5th June 2007, 9:23 AM
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/129
The first part is similar to what you may have seen in the Wii's image editor, but MUCH more powerful. The latter part is what interests me.
This is all part of that important next step in computer programming. Gathering data we've been able to do for years, but how well a machine can cross reference data with other data really determines what that computer can do, and it's basically the definition of intelligence.
Honestly the power of that software is mind boggling to me. This must have involved thousands of work hours and unbelievable amounts of code. It really isn't that simple a task to get image recognition software to "see" that this image and that image "line up" and to match them. Now imagine doing that when it only "roughly" lines up as in the case of Notre Dam there and you get a picture of just what they had to do. And, further, to get it to put it together in 3D, recognizing that the image had DEPTH to it and wasn't just a 2D shape. Well, I'm stunned. As with all programs of this scope, I can imagine no one programmer knows entirely how it works, what with individual "modules" being programmed by different people (modern programming is set up in such a way that all a programmer working on one module needs to know is the input/output/operator commands of other modules to get their own module to work nice with them).
Working with text is actually easier than working with images. I imagine that a similar tactic could be used to gather vast overall "verbal pictures" of related research documents. Expanding on this, a computer might actually be able to draw complicated conclusion (I'm talking "next step" stuff here, but after seeing this it can't be that far off) based on all this metadata. I can see a computer comparing vast fields of images on earth, with time also being a factor so it has a past and future, and also in various wavelengths and even just charts of stuff like pollution and so on, and actually being able to give an educated opinion on the direction of earth's climate. From there, maybe even a suggestion on how to change things, adding in the text data from various research papers. Keep in mind that THAT is much further down the line, but it's all the forward march of programming technology. If they can do this, and it isn't just a "artistic model" but real time examples they are showing, I can't see how the rest isn't anything more than a lot of work and research away from now.
I can see a time in the future when we surf the net not just with data searches but with a dedicated AI buddy that culls it for information relevent to us, based on what we've wanted to search for in the past, and one who provides us with suggestions, only something that actually seems friendly and eerily accurate and not just the Amazon.com "people who got this also liked: " list. These are the sorts of things that change the world in the information age.
The first part is similar to what you may have seen in the Wii's image editor, but MUCH more powerful. The latter part is what interests me.
This is all part of that important next step in computer programming. Gathering data we've been able to do for years, but how well a machine can cross reference data with other data really determines what that computer can do, and it's basically the definition of intelligence.
Honestly the power of that software is mind boggling to me. This must have involved thousands of work hours and unbelievable amounts of code. It really isn't that simple a task to get image recognition software to "see" that this image and that image "line up" and to match them. Now imagine doing that when it only "roughly" lines up as in the case of Notre Dam there and you get a picture of just what they had to do. And, further, to get it to put it together in 3D, recognizing that the image had DEPTH to it and wasn't just a 2D shape. Well, I'm stunned. As with all programs of this scope, I can imagine no one programmer knows entirely how it works, what with individual "modules" being programmed by different people (modern programming is set up in such a way that all a programmer working on one module needs to know is the input/output/operator commands of other modules to get their own module to work nice with them).
Working with text is actually easier than working with images. I imagine that a similar tactic could be used to gather vast overall "verbal pictures" of related research documents. Expanding on this, a computer might actually be able to draw complicated conclusion (I'm talking "next step" stuff here, but after seeing this it can't be that far off) based on all this metadata. I can see a computer comparing vast fields of images on earth, with time also being a factor so it has a past and future, and also in various wavelengths and even just charts of stuff like pollution and so on, and actually being able to give an educated opinion on the direction of earth's climate. From there, maybe even a suggestion on how to change things, adding in the text data from various research papers. Keep in mind that THAT is much further down the line, but it's all the forward march of programming technology. If they can do this, and it isn't just a "artistic model" but real time examples they are showing, I can't see how the rest isn't anything more than a lot of work and research away from now.
I can see a time in the future when we surf the net not just with data searches but with a dedicated AI buddy that culls it for information relevent to us, based on what we've wanted to search for in the past, and one who provides us with suggestions, only something that actually seems friendly and eerily accurate and not just the Amazon.com "people who got this also liked: " list. These are the sorts of things that change the world in the information age.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)