Marvin Minsky, Pioneer In Artificial Intelligence, Dies at 88 (nytimes.com) 76
An anonymous reader sends word that Marvin Lee Minsky, co-founder of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's AI laboratory, has died. The Times reports: "Marvin Minsky, who combined a scientist’s thirst for knowledge with a philosopher’s quest for truth as a pioneering explorer of artificial intelligence, work that helped inspire the creation of the personal computer and the Internet, died on Sunday night in Boston. He was 88. Well before the advent of the microprocessor and the supercomputer, Professor Minsky, a revered computer science educator at M.I.T., laid the foundation for the field of artificial intelligence by demonstrating the possibilities of imparting common-sense reasoning to computers."
Glenn you douchebag (Score:1)
And Felder laughs and says, "You can't take it with you, I GUESS!"
Re: Glenn you douchebag (Score:1)
OMG! You didn't just do that did you? You Monster! I guess.
Sounds like God is putting together a band... (Score:1)
Goodnight sweet Prince.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot Lemmy - that's 3 already.
Re: (Score:2)
From his Wikipedia article: (Score:5, Interesting)
"Isaac Asimov described Minsky as one of only two people he would admit were more intelligent than he was."
Wow.
My favorite quote (Score:3)
Heard it from a teacher who had heard it from Minsky, but it's probably not literal anymore, after all those years: consciousness is just a feedback loop.
He was truly one of the greats.
Re: (Score:1)
Err, OK dear. It's "just" a feedback loop. Recursion. That's not really Minsky is it. It's Hofstadter. And amazing as recursion is, I don't think my binary search algorithm is actually instantiating a series of conscious moments.
Re: (Score:2)
Recursion and the lambda calculus, and the use of it in A.I. in languages such as LISP has been around nearly as long as computers have. So no, Hofstadter is not the guy I think of when it comes to recursion.
I think of John McCarthy first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
But I do like Hostader's book "Goedel, Escher, Bach"; he had a gift in making abstract concepts such as recursion more easily understandable without watering them down too much:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Heard it from a teacher who had heard it from Minsky, but it's probably not literal anymore, after all those years: consciousness is just a feedback loop.
He was truly one of the greats.
Calling consciousness 'just' a feedback loop is just a way of avoiding saying 'I don't understand what it is.'
Re: (Score:2)
There's more behind that idea than a simple "I don't know". It's of course aphoristic, but if you think of the mind/brain as monitoring all input, adding a feedback loop allows it to monitor itself. It allows learning from decisions, and allows to predict consequences of choices. That is a necessary, although not sufficient part of consciousness.
Re: (Score:3)
If you think of the mind/brain as a mechanism, you're already wrong.
Unless, of course, you're not wrong. That's always the rhetorical problem with just asserting stuff. It can be false.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The only issue with the quote is 'just'. Any recursive process is a feedback loop, feeding the state at stage n as input to produce the state at stage n+1. Likewise, any dynamical system is 'just' a feedback loop, the state at time t being input to a set of rules that determine the state at time t+dt (before you do the limiting stuff, though you can use nonstandard analysis to avoid issues with dt being infinitely small).
Something as complex as consciousness would surely be impossible in the absence of feed
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess: you're a physicist?
Re: (Score:3)
- Marvin Minsky
My favorite Minsky story (Score:2, Insightful)
In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.
"What are you doing?" asked Minsky.
"I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-tac-toe," Sussman replied.
"Why is the net wired randomly?" asked Minsky.
"I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play," Sussman said.
Minsky then shut his eyes.
"Why do you close your eyes?" Sussman asked his teacher.
"So that the room will be empty."
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You can also find it in The Jargon File, under "AI Koans". It's a good story, but not my favourite one from that file. I prefer "The Story of Mel, a Real Programmer" and the anecdote about the "Magic / More Magic" switch.
Re: My favorite Minsky story (Score:4, Interesting)
I read "society of mind" when it first got translated to Spanish. Lovely, lovely book. Each page was a concept by itself. You could literaly read one page a day an have a complete knwoledge exerience each time.
What always makes me feel uneasy of Minsky was the story that he attacked perceptron showing that they could not solve NOR sending neural nets into a freeze for sevwral years drying founding to them, while at that time it was already known that multilayer nets could solve NOR.
Nowadays deep learning is all the rage...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry about that. It was written on a cell phone and I m not native english speaker.
Nevertheless here goes the story ( http://www.andreykurenkov.com/writing/a-brief-history-of-neural-nets-and-deep-learning/ )
Marvin Minsky, founder of the MIT AI Lab, and Seymour Papert, director of the lab at the time, were some of the researchers who were skeptical of the hype and in 1969 published their skepticism in the form of rigorous analysis on of the limitations of Perceptrons in a seminal book aptly named Pe
Re: My favorite Minsky story (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry about that. It was written on a cell phone and I m not native english speaker.
Nevertheless here goes the story ( http://www.andreykurenkov.com/... [andreykurenkov.com] )
Marvin Minsky, founder of the MIT AI Lab, and Seymour Papert, director of the lab at the time, were some of the researchers who were skeptical of the hype and in 1969 published their skepticism in the form of rigorous analysis on of the limitations of Perceptrons in a seminal book aptly named Perceptrons. Interestingly, Minksy may have actually been the first researcher to implement a hardware neural net with 1951’s SNARC (Stochastic Neural Analog Reinforcement Calculator) , which preceded Rosenblatt’s work by many years. But the lack of any trace of his work on this system and the critical nature of the analysis in Perceptrons suggests that he concluded this approach to AI was a dead end. The most widely discussed element of this analysis is the elucidation of the limits of a Perceptron - they could not, for instance, learn the simple boolean function XOR because it is not linearly separable. Though the history here is vague, this publication is widely believed to have helped usher in the first of the AI Winters - a period following a massive wave of hype for AI characterized by disillusionment that causes a freeze to funding and publications.
