Presentation on theme: "QUEST: integrated human computer ‘solutions’ for the 'wicked' problems we face Is It possible to Create a Computer That Feels? Creating a Cognitive Exoskeleton!"— Presentation transcript:
QUEST: integrated human computer ‘solutions’ for the 'wicked' problems we face Is It possible to Create a Computer That Feels? Creating a Cognitive Exoskeleton! Steve “Capt Amerika” Rogers, Ph.D., SES/ST Senior Scientist for ATR and Sensor Fusion Sensors and Information Directorates Air Force Research Laboratory Apr 2010 Profs Bauer, Oxley, Mendenhall – AFIT ATR Profs Raines, Mills, Baldwin, Kurkowski, Galloway, Okolica, Humphries, Borghetti, Grimaila – AFIT Cyber Matt Kabrisky, Adam Rogers - Quale LLC Drs. Wilson, Priddy, Williams, Perlovsky, and Wicker, Maj Weir, A. Bryant,M. McClure, G. Lukens, R. Malhotra, Vogel– AFRL/RY Dr. Brian Tsou, Janet Peasant, Catherine Harrison, Dr. Laurie Fenstermacher, Bob Patterson, Byron Pierce – AFRL/RH Dr. R Linderman – AFRL/RI Pete Collins – AFIT EMAG Chuck Sadowski – ACC/A8 Don Wunsch – Univ Mo Rolla Hidden Units: Mark Derriso (RB), Col Ryer, Tim Lacey, Maj Eyster, Capt Birrer, Cindy Krieger, Capt Dube # We shouldn’t speak of solutions just speak of subjectively acceptable responses to ‘wicked’ problems
Outline 1. Premise – computational intelligence abstraction tie together mini tracks (representations applicable to ‘wicked’ problems - OODA) 2. Define agents – data, information, knowledge and context – key to ‘representation’ 3. What Turing meant to say – ‘alignment’ key 4. Adaptable foe generalization for cross domain insight – cyber, asymmetric warfare, and cancer (adaptable -> wicked) 5. QUEST – QUalia Exploitation of Sensor Technology – general ‘solution’ approach to wicked problems Questions welcome as we go through the material or at the end ‘wicked’ problems we care about are often characterized by interaction between sentient agents When one of the interacting agents is continually modifying its representation to compensate for actions being taken against its goals (changing requirements)
- conflicting requirements and changing requirements suggest that as you solve part of the problem, you negatively impact other aspects Wicked Problems Term introduced in 1967 By C. West Churchman Defining characteristics of wicked problems: 1.The problem is not understood until after the formulation of a solution. 2.Wicked problems have no stopping rule. 3.Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong. 4.Every wicked problem is essentially novel and unique. 5.Every solution to a wicked problem is a 'one shot operation' 6.Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions. - By Jeff Conklin ‘cannot be tackled by the traditional approach in which problems are defined, analyzed, and solved in sequential steps.’ ‘ most paradigmatical examples of wicked problems come from the areas of public planning and policy: these include global climate change, natural hazards, healthcareclimate changenatural hazards in the United States and elsewhere, the AIDS epidemic, pandemic influenza, international drug trafficking, homeland security, nuclear weapons, and nuclear energy and waste.’ Suggest many of the issues we are discussing in this conference are ‘wicked’ – so why are we ignoring the ‘wickedness’ and discussing # point solutions for them? # ‘Solution’ to n doesn’t necessarily help with n + 1 It may help but it DEPENDS! Solution to box cutter detection didn’t help with PETN and neither solve airline security #Changing requirements often a result of mismatch between real problem and spec for solution to current instantiation of the problem Slides – ROE – colors find something that interest you # It may just be subjectively acceptable So we shouldn’t speak of solutions just speak of subjectively acceptable responses to the ‘wicked’ problem
