Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Dufourny: on 9/9/19 at 9:08am UTC, wrote It's a beautiful approach,but personally I prefer the sphères of symbols...

Lorraine Ford: on 9/8/19 at 21:41pm UTC, wrote Hello to all the people out there who believe that computers/ robots/ AIs...

Steve Dufourny: on 9/8/19 at 16:07pm UTC, wrote Like Max tegmark building a physicist AI,we can for example make the same...

Steve Dufourny: on 9/8/19 at 15:51pm UTC, wrote There is Nothing of odd with the computing Indeed,we utilise algorythms to...

Steve Dufourny: on 9/8/19 at 14:03pm UTC, wrote Lol,ok Lorraine,well. Frankly that becomes ironical,you have Simply an...

Lorraine Ford: on 9/8/19 at 13:50pm UTC, wrote Steve, You haven't got the faintest clue about computers. This is why you...

Steve Dufourny: on 9/8/19 at 10:59am UTC, wrote Lorraine, Max Tegmark has his ideas, his philosophy, his lines of...

Lorraine Ford: on 9/7/19 at 23:52pm UTC, wrote Steve, Tegmark’s view is that if it looks like intelligence and...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "I wonder why there is no interpretation of QM that says the wave function..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Re.macroscopic objectivity: How an outcome is to be called, the method..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Joe Fisher, I'm not sure reality is sensible. But the NDE/ghost stuff is..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Jahangir kt: "A great website with interesting and unique material what else would you..." in Our Place in the...

Steve Dufourny: "I am going to tell you an important thing about the aethers. I thought that..." in Alternative Models of...

halim sutarmaja: "dewapoker hadir untuk semua pecinta game poker dengan teknologi terbaru dan..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Jason Wolfe: "As for religious fundamentalists, I would rather deal with them, then with..." in More on agency from the...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi BLOGS
November 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Building an AI physicist: Max Tegmark at the 6th FQXi Meeting [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Aug. 16, 2019 @ 17:12 GMT
Max Tegmark
Ask not what AI can do for you – ask what you can do for AI. That was the challenge that Max Tegmark (cosmologist at MIT and one of FQXi’s scientific directors) laid down to his fellow physicists at the recent FQXi meeting in Tuscany.

AI systems have been extremely successful — but there are still problems. For instance, algorithms used to help make decisions in the justice system have been found to display racial bias — trained in from biased datasets. These black box systems lack transparency, and thus they are hard to trust. Tegmark asks whether physicists posses skills that could help to train AI to do better — and crucially make them trustworthy. One of his goals it to create intelligible artificial intelligence.

AlphaGo beats human Go champion in 2016
This is a very quick placeholder post because I know that our blogger George Musser has been thinking quite deeply about Tegmark’s talk and will have some sophisticated views to share soon. But I wanted to alert you that audio from Tegmark’s talk has now been posted to the podcast, or at least part of it has.

Tegmark spoke about two papers in his presentation. The edited version of the audio that I have posted only includes the second. The reason is a mundane one — he referred heavily to a video that you can’t see on the podcast when discussing his first paper, “Towards an AI physicist for unsupervised learning,” so I chopped that section out. To find out more about that, you’ll have to wait for the video.

In the meantime, you can still hear the bulk of his discussion, firstly about the various successes and failures of AI, and what we can do about them. And you’ll hear Tegmark discuss in-depth, his work written up in the paper: “AI Feynman: a Physics-Inspired Method For Symbolic Regression.” In this project, with his student Silviu-Marian Udrescu, Tegmark wrote a code that used neural networks to “discover” (or to re-discover) 100 equations taken from The Feynman Lectures on Physics.

Enjoy Tegmark’s talk — though my apologies, the sound levels are a little shaky on this one. Slides are available here.

Free Podcast

Building an AI Physicist. Cosmologist Max Tegmark describes the challenges with creating trustworthy artificial intelligence, and his own project writing a code that used neural networks to re-discover 100 equations from the Feynman lectures.



LISTEN:







Go to full podcast



Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 17, 2019 @ 19:40 GMT
As usual, a very interesting but very short discussion of a very complex symbolic regression, which is at the very root of artificial intelligence (AI). As usual, it is necessary to read the technical paper to get any idea whatsoever about what the hey Tegmark is talking about.

So, what his student did is a very nice Ph.D. project, but does not really have any measurable precursors for free will or consciousness, but is fun anyway...

