back to article Mathematica man brews 'AI' Google Killer™

Stephen Wolfram - the lovable George Costanza of the mathematics community who developed the invaluable Mathematica suite and wrote the much talked about but quickly forgotten "A New Kind of Science” - is trying his hand at artificial intelligence. His new project, Wolfram Alpha, set to go live in May, combines natural …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Suburban Inmate

    If it does happen

    If he or whoever manages to create something that intelligently answers straight questions, learns new constructs and grow its knowledge, they'll make an absolutely obscene fortune.

    Or destroy us all.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    my money's on...

    either our complete destruction OR something like google search, that just never shuts up after you submit your first query... If you close your browser, it send you an email... If you delete your email, it calls your cellular... if you turn off your cellular, it prempts your TV, until you have to file a restraining order against Google.

  3. A. R. M.

    Wolfram is not one to underestimate

    Wolfram has that special kind of crazy that has him going over a problem with methodical and unrelenting detail. His previous books show just how dedicated he can be to a problem and he's one to always produce something really well thought out.

    That being said, when I heard he was approaching this problem some years ago I knew that he was one of the few that might be able to pull it off.

    Based on the comment he's quoted, it sounds like he didn't nail it. But got well enough to be able to blow people away none-the-less.

    Because, if he can deliver on the basic promise of interpreting the meaning of an english statement and search through for content that matches that meaning... that WOULD blow Google away.

    I don't know if you've noticed but even Google and Wikipedia searches are inaccurate at best. They're usually something buried in a pile of garbage you can pick out that had something to do with what you were looking for, but if you can show ONLY what you were looking for (based on the context use in a sentence) that would deliver the super giant a potentially fatal blow inside of a year.

  4. Andy

    For all your skepticism...

    ...I believe there really is a call for a way of answering certain types of difficult questions. Google and Wikipedia both rely on the question having been asked before, and - crucially - written about. Once you get beyond "What's the lead singer in that band I like called?", the just-Google-it answer starts to fall apart.

    Of course, it's such a hard problem to solve that it's highly unlikely this project is the answer he's claiming it to be. So I'm with you on every other point.

  5. Anonymous Coward

    If Wolfram gets it to work

    He should ask it if any of Ray Kurzweil's predictions has ever been right without a lot of revisionist history.

  6. Pierre

    Hey this guy has automated Wikipedia!

    Now which needs does this fulfill is another problem...

    On a more serious note, this, erm, "NKS" is not really new, it's been used for ages. Modelisation has been the base of science since long before it was even called science (one could argue that drawing hunting scenes on cave walls was already a kind of modelisation. Religion is a kind of modelisation too). Throwing a metric shitload of computing power at it only moderately helps because it won't solve any problem unless you fully know all the parameters involved, and when you're at that point, you basically already answered the question. Having the machine understand the problem is the least of your concerns: 2 days studying your computing language of choice, sorted (or you can hire a Machine Whisperer).

    Natural language for machines might be a good thing (think domotique for example), but it has only very limited applications in science. It's even counter-productive, as scientists love nothing more than being cryptic. And studying simple fairytale models (like the game of life) won't lead you anywhere scientifically speaking because these "models" have no factual basis. Given 1+1=3, you can prove that 1+1+1+1=6 (if you assume that 3+3=6 of course) but it won't bring you anywhere in real life.

    It's basically the same problem as with climate simulation. Lots of models, none agreeing with the others, and none able to reproduce real life evolution (well, all the ones old enough to be confronted with real data failed, at least). That's because we still fail to grasp all the parameters involved.

    If a supercomputer is able to understand natural language and can aggregate and parse all knowledge, it will merely allow the layman to get already-known facts or beliefs. It cannot lead to any genuine discovery. Automated Wikipedia, really. Or a dumbed down automated scientist (scientists are raised to do precisely that, plus hopefully some "out of the box" thinking -though that last part tends to disappear. I should know...).

    Now I guess the real questions are: will this new-fangled system be cheaper or more expensive than training a flesh-and-bones scientist? And will it be able to sustain itself and produce new useful knowledge in the absence of scientists? If answer to both question is yes then YAY! Retirement time!

