The Computational Universe

My understanding of Artificial Intelligence has evolved considerably over the course of this semester.  My initial understanding was guided by Brook’s logic and many of his points still hold true for me.  Brook’s logic remained intact in my opinion until we got to the Scribbler lab in which we were to create some form of artwork with our Scribbler.

Our class discussion the other day highlighted Searle’s main point, that while computers may pass the Turing Test, it is still not a valid test of consciousness.  Searle’s argument leaves me wondering about the features that would be necessary for a computer to have limitless creative capacity.  When I think of our Scribbler lab I remember that the closest my Scribbler could get to creativity was randomness followed by a programmable action—which in my opinion is still very far from real and conscious creativity.  Placing creativity on par with consciousness, I find Searle’s argument most compelling in that the Turing Test cannot determine the consciousness of an entity, despite the fact that it may be possible for a computer to pass the test.

It is difficult to side with either Brooks or Searle about whether or not it will ever be possible to duplicate the mechanical properties the brain as well as the rules that govern its actions.  Unlike Searle, I’d like to think that AI is possible at some level yet I will take from him that the Turing Test is not the proper benchmark of determining whether or not a machine is intelligent.

I walked in and the performers and their instruments were ready and sitting on stage.  From the get go, I knew this concert was going to be somewhat out of the ordinary.  The first piece begins when a woman who appears to be the director starts moving very freely.  As she moves we begin to hear music following her movements.  She appears to be wearing black armbands of somesort.  She is conducting this music like i’ve never seen done before.  Others stand and “conduct” their music in a similar fashion.  What are they doing with their hands I wonder? It is evident that the computers are translating the body movements of the performers.  It seems that after one computer receives the transmission from the human conductor, it is sent to the other computers and resonates accordingly.  Humans conduct music only to the extent that they click a mouse or move their hands.
The third song included reknowned accordion player Pauline Oliveros who played her instrument but the sound was not that of a conventional accordion.  Instead it was processed by the computer orchestra and manipulated accordingly.

The piece called “On the Floor” was very cool because the composer monitored the odds and how the “gamblers” were doing.  As each player played a virtual game of slots it made for a very cool effect as when each player ran out of money he or she walked off stage.  The music came to and end when every player lost their money.

In all I very much enjoyed this performance, though I was slightly disturbed by the spurious nature of the sound being produced.  Where was it coming from?  It was not always obvious and those conducting it departed from the many conventional standards for musical produciton.  It was fascinating to watch humans interact with eachother, as they too communicated with computers and computers with one another.  The complexity of this network made the music very thought provoking.

I have to admit, when I first learned about the Turing-Post machine I wasn’t very impressed. So I can replace zeros with ones, what gives? I told one of my friends about the hype surrounding this machine, hoping that he could help teach me what was so darn important about this model. He is a very skilled programmer and ended up writing a program to show me one application of the TP machine. Online, there are several sites that allow you to run your program through the TP machine. With the TP machine, which will run all valid programs, would tell us whether our program was valid. If it didn’t run, we’d know for sure we had a problem. Our program ran, but then experimented with several variations of the code that would not run. I must tell you that despite its simplicity, this program is remarkably useful. Universal TP machines, are also very cool as they have the ability to run operating systems that run programs within them. I now realize how remarkable it is that such a complex computer program is able to be reduced to seven lines of code. Further, the way in which the program is able to use these simple instructions to operate very complicated programs is beyond me.

Working with the Scribbler taught me more about myself than anything else. When we were first given the robots, I was skeptical about their abilities. How could a $100 dollar toy do anything cool? I imagined the simple commands that would be neccesary to control the robot and without even reading the instructions began to tinker.

In lecture we talked about how “dumb” such computer processers could be. What I would soon find out was how “dumb” I was for thinking that I could command the robot with my very unspecific instructions. As I learn more and more about robots, I am begining to understand just how ambiguous humans are in general. Our language, our commands, everything is very unspecific. Sure this is because we have the intelligence to process instructions and output sufficient responses, yet I feel like we as a human race we are constantly being disrupted by this.

I recall certain jobs that I have had in the past. I consider myself fairly intelligent yet in my past job I was yelled at several times for improperly completing tasks. My faults were not due to any lack of effort, they were simply a result of a miscommunication between my boss and I. His instructions were not “perfect” in the sense of the instructions required for operating the robot, and my computational skills were not done with the same sensitivity as they are when I think like a computer scientist or a robot.

In short, my inclination to label the robot’s analytical capabilities “dumb” has shown me that the robot is virtually flawless in terms of its analytical capabilities, and my own are far from such flawlessness.

As my title suggests, I like to live dangerously. How dangerously you ask? Well if you direct your attention to the time that this is being posted, you’ll note that I am writing this approximately 14 minutes before it is due. I am glad that I have the chance to clear this up- I am not a slacker, I’m simply living on the edge.

My name is Tim Edmond and I like to grab life by the horns. Growing up, I started this fast-paced lifestyle as an amatuer bullrider. After nine years on the pro circuit, I’ll be honest, I got bored. Since then, I have really cranked things up a notch. Taking this class, for instance, WAY out of my comfort zone. I am used to mundane politics classes, economics, and sociology, yet I feel as though this class is exactly what I need to push my academic career, and life, in the right direction.

Seriously though, I am taking this class because I love computers and I am excited to learn more about technology and computer applications. I have already named my robot, Gorgolax, and am honestly looking forward to embarking on the exciting adventure that is COS116.

I use a 15″ Mac Powerbook G4