Progress in artificial intelligence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Tedsanders (talk | contribs) m →Human-level artificial general intelligence (AGI): then -> than |
Tedsanders (talk | contribs) →Human-level artificial general intelligence (AGI): "much" adds little value if not quantified |
||
| Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
Four polls conducted in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the median estimate among experts for when AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending on the poll.<ref name=newyorker>{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}</ref><ref>Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016). Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion. In Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham.</ref> |
Four polls conducted in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the median estimate among experts for when AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending on the poll.<ref name=newyorker>{{cite news|last1=Khatchadourian|first1=Raffi|title=The Doomsday Invention|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=The New Yorker|date=16 November 2015}}</ref><ref>Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016). Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion. In Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham.</ref> |
||
The Grace poll around 2016 found results varied depending on how the question was framed. Respondents asked to estimate "when unaided machines can accomplish every task better and more cheaply than human workers" gave an aggregated median answer of 45 years and a 10% chance of it occurring within 9 years. Other respondents asked to estimate "when all occupations are fully automatable. That is, when for any occupation, machines could be built to carry out the task better and more cheaply than human workers" estimated a median of 122 years and a 10% probability of 20 years. The median response for when "AI researcher" could be fully automated was around 90 years. No link was found between seniority and optimism, but Asian researchers were |
The Grace poll around 2016 found results varied depending on how the question was framed. Respondents asked to estimate "when unaided machines can accomplish every task better and more cheaply than human workers" gave an aggregated median answer of 45 years and a 10% chance of it occurring within 9 years. Other respondents asked to estimate "when all occupations are fully automatable. That is, when for any occupation, machines could be built to carry out the task better and more cheaply than human workers" estimated a median of 122 years and a 10% probability of 20 years. The median response for when "AI researcher" could be fully automated was around 90 years. No link was found between seniority and optimism, but Asian researchers were more optimistic than North American researchers on average.<ref name=bbc>{{cite news|last1=Gray|first1=Richard|title=How long will it take for your job to be automated?|url=http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20170619-how-long-will-it-take-for-your-job-to-be-automated|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=BBC|date=2018|language=en}}</ref><ref name=ns>{{cite news|title=AI will be able to beat us at everything by 2060, say experts|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133188-ai-will-be-able-to-beat-us-at-everything-by-2060-say-experts/|accessdate=31 January 2018|work=New Scientist|date=2018}}</ref><ref name=grace>Grace, K., Salvatier, J., Dafoe, A., Zhang, B., & Evans, O. (2017). When will AI exceed human performance? Evidence from AI experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.08807.</ref> |
||
{| class="wikitable" |
{| class="wikitable" |
||
Revision as of 21:19, 3 March 2018
| Part of a series on |
| Artificial intelligence |
|---|
_artificial_intelligence_icon.png){kind=icon} |
The error rate of AI by year. Red line - the error rate of a trained human on a particular task
Artificial intelligence applications have been used in a wide range of fields including medical diagnosis, stock trading, robot control, law, scientific discovery and toys. However, many AI applications are not perceived as AI: "A lot of cutting edge AI has filtered into general applications, often without being called AI because once something becomes useful enough and common enough it's not labeled AI anymore."[1] "Many thousands of AI applications are deeply embedded in the infrastructure of every industry."[2] In the late 1990s and early 21st century, AI technology became widely used as elements of larger systems,[2][3] but the field is rarely credited for these successes.
To allow comparison with human performance, artificial intelligence can be evaluated on constrained and well-defined problems. Such tests have been termed subject matter expert Turing tests. Also, smaller problems provide more achievable goals and there are an ever-increasing number of positive results.
Current performance
In his famous Turing test, Alan Turing picked language, the defining feature of human beings, for its basis.[4] Yet, there are many other useful abilities that can be described as showing some form of intelligence. This gives better insight into the comparative success of artificial intelligence in different areas.
In what has been called the Feigenbaum test, the inventor of expert systems argued for subject specific expert tests.[5] A paper by Jim Gray of Microsoft in 2003 suggested extending the Turing test to speech understanding, speaking and recognizing objects and behavior.[6]
Broad classes of outcome for an AI test may be given as:
- optimal: it is not possible to perform better (note: some of these entries were solved by humans)
- super-human: performs better than all humans
- high-human: performs better than most humans
- par-human: performs similarly to most humans
- sub-human: performs worse than most humans
Optimal
- Tic-Tac-Toe
- Connect Four (1988)
- Checkers (aka Draughts) (Weakly solved in 2007)[7]
- Rubik's Cube: mostly solved (2010)[8]
- Heads-up limit hold'em poker: statistically optimal in the sense that "a human lifetime of play is not sufficient to establish with statistical significance that the strategy is not an exact solution", 2015.[9]
Super-human
- Chess: c. 1997 (supercomputer), c. 2005 (personal computer)
- Shogi: c. 2014
- Go: 2016
- Backgammon: c. 1995-2002[10][11]
- Reversi: c. 1980
- Arimaa: 2015[12][13]
- Scrabble:[14][15] (c. 1995?)[16]
- Heads-up nolimit hold'em poker (2017)[17]
- Jeopardy: question answering although the machine did not use speech recognition (2011)[18][19]
High-human
- Bridge: world class (c. 2006)[20]
- Texas hold 'em (c. 2017)[21]
- Crosswords: (c. 2012)[22][23]
Par-human
- Optical character recognition for ISO 1073-1:1976 and similar special characters.
