Back to Contents of Issue: November 2001
|
|
by Sam Joseph |
|
These were some of the answers received when I put the question, "How would you define artificial intelligence?" to a number of Japanese, or Japanese-resident, academics and business people. The most prescient comment came from Ryohei Orihara of Toshiba's Knowledge Media Research Laboratory, who said: "Getting everybody to agree on a definition will be the hard problem." This selection of academics, entrepreneurs, and salarypeople all came from a diverse group whose work can be linked to the nebulous concept of artificial intelligence (AI), as popularized by the recent Steven Spielberg film of the same name. Norihiro Hagita of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence (JSAI) explained that the organization's "What's AI?" Web site had seen a 700 percent increase in traffic following the release of the film in Japan. This would seem to be merely a symptom of a deeper relationship between the Japanese, their robots, and their animated characters -- the distinctions between which are being blurred by this hard-to-pin-down technology called AI. Hagita, who is also a researcher at NTT's Communication Research Laboratory, said JSAI's goal was the promotion of AI research and the distribution of AI expertise. JSAI was launched in 1986, soon after the creation of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), and currently has about 3,000 members, with roughly 1,000 people subscribing to its mailing list. The response to its Web site has inspired JSAI to look at other ways of providing more accessible information. (See the organization's definition of AI.) JSAI makes a further distinction between AI research that focuses on "reasoning," such as game playing, and "learning," such as data mining. Other JSAI Web pages include a list of different technologies that might be considered artificial intelligence, such as agent technology or "fuzzy systems" (see glossary of this and other AI-related terms). How do these sub-fields fit into the overall picture of AI? The answer lies at least partly in the history of AI development, starting with the expansion of AI research during the Cold War.
The 5th Generation Professor Mitsuro Ishizuka of Tokyo University, the head of the JSAI, was involved in the 5th Generation project and says the idea was for Japan and Europe to create a technology that had no parallel in the US. The project was big-budget (JPY50 billion) and expectations were high -- particularly since it was portrayed in the media as an attempt to produce "intelligent" computers. In the end, it produced the KLIC parallel logic programming language (based on the well-known C language), and some other spin-offs, but nothing of great commercial success. To some, this meant the project was a failure, but as Ishizuka points out, "Research by its nature is not 100 percent successful; if it was, then it wouldn't be research." 5th Generation project technology never really made it into the mainstream, largely because it was beaten to the punch by less elaborate, rough-and-ready techniques such as object-oriented programming. Logic programming, like KLIC, might have had great formalism, and a rigorous theoretical basis, but it was only really popular with AI researchers. The Japanese 5th Gen engineers were applying their expertise to scale this research language up to work with huge, massively parallel mainframe computers, and they got it to work. They thought it would form the basis of the next generation of computing languages, but in the meantime the personal computer had shrunk in size and grown in power, making it far more cost effective for a company to use a cluster of PCs than a huge mainframe computer. By the time the 5th Generation engineers were ready to present logic programming-based supercomputing, the market had out-evolved them. At the same time, the expert system technology that investors had funded in the late '80s was not advancing as rapidly as predicted, leading to a bursting of the AI bubble and the disappearance of many AI startups.
The 6th Generation According to Ishizuka, the difference between 5th and 6th Gen projects is that while the 5th Gen project had a clear underlying ideology, i.e. a new generation of programming languages, the RWCP incorporates -- perhaps wisely -- a greater variety of approaches that do not fit under one overarching framework. Perhaps this will be to the advantage of the RWCP. One scientist involved in RWCP work is Dr. Ryohei Orihara, a senior researcher at Toshiba's Knowledge Media Research Laboratory. Orihara's work concerns abstract models for representing sound and images, and their application in interface devices. This framework would allow Web surfers, for example, to easily navigate in a "space of images" in the same way that we currently navigate through text space with Web search engines. The project is representative of work being carried out under the umbrella of the RWCP, and it shows that the focus has switched to augmenting human abilities, as opposed to replicating them in their entirety. There appears to be a recognition that basic components of human intelligence, such as recognizing images and communicating, are the really hard problems for AI. As Orihara explains, "AI often fails to address the representation problem. This was perhaps its main failing. Recently, representation issues are coming to the fore, and this is to AI's benefit." Still, one of the paradoxes of AI is that expectations keep changing, "making it impossible to implement an AI system," Orihara speculates. "Deep Blue is not AI, ELIZA [a famous chat bot] is not AI, Aibo is not AI; maybe we'll never recognize AI, even when it finally arrives," he adds.
