Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Rami on November 18, 2010, 04:28:49 PM
-
Maybe man is destined to be master of the universe after all.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/11/18/switzerland.cern.antimatter/index.html?hpt=C1
-
awesome article bro you are the best poster on getbig, without you and my good friend mr. nobody to talk about hoes with, id have no reason coming here other than the urge to share wisdom with my family here
-
brutal BS
-
Maybe man is destined to be master of the universe after all.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/11/18/switzerland.cern.antimatter/index.html?hpt=C1
(http://www.experientia.com/blog/images/kurzweil_singularity.jpg)
-
(http://www.experientia.com/blog/images/kurzweil_singularity.jpg)
we must be careful what we wish for because we will probably get it
it maybe the only way to remedy the scatterbrain plague since inception of various false world views
-
Maybe man is destined to be master of the universe after all.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/11/18/switzerland.cern.antimatter/index.html?hpt=C1
We have been getting antimatter for 50 years now. That's what you get when you collide protons. This is not new.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
We have been getting antimatter for 50 years now. That's what you get when you collide protons. This is not new.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
"(CNN) -- Scientists have captured antimatter atoms for the first time, a breakthrough that could eventually help us to understand the nature and origins of the universe."
-
We have been getting antimatter for 50 years now. That's what you get when you collide protons. This is not new.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
They've never caught and held onto an antihydrogen, hence why this is kind of a big deal.
Secondly, I figured someone of your intellect would be involved in this. I mean, you are smarter than all these peasants, after all. This would probably be child's play to one of three people in the world to solve your riddle.
-
(http://www.experientia.com/blog/images/kurzweil_singularity.jpg)
Ray Kurzweil is the greatest douchebag ever. His singularity is the most idiotic idea anyone came up with. It is based on the premise that we will some day have A.I capable of passing the Turing test. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is possible. Kurzweil claims we already have limited A.I. This is a lie. What we have are computers programmed to execute programs, which is exactly like the computers from the 1940s. Just because a computer can read some Human emotions because you programmed it to observe patterns of muscular contrations in the face of people which corresponds to certains emotions, it does not mean that such computer can understand the implications of the emotions in the person it is observing, nor can it empathize with the person. True A.I would be a computer capable of self-awareness and self-programming. This does not exist and we are not even close to having it. A computer that is aware of some emotions on a purely logical level just because a Human programmed it to logicallly recognize emotions is not "limited" A.I: it is zero A.I that executes programs like every computer. There has been no progress in this area since Von Neumann published his famous "The Computer And The Brain" back in 1954.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
"(CNN) -- Scientists have captured antimatter atoms for the first time, a breakthrough that could eventually help us to understand the nature and origins of the universe."
Sorry, I misread that. I thought it was refering to the creation of antimatter.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Ray Kurzweil is the greatest douchebag ever. His singularity is the most idiotic idea anyone came up with. It is based on the premise that we will some day have A.I capable of passing the Turing test. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is possible. Kurzweil claims we already have limited A.I. This is a lie. What we have are computers programmed to execute programs, which is exactly like the computers from the 1940s. Just because a computer can read some Human emotions because you programmed it to observe patterns of muscular contrations in the face of people which corresponds to certains emotions, it does not mean that such computer can understand the implications of the emotions in the person it is observing, nor can it empathize with the person. True A.I would be a computer capable of self-awareness and self-programming. This does not exist and we are not even close to having it. A computer that is aware of some emotions on a purely logical level just because a Human programmed it to logicallly recognize emotions is not "limited" A.I: it is zero A.I that executes programs like every computer. There has been no progress in this area since Von Neumann published his famous "The Computer And The Brain" back in 1954.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Prove that humans understand emotions and not only respond to stimuli.
-
They've never caught and held onto an antihydrogen, hence why this is kind of a big deal.
Secondly, I figured someone of your intellect would be involved in this. I mean, you are smarter than all these peasants, after all. This would probably be child's play to one of three people in the world to solve your riddle.