Mission assurance mini-track 1.) Mission representation ‘security must focus on mission assurance, not network defense’ K. Jabbour (lessons in IA) ‘its not bolt loose or bolt tight it is can I do this maneuver? Can I perform this mission?’ M. Derriso (ISHM - quest) ‘combat actionable information’ – T Wilson (CHLOED driver - quest) These make it ‘wicked’ – network defense is worthless if I can’t assure my mission 2.) Military decision making processes – EX) Real mission is to get out of Afghanistan and have it not become a base for attacks against U. S. – versus – take Marjah – casted incorrectly achieving one negatively impacts other! This mismatch between the ‘real’ problem and the problem specification based on current instantiation results in changing requirements! # Bolt information is worthless without the mission implication Even if I could extract the concepts from streaming ISR data how can I insert them into the human decision processes? What are the military decision processes? How dynamic are they? Missions are always in an environment (battle space) that is fluid and dynamic – the ‘fog’ of war – no plan survives the fist shot -> ‘wicked’ Capt Dube - quest
CHLOED – a system for closing the loop – exploits the whole set of processes - Wilson Observe Orient Decide Act Update Anticipate Sense Monitor Anticipatory (predictive) reasoning focus on anticipation - the entities in the world possibly to include intents to allow anticipation - ToM Asset organization, scheduling – providing Joey insight into the ‘situation’ and efficient control of interrogation to achieve any given mission – like find HVT 1 – taking the streaming sensor data (RFID, camera, microphone) to architect a GISTing process to access relevant memory/knowledge Discerning behavior, activities, events (these initially will be definable events like ‘casing’ or ‘trip-wire’ – we will investigate making the vocabulary more robust) Contextual situation awareness – how do we capture a representation of the world Human-machine interface Joey/Operator (Jack also has OODA) Beyond the OODA Nonsense – think piece Quest group Fall 2009 # 1. Persistent sensing doesn’t lend itself to OODA 2. Observe has to be intelligent 3. Observe = Orient = Decide = Cognition 4. OODA doesn’t allow for intuition 5. Integrated human/computer solutions are key Military decision making processes – related quest work
Mental representation for COIN and Asymmetric Approaches in IW Traditional tenets of war in cyberspace – especially in COIN and asymmetric approaches in IW – ‘wicked’ nature of problem space Effects assessment must look beyond first-order effects on networks and information to higher-order effects on systems and missions We can achieve effective deterrence without attribution by increasing the cost and lowering the benefit to an attacker (K. Jabbour – lessons in IA) Twitris – Prof Sheth – ‘sensing public opinion using social networks’ AIFIFT2EA4 – expanded kill chain (#QUEST group ATR article ‘07) Vision: Anticipate, Interact, Find, Identify, Fix, Track, Target, Engage, Assess — Anything, Anytime, Anywhere Not Sequential! These make the problems ‘wicked’ – missions change as do the resulting ‘kill-chain’ or representation of effects IW great driver problem using social networks to estimate public opinion What I should anticipate will changed based on what I ID Deterrence changes continually based on the adversary – and their changing situation
QUEST: Integrated human/computer ‘solutions’ are ‘wicked’ Align the representations of both partners in the solution Old approach one directional arrow! Predictability – key is to be able to GIST your partner Predictability allows fusion! Leonardo = Aligning # Second Look = Aligning Fundamental Principle of fusion – get what you are fusing into a common representation! Data, Information, knowledge and understanding must be ‘alignable’ to integrate! Only way the computer can provide ‘information’ to the human and vice versa. Prof Sheth – ‘to integrate human and machine perception the convergence must occur at this abstraction level … requires a shared framework’ # Wicked problems require wicked ‘solutions’ # subjectively acceptable responses Aligning to a constantly changing human representation is by definition ‘wicked’ QUEST: TWO AGENTS