    My belief however is that it would be cheaper and more efficient to get scientists to speak natural language... probably a bit more difficult though.

    Mine is the white cotton one with the pens and timer in the chest pochet, thanks.

    TL;DR: I was bored.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    I love it when someone has criticized New Kind of Science

    but isn't man enough to read it. Anything bigger than 140 characters is probably beyond your ability. If you had read it, and you knew anything about CA, you would know that the solutions space of CA is not fully explored because of limits in computational speed. Every year new things can be attempted that couldn't previously. Further, you would understand that neurons seem to behave like CA and much of what humans can do is an emergent behavior from simple small scale rules. Except for you perhaps, who has no emergent behavior and will remain perpetually small. That someone is willing to attempt to apply the CA pattern to the knowledge problem is laudable. Even better, that person is Wolfram who's brain makes yours look like a gnat's. Ted, you are a sham, you have no right to comment on any topic in software development, much less something that is clearly beyond your experience.

  8. Anonymous Coward

    Wolfram is one of the world's biggest jerks!

    I personally worked at Wolfram Research in Champaign IL. Not only does Stephen Wolfram believe he's one of the most brilliant humans ever birthed, but he and his sweat-stinking idiot brother, Conrad, are two of the biggest a**sholes I've ever met, anywhere! You have never met anyone in your life who is so arrogant, and who takes such delight in berating and belittling others.

    He owns several houses here and there, one around Chicago. The locations of which were always supposed to be top secret! On occasion he'd drop into the offices without warning and change entire project plans and staffing arrangements (including canning people) on pure whim. The advice I was given on day one was, "stay off of Stephen's radar at all costs, you will only lose."

    I could tell you hours of horror stories about his personal life that would turn your stomach as well. Like, one of his children was left wearing a gaping, leaking diaper long after any other child would've been toilet trained. Which the boy liked to do without, occasionally dumping like a cow right on the carpet. Because as always, Stephen had some insane rationalization about why this was perfectly acceptable.

    Most of the best stories came from the fleet of personal staff he's constantly churning through - from the several nannies, to the personal assistants technical and non-technical, all used for target practice. Pretty high rate of dissatisfaction and burn-out there, you can imagine.

    Stephen believes he is the smartest man in the world in every area of knowledge, from nutrition to geology to alchemy. But I don't care if the guy figures out how to turn mud into gold, he's a blight on humanity in every other way. Had my position put me into more frequent personal contact with the tumor, I would've poisoned him myself.

    Stephen Wolfram is a genuinely loathsome c*nt.

  9. myxiplx

    Hey, I'm backing Wolfram

    With any luck, he'll be able to create a machine that can write better articles than Dziuba.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    AC Posted Tuesday 17th March 2009 03:34 GMT

    You're drunk, mon.

    Where be my 5 pounds?

  11. jake Silver badge


    "Correct me if I am wrong, and I know you will, but there was a programming language in 1972 called Prolog that could take carefully curated declarative statements and allow you to run logical queries over them."

    1972? Surely you mean INTERCAL?

  12. slickster

    @ac and others

    "...isn't man enough to read it..."

    Well, I haven't read it because I have no evidence that this guy has actually solved any useful problem. Where have his wonderful ideas been applied? I would genuinely like to know. None of this "new models" crap. I want to see results/advances in a field. Yes, you can calibrate the parameters of cellular automata networks to produce whatever arbitrary results you want (much like game theory analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which one of my profs tried to sell us on). But that is just guess and fix-up, or proof of concept. What can Wolfram actually DO?

  13. fajensen

    Science is about discovery


    No, computers haven't solved this problem because there are no people who actually need it solved.


    You got that backwards:

    Science and Research provides the foundation and the environment for product development, NOT the other way around. Once a problem is solved, the need for many ways of applying the solution to a "Real World Problem (tm)" will quickly follow.

  14. Alex

    forty two?

    so given that the internet is just a fad,. will never catch on and is only used for Porn, I also note that Wolfram doesn't really, slide off the tongue, I sense a rebranding! Deep Thought? nah! too "thinky" I kknow, deep throat! perfect, now to was this google outta my hair!

