And so it happens! Scientists capture antimatter atoms at CERN

[Lundgren]

  Dude, where have I claimed that 100 years into the future computers won't be able to mimic Human intelligence? I said that up to now we are at the same level we were in the 1950s and there is no evidence that this will inevitably happen in the future. It might never happen. That is what I'm saying.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

The guy is just another one these jews that gets published without merit, and has more to do with his connections. The guys way the hell overrated, just like chompsky

[G_Thang]

does this mean i'm closer to leading star fleet in the sacrifice of angels?

Gisco 

[Lundgren]

does this mean i'm closer to leading star fleet in the sacrifice of angels?

Gisco 

Avery brooks most underated actor ever.

[StickStickly]

brutal BS

[Rami]

does this mean i'm closer to leading star fleet in the sacrifice of angels?

Gisco 

"Antimatter Breakthrough Could Lead to Starships, Says Scientist"

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372994,00.asp



But I'm pretty sure you can do this now in EVE Online!

[suckmymuscle]

The guy is just another one these jews that gets published without merit, and has more to do with his connections. The guys way the hell overrated, just like chompsky

  Yeah, his entire idea behind the "singularity" is that computers have been growing in computing power exponentially for the past 60 years. He tries to argue that this somehow will translate into computers that will be more intelligent than Humans. Where his theory fails is that computers increasing in computing power does not make them more intelligent, but merely faster. Despite the enormous increase in speed and memory, computers from today are the same as those of the 1950s in the sense that all they do is follow a program. And just because you program the computer to read facial expressions or perceive double meaning in expressions(sarcasm) it does not make the computer intelligent but simply a machine that executes a program following intructions. Same as the 1950s.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Lundgren]

  Yeah, his entire idea behind the "singularity" is that computers have been growing in computing power exponentially for the past 60 years. He tries to argue that this somehow will translate into computers that will be more intelligent than Humans. Where his theory fails is that computers increasing in computing power does not make them more intelligent, but merely faster. Despite the enormous increase in speed and memory, computers from today are the same as those of the 1950s in the sense that all they do is follow a program. And just because you program the computer to read facial expressions or perceive double meaning in expressions(sarcasm) it does not make the computer intelligent but simply a machine that executes a program following intructions. Same as the 1950s.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Very simliar to the theory that bodybuilders will weight about 6000 pounds by the year 3000, again this guy would just be another nut if it weren't for his religion. But I guess I must be a antisemite for inabilty to accept that some people are really good at getting publishing/producing rights without merit.

[#1 Klaus fan]

 Dude, where have I claimed that 100 years into the future computers won't be able to mimic Human intelligence? I said that up to now we are at the same level we were in the 1950s and there is no evidence that this will inevitably happen in the future. It might never happen. That is what I'm saying.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

I read too much between the lines there.

[#1 Klaus fan]

 Yeah, his entire idea behind the "singularity" is that computers have been growing in computing power exponentially for the past 60 years. He tries to argue that this somehow will translate into computers that will be more intelligent than Humans. Where his theory fails is that computers increasing in computing power does not make them more intelligent, but merely faster. Despite the enormous increase in speed and memory, computers from today are the same as those of the 1950s in the sense that all they do is follow a program. And just because you program the computer to read facial expressions or perceive double meaning in expressions(sarcasm) it does not make the computer intelligent but simply a machine that executes a program following intructions. Same as the 1950s.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Actually I have never seen him say that ("He tries to argue that this somehow will translate into computers that will be more intelligent than Humans."). He uses brain scanning as his strongest argument for future AI. That the most logical way is to mimic the most intelligent thing we know, our own brain. Neural networks might be the future of computing.

The need of raw calculation power should never be underestimated. AI researchers did that in the 70's. They had hopes of human like AI when the technology just wasn't there. And we still don't have it (hardware), except maybe in some of the strongest supercomputers, if that.

Even if he have computers that can do 10^15 calculations per second, that is still awfully limiting. Weather modeling only extends to 5-7 days. Who knows what could happen if a computer could do 10^100. Maybe then we could use some kind of efficient genetic algorithm sort of like "here are the building blocks, assemble them and make yourself better" and the procedure would go on and on.

[Master Blaster]

man created god,

not yet.... 

[Tapeworm]

Actually I have never seen him say that ("He tries to argue that this somehow will translate into computers that will be more intelligent than Humans."). He uses brain scanning as his strongest argument for future AI. That the most logical way is to mimic the most intelligent thing we know, our own brain. Neural networks might be the future of computing.

The need of raw calculation power should never be underestimated. AI researchers did that in the 70's. They had hopes of human like AI when the technology just wasn't there. And we still don't have it (hardware), except maybe in some of the strongest supercomputers, if that.

Even if he have computers that can do 10^15 calculations per second, that is still awfully limiting. Weather modeling only extends to 5-7 days. Who knows what could happen if a computer could do 10^100. Maybe then we could use some kind of efficient genetic algorithm sort of like "here are the building blocks, assemble them and make yourself better" and the procedure would go on and on.

