The Baby Bootstrap?

An anonymous reader asks: "Slashdot recently covered a story that DARPA would significantly cut CS research. When I was completing graduate work in AI, the 'baby bootstrap' was considered the holy grail of military applications. Simply put, the 'baby bootstrap' would empower a computing device to learn like a child with a very good memory. DARPA poured a small fortune into the research. No sensors, servos or video input - it only needed terminal I/O to be effective. Today the internet could provide a developmental database far beyond any testbed that we imagined, yet there has been no significant progress in over 30 years. MindPixels and Cycorp seem typical of poorly funded efforts headed in the wrong direction, and all we hear from DARPA is autonomous robots. NIST seems more interested in industrial applications. Even Google is remarkably void of anything about the 'baby bootstrap'. What went wrong? Has the military really given up on this concept, or has their research moved to other, more classified levels?"

The Terminator

[hshana]

Maybe they were afraid of Skynet.

Oh great...

[kwoo]

Just one problem with this kind of research...

For the first year I'll be up every two hours all night, tending to the system.

Actually, that may be better than just being up all night, like I am now.

Classified

[pete-classic]

It has moved to more classified levels.

I'd go into more detail, but the C.I.A. and C.I.D are at my door. Ooh, the B.A.T.F. just pulled up in a Mother's Cookies truck!

-Peter

The Internet as a Intellect...

[ackthpt]

It has too much fascination with pr0n.

From a TV Commercial...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Simply put, the 'baby bootstrap' would empower a computing device to learn like a child with a very good memory."

Hey, isn't that what the young Eminem-looking dude was supposed to be in those IBM commercials? I think the kid's name was "Linux" or something (poor kid). In the end there was a reference to the future being wide open, which seems like an allusion to goatse but what do I know.

It's obvious why the search failed

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Who calls what you describe "baby boostrap"? I haven't worked in AI myself but have a keen interest in it and have friends who worked in the field including one who worked on Cyc (who says it's a scam BTW). Not once have I ever heard the expression "baby bootstrap". But what you've done is cool. Rather than search on precisely that term you've submitted your search to the serach engine known as "/. readership". It's not terribly relaible but it is good at fuzzy searches like yours.

Doublethink

[nappingcracker]

q: Has the military really given up on this concept, or has their research moved to other, more classified levels?

a: yes.

Baby Bootstrap?

[ArcCoyote]

The process that bootstraps a baby is still the Holy Grail for a lot of geeks.

Baby Bootstrap

[multipartmixed]

I can assure you.. I am very classified.

Shutting down this discussion as of now.

[infonography]

By order of Wintermute (DARPA AI code 324326343.534) this discussion is terminated and no further investigation into this obviously false and misleading theory is permitted.

Would you like to play a game of chess Professor Falken?

Re:Stat algos

[phreakmonkey]

You're going to take this answer from someone who enters their comments on a Commodore 64?

Re:its out there!

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up. You're blowing our cover.

What Went Wrong?

[SQL Error]

there has been no significant progress in over 30 years

That's what went wrong. Basically, it don't work.

Re:The Terminator

[randomErr]

No, they're afraid the computer may ask 'Want to play a game?'

Nonono!

[jd]

They ARE a Commodore 64 that got "baby bootstrapped" off the Internet. This is a bid to prevent competition.

Re:Baby Bootstrap

[hobbesx]

I can assure you.. I am very classified.

Dear Baby Bootstrap computer,

You forgot to check the AC box. Congratulations on becoming Un-Classified!

Re:It's obvious why the search failed

[Dun Malg]

Who calls what you describe "baby boostrap"?

I've also noticed that nobody seems to make Horseless Carriages [wikipedia.org] anymore (and after they showed such promise). Likewise, the Difference Engine [wikipedia.org] has been a total flop. I do, however, expect we will see in the future some use made of the Vegetable Lamb of Tartary [pantheon.org], though no use has been made of it in the last 1000 years since it was discovered.

Re:Classified

[sgant]

But they all ran when they saw the RIAA and MPAA moving in...even the IRS is afraid of them.

Tremble as they pass...stare in awe at their mighty power

Re:Some random mindpixels...

[NaruVonWilkins]

Spelling "dildo" right might have gotten you a better true match. I guess this proves you're a geek, though. :)

Re:Classified

[sys$manager]

And you wondered why there was a

Flowers
By
Irene

truck parked on your street all week?

Re:Cognitive Machines Group @ MIT Media Lab

[Bastian]

One of the big hurdles I think is from the fact that we are trying to approximate a massively parallel architecture (the brain) on a _annoyingly_ serial machine (the computer).

Maybe a Beowulf cluster of those would help?

--ducks--

Re:Oh great...

[un4given]

Actually, that may be better than just being up all night, like I am now.

I guess I'm not the only MCSE on this site after all...

Whale's intelligence

[Anonymous Coward]

A whale can't go on Slashdot and say "OMGZ first post guys" much less something of human level intelligence.

Yet again, more proof that whales are smarter than humans. :-)
--
AC

They're still working on artificial stupidity...

[Fubari]

excerpted from here [sympatico.ca]:
Computer scientist Arthur Boran was ecstatic.
A few minutes earlier, he had programmed a
basic mathematical problem into his
prototypical Akron I computer.
His request was simply, "Give me the
sum of every odd number between
zero and ten."
The computer's quick answer, 157, was
unexpected, to say the least. With growing
excitement, Boran requested an explanation
of the computer's reasoning.
The printout read as follows:

THE TERM "ODD NUMBER" IS AMBIGUOUS. I
THEREFORE CHOOSE TO INTERPRET IT AS MEANING
"A NUMBER THAT IS FUNNY LOOKING."
USING MY AESTHETIC JUDGEMENT, I PICKED THE
NUMBERS 3, 8, AND 147, ADDED THEM UP,
AND GOT 157.

A few moments later there was an addendum:

I GUESS I MEANT 158.

Followed shortly thereafter by:

147 IS MORE THAN 10, ISN'T IT? SORRY.

Anyone doing conventional research would
have undoubtedly consigned the hapless
computer to the scrap heap. But for Boran,
the Akron I's response represented a
startling breakthrough in a little-known
field: artificial stupidity.
Boran is the head of NASA, the National
Artificial Stupidity Association ("Not to
be confused with those space people,"
he is quick to point out), a loosely-knit
band of computer-school dropouts currently
occupying an abandoned fraternity house
at the University of New Mexico.

Re:Some random mindpixels...

[quax]

1.00 Fish must remain in water to continue living.

What about flying fish?

And what about evolution? Does this mean your mindpixel mind will believe in creationism? So much effort and then we'll end up with an artificial fool!

Re:Classified

[Infinite Entropy]

Somwhere, in a deep sub-basement of some unmarked NSA building is a fully sentient AI that spends all its time reading Slashdot. Its creators wonder why it keeps wanting to meet Natalie Portman and asking what hot grits are.