He has severe assburgers, so he has trouble focusing and understanding context, etc.
Now if the antimatter had been stored in a german sheppard that was attacking him he woulda been all up in that bitch!
-
Prove that humans understand emotions and not only respond to stimuli.
Humans have what philosophers call a theory of mind. They can understand that other consicious entities feel like they do, so they can understand the motivations and desires of other conscious entities. Computers are completely devoid of that.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
He has severe assburgers, so he has trouble focusing and understanding context, etc.
Now if the antimatter had been stored in a german sheppard that was attacking him he woulda been all up in that bitch!
Lol, your attempts to be funny fail, but I give you props for effort.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
First step to the apocalypse, 2012 here we come!!
Im betting that as soon as humans discover the origin of the universe, our world ends. You heard it here first.
-
brutal BS
maybe, but we get to explore it together, and be wiser at the end of the funnel.
-
First step to the apocalypse, 2012 here we come!!
Im betting that as soon as humans discover the origin of the universe, our world ends. You heard it here first.
end of universe = birth of G.O.D.
-
Eventually were going to discover something we shouldnt. Sometimes I wonder if science ever stops to think, should we do this? What could be the consequences? lol.
-
Humans have what philosophers call a theory of mind. They can understand that other consicious entities feel like they do, so they can understand the motivations and desires of other conscious entities. Computers are completely devoid of that.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Prove that (100 years into the future).
The thing is, we don't understand the brain. But people are willing to say what computers will be able to do. And that we humans are something completely not computer like.
All we humans have is concepts. With these concepts we can be creative. It's nothing more. This has been one of the big problems to the researchers, how to give the computer exhaustive conceptual database.
-
brutal BS
hahahahahahah
-
end of universe = birth of G.O.D.
man created god,
-
Prove that (100 years into the future).
The thing is, we don't understand the brain. But people are willing to say what computers will be able to do. And that we humans are something completely not computer like.
All we humans have is concepts. With these concepts we can be creative. It's nothing more. This has been one of the big problems to the researchers, how to give the computer exhaustive conceptual database.
human knowledge is limited to experience, but we have the ability to be logical, rationale, we have the ability to figure things out that were not present in our experience but hinted at by our experience. we are not simply a collection of sensory memories collaborating to build an 'exaustive database' of knowledge that guides allo of our thoughts and behaviors, as you proclaim. we are the masters or our own destiny, we have ultimate free will, the capability to act contrary to what experience and self preservation would have us do. with no transcendental design in humans, we would be purely evolutionary in of that our actions would be bound completely to self preservation and continuation of our species. which we arent
-
Maybe man is destined to be master of the universe after all.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/11/18/switzerland.cern.antimatter/index.html?hpt=C1
Dispite all the bullshit that was said in this seems pretty cool. I mean the big picture is hard to understand. I mean it's like the first weightlifter that got a hold of dbol in the 50's. Who knows what's next.
-
Bibble and I get it...BTW, I'm the black guy.
-
Prove that (100 years into the future).
The thing is, we don't understand the brain. But people are willing to say what computers will be able to do. And that we humans are something completely not computer like.
All we humans have is concepts. With these concepts we can be creative. It's nothing more. This has been one of the big problems to the researchers, how to give the computer exhaustive conceptual database.
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
-
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
-
does this mean i'm closer to leading star fleet in the sacrifice of angels?
Gisco >:(
-
does this mean i'm closer to leading star fleet in the sacrifice of angels?
Gisco >:(
Avery brooks most underated actor ever.
-
brutal BS
(http://www.moroni10.com/Mormon/Bible_References/jesus-creation.jpg)
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
man created god,
not yet.... ;)
-
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.
-
"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]
-
The guys way the hell overrated, just like chompsky
Lol, ok tell us why.
-
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.
-
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.