I'm not sure the computer will ever grasp the concept of 'yourself' no matter how many calculations it can perform per second.  My computer can far outperform me as it is but the quality of consciousness eludes it.

[G_Thang]

"Antimatter Breakthrough Could Lead to Starships, Says Scientist"

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372994,00.asp



But I'm pretty sure you can do this now in EVE Online!

Do I get a Space Girl Sidekick?

[/youtube]

[Tapeworm]

The guys way the hell overrated, just like chompsky

Lol, ok tell us why.

[#1 Klaus fan]

I'm not sure the computer will ever grasp the concept of 'yourself' no matter how many calculations it can perform per second.  My computer can far outperform me as it is but the quality of consciousness eludes it.

The "yourself" would be a simple task that it would try to excel in. In this example, the task would define our little computer. 

I don't know if this stuff could work, but I'm thinking it along the lines of if you could reassemble letters long enough (or fast enough) you could get Hamlet.

[Tapeworm]

The "yourself" would be a simple task that it would try to excel in. In this example, the task would define our little computer. 

I don't know if this stuff could work, but I'm thinking it along the lines of if you could reassemble letters long enough (or fast enough) you could get Hamlet.

I reckon that even if it had Hamlet, it wouldn't understand it.  This is similar to Searle's Chinese Room.  I don't know the counterarguments but he makes a pretty convincing case.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

brutal BS

This^. There isn't one scientist at CERN who will publicly admit that Aliens exist here on earth.

[Marty Champions]

suckmymuscle sounds pissed off that we found this new technology

[Dr.Ill]

This is not new technology, it is just the first to deal with atoms at that level.

We have been manipulating elements for years, we have been treating cancer with different elements for over 100 years now.

Over the last several years, proton therapy has been becoming more incresed as the control you have of treating children, there is no exit dose and more control to normal tissue.  There is a new machine out that we can actually treat cancer around the spinal cord with photons(the radiation released when the electron is kicked out of the outer shell) to double the doses we have been able to use a decade ago, due to the control of these elements.

 

 

[suckmymuscle]

Actually I have never seen him say that ("He tries to argue that this somehow will translate into computers that will be more intelligent than Humans."). He uses brain scanning as his strongest argument for future AI. That the most logical way is to mimic the most intelligent thing we know, our own brain. Neural networks might be the future of computing.

The need of raw calculation power should never be underestimated. AI researchers did that in the 70's. They had hopes of human like AI when the technology just wasn't there. And we still don't have it (hardware), except maybe in some of the strongest supercomputers, if that.

Even if he have computers that can do 10^15 calculations per second, that is still awfully limiting. Weather modeling only extends to 5-7 days. Who knows what could happen if a computer could do 10^100. Maybe then we could use some kind of efficient genetic algorithm sort of like "here are the building blocks, assemble them and make yourself better" and the procedure would go on and on.

  Kurzweil does try to argue that computers will eventually devour us because they are becoming faster and more powerful. That is, in essence, the crux of his argument. He said in one of his symposiums that "imagine having something that is twice as intelligent or a million times more intelligent than you turn against you" trying to point out the dangers of A.I. His entire theory collapses when you realize that there is no evidence that computers can become self-aware and that there has been no progress in this area since the 1940s. Without this you end up not with computers that are a trillion times more intelligent than Humans, but merely computers that are a trillion times faster than a Human at doing chores following a program. Kurzweil's entire hypothesis hinges on the premise that simulating the Human brain will be possible and then computers will increase in intelligence exponentially just let they do in speed and memory capacity eventually far surpassing us. There is no evidence that Human intelligence can be simulated by silicon modules and increasing the speed of computers does not make them more intelligent but simply faster. When you realize the purely speculative and completely unproven nature of his first premise and the faultiness of his second one, his entire theory collapses.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Ares]

There is no evidence that Human intelligence can be simulated by silicon modules and increasing the speed of computers does not make them more intelligent but simply faster. When you realize the purely speculative and completely unproven nature of his first premise and the faultiness of his second one, his entire theory collapses.
SUCKMYMUSCLE

But we are not made of magic - we are made of matter and atoms just like everything else.  At some point we will be able to recreate  - either physically or virtually - every facet and property of the matter and structures that composes our brains.  At that point there will be no effective difference between us and AI. Except that digital methods can run trillions of time faster than biological ones due to time limitations of organic chemical reactions.

At what date that happens, one cannot say. To totally dismiss Kurzweil is silly. You can criticize him for being way off on his projected timeline or underestimating the difficulty. But to say it flat out cant happen is as misguided as it is to say it will happen exactly  in the year XXX.