  15. James Hughes

    Own goal?

    >>>"When was Google's stock at $300 per share?" or "How much did it snow in New England last year?”

    It's a noble goal, to aggregate human knowledge in a large machine brain that's able to answer questions. The problem is: We already have Wikipedia and Google that - together - get the job done well enough.<<

    Er, neither of those questions are simply answered by either Google or Wikipedia. You get a load of links on Google, which you then have to trawl through to find the right information. And do you trust Wikipedias answer, when you actually find it?

    So, sort of an own goal there, Ted.

    They don't get the job done well enough at all.

  16. Daniel Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    @criticism of New Kind of Science

    I love it when somebody criticises an article and it's author, but isn't man enough to put his/her own name behind the criticism. Yes, I'm looking at you, AC@03:34GMT. Although I will give you the benefit of the doubt in that you're probably just back from the pub, only excuse I can think of for being online at half-past 3 in the morning. Either that or you're just very, very sad. Oh, wait...

    This article is more reasoned than you realise, and Ted's clearly done some research. Credit where credit's due.

    And, no swearing - excellent!

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    well if it really worked...

    ...Google would just throw some readies at him and acquire the technology, then hide it somewhere in Google Labs.

  18. Steven Jones


    "No, computers haven't solved this problem because there are no people who actually need it solved."

    No, it hasn't been solved because nobody yet has come remotely close to understanding how natural intelligence works. Isaac Asimov had his mysterious positronic brain leaving the fundamental details

    Speaking as somebody who worked a bit on expert systems and did program in Prolog, it became blindingly obvious that the so-called AI experts really didn't have a clue. I recall attending one lecture where an academic theorised on the moral problems of how to treat a machine which would have a brain equivalent to that of a "slightly brain damaged child", which he expected to have in a few years (this was 15 or more years ago). There were two types of AI people - the computer scientists, who somehow seemed to think that human intelligence could be treated like mathematical logic, and the cognitive psychologists who really hadn't the faintest idea how to come up with a coherent theory of the mind (didn't stop them thinking they were about to).

    I feel we aren't much further forwards now. We can just program faster idiots.

    Nb. where expert systems could be most useful - like brining to bear statistics on medical diagnostics, vested interests tended to block progress. Maybe because many of these much vaunted high level skills were shown not to be (and some of the practitioners weren't so good at it). However, present a computer program with a novel situation and it's lost.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ASK rebranded?

    Now that I have learnt to 'google' using the current engine..

    eg 'Car X Statistic is'... Rather than: 'What is the Car X statistic?'

    I Doubt I'll be wanting to use a new technique all over again when I am so good at finding what I need now...I hope this Wolfram alpha is backward compatible with these search methods or it will fail.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down


    I read Wolfram's NKS book once on a flight from London to Manchester and all in all I found it rather boring. The storyline is flawed and most of the characters are shallow. That's the last time I am buying the Reader's Digest again.

  21. Secretgeek

    @'I love it...'

    You were doing fine right up to the point at which you descended into personal insult (about the 13th word or so) and then you just read like an overly angry man trying to prop up a spurious argument by insulting the opposition. Get your head out of Wolfram's arse and try and debate the subject in a less inflammatory manner. I for one would appreciate it, it might just give me an insight into the subject that I didn't have before as opposed to another look at all to familiar trolling behaviour.

    Oh and BTW, not that I know anything about this subject but I'm pretty sure neurons were behaving the way they do a long time before CA was on the scene.

    Smile, it's not the end of the world you know.

  22. Paul

    I have the answer...


    There you go. Beat you to it, Wolfie

  23. Robert Ramsay

    Even I'm smart enough...

    to know that Wolfram is smarter than Ted.

    When Eddington towards the end of his career started trying to link up the numbers in physics together in the same way as people try and link the height of the Great Pyramid to the distance between the Earth and the Sun, one student listenign to his lecture asked another "Do all great physicists go crazy at the end?". The other said "Maybe, but guys like you just get dumber all the time."

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Anonymous Coward (03:34)

    Now that you're here Stephen, I'd like to ask you a question: why is the output from Mathematica so bloody ugly, and why is it so expensive. If you love science/maths so much why don't you gift us scientists/mathematicians with lower prices!!