2: Agent, data, information, knowledge defined Stimuli Data Sensor(s) – (uses knowledge) Sensors take stimuli and make data Representation Some Agents can use context Generating impact on representation uses Knowledge also – representor There is uncertainty in the representation that is reduced by the use of knowledge = # information Agents exist in an environment that has a plethora of stimuli - Some Agents respond to the stimuli by acting on environment We will define context as stimuli from other Agents outputs/Qualia (previously, current or expected qualia) to communicate via the context – the two agents have to be ‘aligned’ thus it becomes a means to pass ‘information’ between agents A(s,k,r) Agent consist of sensors, knowledge, representation, can be manmade or natural There are types of knowledge – coded in the sensors determining what it measures, determining the impact on the representation of the data and about what it transmits to agents around it – also about how to use context Not all agents require ‘context’ – the most basic agent the ‘atomic agent’ doesn’t have a context input
Agent can have internal Agents – Compound Agent Stimuli Data Representation Internal Agent n Internal Agent 2 Internal Agent 1 … Each of these internal agents have sensors/knowledge and their respective internal representations – they together make up the representation for the compound Agent Can have hierarchy within the pool context Context is the means to allow the capturing of the continually changing requirements more to come on this – required for all ‘wicked’ problems
Even if an agent could model self can it imbue that to others? An autism deficiency. Relevance to IDS, terrorist – intent from activity? Autistic solutions won’t solve some important problems! False Belief Test ToM is the key to intent and intent is the key to # ‘ANTICIPATE’. Solutions to IW will require an expanded ‘kill-chain’. Software is the creation of the minds of HUMANS – Correct extraction and interpretation requires a # ToM which requires a solution to #Self. BAD NEWS ToM is ‘wicked’ In that world model we have to also place our model of others. That model attempts to infer beliefs and desires and tries to predict what they will do from those beliefs and desires and our assumption of what they are sensing. As ill-posed as this may seem – it is no more difficult than the ill posed nature of what all our sensors do – assumptions are made that are indispensable but also indefensible other than historically they have served us well. https://sfari.org/commentaries/-/asset_publis... As pointed out earlier ‘anticipate’ is ‘wicked’ Required for Alignment! between agents
3. Turing and code breaking and the Imitation Game ALAN TURING HAD AN APPROACH TO PROBLEM SOLVING - HE USED THAT APPROACH TO CRACK THE NAZI CODE – HE USED THAT APPROACH TO INVENTING THE IMITATION GAME – THROUGH THAT ASSOCIATION WE WILL GET BETTER INSIGHT INTO WHAT THE IMPLICATION OF THE IMITATION GAME MEANING IS TO COMING UP WITH A BETTER CAPTCHA, BETTER APPROACH TO ‘# TRUST’ AND AN AUTISM DETECTION SCHEME – and a unique approach to Intent from activity (malware) Prof Oxley suggested maybe the ‘deceit’ aspect is also universal in his thoughts – he lived a life based on trying NOT to let people break his personal ‘code’ – his sexuality Turing, Alan M. "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind, 59 (1950), Rogers, S.K., Kabrisky, M., Bauer, K. and Oxley, M. “Computing Machinery and Intelligence Amplification,” Computational Intelligence, The Experts Speak (Chapter 3),” New Jersey: IEEE Press, /p13_turing_breakout.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.thetech.org/robotics/universal/breakout_ p13_turing.html&usg=__6bpeJsLNKV_XkzurPBm3h7nAZZg=&h=398&w=600&sz= 54&hl=en&start=48&itbs=1&tbnid=T4sJOvdlVD7k6M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&prev= /images%3Fq%3DAlan%2BTuring%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D42 Meaning Turing not Ox Static codes aren’t necessarily wicked but once the human mind is engaged and constantly changing the types of messages and thus the symbol implication = ‘wicked’
Estimating Intelligence Imitation Game – Turing Test Fogel, David B. Blondie24: Playing at the Edge of AI. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. September 2001 Predicted: after 5 minutes only 70% chance to correctly determine interactions with computer Turing, Alan M. "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind, 59 (1950), Estimating Intelligence/What Imitation game = Turing Test is a ‘wicked’ task – more to come on this idea but the essence is that the human mind that the interrogator is interacting with can continually change itself in a non-algorithmic manner – making the requirements that the interrogator is trying to decipher continually changing!
