Aside from wanting a garment that raises my hackles--warning! danger! danger! :) I would not have to say one word
Aside from wanting a garment that raises my hackles--warning! danger! danger! :) I would not have to say one word
Thought provoking article about artificial emotional intelligence by Gideon Rosenblatt
Hey Mani Saint-Victor Kevin Burns weigh in. Would love to get your thoughts.
H/T martin shervington
Originally shared by Gideon Rosenblatt
What is Artificial Emotional Intelligence, and Why Does it Matter?
We live in a time when our emotions are being mined and manipulated in ways that the Mad Men could never have dreamed of. There are plenty of commercial incentives to fuel huge investments in sentiment analysis and other efforts to understand who we are on a powerful, emotional level. And yet, I believe there's something deeper going on here...a critical layer for the future of artificial intelligence.
I hope we get it right.
#emotionalintelligence #ai #artificialintelligence
http://www.the-vital-edge.com/artificial_emotional_intelligence/
Thought provoking article about artificial emotional intelligence by Gideon Rosenblatt
Hey Mani Saint-Victor Kevin Burns weigh in. Would love to get your thoughts.
H/T martin shervington
Originally shared by Gideon Rosenblatt
What is Artificial Emotional Intelligence, and Why Does it Matter?
We live in a time when our emotions are being mined and manipulated in ways that the Mad Men could never have dreamed of. There are plenty of commercial incentives to fuel huge investments in sentiment analysis and other efforts to understand who we are on a powerful, emotional level. And yet, I believe there's something deeper going on here...a critical layer for the future of artificial intelligence.
I hope we get it right.
#emotionalintelligence #ai #artificialintelligence
http://www.the-vital-edge.com/artificial_emotional_intelligence/
Just diving in now Zara Altair. Grazie for ping into this sandbox. As soon as I can digest, will reflect. :)
ReplyDeleteAI + EI. What a trip. It's challenging enough to get the two-legged types to recognize the numerous, relationship rewarding concepts contained therein ... and then to put this into hard code? Add in another complex layer of non-text based learning and we've got a barrel full to monitor. Some will need to be the vanguards to tame, IQ + EI + SQ wise, the animal in the making. If I'm still breathing, I won't miss that potential beast. To be sure, I'm all for creating AI that supports the advancement of humankind, but I'm also the first to counter the beast that would nefariously do the opposite. There will always be intelligent sentinels in our midst, some will outwit, outsmart, outmaneuver even the best that AI presents. After all, where do you reckon such concepts originate? It's all about us in the final analysis, "We the People". Amen.
ReplyDeleteMani Saint-Victor Can't wait for the bubble!
ReplyDeleteKevin Burns *Artificial* emotional intelligence thoughts from the rocket scientist. Can't wait.
ReplyDeleteZara Altair, 1st round already presented. Done? Hardly. I wish to encourage 1st round thoughts from very busy folks like Mani Saint-Victor, martin shervington David Amerland Ammon Johns Sherrill Duce ... Gideon Rosenblatt (i.e., the next layer beyond article theme since you are perhaps in the thick of it, ala MIT labs, et al).
ReplyDeleteKevin Burns I will look at this when I get home today. Ping me again if I forget!
ReplyDeleteRoger Sherrill Duce. This will serve as your ping. Don't open til ready, otherwise ... it fades into the midst. A reality with Mr. J. I think I could lead the design/code/test/verify comm system for a smarter tracking/follow-up system, but who to notice?
ReplyDeleteDo we really want a machine that actually understands us?
ReplyDeleteI mean, sure, we all claim to want to be understood. Usually we claim this right at the moment we are kidding ourselves that our woes are because we are misunderstood, instead of what is closer to the truth, that our wants are unreasonable.
Very often the times we most feel misunderstood are when someone has understood us perhaps a bit more than we'd have liked, and often better than we have understood ourselves.
So, I ask again, do we really want machines that understand us, or do we merely want machines that predict what we want?
Because understanding implies some kind of judgement. And I really don't think humanity is ready to be judged by machine logic just yet.