  25. Muscleguy
    Paris Hilton

    Just Because

    Why do I get visions of a silicon two year old who just keeps asking 'but why?' to every answer you give?

    Paris because that is what underdisciplined kids grow up to be.

  26. Dave_H
    Thumb Up

    Name for this class of system

    If this works as well as we could hope, could I suggest that we coin the phrase "anti-politician” to describe this class of system.


    Because it works more than a few minutes at a time, takes time to research its answers, gives answers in plain English, doesn’t take bribes or get involved in nepotism, and most importantly doesn’t lie constantly.

  27. Eddie Edwards

    But does it work?

    All very interesting, Ted, but your tirade of strawman arguments won't actually affect whether or not Wolfram's stuff works, will it?

    If Wolfram has an ego what does Ted have? It seems the height of journalistic hubris to think that a position of extreme cynicism can illuminate anything but itself.

    (And yes, Ted, I'm sure you really have worked in all the areas of IT you claim to have. You don't sound AT ALL like a bitter one-trick pony who's now so irrelevant he has to write about IT instead of doing it. So I'm sure you know MUCH more about this subject than the guy who developed Mathematica from scratch.)

    Looking forward to seeing what Wolfram comes up with. Even if it's only another book, it'll be well worth reading.

  28. Craig
    Thumb Down

    Google and Wikipedia are 'good enough' ?

    We'll solve all our problems with that sort of thinking!

  29. Pete

    My cat's more intelligent than any computer

    Ok it cant calculate VAT or anything.

  30. Elmer Phud

    But . . .

    . . . we are learning how to reduce the number of words in a search to just those that have meaning. Stripping back a phrase to two or three words makes searching easier - you don't have bung in a long sentence of where, what, how, who, why etc.

    Most people are not entirely sure what the question should be and get pissed off at getting the 'wrong' results.

    Regional variations in English can also have different meanings for similar words or phrases. I'll wait to see whose version of English is used to produce the mother* of all search engines.

    * we will also find out if another word is to be inserted here.

  31. Danny


    Isn't this exactly what is trying to achieve?

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It is a Ted article

    that means think the opposite and profit.

    Hmm Ted has watered down his cynicism this time round, but I think there is still a gleam there.

    So, looks like this might be a goer.

    I tell you when my snake oil detector turns on, it is when people wish to use the human brain as a model for AI, and the detector goes off when someone tries to keep it to mathematics.

    English is a really bad language for logic, German would be simpler, but obviously lacks the mass appeal. I think a linguist, a mathematician, and a programmer could probably get this cracked over time. Time to wheel out Larry Wall.

  33. Mark

    What if there is no answer to a question?

    Perhaps it could make one up and then put it in wikipedia so that it is true.

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    May I be the first to say...

    I for one welcome our new skynet overlord of the search engine domain....

  35. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    @I love it when someone has criticized New Kind of Science

    I'd like to welcome Mr Wolfram to these pages ...

    I'd recommend scaling back the personal attacks, though, once your chin has stopped wobbling - just a thought.

    All this reminds me of one of the arguments against AI put forward the last time it fell out of favour and stopped getting funding: you don't need AI because there is another way of producing intelligent (human) beings that's much more fun. Hence Paris ...

  36. Duncan Hothersall

    AC at 03:34 is Wolfram

    It's the repeated use of "emergent" that gives him away.

  37. Harry

    Given 1+1=3 ,,,

    Sorry, that doesn't add up.

    0 = 0

    1 = 1

    10 = 2

    11 = 3 (OK so far)

    100 = 4

    101 = 5

    110 = 6 (starting to look dubious)

    111 =


    1110 = 14

    1111 = *15* not 6 !

  38. bob

    personal vendetta

    Wow, Ted, did Wolfram sleep with your GF or something? Your article reads like a personal attack rather than serious journalism.