Code Breaking as an alignment issue Nazi Thoughts (qualia - symbols) German language instantiation (words - symbols) Enigma encoded symbols RF transmissions from sub To extract from the stimuli at any point of this set of sets and processes requires ‘knowledge’ of the symbol set and processes – requires ‘alignment’ with symbols/processes resident in the entity trying to extract – the goal is to extract the symbols and deduce their meaning to the transmitter of the symbols by ‘aligning’ with symbols resident in the extracting entity – so for example when some covert Allies entity captures the RF transmissions they have to use their knowledge of RF encoding/communication schemes used by the Nazi subs to be able to extract the symbols being transmitted by the sub – thus the meaning of the RF transmissions in the sense of which EM wave component is associated with a given symbol from the sub (meaning in this sense is what the RF transmission represented) (another example use of the word ‘Eins’ (one) – and its frequency of use in Naval messages). The result of application of this knowledge and some brute force application of potential other symbol alignment is a translation of the encoded message back into German language words The idea is that the Allied code breaker (human) has a thoughts – in their private qualia vocabulary This person has the desire to ‘understand’ the thoughts that the Nazi Submarine human is trying to communicate to another Nazi human in a command center (probably in terms of location, date, …) German language is the data into the Enigma encryption system agent! Midway example shows need for interaction
Imitation Game #‘aligning’ The interrogator has thoughts in its private mentalease = qualia Its job is to align its symbol set with those of the entity ‘A’ (man or computer) and ‘B’ (woman) --- that is to deduce the ‘meaning’ of the symbols being used by those entities to those entities and from that deduction determine which entity is the woman! Meaning of symbols being transmitted to the entity that is transmitting them is the Connection BETWEEN CODE BREAKING AND IMITATION GAME ! If the meaning is consistent with what I would expect of a woman … or of a trusted node! (Lacey = quest)
Mental Symbols and Representation Midway example shows need for interaction Mental symbols encode sensory experiences both real and imagined, forming the basis of a rich and complex system of communication. Such symbols can be kept to oneself or expressed to others as words or pictures. ‘Mentalease’ – language of thoughts Abstract thought permits contemplation of things beyond what we can see, hear, touch, taste or smell. What is unique about human intelligence? By Dr. Marc Hauser In Scientific American, September 2009 We would contend that ‘feeling’ is critical to ‘thinking’ – since we will define thinking as the generation, maintenance, and manipulation of mental symbols = qualia, and that is the language of ‘feelings ’ Turing solution: Would program feel? Does that belong on list? ‘alignment’ = KEY TO INTENT from activity! Don’t use physics based sensory data to represent experiences Allows representation of abstract thoughts to be ‘fuseable’
TWO WAY ALIGNMENT CAPTCHA Tie between the imitation game and code breaking – part of uniqueness of humanity is flexibility of our ability to align Thus malware detection is an exercise in code breaking – the essence of code breaking is deducing the meaning of the symbols to the entity that is transmitting them Animated Captchas Captcha security – a case study Yan et al Completely Automated Public Turing Tests to Tell Computers and Humans Apart (CAPTCHAs) # two way alignment captcha = quest
4. ‘Magic Bullet’ fallacy for cyber, Asymmetric war and cancer Nobel Laureate P. Ehrlich introduced the concept of # ‘magic bullet’ over 100 yrs ago (compounds to selectively target/kill tumor cells or disease causing organisms without negative impact on normal cells). Problems in # asymmetric war, cyber warfare or cancer are related – Is it reasonable to think that there exists some technological solution that will allow us to have a warfare ‘magic bullet’ in any of these wars? Even worse does the thought of a ‘magic bullet’ dominating our work cause us to not pursue technology avenues that would bring great value!
Metastasis – ‘magic bullet’ issue As a cancer tumor undergoes metastases it changes – and thus tumors and many diseases like Aids requires a cocktail of drugs – thus with our analogy to fighting a war against a foe like Al Qaeda you can imagine a country/countries like Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan is as complicated as a body and as new ‘cells’ metastasize they change – Ex) al Zarqawi the Prince of Iraq wasn’t following the dictates of Bin Laden et al – thus the strategy to fight those cells had to be different than the ones in Pakistan/Afghanistan BOTTOM LINE WE SHOULDN’T BE TALKING COUNTER INSURGENCY OR COUNTER TERRORISM – WE SHOULD BE TALKING ALL OF THE ABOVE – AS A COCKTAIL OF SOLUTIONS In Asymmetric Approaches in IW PETN detector – chasing the adaptable foe? Does NOT solve the airline security problem! Airline Security requirements as we state them will always be continually changing.