The point here is that Minsky already knew that a multilayer Neural Network could solve XOR, but he nevertheless wrote a paper showing that a single perceptron could not solve XOR, in order to get funding away from perceptrons and towards his own line of investigation.
All that said, I highly recommend his "society of mind" book. The idea to have each single page to explain a simple concept in a complete manner was mind blowing to me at that time. I still havent come across another book written that way.
My own Marvin Minsky story on neural networks (Score:3)
Posted here first this morning (couple of types fixed): https://ma.tt/2016/01/minsky/#... [ma.tt]
Wow, sad to hear the news. Marvin Minsky and I were academic peers of a sort -- he was one of George A. Miller's first students, and I was one of George's last students. :-) George told my parents something like I was the student who most reminded him of Marvin Minsky, except whereas he spent George's Air Force money, I spent my father's money. :-) Which was not quite true (I paid for a chunk of Princeton with the proce
Re: (Score:2)
I've always seen neural nets as a digital approximation of some of the stuff that can be done with an analog computer despite only ever seeing one and only doing one subject way back as an undergrad on how to model dynamic systems with analog computers.
Re: (Score:2)
If we don't know anything about SNARC, do we have any reason to believe that Minsky had tried multilayer neural nets with nonlinear functions at the nodes? A multilayer neural net with linear functions everywhere is equivalent to a single-layer net with linear functions, and that really isn't useful. If SNARC used all linear functions, that would explain why he dropped the project. I'd think that if it showed more promise, he'd have been likely to continue.
The fact is that artificial neural nets were
Re: (Score:2)
Book Link [aurellem.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Minsky wasn't being disingenuous or ignorant. He was well aware that multilayer nets could solve XOR (not NOR, which wasn't a problem either way). His objection was that he thought multilayer nets were not trainable, which was indeed the general opinion at the time.
Now, as you point out, we have deep learning algorithms, but those didn't exist then.
Re: (Score:1)
> Closing his eyes does not lead Minsky's memory to be erased
And, that's the point. He still has preconceived notions of what is in the room just as randomly wired neural net has preconceived notions. You just don't know what they are.
Re: (Score:2)
> Closing his eyes does not lead Minsky's memory to be erased
And, that's the point. He still has preconceived notions of what is in the room just as randomly wired neural net has preconceived notions. You just don't know what they are.
It's not his memory, it's that closing his eyes doesn't lead to the room being emptied.
Just because he can't see anyone in the room (due to his closed eyes) doesn't mean it's empty.
And just because a neural net was randomly wired doesn't mean it doesn't mean that random wiring lacks preconceived notions on how to play.
hmmm (Score:2)
"Marvin Minsky, Pioneer In Artificial Intelligence, Dies at 88"
Or so you think...maybe he lives on in a matrix somewhere :-)
On the plus side (Score:2)
RIP, Science WHORE (Score:1, Insightful)
Mr Minsky was one of these people who lied shamelessly in order to scare the bejesus out of "lesser" people.
For example, he predicted we would have "a computer more intelligent than humans by year 2000".
Simple calculations regarding the processing power needed to emulate a neuron invalidates this prediction.
So he was whoring for money and attention. Not a great scientist at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I think once AI is solved, the processing power required will fit easily on 2000-era computers.
It's still seen as requiring something on the order of the massive parallelism of the human brain. NNs sufficient probably need just a tiny fraction of the human brain.
"imparting common-sense reasoning" (Score:2)
Well, not sure we're there yet for computers.
We sure as hell are not for politicians...
Re: (Score:1)
May he (Score:2)
Rest in bits eternally.
1973 (Score:3)
I first saw Minsky give a presentation in 1973, at MIT. It was full of confident assertions that, as soon as we had sufficient CPU power, say by 1980 or so, we would have true AI. It was just around the corner and we would have to get used to its implications, etc.; all it would take would be a few megaflops and more RAM, and that was all improving rapidly.
This was not the last confident presentation I have heard from an AI researcher. It all gives me a certain skepticism about confident AI predictions.
Re: (Score:2)
I have not heard any from actual AI researchers in quite some time.
Re: (Score:2)
Real AI programs that do something reliably aren't AI any more.
If you haven't read Society of Mind by Minsky (Score:4, Informative)
I would recommend it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Soci... [amazon.com]
Very interesting insights into ideas about how consciousness interprets the reality around us (and how the mind ties it all together into something meaningful).
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose the question is whether we want something that really is awake or just a special effect designed to inspire suspension of disbelief. The latter still has value. Even if it's not the real deal there are tasks that it could carry out.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer the philosophy side (mostly due to the time I have available).
I certainly understand it is less practical or applicable.
But anything that is thought provoking is going to interest me (I tried Godel, Esher, Bach, but it defeated me - multiple times).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer reading stuff by Sachs
Did you intend to reference Oliver Sacks?
Re: (Score:2)
Minsky was an amazing guy. (Score:2)