    What the guy is proposing would be the biggest change in how computers are used since the internet. Have you even considered what the implications of this are? Steve Jones (above) mentions some good uses of expert systems, but on a more everyday level, imagine you're re-naming files and your computer could see what you're doing, analyse the criteria you're using and offer to complete the task for you. Or you're sorting photos into folders, or a hundred other tedious tasks that an AI of even very limited intelligence could do for you. Imagine being able to tell your computer "I heard a new tune on the radio this morning - find out what it was and download it to my phone." You know - the kind of computer 80s sci fi thought we'd all have by now. The kind of work Wolfram is doing is moving us closer to that.

    Whether he achieves his goal or not, the fact that he is thinking about these questions at all (rather than just flailing at anything he doesn't understand) automatically puts his intelligence an order of magnitude beyond yours. The fact that he created mathematica is an indication that he may have a shot at actually achieving it. But whether he does or not, I bet every morning he thanks his lucks stars that he didn't turn out to be a sour and embittered hack.

    Have a nice day :-)

  39. Anonymous Coward

    @ Elmer

    "I'll wait to see whose version of English is used to produce the mother of all search engines."

    Clearly if this is done it'll be installed on a starship called Nostromo and then go off and discover an alien lifeform hellbent on wiping out the human race?

  40. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    ".. a rare blend of monster raving egomania and utter batshit insanity"

    Cosma Rohilla Shalizi on S.Wolfram, A new kind of science

  41. Anonymous Coward

    Anything that explicitly has "Science" in its name

    Anything that explicitly has "Science" in its name - isn't a Science.

    Sciences: Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, etc.

    Not Sciences: Social Science, Political Science, Computer Science, etc.

  42. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Do they?

    "The problem is: We already have Wikipedia and Google that - together - get the job done well enough. "

    I assume Ted's from a parallel world where this is true. In our reality, sadly, WP is worse than useless and Google's ability to answer such questions is poor and getting worse each year.

    Not that Wolfram is going to solve it. Having read "New Kind of Science" I feel safe in saying that he's had his one great idea and there's nothing left in the bag. NKoS was a waste of trees, as well as containing some very self-serving notions about the history of cellular automata.

  43. Werner McGoole

    Nice idea, but...

    Well, Mathematica is certainly a very capable and well-marketed product, but there are other symbolic computation packages that are just as capable in their own ways, if less well known. I don't think we can credit Wolfram with a unique insight here.

    Then there's NKS, a subject I was very interested in - until I read the book. Then I started to understand why so may others decry CA as a "solution to everything". Sure, fascinating patterns and loads of speculation, but nothing you could actually get a grip on and say "yes, that's important", or "I could use that".

    Writing down some simple rules and watching useful behaviour "emerge" sounds great (and not just in AI, but in physics and biology and probably many other fields too), but what are the rules exactly? Just because they're allegedly simple doesn't mean there aren't far too many possibilities to search through. That's where the insight is needed. If I had to criticise NKS on just one point, it's that it promised this insight and failed to deliver.

    So while I'd really like to believe someone has finally cracked AI, I'm not overly optimistic. I think the only chance is that Wolfram really has some unique insight into the potential of CA that he completely failed to communicate in NKS and has now perfected. Given his personality, however, I rather expect the hype will outshine the achievement.

    Let's also not forget that simulating human thought even in one area of knowledge is one (very difficult) thing. Turning that into a search facility that's expert in every field of human endeavour and can handle hundreds of thousands of simultaneous queries is quite another thing. I wouldn't be selling my Google shares just yet (if I had any, that is).

  44. Dave

    Party Line

    "We already have Wikipedia and Google that - together - get the job done well enough."

    That doesn't sound like the official El Reg opinion about WikiPaedo, or indeed the great chocolate factory

  45. Mark S

    Ego only gets you so far...

    I personally like Mathematica (though use MATLAB more), but found Wolfram's theorizing to be a pretentious and utterly simplistic view of the natural world (the parts I managed to get through, that is).

    That said, applying AI or expert systems to develop slightly more intelligent web-based queries could actually work, but might get off to a faster start working with Google or the like, rather than starting from scratch.

    Steven Jones @ 9:02, agree completely re. medical diagnosis, at least at a preliminary stage. The concept that we often rely on tired, overworked, variably competent individuals to piece together - sometimes from distant memory - disparate symptoms, analyses and measurements to diagnose complex life-threatening problems is absurd.