Ammon Johns In complete agreement. It's hard enough to be judged by people. :)
ReplyDeleteJustin Case I've been accused of being hard hearted when I understood but did not judge :)
ReplyDeleteKevin Burns I finally had a chance to read through the article. I'm with Ammon Johns in I don't think we really want a machine to understand us. We want something we seem to get empathy from with no fear of judgment because the machine is probably programmed just for empathy and not judgment. I think the emotional intelligence would add to the realism of artificial intelligence but I am skeptical that full artificial intelligence will be achieved. At some point a human has to start the program.
ReplyDelete"Do we really want a machine that actually understands us?" Not in the least. Why should we trust it? Any validation, let alone verification yet? Let me at the code, I'll tell you about what I see. Dare they allow me into their labs?
ReplyDeleteExactly Kevin Burns :o) Where there is code.....well you know! ;o)
ReplyDeleteJustin Case without judgement there can be no decision-making, and without being able to decide which of a myriad of possible reasons is most probably the correct one, there can be no understanding.
ReplyDeleteJustin Case, another take: Jurors make judgments about the veracity of the facts presented. The judge makes judgments about the law and the procedures in court. He's got two big books to help him in these matters. If an engineer "buys off a requirement" or dispositions some defective/anomalous hardware, he has to understand the situation and then pass engineering judgment: "use as is", "rework", "repair", "scrap" ... These acts require interpretation, understanding of the design and requirements, analysis and ultimately some form of judgment in order to move the hardware forward. "Just the facts Ma'am!"
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to figure out what hints we give to express certain emotions, for many reasons - but, actually, don't we all have an intuition for it?
ReplyDeleteWhat is described in the article is an outside approach, what you can observe from outside. It is always dangerous when such an approach pretends to know what is going on inside. we cannot use only one perspective on the world and claim this is the only truth as science still often is doing. Inside life and outside appearance are co-existing but one cannot be reduced and dominated by the other
If you find my lines a little off or difficult to understand: here is the source which opens up your understanding of how we habitually not include all important perspectives on what we see, experience, believe etc: the 4 Quadrants (main perspectives) in Integral Theory
When you wind your head around what you learn there then many things you couldn't understand so far will become unbelievably clear!
#the4quadrants #integraltheory #Kenwilber #thepowerofrelationship #perspective #upperrightquadrant #quadrantreductionism
Adelheid Hörnlein All this inside/outside stuff smacks of pretense. I like being straightforward so that what you see is what you get. Second guessing is very close to making assumptions which I leave to economists and statisticians. :)
ReplyDeleteKevin Burns Yes, yes, and yes! Thanks for weighing in.
ReplyDeleteKevin Burns I'd let you at the code. :)
ReplyDeleteMe too Zara Altair ;o)
ReplyDeleteSherrill Duce That's because we trust Kevin Burns and his emotional know-how not to mention the coding. :)
ReplyDeleteI see overlaps between the 4 Quadrants (main perspectives) in Integral Theory and Jungian archetypes, individual vs. collective. Jungian seems much more focused vs. Wilber's use of multiple schools of thought approach to categorize the perspectives taken on people including Freudian psychoanalysis, Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics, Skinner's behaviorism, and the most bizarre of all, Marxist economic theory. I'd be inclined to swiftly dismiss the latter proposition and instead replace it with the Austrian school of Economics ala Ludwig von Mises. The comparisons are a brain exercise, Mani Saint-Victor.
ReplyDeleteI had written my comment above without noticing before the rich engagement which has happened before. So Justin Case and Zara Altair about jufgement: we immediately make an equation between judgement=criticism, that is we judge judgement as a bad thing. But actually we couldn't live without judgement. Whatever we perceive with our senses (or intuition) automatically passes our judgement portals for to be recognized as what it is. So, whenever you see "hard facts", they have already passed your automatic judgement process - which we creatures on earth originally developed for survival.
ReplyDeleteJust an example: you hear a strange noise in the night which wakes you up from sleep. Thoughts begin to run: robbery?, storm? whatever. These are already judgements where you try to decide which ones are the right ones. Depending on your choice of what this noise means you can either be quiet and go back to sleep or become anxious and stay awake waiting for the feared fact to happen. In this case we humans have the choice to verify what it was what has created the noise we have judged danger prone. So we go out and look for the reason and hopefully we find some innocent cause. Then, again, we use our judgement by believing that there is no danger and go back to sleep.