- Classification of images[24]
- Handwriting recognition [25]
Sub-human
- Optical character recognition for printed text (nearing par-human for Latin-script typewritten text)
- Object recognition[clarification needed]
- Facial recognition Low to mid human accuracy as of 2014[26]
- Safely driving a car: "Between September 2014 and November 2015, Google’s autonomous vehicles in California experienced 272 failures and would have crashed at least 13 times if their human test drivers had not intervened."[27]
- Visual question answering[28] such as the VQA 1.0[29]
- Various robotics tasks that may require advances in robot hardware as well as AI, including:
- Stable bipedal locomotion: As of 2017, bipedal robots can walk, but are less stable than human walkers.[30]
- Humanoid soccer[31]
- Speech recognition: "nearly equal to human performance", 2017[32]
- Various tasks that are difficult to solve without contextual knowledge, including:
Past and current predictions
An expert poll around 2016, conducted by Katja Grace of the Future of Humanity Institute and associates, gave median estimates of 3 years for championship Angry Birds, 4 years for the World Series of Poker, and 6 years for StarCraft. On more subjective tasks, the poll gave 6 years for folding laundry as well as an average human worker, 7-10 years for expertly answering 'easily Googleable' questions, 8 years for average speech transcription, 9 years for average telephone banking, and 11 years for expert songwriting, but over 30 years for writing a New York Times bestseller or winning the Putnam math competition.[34][35][36]
Chess
An AI defeated a grandmaster in a regulation tournament game for the first time in 1988; rebranded as Deep Blue, it beat the reigning human world chess champion in 1997.[37]
| Year prediction made | Predicted year | Number of Years | Predictor | Contemporaneous source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1957 | 1967 or sooner | 10 or less | Herbert A. Simon, economist[38] | |
| 1990 | 2000 or sooner | 10 or less | Ray Kurzweil, futurist | Age of Intelligent Machines[39] |
Go
AlphaGo defeated a European Go champion in October 2015, and defeated one of the world's top players, Lee Sedol, in March 2016. According to Scientific American and other sources, most observers had expected superhuman Computer Go performance to be at least a decade away.[40][41][42]
| Year prediction made | Predicted year | Number of years | Predictor | Affiliation | Contemporaneous source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | 2100 or later | 100 or more | Piet Hutt, physicist and Go fan | Institute for Advanced Study | New York Times[43][44] |
| 2007 | 2017 or sooner | 10 or less | Feng-Hsiung Hsu, Deep Blue lead | Microsoft Research Asia | IEEE Spectrum[45][46] |
| 2014 | 2024 | 10 | Rémi Coulom, Computer Go programmer | CrazyStone | Wired[46][47] |
| Date | Quote |
|---|---|
| October 2015 | "Based on its level seen... I think I will win the game by a near landslide" |
| February 2016 | "I have heard that (AlphaGo) is surprisingly strong and getting stronger, but I am confident that I can win at least this time." |
| 9 March 2016 | "I was very surprised because I didn't think I would lose." |
| 10 March 2016 | "I am in shock. I can admit that... the third game is not going to be easy for me." |
| 11 March 2016 | "I kind of felt powerless." |
Human-level artificial general intelligence (AGI)
AI pioneer and economist Herbert A. Simon inaccurately predicted in 1965: "Machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do". Similarly, in 1970 Marvin Minsky wrote that "Within a generation... the problem of creating artificial intelligence will substantially be solved."[49]
Four polls conducted in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the median estimate among experts for when AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending on the poll.[50][51]
The Grace poll around 2016 found results varied depending on how the question was framed. Respondents asked to estimate "when unaided machines can accomplish every task better and more cheaply than human workers" gave an aggregated median answer of 45 years and a 10% chance of it occurring within 9 years. Other respondents asked to estimate "when all occupations are fully automatable. That is, when for any occupation, machines could be built to carry out the task better and more cheaply than human workers" estimated a median of 122 years and a 10% probability of 20 years. The median response for when "AI researcher" could be fully automated was around 90 years. No link was found between seniority and optimism, but Asian researchers were more optimistic than North American researchers on average.[34][35][36]