Personally I love Kurzweil in the same way I love Rich Dad/Poor Dad guy Robert Kiyosaki  - They combine a lot of of self-promotion along with a little bit of interesting content. But its content that many people never even consider (ie the notion of exponential change and the idea that passive income is the way to true wealth) They both give people a bit of hope about a better future in a seriously fucked up and often depressing world. As long as you don't take it too far in falling for their cult of personality its fine

[suckmymuscle]

But we are not made of magic - we are made of matter and atoms just like everything else.  At some point we will be able to recreate  - either physically or virtually - every facet and property of the matter that composes our brains.  At that point there will be no effective difference between us and AI. Except that digital methods can run trillions of time faster than biological ones due to time limitations of organic chemical reactions.

At what date that happens, one cannot not say. To totally dismiss Kurzweil is wrong. You can criticize him for being way off on his projected timeline or underestimating the difficulty. But to say it flat out cant happen is as misguided as it is to say it will happen exactly  in the year XXX.

Personally I love Kurzweil in the same way I love Rich Dad/Poor Dad guy Robert Kiyosaki  - They combine a lot of of self-promotion along with a little bit of interesting content. But its content that many people never even consider (ie the notion of exponential change and the idea that passive income is the way to true wealth) They both give people a bit of hope about a better future in a seriously fucked up and often depressing world. As long as you don't take it too far in falling for their cult of personality its fine

  If you read through my posts, you'd see that I said that "there is no evidence that Human intelligence is reproducible with silicon nodes". I never said that Human intelligence is not reproducible in any way shape or form. If you want "strong A.I", then why not just cultivate 100 quatriillion Human cortical neurons in vitro and make them connect? That would be Human intelligence except a million times more powerful. A much simpler way of creating A.I than trying to understand what is the true difference between the information that neurons fire and silicon chips fire that allows Humans to be self-aware and capable of self-programmming(intelligence) whilst silicon chips can only fire pre-programmed information.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Ares]

 If you read through my posts, you'd see that I said that "there is no evidence that Human intelligence is reproducible with silicon nodes". I never said that Human intelligence is not reproducible in any way shape or form. If you want "strong A.I", then why not just cultivate 100 quatriillion Human cortical neurons in vitro and make them connect? That would be Human intelligence except a million times more powerful. A much simpler way of creating A.I than trying to understand what is the true difference between the information that neurons fire and silicon chips fire that allows Humans to be self-aware and capable of self-programmming(intelligence) whilst silicon chips can only fire pre-programmed information.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Well as far as I know Kurzweil never said it HAS to be a specific technology ( ie it MUST be silicon nodes as we use them today) - only that the end result will eventually happen. In fact Kurzweil generally avoids making specific predictions of specific technologies because he's more about the general process and milestones than the exact way things are achieved.


Of course ultra-powerful computers increasing exponentially will help that process along the way whatever it happens to be.  And I don't see why once you know the atomic composition of every atom in a brain you can't simulate it based on laws of physics. It's just that right now we don't have the ability or knowledge to simulate every aspect of neuron interaction. AT some point I think they will be able to digitally simulate an insect brain, then a frog, then cat etc all the way up to people.  The physical process involved in thinking wont be the same, but the end result will the same "real" thought and creativity equal to, and then better than, human.

[suckmymuscle]

Well as far as I know Kurzweil never said it HAS to be a specific technology ( ie it MUST be silicon nodes as we use them today) - only that the end result will eventually happen. In fact Kurzweil generally avoids making specific predictions of specific technologies because he's more about the general process and milestones than the exact way things are achieved.


Of course ultra-powerful computers increasing exponentially will help that process along the way whatever it happens to be.  And I don't see why once you know the atomic composition of every atom in a brain you can't simulate it based on laws of physics. It's just that right now we don't have the ability or knowledge to simulate every aspect of neuron interaction. AT some point I think they will be able to digitally simulate an insect brain, then a frog, then cat etc all the way up to people.  The physical process involved in thinking wont be the same, but the end result will the same "real" thought and creativity equal to, and then better than, human.

  Like I said, if you want powerful A.I right now, you can have it by simply cultivating trillions of Human cortical neurons in vitro. As for reproducing the nature of Human intelligence by reproducing all the atoms of a brain, well, it might be that intelligence can only be reproduced biologically. Imagine that a key component of intelligence is the ability to reprogram itself, and that for that to happen you need to destroy information bearing pathways and build new ones. Neurons do this by destroying dendrites and building new ones. How will a silicon based computer accomplish that? You would need to install tiny factories inside it that could sever the silicon pathways and build new ones. And this doesen't solve the problem of what exactly it is that makes neurons being capable of self-programmming(deciding the paramaters it wants to work with) whilst computers merely follow a program(established parameters); this simply explains the mechanism that allows this self-programming.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[spinnis]

soon we will figure out Too much. And that will be the begining of the end.

2012. 

[freespirit]

soon we will figure out Too much. And that will be the begining of the end.

2012. 

The dollar will soon be replaced as an international currency, and by the end of 2012 China will be the dominant power.