCE.
Whow, that were two easy ones!

What do you think our AI should start with:

the texts available everywhere
rich speech recognition?

What do you think to see when looking at a picture?
Something in two dimensions or do you make the shift to 3D?
If so, why can you do it?

Does M.C. Esher ring a bell?

Drawing by M.C. Esher

In images like the one above, personally I shift to a series of 3D images. Changing the image with every part of the drawing I'm focusing on. No way for me to make it into a single coherent picture.

And classical video (not 3D)? Do you "see" depth? What do you use to interpret a 2D video into a 3D live like experience?

Like for the language: What do you think the AI should start with:

3D vision (binocular or perhaps even N-ocular)?

Finally for the vision component: what would you like the AI to see here:

post from +Donavon Urfalian 

An owl
a bunch of fruit and vegetables?
Both? In which order?

The last thing for today is a little clarification.

Although I frequently try to make you think about how we, the human beings, do things, it doesn't necessarily imply that our future AI has to be biologically inspired.

The purpose is to dress a holistic view on the richness of our perception, the implication of combined sensory input and the need to rely on previously learned things for current interpretations (and actions).

Don't forget to answer the three questions above. At least for yourself. And if you feel the need to express it in a comment, you're welcome.

First chapter Previous chapter Next chapter

No comments:

Post a Comment