| Year prediction made | Predicted year | Number of years | Predictor | Contemporaneous source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1965 | 1985 or sooner | 20 or less | Herbert A. Simon | The shape of automation for men and management[49][52] |
| 1993 | 2023 or sooner | 30 or less | Vernor Vinge, science fiction writer | "The Coming Technological Singularity"[53] |
| 1995 | 2040 or sooner | 45 or less | Hans Moravec, robotics researcher | Wired[54] |
| 2008 | Never | Gordon E. Moore, inventor of Moore's Law | IEEE Spectrum[55] | |
| 2017 | 2029 | 12 | Ray Kurzweil | Interview[56] |
See also
- Applications of artificial intelligence
- List of artificial intelligence projects
- List of emerging technologies
References
- ^ AI set to exceed human brain power CNN.com (July 26, 2006)
- ^ a b Kurtzweil 2005, p. 264
- ^ National Research Council (1999), "Developments in Artificial Intelligence", Funding a Revolution: Government Support for Computing Research, National Academy Press, ISBN 0-309-06278-0, OCLC 246584055 under "Artificial Intelligence in the 90s"
- ^ Turing, Alan (October 1950). "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". Mind. 59 (236): 433–460. doi:10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433. ISSN 1460-2113. JSTOR 2251299. S2CID 14636783.
- ^ Feigenbaum, Edward A. (2003). "Some challenges and grand challenges for computational intelligence". Journal of the ACM. 50 (1): 32–40. doi:10.1145/602382.602400.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - ^ Gray, Jim (2003). "What Next? A Dozen Information-Technology Research Goals". Journal of the ACM. 50 (1): 41–57. arXiv:cs/9911005. Bibcode:1999cs.......11005G. doi:10.1145/602382.602401.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help); Unknown parameter|class=ignored (help) - ^ Schaeffer, J.; Burch, N.; Bjornsson, Y.; Kishimoto, A.; Muller, M.; Lake, R.; Lu, P.; Sutphen, S. (2007). "Checkers is solved". Science. 317 (5844): 1518–1522. Bibcode:2007Sci...317.1518S. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.95.5393. doi:10.1126/science.1144079. PMID 17641166.
- ^ "God's Number is 20".
- ^ Bowling, M.; Burch, N.; Johanson, M.; Tammelin, O. (2015). "Heads-up limit hold'em poker is solved". Science. 347 (6218): 145–9. Bibcode:2015Sci...347..145B. doi:10.1126/science.1259433. PMID 25574016.
- ^ Tesauro, Gerald (March 1995). "Temporal difference learning and TD-Gammon". Communications of the ACM. 38 (3): 58–68. doi:10.1145/203330.203343.
- ^ Tesauro, Gerald (January 2002). "Programming backgammon using self-teaching neural nets". Artificial Intelligence. 134 (1–2): 181–199. doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00110-2.
...at least two other neural net programs also appear to be capable of superhuman play
- ^ "The Arimaa Challenge". 2015. Retrieved Dec 28, 2017.
- ^ Roeder, Oliver (10 July 2017). "The Bots Beat Us. Now What?". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved 28 December 2017.
- ^ "In Major AI Breakthrough, Google System Secretly Beats Top Player at the Ancient Game of Go". WIRED. Retrieved 28 December 2017.
- ^ Sheppard, B. (2002). "World-championship-caliber Scrabble". Artificial Intelligence. 134: 241–275. doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00166-7.
- ^ Webley, Kayla (15 February 2011). "Top 10 Man-vs.-Machine Moments". Time. Retrieved 28 December 2017.
- ^ Brown, Noam; Sandholm, Tuomas (2017). "Superhuman AI for heads-up no-limit poker: Libratus beats top professionals". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aao1733.
- ^ Watson beats Jeopardy grand-champions. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/17jeopardy-watson.html
- ^ Jackson, Joab. "IBM Watson Vanquishes Human Jeopardy Foes". PC World. IDG News. Retrieved 2011-02-17.
- ^ Computer bridge#Computers versus humans
- ^ [1]
- ^ Proverb: The probabilistic cruciverbalist. By Greg A. Keim, Noam Shazeer, Michael L. Littman, Sushant Agarwal, Catherine M. Cheves, Joseph Fitzgerald, Jason Grosland, Fan Jiang, Shannon Pollard, and Karl Weinmeister. 1999. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 710-717. Menlo Park, Calif.: AAAI Press.
