Machines, Lost In Translation: The Dream Of Universal Understanding : All Tech Considered : NPR

Machines, Lost In Translation: The Dream Of Universal Understanding : All Tech Considered : NPR

It was early 1954 when computer scientists, for the first time, publicly revealed a machine that could translate between human languages. It became known as the Georgetown-IBM experiment: an “electronic brain” that translated sentences from Russian into English.

The scientists believed a universal translator, once developed, would not only give Americans a security edge over the Soviets but also promote world peace by eliminating language barriers.

They also believed this kind of progress was just around the corner: Leon Dostert, the Georgetown language scholar who initiated the collaboration with IBM founder Thomas Watson, suggested that people might be able to use electronic translators to bridge several languages within five years, or even less.

The process proved far slower. (So slow, in fact, that about a decade later, funders of the research launched an investigation into its lack of progress.) And more than 60 years later, a true real-time universal translator — a la C-3PO from Star Wars or the Babel Fish from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy — is still the stuff of science fiction.

Stimulating Machines’ Brains

After decades of jumping linguistic and technological hurdles, the technical approach scientists use today is known as the neural network method, in which machines are trained to emulate the way people think — in essence, creating an artificial version of the neural networks of our brains.

Neurons are nerve cells that are activated by all aspects of a person’s environment, including words. The longer someone exists in an environment, the more elaborate that person’s neural network becomes.

With the neural network method, the machine converts every word into its simplest representation — a vector, the equivalent of a neuron in a biological network, that contains information not only about each word but about a whole sentence or text. In the context of machine learning, a science that has been developed over the years, a neural network produces more accurate results the more translations it attempts, with limited assistance from a human.

Though machines can now “learn” similarly to the way humans learn, they still face some limits, says Yoshua Bengio, a computer science professor at the University of Montreal who studies neural networks. One of the limits is the sheer amount of data required — children need far less to learn a language than machines do.

 

Voight-Kampff machine – Off-world: The Blade Runner Wiki

Voight-Kampff machine – Off-world: The Blade Runner Wiki

Originating in Philip K Dick’s novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, the Voight-Kampff machine or device (spelled Voigt-Kampff in the book) also appeared in the book’s screen adaptation, the 1982 science fiction film Blade Runner.

The Voight-Kampff is a polygraph-like machine used by the LAPD’s Blade Runners to assist in the testing of an individual to see whether they are a replicant or not. It measures bodily functions such as respiration, heart rate and eye movement in response to emotionally provocative questions.

The Voight-Kampff machine is perhaps analogous to (and may have been partly inspired by) Alan Turing‘s work which propounded an artificial intelligence test — to see if a computer could convince a human (by answering set questions, etc.) that it was another human.

Email-a-Tree Service Doesn’t Go As Planned in the Best Possible Way – The Atlantic

Email-a-Tree Service Doesn’t Go As Planned in the Best Possible Way – The Atlantic

Officials assigned the trees ID numbers and email addresses in 2013 as part of a program designed to make it easier for citizens to report problems like dangerous branches.

The “unintended but positive consequence,” as the chair of Melbourne’s Environment Portfolio, Councillor Arron Wood, put it to me in an email, was that people did more than just report issues. They also wrote directly to the trees, which have received thousands of messages—everything from banal greetings and questions about current events to love letters and existential dilemmas.

How to Understand Your Computer – The New Yorker

via How to Understand Your Computer – The New Yorker.

Early on in the book, Chandra makes a very interesting claim: many programmers and I.T. professionals have no real idea how computers work, either. Because they don’t need to, essentially; they need to make them perform specific tasks, but they don’t need to understand how they perform them.

He quotes a plaintive post by a programmer named Rob P. on the Q. & A. site stackexchange.com. Rob begins by saying that he is almost embarrassed to reveal what he’s about to reveal, given that he has a degree in computer science and has worked full time as a developer for five years. “But I Don’t Know How Computers Work!” he says. “I know there are components … the power supply, the motherboard, ram, CPU, etc … and I get the ‘general idea’ of what they do. But I really don’t understand how you go from a line of code like Console.Readline() in .NET (or Java or C++) and have it actually do stuff.”

Chandra goes on to provide a fairly thorough explanation of how computers work—of the things that are physically caused to happen by these coded commands, the “mediating dialect between human and machine.” He devotes an entire chapter early in the book to the language of logic that is the native tongue of computer processors; this is the torrent of binary numbers, of ones and zeros, that constitutes the universal grammar of machines. Chandra even goes so far as to include diagrams, as well as photographs of functioning logic gates constructed from Legos.

The Man Who Would Teach Machines to Think – The Atlantic

The Man Who Would Teach Machines to Think – The Atlantic.

It depends on what you mean by artificial intelligence.” Douglas Hofstadter is in a grocery store in Bloomington, Indiana, picking out salad ingredients. “If somebody meant by artificial intelligence the attempt to understand the mind, or to create something human-like, they might say—maybe they wouldn’t go this far—but they might say this is some of the only good work that’s ever been done.”

Their operating premise is simple: the mind is a very unusual piece of software, and the best way to understand how a piece of software works is to write it yourself. Computers are flexible enough to model the strange evolved convolutions of our thought, and yet responsive only to precise instructions. So if the endeavor succeeds, it will be a double victory: we will finally come to know the exact mechanics of our selves—and we’ll have made intelligent machines.

Ray Bradbury on Writing, Emotion vs. Intelligence, and the Core of Creativity | Brain Pickings

Ray Bradbury on Writing, Emotion vs. Intelligence, and the Core of Creativity | Brain Pickings.

If I’m anything at all, I’m not really a science-fiction writer — I’m a writer of fairy tales and modern myths about technology.

Turing test – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Turing test – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Turing test is a test of a machine‘s ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour. In Turing’s original illustrative example, a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with a human and a machine designed to generate performance indistinguishable from that of a human being. All participants are separated from one another. If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. The test does not check the ability to give the correct answer; it checks how closely the answer resembles typical human answers. The conversation is limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen so that the result is not dependent on the machine’s ability to render words into audio.[2]

The test was introduced by Alan Turing in his 1950 paper “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” which opens with the words: “I propose to consider the question, ‘Can machines think?'” Since “thinking” is difficult to define, Turing chooses to “replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.”[3] Turing’s new question is: “Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?”[4] This question, Turing believed, is one that can actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that “machines can think”.[5]

In the years since 1950, the test has proven to be both highly influential and widely criticized, and it is an essential concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence.[1][6]