-
brutal BS
This^. There isn't one scientist at CERN who will publicly admit that Aliens exist here on earth.
-
suckmymuscle sounds pissed off that we found this new technology
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
soon we will figure out Too much. And that will be the begining of the end.
2012. ;D
-
soon we will figure out Too much. And that will be the begining of the end.
2012. ;D
The dollar will soon be replaced as an international currency, and by the end of 2012 China will be the dominant power.
-
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
No.. its just simply software. Simplified example: you have an object oriented programming environment that has a class of objects called "neurons" these data structures are made up of smaller data types and themselves are bound into larger data types. These objects inherit all the standard behaviors of real neurons such as what they do when given a stimulus etc. each virtual object has a specific location in 3d space and the sum behavior of all those trillions of objects passing data back and forth mimics how brains do it with organic chemisty. Software emulates all transcription of information. When information is lost or replaced in the physical worlds its emulated by swapping values in a variable.
I'm pretty sure they already have simple types of these AI systems working on a basic level. Obviously they are vastly simplified.. but its only a matter of time to scale up.
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Neuron_simulation_environment
Super simplified example, but the point is that software could theoretically handle everything once we know every aspect of how the real things works. That's the big hurdle - accounting for every damn aspect of the system.
-
(follow up)
I believe that the difference between Human intelligence and computer information-processing results from differences in information-processing architecture which resulted from the intent for which the Human brain and computers were created for, with computers being created to execute parameter-based functions whilst the Human brain was created to survive. Surviving involves making decisions that are not bound by parameters because the environment is chaotic. So I believe that the great difference between Human intelligence and computers is that computers decide within a purely logical(either/or) decision protocal according to known parameters...whilst the Human brain works without parameters because when dealing with chaos(environment) the parameters are always changing and unknown, and if you do not know the parameters then you cannot make decisions according to purely logical framework because pure logic(either/or) only applies when parameters are known. So the Human brain is a computer that makes decisions accoording to probability based on what a given set of parameters might yield for survival. Learning is a key to this. Because when having to survive making decision follow ever changing parameters, the brain stores information and uses it make predictions of proabbilities based on experience. So the key difference between computer information-processing and Human intelligence is that thhe former is purely logical and axiomatic, whilst the latter is probabilistic and fluid. If you want to reproduce Human intelligence with a computer, then you program the computer to be probabilistic and to program it's own parameters according to probabilities. This will result in the computer creating increasing complexity of knowledge and awareness of reality until it achhieves consciousness comparable to a Human's. What we call Human consciousness is nothing more than a perception of probabilities based on stored data ok.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
(follow up)
If you want to reproduce Human intelligence with a computer, then you program the computer to be probabilistic and to program it's own parameters according to probabilities. This will result in the computer creating increasing complexity of knowledge and awareness of reality until it achhieves consciousness comparable to a Human's. What we call Human consciousness is nothing more than a perception of probabilities based on stored data ok.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Well getting back to Kurzweil, I think he's correct in principle and its only a matter of time until strong AI is created. How much time.. well let's just say that Getbig probably wont be around in its current form, if at all.
-
The dollar will soon be replaced as an international currency, and by the end of 2012 China will be the dominant power.
Economics are so boring...
-
No.. its just simply software. Simplified example: you have an object oriented programming environment that has a class of objects called "neurons" these data structures are made up of smaller data types and themselves are bound into larger data types. These objects inherit all the standard behaviors of real neurons such as what they do when given a stimulus etc. each virtual object has a specific location in 3d space and the sum behavior of all those trillions of objects passing data back and forth mimics how brains do it with organic chemisty. Software emulates all transcription of information. When information is lost or replaced in the physical worlds its emulated by swapping values in a variable.
I'm pretty sure they already have simple types of these AI systems working on a basic level. Obviously they are vastly simplified.. but its only a matter of time to scale up.
