Will SP's be extinct...
- Thread starter toughb
- Start date
Been there...
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=195048
...done that. Have the t-shirt, sold the movie rights....
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=195048
...done that. Have the t-shirt, sold the movie rights....
We do not even understand the nature of our own intelligence how on earth are we going to make an artificial one?
The best we have is neural networks, and that has been around for a few decades. Neural networks is not as cool as it sounds, it takes such a long time to train a neural network for a simple task, as you add in more variables the work involved becomes exponentially more.
I do not think we are anywhere close, just throwing computational power at the problem is not the answer.
AI might be something that will never happen even with all the time and money in the world.
Beating kasparov at chess is not AI, it is just plain vanilla programming with loads of computational power.
The best we have is neural networks, and that has been around for a few decades. Neural networks is not as cool as it sounds, it takes such a long time to train a neural network for a simple task, as you add in more variables the work involved becomes exponentially more.
I do not think we are anywhere close, just throwing computational power at the problem is not the answer.
AI might be something that will never happen even with all the time and money in the world.
Beating kasparov at chess is not AI, it is just plain vanilla programming with loads of computational power.
AI, or illusion?
I agree that Big Blue was just raw computing power without any real intelligence. Kasporov, and others, noticed that the moves made by the machine lacked something. The moves, although clever and successful, did not seem creative or inspired.
In theory, Big Blue could be recreated using plumbing and levers rather than circuits. The resulting machine might be the size of a continent and take hours or days to make a move, but it could be done in theory and would still play world class chess. But, I don't believe anyone would be quite so impressed. Size matters; the smaller, the smarter.
Will we ever understand our own intelligence? Good question. But is it necessary for humankind to understand itself in order for it to create something that transcends humanity? It's tempting to say Yes, but millions of years of dumb evolution gave rise to humanity. Humanity could be just as dumb and give rise to something smarter; perhaps by accident. Which prompts the question, could mankind accidentally create an entity more intelligent than humans and NOT KNOW that the entity was created?
Hm. I think I heard of this before. First there was man ... and then there was woman. And it was a woman who picked from the tree of knowledge. And men have been playing it down ever since.
I agree that Big Blue was just raw computing power without any real intelligence. Kasporov, and others, noticed that the moves made by the machine lacked something. The moves, although clever and successful, did not seem creative or inspired.
In theory, Big Blue could be recreated using plumbing and levers rather than circuits. The resulting machine might be the size of a continent and take hours or days to make a move, but it could be done in theory and would still play world class chess. But, I don't believe anyone would be quite so impressed. Size matters; the smaller, the smarter.
Will we ever understand our own intelligence? Good question. But is it necessary for humankind to understand itself in order for it to create something that transcends humanity? It's tempting to say Yes, but millions of years of dumb evolution gave rise to humanity. Humanity could be just as dumb and give rise to something smarter; perhaps by accident. Which prompts the question, could mankind accidentally create an entity more intelligent than humans and NOT KNOW that the entity was created?
Hm. I think I heard of this before. First there was man ... and then there was woman. And it was a woman who picked from the tree of knowledge. And men have been playing it down ever since.
I am not saying that we should hold humanity on some pedestal and have it be the benchmark for AI. When I say we do not even understand our own intellengence I mean that we do not understand intellegence period, be it man or rat intellegence.
But we do have to understand the nature of our own intellgence, because we seek to create machine to serve man, the closer it is able to think like man the higher the chances that we can outsource all our work to it. If our purpose is noble and we seek to create new life not for the purpose of serving us then we would better spend our time taking care of our kids.
If by some chance we make a new form of intellgence that would be great too, but if it is too foriegn of an intellgence then it would create more work to interface to it than the work the intellgence can do for us. I do not think that it is likely that we will sleep walk into creating a new form of intellgence. If we can not understand simple things like a rat's brain then we are not likely to master the more complex.
To me creating AI is like timetravel. If either of those things happen then pretty much life would be meaningless. The AI can do all the valueable work, if we do not need to think then we have no purpose. If we can travel back in time and decouple cause and effect then we also have no reason to give a damn and do anything because at any moment someone can just go back in time and kill and undo all your work, even erase you from history.
But we do have to understand the nature of our own intellgence, because we seek to create machine to serve man, the closer it is able to think like man the higher the chances that we can outsource all our work to it. If our purpose is noble and we seek to create new life not for the purpose of serving us then we would better spend our time taking care of our kids.
If by some chance we make a new form of intellgence that would be great too, but if it is too foriegn of an intellgence then it would create more work to interface to it than the work the intellgence can do for us. I do not think that it is likely that we will sleep walk into creating a new form of intellgence. If we can not understand simple things like a rat's brain then we are not likely to master the more complex.
To me creating AI is like timetravel. If either of those things happen then pretty much life would be meaningless. The AI can do all the valueable work, if we do not need to think then we have no purpose. If we can travel back in time and decouple cause and effect then we also have no reason to give a damn and do anything because at any moment someone can just go back in time and kill and undo all your work, even erase you from history.
Actually, Big BLue isn't so different than the human brain in many ways. We learn by storing information and then repeat what we've learned back out. Not so different than a machine. Where the "mind" comes into play (and intelligence has nothing to do with it) is when we do something that's never been done before. I don't mean painting, because a machine can do that, I mean creating a new medium, a totally new concept (not discovering a cure for something), we really haven't had anything totally revolutionary for a long time now.
I guess what I'm trying to say is man hasn't invented anything as revolutionary as the wheel in a long long time.
I guess what I'm trying to say is man hasn't invented anything as revolutionary as the wheel in a long long time.
What's a wheel?tboy said:
Considering some of the lap dances I have had, robots might have a good shot at making par.
Dani said:R2D2 comes over and inserts the anal probe to ascertain your problem. If you smile you are assimilated.
Hopefully their won't be any short circuits, lol