The paper starts with a list of six necessary assumptions that are just beliefs. Then they use 100 equations from Feynman's lecture to generate a data set of "measurements" with some added Gaussian noise and did their very clever symbolic regression to regenerate those 100 equations and a lot more...except there were no quantum wave equations like Schrodinger's or the standard model.

So the symbolic regression never picked up the uncertainty principle of quantum phase and so all these equations are purely deterministic. Therefore, these results show that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, and creation determines destiny, not free choice. This does not seem a very useful result for this conference...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Aug. 20, 2019 @ 22:02 GMT
I agree that trustworthiness of AI is important. I have recently read the transcript of George Dyson's talk " AI that Evolve in the Wild". I like this "food for thought" near the end; "To me the Turing test is wrong. Actually, it’s the opposite. The test of an intelligent machine is whether it's intelligent enough not to reveal its intelligence."George Dyson, edge.org 14th Aug 2019. I find that idea a bit creepy.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Aug. 21, 2019 @ 12:30 GMT
The Tegmark Paradox:

"Tegmark asks whether physicists posses skills that could help to train AI to do better - " I am inclined to believe they do. Yet at the same time, they do not appear to posses the skills to help further understanding in their own field.

Perhaps the level of skill, is not the problem. As Bacon observed 400 years ago, even the most accomplished runners, will never arrive at the goal line, when they elect to run, as a herd, in the wrong direction.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 6, 2019 @ 12:58 GMT
Max Tegmark,I read your papper on arxiv about this AI. I am not a specialist in algorythms and AI,but I understand the method. Your algorythms are relevant. The maths utilised too are relevant. I learn in the same time. I didn't know these multidimensional analytic regression problems and the neural network-based approach. This technology after all tries to mimmate our universal laws.The brains like result of evolution are fascinating.Regards

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 6, 2019 @ 22:45 GMT
People like Susan Schneider and Max Tegmark are lunatics, who should be severely censured for misleading gullible people.

You need algorithms to represent the decisions/ mind/ behaviours of living things: living things might be said to make algorithmic decisions.

But computers/ robots/ “AIs” don’t make algorithmic decisions. They merely have structures which implement pre-decided ways of handling incoming data [1]: all necessary decisions have been made, or agreed to, by human beings via the computer program.

Physicists and philosophers have not yet grasped that computers/ robots/ “AIs” are never going to become conscious OR INTELLIGENT. Living things process “living information”, but computers/ robots/ “AIs” are just structures set up to process symbolic representations of information.

1. Which is always organised so that it symbolically represents numbers associated with variables.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 7, 2019 @ 08:12 GMT
Lorraine, they Don't try to create a consciousness,they try just to mimate a kind of logic respecting équations. Ofcourse An AI never will be conscious and never it ll have an odd comportment with odd freewills. That is why the algorythms must be very well studied and created.We cannot make what we want.You confound the biology and computing.The Numbers and variables can be well created with a consciousness correlated by the creators of this AI.An AI never ll be a psychopath for example.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 7, 2019 @ 09:12 GMT
Lorraine. Read well the paper of Max Tegmark ,his method is relevant and general. See the tables and rankings. See too the corrélations,links with the ideas of Feynman about AI . See the équations in table.The method permits to mimate in function of computed équations.Of course our biological consciousness is essential for the computing,we must insert correct methods correlated with this universalism.But an AI never will be conscious nor intelligent,it's just about mimating with Simply selected équations.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 7, 2019 @ 23:52 GMT
Steve,

Tegmark’s view is that if it looks like intelligence and consciousness from the outside, then it must be intelligence and consciousness on the inside.

In his book “Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence”, Tegmark defines intelligence as the “ability to accomplish complex goals”, and consciousness as “subjective experience” [1]. And on the Future of Life Institute website, he says that “intelligence is simply a certain kind of information processing performed by elementary particles moving around” and that something about “information processing … gives rise to what we call consciousness” [2].

He devotes a whole chapter to consciousness in his book, where he equates the genuine information processing performed by people to the superficial, pseudo-information processing taking place in machines. His monumentally superficial idea is that “consciousness is the way information feels when being processed in certain complex ways…it’s merely the structure of the information processing that matters, not the structure of the matter doing the information processing” [3].

A lot of gullible people, e.g. book reviewers, swallow this nonsense “hook, line and sinker”.