    AC @ 12:19, interesting point and maybe why I've always preferred geology, geochemistry and geophysics to the awkward "Earth Sciences" beloved by fashionable universities.

  46. Daniele Futtorovic

    Gratuitous sidekick

    "'A New Kind of Science' (abbreviated NKS for those of you who prefer the Church of Scientology method of using acronyms to make yourself sound more serious)"

    MUSA* a peculiarity of the CoS**? TNTM***.

    * Making Up Stupid Acronyms

    (and, incidentally: Made in the United States of America)

    ** Church of Scientology

    *** That's news to me

  47. jubtastic1

    I see problems

    Not with the execution, which will probably astound us all, or with the appeal as I notice enough people type straight questions into Google as is, no the cancer that this project will succumb to is best illustrated with a question: How is babby formed?

    Simply put, any Machine Intelligence that learns from questions posed by the yahoo answers mob & the chantards will eventually attain all the smarts and delivery of a demented LOLcat.

  48. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Forty Two.... what exactly was the question ?

  49. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @James Hughes

    "Er, neither of those questions are simply answered by either Google or Wikipedia. You get a load of links on Google, which you then have to trawl through to find the right information."

    On Tuesday, March 10th, 2009.

    Search for 'GOOG', click 'GOOG', drag the slider on the stock ticker back until the line crosses $300.

    I'd say that's pretty simple.

  50. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    @ Mark

    "Perhaps it could make one up and then put it in wikipedia so that it is true."

    Now that's what I call artificial intelligence.

  51. Bounty

    Who will get there first.

    Are we talking translation or AI? Just add machine to the drop down list?

    All joking aside, how about a question like:

    What is the best looking RPG for the PC?

    To any human researcher, they would know to look for role playing games made in the last couple of years that got good reivews for it's graphics and give a short list of possible "best" RPG's for the PC. It should have in it's top 10 either answers or reviews of or someone else's list that includes: Fallout 3, Mass Effect, The Witcher, Oblivion etc.

    Instead pretty much all the search engines give you crap. Maybe pages that have the Best game of 2008 etc. but not RPG's. Search engines could do some translation like "best looking" = "best looking" "looks awsome" "looks great" etc. on pages that include RPG and PC. But then you still end up with games that looked awsome in 1996. So it's translation plus AI to understand context. "What is the best looking RPG for the PC? " implies now, or at the moment. So only include the last 3 years or something..... Then again that only applys to the way things look in the PC world. "What is the best looking car" wouldn't necessarily have to be only made in the last 3 years. Who does your computer learn style from? Guess we're back to page rankings.

  52. Dennis Clark

    Let's all write comments on books we've never read

    I continue to be astonished at the number of comments and remarks about NKS, all fashionably negative, by writers (very likely including Ted Dziuba), who have never in fact actually read the book! Instead we learn from Mr. Dziuba that it has been "quickly forgotten", employing a bit of passive voice to include some unknown community of readers.

    I can assure you that anyone who has actually read the book with any attention has not forgotten it.

  53. Greg Fawcett

    I did read NKS... it's laughable.

    There is a reason for peer review, and NKS is the perfect demonstration. I am not a genius, but I found several places where Wolfram claimed supernatural properties for automata, but which were very ordinary artifacts of simple number theory.

    Add in the unfettered "I'm such a stunningly clever bastard" subtext that not-so-subtly underlies every paragraph, and it quickly becomes a sickening experience. "If you focus your attention and listen closely, you can hear his ego approaching critical mass, preparing to implode on itself" - right on the nose.

  54. Anonymous Coward

    модной теории всего и вся выявлены ошибки

    I am from Russia and when I read this story I was very bewildered that someone like Wolfram makes so much mistakes. That story put grin to my face.

  55. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    1111 = -1 of course.

  56. Dennis Clark

    Ego business aside...

    It appears that Wolfram has not made too many friends due to a perception that he is an egomaniac. Well, egos happen. For an example in the tech world, consider: does anyone actually "like" Larry Ellison? The question seems irrelevant to me, especially when one considers that many important and/or influential thinkers have boasted notably unpleasant egos (e.g. Nietzsche, B. Russell, and almost any 20th century philosopher). One can forgive or hate, or better yet, laugh that aspect off, and then move on.