Ishizuka agrees there is something about the term that makes AI an unimplementable technology: As soon as the technology advances, the perspective shifts, and the quality of intelligence passes to those activities that are still only in the human domain. As soon as a computer could beat the world chess master, playing chess was suddenly considered not to require so much intelligence as previously thought, and AI was once again set as an unattainable goal.
There is also a downside to the field in general, says Grimbergen. "The problem of working in AI is the controversy that it sparks. Intelligence seems to be something mystical in the minds of most people, and the idea of explaining it is often considered sacrilege." Grimbergen enjoyed the recent Spielberg film and hopes that this will fuel interest in the field. He does not equivocate on the issue of the future of AI: "I strongly believe that this, combined with steady progress in our knowledge about intelligence and the modeling of this, will eventually lead to computer systems that will be considered intelligent without discussion." While Japanese chess might make for more tractable research, one of the criticisms of classic AI was that it focused too much on toy problems, and was not applicable to the real world. Hence the recent shift to fuzzier approaches, and also agent technology, a term almost as confusing as AI itself.
Agent Technology The term "agent" might seem just as vague as AI, and when questioned about these definitions, Yamamoto replies that it's important to think in terms of practicalities. He does not really see his work as AI, since the objective is to make his agent servers as robust as possible. He also disapproves of the hype associated with intelligent agent systems, and suggests that "Real breakthroughs are much more likely to come as a result of agreement on [certain] communication standards." He feels unclear about where agent research might lead, but says, "We'll probably achieve human intelligence in artificial form, but emotions, imagination, passion, vision ... these are not likely to come from an extension of existing technology." The implication is that some radical new approaches are required, and there's certainly no shortage of work on artificial emotions in Japan.
Emotional Agents Koda points out that the software is pure emotional expression, with no added intelligence. Petaro currently has over a million users, indicating that smarts are not perhaps as important as getting your target market correct. "AI has no meaning for the average user; it's just something that is not understood," she says. She also suggests that, to the Japanese at least, "agent" is a more useful term, because it is used in a business sense. The press release announcing the launch of DoCoMo's i-Appli Java service, for example, included the term "agent" (even though it was only vaguely defined). "The user really doesn't care what you label it as, as long as it works," says Koda. "If we get to the point that the system can actually start to deduce things about the user by interacting with them, then perhaps it might deserve the label of AI."
So do we need AI to create emotional agents? Koda's response reflected many of those interviewed: "AI is a concept, not a technology. Real human intelligence is grounded in the stuff that the brain is made of; any emotional system will only be simulating human emotions -- mimicking them. We still can't answer fundamental questions like how many basic emotions a human has, so how can we simulate them?" JSAI's Ishizuka also voiced this opinion, although he pointed out the possibility that real emotional abilities could be evolved using genetic algorithms or learning techniques. We might not understand exactly how the resulting system worked, or whether it really "felt" sad or happy, but either way, a completely realistic emotional interface would have great business potential for customer relationship management.
Berthouze feels that one thing lacking in Japan's plethora of research into affective computing is a strong theoretical basis, and this is one element driving her to develop a set of dimensions that can describe a user's subjective or affective state -- essentially a framework for describing how happy or sad we feel. The field of affective computing and its related emotional disciplines have been labeled by some as the "New AI." As Berthouze's research overview describes, "A car might be chosen for its design possibly because it reflects aspects of the personality of the customer." The emotional framework she envisions is intended to serve as the basis for multimedia data mining, something that would allow computers to help meet, or at least understand, our emotional needs.
Data Mining SilverEgg Technologies (see "Online Marketing With AI," page 55, October 2000) is a Japanese venture company looking to go beyond data mining. CEO Tom Foley explains that their AIgent system observes which product categories a customer clicks on, and then makes intelligent guesses about that customer's preferences. According to Foley, "This is a real, down-to-earth application of AI." Foley goes so far as to draw a parallel between a business and an "intelligent system," a business having to gather data, draw conclusions, manage data, adapt, and survive. But aren't the intelligent parts of a business the humans that run it? Foley theorizes that a really successful business is best thought of as a kind of framework or intelligent colony that amasses knowledge, and that can outlive the tenure of any particular employee that animates it. Foley raised a striking example. "Consider a business without any employees. It is possible today -- you don't believe it? How about a business consisting only of an adaptive trading program that runs indefinitely, pays an outsourcing company for computer maintenance by credit card over the Internet, and pays shareholder dividends? Is it the computer or is it the business that is intelligent, or both, or neither?" The SilverEgg CEO believes that people are waiting for a machine intelligence similar enough to their own to carry on a conversation, but that if we can see past our anthropomorphized expectations of AI, we may discover that it is already here. So what distinguishes SilverEgg technology from other data-mining techniques? Isn't it all just number-crunching? Not according to Foley, who points out that number-crunching techniques don't know about the products and customers beyond the correlations they find in the data. In a sense, these techniques spend a lot of time rediscovering obvious relationships -- for example, that books X and Y are correlated when they are in fact written by the same author. SilverEgg's AIgent is designed to enable organizations to use prior knowledge, such as that two books are on the same topic or were written by the same author, to give more accurate and intelligent service.