Telomerase analogy A pathologist, once remarked that when you do cytology on cancer cells the first thing that strikes you is how chaotic they look: like someone set off a bomb. In the billions of cells in any critter, that undoubtedly happens all the time, yet hardly any of the bombs in us turns into a killer because no matter what they can do, even in the matter of uncontrolled reproduction, unless their particular chaos includes starting up the telomerase gene, they rapidly senesce, and the malignant cell line dies out as their telomeres are lost That’s how nature solved the cancer problem: NO TELOMERASE FOR ANY CELLS EXCEPT FOR STEM CELLS AND GERM LINE CELLS. If that fails, and it does once in a while, you die. Fighting an immortal cancer cell line, which can make telomerase, is like jousting with chaos. Thus we have begun to realize that immortal cancer lines can at best be relegated to the statues of just a chronic, though ultimately fatal, disorder like ageing (see any life expectancy table.) Terrorist attacks and the intrinsic metast-abilty of terrorist organizations resemble the animal cancer system and its possible self defense strategies. But the fact is that animals are successful most of the time when cellular chaos occurs in some cell, only because of the telomerase time bomb built in to each cell. That is not the case in terrorist "tumors". So the analogy is that fighting terrorism will always be jousting with chaos, and history shows that this is what happens. The equivalent for a terrorist cell to the DNA is the ‘message’ – it is immortal – you can kill off the cell but the message still exists: The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it -- Omar KhayyamThe lymphatic system is the web -Omar Khayyam The red ends show regions of telomeres in a chromosome (structure in the cell nucleus containing DNA, histone & nonhistone proteins) Is there something in how body fights cancer that is useful in our ‘wicked’ fights? Suggest only hope we have is Information Warfare!
NY times article 29 dec 2009 December 29, 2009 FORTY YEARS' WAR Old Ideas Spur New Approaches in Cancer Fight – By GINA KOLATAGINA KOLATA Although seemed like a radical idea: Gene mutations are part of the process of cancer, but mutations alone are not enough. Cancer involves an interaction between rogue cells and surrounding tissue. As are all adaptable foes – the key is preventing the enabling of the ‘# normal population’ – in cyber or in Asymmetric war OR CANCER! Anbar Awakenings worked because of this realization
5. Layered Sensing challenge The system is initially expected to provide a main full-motion video and 12 pre-programmable sub-views. Air Force officials have previously said that their goal is to provide up to 30 sub-views in future generations of the sensor. "We are going to be swimming in sensors and drowning in data," Gen Deptula told reporters at a July 7 Pentagon briefing. (09) Processing this data requires abstraction to concepts - current approaches process the raw sensory data - How to map the # data to concepts? - How to do that in a general way without having to predefine in every detail (which results in loss of flexibility and robustness) – - Close the Loop! Query to sensing to hypothesis to new query Concept encoding is a wicked problem because the data is so variable and the sensors never exactly replicated – point being the specs are changing
Alternatives to solve problems Lots of people – even if we could resource the people they can’t handle the data flow (#50 bits/sec throughput) Autonomous computer solutions – after 50 years we have failed in automating conceptualization and processing in data space won’t work Answer: integrated human/computer provides a ‘wicked’ solution! => as per prior discussion integrated = ‘alignable’ Cyber, Automatic Target Recognition, Integrated Systems Health Monitoring, Nurse shift facilitator
QUEST There has been over half a century of effort into making intelligent computer programs. One example of such a program would be one that could understand the world that it is embedded in. BUT A GENERAL PURPOSE (one that can respond to the unexpected query in a variety of applications) RECOGNITION ABILITY DOES NOT EXIST except in nature QUEST is a unique approach to representation to provide the ability to anticipate, detect, distinguish and characterize entities in the real world via integrated human / machine exploitation. QUEST QUalia Exploitation of Sensor Technology – creating a cognitive exoskeleton Entities – IEDs, malware, suicide bombers, aging a/c and other ISHM, cancer, …. ‘wicked’ – incomplete, contradicting and changing information Don’t restrict problem down to ‘selected’ well defined targets and confusers and conops – be able to respond to the unexpected query – unintended reuse of representation. Conceptual Encoding QUEST is attacking the # DATA – CONCEPT GAP TO GAIN FLEXIBILITY AND ROBUSTNESS LOST WHEN PROCESS IN SENSORY SPACE To integrate we have to be able to align – requires replication of concept encoding Our very definition of what we want for QUEST is ‘wicked’ since it doesn’t imply there is a specifiable set it has to work over = ‘general purpose’ recognition ability – QUEST solutions have to be ‘wicked’ solns
To account for the ‘wicked’ nature of generating an internal representation of a changing world? Qualia = concepts What it is like to undergo an experience Why do you ‘feel’ pain? Individualized! Why do you ‘see’ red? # Color is in your head – light has NO COLOR! Do Martians see red? LSOC important Redness is wicked Subjective element of the experience: Qualia Theory of Relativity. Chords a great example – what you hear is evoked in your mind it isn’t just the notes! Headphones! Pheung – individualized basis #Pudding doesn’t have a taste until you eat it. ‘might acquire qualia in the process of being economically encoded or “prepared” into manageable chunks as they are delivered to a central executive structure higher up in the brain’ – Ramachandran – QUEST view chunks used for meta-representations for sensory and motor experiences. The goal is to build a world model that is consistent and useful not necessarily an accurate one in a physics sense. What ‘perception’ is subjectively acceptable?