1. Page 39

2. “Life 3.0 – Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence”, podcast transcript: https://futureoflife.org/2017/08/29/transcript-life-3-0-huma
n-age-artificial-intelligence/

3. Page 315

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 8, 2019 @ 10:59 GMT
Lorraine,

Max Tegmark has his ideas, his philosophy, his lines of reasoning. The same for you, me or others. We are of course not obliged to accept the philosophical analyse, each person is free. He has his vision of things. What I recognise is his relevant general mathematical Tools.

Don't confound a philosophy with maths and equations. He tries to generalise this AI and the neural...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 8, 2019 @ 13:50 GMT
Steve,

You haven't got the faintest clue about computers. This is why you are so gullible, and will believe almost anything.

In fact, computers/ robots/ AIs are merely machines that process symbolic representations: there is nothing intelligent about them at all, except for the people that wrote the computer programs. I know you don't understand this, but that's the facts.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 8, 2019 @ 14:03 GMT
Lol,ok Lorraine,well.

Frankly that becomes ironical,you have Simply an enormous Vanity and you Don't see the generality at all scales,that is why you focus on problems where we haven't problems. I am not a specialist in computing,but with or without your approvements,I understand their systems.It's not difficult.What I find difficult is to compute correctly the informtions,equations,algorythms when we want to mimate this intelligence.Never they have said that they are going to create a real intelligence with freewill,no they just mimate with algorythms.In fact you think without real wisdom Lorraine,you confound all.And do not accept the different points of vue of thinker.Like if you were the only one understanding the consciousness,the freewill,the physics,maths,what is a particle,an information,a wave.Let me laugh Lorraine really,you have not a general model with inputs and outputs like you tell.I know you Don't understand Simply the generality,so how can you explain this consciounsess,lol focus on Vanity,it's better you know for you :) I repeat ,them they have a mathematical model,where is yours? on arxiv or on your personal platform where you explain all in details? That becomes ironical Lorraine,be the force with you jedi of the sphere

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 8, 2019 @ 15:51 GMT
There is Nothing of odd with the computing Indeed,we utilise algorythms to create methods implying results. When they create these algorythms here for the AI,they MIMATE the intelligence ,so the choices are important.They Don't create an intelligence,just a mimating intelligence,it's totally different,it's there that you confound Lorraine.Now about this universe,and the biological créations,we have systems more complex than these computers,the universe acts differently. A thing too that you have difficulties to understand is that freewill is not foundamental in the main codes which are totally deterministic.You put even the bad at the same level than good,this good is correlated with intelligence and level of consciousness,but that too you Don't accept.It's odd Lorraine for a person_wanting to be general.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 8, 2019 @ 16:07 GMT
Like Max tegmark building a physicist AI,we can for example make the same with Chemistry and medicine.We could create so better meds in having encoded correctly the methods,algorythmics. We just create the most complete datas and algorythms and after ,the system analyses and so make conclusions and so create meds.It's only simple than this.The same for an AI physicist. So it is relevant in encoding all the necessary parameters,this physicist AI will be able to create so new harmonical partitions and extrapolations.The same for all AI,it's Always the same method.They Don't create inetelligence,just AI mimating,don't forget this important difference.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 8, 2019 @ 21:41 GMT
Hello to all the people out there who believe that computers/ robots/ AIs can discern meaning in a string of symbols. Heck, anyone can tell what 00001110101011 means or 1110100010101010101011110 means, can’t they?

Intelligence does not arise from a string of symbols or from the processing of a string of symbols; consciousness does not arise from a string of symbols or from the processing of a string of symbols. However Tegmark, and many others, believe that intelligence and consciousness can (Platonically?) emerge from processing a string of symbols.

There’s a lot of wishful thinking out there, but in fact, “the emperor has no clothes”.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 9, 2019 @ 09:08 GMT
It's a beautiful approach,but personally I prefer the sphères of symbols instead of strings. Yes it's possible to explain this intelligence,biological with correct methods.But we cannot create a real artificial intelligence,we just mimate like I said ,I am repeating because you confound Lorraine.You can tell all what you want with a kind of vanitious comportment and humor,that will not change.Intelligence ,consciousness,freewill can be ranked and understood Simply.Utilise the sphères and their volumes and densities and insert your 0 and 1. The strings symbols can converge with these sphères and their oscillations,motions,rotations.The quantum computing is in this logic.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.