    I appreciated Greg Fawcett's perceptive comments, but would like to suggest that Wolfram may have suggested metaphysical, or maybe even mystical, properties to the results of his testing, but "supernatural" is stretching a bit what I think he was up to. Rather, I think that he was trying to demonstrate through lots of visual examples the interesting philosophical implications of a primitive concept: tremendous complexity can be generated from a remarkably simple algorithm. This may of course be second nature for a mathematician (not me) to understand, but it's a concept that I think is little appreciated in typical thinking about our universe; that is, a teleological view is completely unnecessary, and that the idea of a grand goal or a complex design as the foundation of our everyday reality is not only unnecessary but superfluous. I'm willing to accept that maybe this is an obvious, banal observation, but if so, I would greatly appreciate that someone spread the word to the billions of people who seem to think that an omniscient sky-god has set everything in motion to fulfill his mysterious purpose, or that we're all part of some amazing fuzzy universal-consciousness grand plan that will be revealed in all of its crystal clarity one day.

    Concluding thoughts, if Wolfram at least managed to introduce some interesting ways of looking at things from a different perspective, NKS was successful. A great thinker and guru for the ages? Probably not. Creepy guy? Arguably yes. But I still think he has made a worthwhile contribution to modern thought.

  57. John Smith Gold badge

    @Andy, @Steven Jones, AC@10:18,@bob,@bounty


    Google and Wikipedia both rely on the question having been asked before

    No. They rely on the words you use to describe your question being used in pages they index or have produced.

    @Steven Jones

    nobody yet has come remotely close to understanding how natural intelligence works

    A nice apparently clear and unequivocal blanket statement. I'd say rather they don't like the answers. The human brain is not a singular processor of Intel or anyone else.


    tell you when my snake oil detector turns on, it is when people wish to use the human brain as a model for AI, and the detector goes off when someone tries to keep it to mathematics

    What a brilliant bit of English. A sentence that can be parsed in 2 exactly opposite ways. 1 problem. Your snake oil alarm goes off when someone wants to use the human brain to model AI, If I've parsed it correctly.

    You might like to read "Perceptrons" by Marvin Minsky. This killed neural network research for a couple of decades by demonstrating that Perceptrons (a simple class of neural networks) could not solve certain problems humans can -> cannot possibly work as an AI model. Fair enough. Funding competitor neatly killed off.

    Its just a pity that human brains, some of which seem to exhibit intelligent behaviour are neural networks. Never let the facts get in the way of a grant application.


    imagine you're re-naming files and your computer could see what you're doing, analyse the criteria you're using and offer to complete the task for you. Or you're sorting photos into folders, Imagine being able to tell your computer "I heard a new tune on the radio this morning - find out what it was and download it to my phone

    I note most of what you want does not need much "intelligence" but considerable awareness of "context," Your drives, your radio, your phone. And if you want the pictures sorted by what's actually in them that will be a long way away.

    You might like to look up an ancient DOS program called Automator MI.

    Otherwise you'd better put your order for Windows 16 in now.


    "What is the best looking RPG for the PC?"

    "So it's translation plus AI to understand context."

    And a *lot* of context at that. RPG has at least 3 well recognised meanings. Then there's the aesthetic question. Its not the question you ask, its how much such a system has to know about *you* personally to answer it. And how much of your life you would want such a system to know about you.

    You may find its performance a bit disappointing.

    Chances of pulling this off. Practically zero. But I try to avoid absolute statements about AI.

  58. nicholas22


    Why oh why do the same as*holes come here to read Ted's articles and then diss him about them? If you know he sucks, don't come back to read new articles damn it. What a tiresome practice having to put up with all these sour-pus*es. Get a job or something! And leave your names, don't post anonymously you slimey pri**s.

    Nice article Ted btw, enjoyed the witty comments, as ever.

    Very funny to have someone who worked for the guy post here as well, gives a neat overall picture of this dude mentioned.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like