QUEST Theory of Relativity Entity One Entity Two Physical World Autistic Representation Subjective World Model QUEST Representation Hue - physical attribute preferential reflects.7 um Hue - physical attribute preferential reflects.45 um Subjective Representation Entity One Subjective Representation of Entity Two Color quale link that captures the relative redness between these two entities captures relative saturation, intensity, hue – axes of experience We have spent all our traditional bandwidth on trying to faithfully capture the physical versus capturing a representation that can be ‘understood’ by a computer. Concept of transposition (singing in a different key or at twice the speed is irrelevant – still song). Absolute pitch – 1 in 10k Theory of binding – issue of crowding! Horn Theory - Red as a # concept! Red as a wavelength! LSOC Redness is ‘wicked’ since as I encode that concept it changes the requirement for ‘blueness’
Cartesean Theater For the purpose of this presentation I will define qualia as any discernible aspect of the illusory Cartesean theater = any aspect of your world model that you are aware of (meaning you know is part of, meaning you experience that aspect) as being part of that world model, the fact you can ‘see’ the redness of a car means that red attribute of your world model is a quale red – any sound you hear (the attributes of the sound that evoked JND aspects to them are each a quale at that moment) – any thought you have at that moment you are thinking it is in your world model as a thought in your mind so there is a quale of thought associated with it AND thoughts in fact are composed of qualia (the primitives of all thought) Thoughts Qualia associated with representation of the physical environment and to represent the thoughts you are having all in a stable, consistent and useful way Discernible meant to capture that there is a difference between one state and the alternative (blue versus brown) and the fact that aspects are introspectively available Discernible aspects can be used internally to ‘think’ or communicated via language to an aligned agent - ‘What is done by what is called myself is, I feel, done by something greater than myself in me’ – James Clerk Maxwell on his deathbed, 1879 (user illusion) Pretending to be in charge of things beyond its control – user illusion Although claims to be making decisions – it isn’t even there when the decision is made Qualia provide a language to capture the ‘wickedness’ inherent in everyday problems – everything is inter-dependent!
Can you function without Qualia? Real World Libet Soup, # Intuitive and autistic Qualia based Cartesean Theater Sensor Data Physical actions by the critter Physical reality Internal representation Note related to idea of Thalamo-cortical loop Access to memory via associative est of similarity, parallel processing, fast, (soccer pass), biases (priming) Logical analysis, generation and initiation of empiric test, Veto rights, controls communication, maintains thoughts Internally evoked via this link (thoughts) Externally evoked via Libet populated What do you lose without qualia? 11 mbits/sec 50 bits/sec throughput b/w of consciousness amazing code book vector capability! No conscious free will Pretending to be in charge of things beyond its control – user illusion Recent article ‘Custer in Cyberspace’ by Gompert and Kugler Required for Alignment!
Blindsight Navigation No buffer, no multiple alternate responses full reference - de Gelder et al. "Intact navigation skills after bilateral loss of striate cortex." Current Biology, Volume 18, Issue 24, 23 December 2008, Pages R1128-R1129 news article link - youtube video of him going down the hall -
QUEST Agent Stimuli Data Sensor(s) – (uses knowledge) LibetQualia context The agent can pass along aspects of its internal representation from both the Libet (intuition) or Qualia aspects of its representation? Generating impact on representation uses Knowledge also Part is introspectively available part is not = reflexive (also no buffering) Aq(s, Rq, Rl, k) Knowledge also has types Ks – sensor knowledge (this is what controls what stimuli that gets mapped to data) Kd – controls how data impacts the internal representation Kq – knowledge about other agents so the appropriate qualia are provided as output thus stimuli for other Agents Context is the stimuli available for this agent that are the outputs of other Agents, not just their currently active qualia but also their previously active qualia and their expected to be active qualia --- there has to be a Kc – a knowledge associated with how to process context into impacting this agent’s representation Possibly context could be the source of the ‘inference task’ – that determines what an Agent is trying to accomplish – for example ‘context’ could prompt an Agent to ‘perceive’ some aspect of its environment – thus the agent has to gather the appropriate data to update that aspect of its representation – once this is accomplished the Agent could communicate it out to become stimuli to another agent Do QUEST agents require a human? Do all ‘wicked’ problems require QUEST agent solutions ? Required for Alignment!