- ^ Wernick, Adam (24 Sep 2014). "'Dr. Fill' vies for crossword solving supremacy, but still comes up short". Public Radio International. Retrieved Dec 27, 2017.
The first year, Dr. Fill came in 141st out of about 600 competitors. It did a little better the second-year; last year it was 65th
- ^ "Microsoft researchers say their newest deep learning system beats humans -- and Google - VentureBeat - Big Data - by Jordan Novet". VentureBeat.
- ^ "One-shot Learning with Memory-Augmented Neural Networks; Page 5: Table 1". 19 May 2016. Retrieved 2017-06-04.
4.2. Omniglot Classification: "The network exhibited high classification accuracy on just the second presentation of a sample from a class within an episode (82.8%), reaching up to 94.9% accuracy by the fifth instance and 98.1% accuracy by the tenth."
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=(help) - ^ Meyer, Robinson (2015). "How Worried Should We Be About Facial Recognition?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2 March 2018.
- ^ Harris, Mark (12 Jan 2016). "Google reports self-driving car mistakes: 272 failures and 13 near misses". The Guardian. Retrieved Dec 18, 2016.
- ^ Antol, Stanislaw, et al. "Vqa: Visual question answering." Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. 2015.
- ^ "Artificial Intelligence Index 2017 Annual Report" (PDF). Stanford 100 Year Study on AI. Retrieved 28 December 2017.
- ^ "Robots with legs are getting ready to walk among us". The Verge. Retrieved 28 December 2017.
- ^ Hurst, Nathan. "Why Funny, Falling, Soccer-Playing Robots Matter". Smithsonian. Retrieved 28 December 2017.
- ^ "The Business of Artificial Intelligence". Harvard Business Review. 18 July 2017. Retrieved 28 December 2017.
- ^ There are several ways of evaluating machine translation systems. People competent in a second language frequently outperform machine translation systems but the average person is often less capable. Some machine translation systems are capable of a large number of languages, like google translate, and as a result have a broader competence than most humans. For example, very few humans can translate from Arabic to Polish and French to Swahili and Armenian to Vietnamese. When comparing over several languages machine translation systems will tend to outperform humans.
- ^ a b Gray, Richard (2018). "How long will it take for your job to be automated?". BBC. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
- ^ a b "AI will be able to beat us at everything by 2060, say experts". New Scientist. 2018. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
- ^ a b Grace, K., Salvatier, J., Dafoe, A., Zhang, B., & Evans, O. (2017). When will AI exceed human performance? Evidence from AI experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.08807.
- ^ McClain, Dylan Loeb (11 September 2010). "Bent Larsen, Chess Grandmaster, Dies at 75". The New York Times. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
- ^ "The Business of Artificial Intelligence". Harvard Business Review. 18 July 2017. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
- ^ "4 Crazy Predictions About the Future of Art". Inc.com. 2017. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
- ^ Koch, Christof (2016). "How the Computer Beat the Go Master". Scientific American. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
- ^ "'I'm in shock!' How an AI beat the world's best human at Go". New Scientist. 2016. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
- ^ Moyer, Christopher (2016). "How Google's AlphaGo Beat a Go World Champion". The Atlantic. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
- ^ Johnson, George (29 July 1997). "To Test a Powerful Computer, Play an Ancient Game". The New York Times. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
- ^ Johnson, George (4 April 2016). "To Beat Go Champion, Google's Program Needed a Human Army". The New York Times. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
- ^ "Cracking GO". IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News. 2007. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
- ^ a b "The Mystery of Go, the Ancient Game That Computers Still Can't Win". WIRED. 2014. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
- ^ Gibney, Elizabeth (28 January 2016). "Google AI algorithm masters ancient game of Go". Nature. pp. 445–446. doi:10.1038/529445a. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
- ^ Tegmark, Max (2017). "chapter 3". Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Penguin Books Limited. ISBN 9780141981796.
- ^ a b Bostrom, Nick (2013). Superintelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199678111.
- ^ Khatchadourian, Raffi (16 November 2015). "The Doomsday Invention". The New Yorker. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
- ^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016). Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion. In Fundamental issues of artificial intelligence (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham.
- ^ Muehlhauser, L., & Salamon, A. (2012). Intelligence explosion: Evidence and import. In Singularity Hypotheses (pp. 15-42). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
- ^ Tierney, John (25 August 2008). "Vernor Vinge's View of the Future - Is Technology That Outthinks Us a Partner or a Master ?". The New York Times. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
- ^ "Superhumanism". WIRED. 1995. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
- ^ "Tech Luminaries Address Singularity". IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News. 2008. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
- ^ Molloy, Mark (17 March 2017). "Expert predicts date when 'sexier and funnier' humans will merge with AI machines". The Telegraph. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