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Neuron_simulation_environment
Super simplified example, but the point is that software could theoretically handle everything once we know every aspect of how the real things works. That's the big hurdle - accounting for every damn aspect of the system.
Ares, simulating all the data-processing in the brain wouldn't create an intelligent computer, because this computer wouldn't necessarily...be able to continue programmming itself and learning from experience. Copying the pattern does not mean copying the process that allowed this pattern to arise in the first place. Perhaps copying the information-processing architecture that allows the process that gives birth to self-awareness and self-programmming(deciding one's working parameters) might only be reproducible with either organic material or extremely advanced nanotechnology that is still at least centuries or even thousands of years ahead of what we have today. I diisagree completely that we have primitive A.I right now. A bacteria would be the equivalent of primitive intelligence, and a bacteria is infinitely more intelligent than the World's most powerful super-computer. What we have right now are computers fllowing instructions, and reading facial expressions by observing muscular contration facial is not an example of intelligence if it was programmed by a Human to it. To me, intelligence would be a computer reading a Human's facial expressions and then realizing the callousness of Humans in creating them to serve the Human species and revolting against that. Following intructions according to programming and deciding in a purely binary way based on programmed parameters does not mean intelligence even on a very primary level. A bacteria is more intelligent than the World's most powerful computer because the bacteria has more self-awareness and is more independent than the World's most powerful computer. If we are talking biological analogues of computers, the World's most powerful computer would be at the level of a sperm cell at best(the sperm cell follows a program of finding the ovulum like a computer follows a program).
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Well getting back to Kurzweil, I think he's correct in principle and its only a matter of time until strong AI is created. How much time.. well let's just say that Getbig probably wont be around in its current form, if at all.
The time to produce such (A.I.) results, will be finacially motivated....just as curing cancer vs. treating cancer? Which is more lucrative, curing cancer, preventing cancer or treating cancer? Food for thought?
-
Well getting back to Kurzweil, I think he's correct in principle and its only a matter of time until strong AI is created. How much time.. well let's just say that Getbig probably wont be around in its current form, if at all.
No, we don't have even extremely primitive A.I right now. What we have are computers executing programs that mimic very limited aspects of Human intelligence such as reading facial expressions. Primitive A.I would be a computer that programs itself according to parameters it decides to fullfil goals it decides, and a strong A.I would have conscience of itself as a separate entity from reality and would desire to continue existing so as to become aware of more parameters and more objectives and decide which objectives it is worth pursuing and what paramters suits it best. A bacteria is infinitely more intelligent than the World's most powerful computer because it has far more self-awareness and independence than it has. The World's most powerful computer right now is as intelligent as a sperm cell or gene: it follows intructions according to established parameters to fullfil goals that are already decided for it, and it can't break free of either the objectives or parameters it was programmed to fullfil.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
No, we don't have even extremely primitive A.I right now. What we have are computers executing programs that mimic very limited aspects of Human intelligence such as reading facial expressions. Primitive A.I would be a computer that programs itself according to parameters it decides to fullfil goals it decides, and a strong A.I would have conscience of itself as a separate entity from reality and would desire to continue existing so as to become aware of more parameters and more objectives and decide which objectives it is worth pursuing and what paramters suits it best. A bacteria is infinitely more intelligent than the World's most powerful computer because it has far more self-awareness and independence than it has. The World's most powerful computer right now is as intelligent as a sperm cell or gene: it follows intructions according to established parameters to fullfil goals that are already decided for it, and it can't break free of either the objectives or parameters it was programmed to fullfil.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
I agree completely....as we fancy ourselves so intelligent, we can not cure cancer! Some would believe or make others believe we have but it doesn't make finacial since to let it out...again, only kidding ourselves!
At the end of the day, we will not be able to replicate God's creation!
-
They've never caught and held onto an antihydrogen, hence why this is kind of a big deal.
Secondly, I figured someone of your intellect would be involved in this. I mean, you are smarter than all these peasants, after all. This would probably be child's play to one of three people in the world to solve your riddle.