Interface Agents
Dr. Kim Binsted, CTO of eMuse KK, the Irish firm eMuse's new branch that now owns I-Chara, got her PhD at the University of Edinburgh on the subject of computer humor. On the topic of whether intelligence, artificial or otherwise, is an important part of the I-Chara system, she suggests that the crucial factor -- from a business perspective -- is the notion of "apparent agency," the appearance that the character you are interacting with has goals, emotions, and a personality. "You could implement apparent agency in all sorts of ways, but we think the AI approach is the best way to go," says Binsted. In many ways, creating an intelligent agent has always been the goal of AI research, but the understanding of what intelligence means has shifted. Years ago, solving algebra problems or playing chess were seen as the most mentally demanding "intelligent" pursuits, but as the results of this work led to systems that exhibited little flexibility or common sense, it became clear that the real challenge was replicating social intelligence. The classic Turing Test exemplifies this. Passing the Turing Test involves convincing somebody that you are intelligent through only a text conversation. Even if a machine succeeds, you could still argue about whether it is merely a "simulation" of intelligence, or if the machine is really experiencing the emotions it might report. But while you do, the people who developed it will be laughing all the way to the bank, since their interface will be handling customers more effectively than anybody else. As Binsted says, "The system has to show social intelligence in the interface."
Cognitive Research Labs (CRL)
On a conference room video screen at the company's Roppongi headquarters, Tomabechi, wearing traditional Japanese dress and geta (wooden shoes), conducted an agent-powered presentation using MPML (Multi-modal Presentation Markup Language). MPML allows everyday business presentations -- think PowerPoint -- to include instructions about where to position, for example, a Microsoft Agent, what the agent should say, and just how emotional it should get over the subject matter -- alternating from, say, CRL's work focuses on security issues, with the firm's system integrity based on indestructible data concepts that Tomabechi developed during his PhD studies in computational linguistics. CRL uses a number of artificial intelligence techniques in different products, such as a recommendation system in their online shopping mall, case-based reasoning in their home server system (which allows your video player to learn what a movie is), and decision trees and clustering methods in their banner ad system. So does Japan have any special relationship with artificial intelligence? Tomabechi suggests that the Japanese are more comfortable with the concept of intelligent non-human entities, because philosophically, Japanese expect all objects to have a spirit; meaning, presumably, that they are less intimidated by the idea of killer robots taking over the planet. So why is CRL "Cognitive Research Labs" and not "Artificial Intelligence Labs"? "The AI boom of the '80s, and subsequent crash, means that AI has negative associations," says Tomabechi, "making the term 'cognitive science' more palatable."
The Emotional Professor
Ishizuka hypothesizes that in the West, a hard boundary is drawn between humans and robots; but in Japan, or even more generally in the East, the distinction is not made so clearly, and robots are seen more as companions and partners. Westerners tend to think of robots as mechanical, whereas in Japan it is assumed they have kokoro, heart and spirit. In Japan, the move to create walking robots has not been hindered by images of terminators taking over the world, and this thinking extends to all sorts of artificially intelligent agents.
Perhaps the lesson here is that if you want to get your information across, if you want to engage your audience or your customers, you need to communicate emotionally. Ishizuka suggests that this is why films are much more popular than technical reports, because they have an emotional message. The real human language is not words, but emotion. A well-implemented emotional markup language would allow people to present their point of view or ideas, along with the emotional information as well. Right now you can do this by giving a lecture and talking about your subject matter with passion, but in the future, perhaps you'll only need to describe your passion, and anybody reading your e-book will get the emotional message. |
Note: The function "email this page" is currently not supported for this page.