Within any given application area performance improvements will be demonstrated and insight into performance bounding will be generated. The ability to extend the solution to unexpected queries. Input is never considered without context (subjective representation of the situation) and only has value relative to prior, current or expected experiences (qualia) General purpose intelligence is possible with a representation optimized for exploitation versus fidelity with physical reality. Interaction with the environment is critical. MAIN ACHIEVEMENT: Ability to use both memory and knowledge to hierarchically represent instances to close the loop around the kill-chain, in a variety of applications, as relative concepts (qualia) and map them into plausible narratives (in context) and manipulate (reason) with that representation to create a stable, useful and consistent world model. HOW IT WORKS: Instead of only using exemplars, prototypes or models for representing concepts we also use subjective knowledge of the environment to populate the representation capturing the relative characteristics (qualia). QUEST solutions consist of a quale generating kernel and a set of processes to manipulate/reason with that representation. The representation is characterized by gists and links between the qualia. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS: Link based representation where the links have hierarchical relationships can represent any concept. There exists a universal kernel for extracting the qualia (concept representation). A qualia representation can represent itself within its world model. Computer aides are limited to well defined environments and only for single applications. Variations in application or location in kill-chain (AIFIT2EA4) require re- engineering the solution. Solutions are reflexive/‘autistic’, with no ability to learn concepts, adapt to operating conditions or bound performance Exploitation in a layered sensing environment Computation of ‘self’ and inclusion in world model. Introduction of a general Theory of Mind facilitating anticipation. What are the key new insights? (REPLACETHIS BOX AND INSERT DIAGRAM(S)) QUANTITATIVE IMPACT END-OF-PHASE GOAL STATUS QUO NEW INSIGHTS QUEST Cognitive Exoskeleton Qualia Exploitation of Sensor Technology An integrated human/computer solution with the ability to capture and understand concepts around the kill chain will offer a dramatic engineering advantage over current ‘autistic’ solutions. Note characteristics of QUEST solutions!
QUESTIONS? 1. Premise – computational intelligence abstraction tie together mini tracks (representations applicable to ‘wicked’ problems - OODA) 2. Define agents – data, information, knowledge and context – key to ‘representation’ 3. What Turing meant to say – ‘alignment’ key 4. Adaptable foe generalization for cross domain insight – cyber, asymmetric warfare, and cancer (adaptable -> wicked) 5. QUEST – QUalia Exploitation of Sensor Technology – general ‘solution’ approach to wicked problems Questions welcome as we go through the material or at the end ‘wicked’ problems we care about are often characterized by interaction between sentient agents When one of the interacting agents is continually modifying its representation to compensate for actions being taken against its goals (changing requirements)
QUEST: integrated human computer solutions for the 'wicked' problems we face Is It possible to Create a Computer That Feels? Creating a Cognitive Exoskeleton! Steve “Capt Amerika” Rogers, Ph.D., SES/ST Senior Scientist for ATR and Sensor Fusion Sensors and Information Directorates Air Force Research Laboratory Apr 2010 Profs Bauer, Oxley, Mendenhall – AFIT ATR Profs Raines, Mills, Baldwin, Kurkowski, Galloway, Okolica, Humphries, Borghetti – AFIT Cyber Matt Kabrisky, Adam Rogers - Quale LLC Drs. Wilson, Priddy, Williams, Perlovsky, and Wicker, Maj Weir, A. Bryant,M. McClure, G. Lukens, R. Malhotra– AFRL/RY Dr. Brian Tsou, Janet Peasant, Catherine Harrison, Dr. Laurie Fenstermacher – AFRL/RH Dr. R Linderman – AFRL/RI Pete Collins – AFIT EMAG Chuck Sadowski – ACC/A8 Hidden Units: Mark Derriso, Col Ryer, Tim Lacey, Maj Eyster, Capt Birrer, Cindy Krieger, Capt Dube