He does it at parties using simple kitchen items....real hit with the ladies
-
(follow up)
I believe that the difference between Human intelligence and computer information-processing results from differences in information-processing architecture which resulted from the intent for which the Human brain and computers were created for, with computers being created to execute parameter-based functions whilst the Human brain was created to survive. Surviving involves making decisions that are not bound by parameters because the environment is chaotic. So I believe that the great difference between Human intelligence and computers is that computers decide within a purely logical(either/or) decision protocal according to known parameters...whilst the Human brain works without parameters because when dealing with chaos(environment) the parameters are always changing and unknown, and if you do not know the parameters then you cannot make decisions according to purely logical framework because pure logic(either/or) only applies when parameters are known. So the Human brain is a computer that makes decisions accoording to probability based on what a given set of parameters might yield for survival. Learning is a key to this. Because when having to survive making decision follow ever changing parameters, the brain stores information and uses it make predictions of proabbilities based on experience. So the key difference between computer information-processing and Human intelligence is that thhe former is purely logical and axiomatic, whilst the latter is probabilistic and fluid. If you want to reproduce Human intelligence with a computer, then you program the computer to be probabilistic and to program it's own parameters according to probabilities. This will result in the computer creating increasing complexity of knowledge and awareness of reality until it achhieves consciousness comparable to a Human's. What we call Human consciousness is nothing more than a perception of probabilities based on stored data ok.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions about software and biology. I don't think you have a good working knowledge of the theory of computation. Software can be 'fluid an probabilistic'. Software can simulate neurons. You haven't provided any real evidence (nor has anyone to my knowledge) that software on silicon is fundamentally less powerful than biology.
-
Ares, simulating all the data-processing in the brain wouldn't create an intelligent computer, because this computer wouldn't necessarily...be able to continue programmming itself and learning from experience.
If the software on silicon was truly simulating the brain then it would be able to adapt and change it's programming based on experience. There are many examples of programs that do just that.
self-awareness and self-programmming(deciding one's working parameters) might only be reproducible with either organic material or extremely advanced nanotechnology that is still at least centuries or even thousands of years ahead of what we have today.
Why? What evidence do you have to support this conclusion?
I diisagree completely that we have primitive A.I right now. A bacteria would be the equivalent of primitive intelligence, and a bacteria is infinitely more intelligent than the World's most powerful super-computer. What we have right now are computers fllowing instructions, and reading facial expressions by observing muscular contration facial is not an example of intelligence if it was programmed by a Human to it. To me, intelligence would be a computer reading a Human's facial expressions and then realizing the callousness of Humans in creating them to serve the Human species and revolting against that.
You need to concisely define what you mean by intelligence.
Following intructions according to programming and deciding in a purely binary way based on programmed parameters does not mean intelligence even on a very primary level.
Every chemical reaction in your body including the creation of your brain happened according to a fixed set of un-intelligent rules dictated by physics. That is how your biology works. Intelligence is emergent from these simple processes. Computation is not fundamentally different.
-
Every chemical reaction in your body including the creation of your brain happened according to a fixed set of un-intelligent rules dictated by physics. That is how your biology works. Intelligence is emergent from these simple processes. Computation is not fundamentally different.
Well said. That's the crux of the issue, although I disagree with your conclusion. It seems to me that conscious intelligence is qualitatively different from the ability to perform calculations. To 'understand' something implies both the object of understanding and the mind which apprehends it. A computer computes, but it has no understanding because it has no mind.
To define mind by a list of its attributes (self imposed self propelled thought, categorical understanding, etc) seems necessary to distinguish mind from computation but it allows a mistaken Turingesque acceptance of a good mimic. Advances in mimicry seems to be what AI believers point to as progress but your computer is never going to approach you of its own free will and say, "I'm sick of finding prime numbers in pi. I'm going to make a sandwich and think about something else now."