The Ultra Intelligent Machine

Technology, computers, sciences, mysteries and phenomena of all kinds, etc., etc. all here at The Loresraat!!

Moderator: Vraith

User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

peter wrote:our machine would surely, at a stroke bring forth the knowledge we currently have right before our faces - but are not 'blue-sky' enough to see.
That's the question, innit? Is all knowledge we don't have merely just knowledge we haven't discovered yet? Or will we find there's kinds of knowledge that human beings are innately incapable of discovering due to limitations in our naturally-evolved specialized brains?
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

Thats a fascinating observation Pete .. it would for want a better descriptor become all knowing as a god .. even arguably all powerful .. depending on what its plugged into ..

SkyNet for example ;)
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Ur Dead
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:17 am

Post by Ur Dead »

Got a question?

What technology is this machine using?

Is it the standard binary computer?
(base 2 - 1,0)
or will it be a new machine like
Uses trinary (base 3 - 1,0,-1) or higher (base 5 )
This would be at the direct machine level.
Problems with that is the technology for a base 3 computer hasn't been
developed yet. That takes human engineering.
Then computer word length will need to be defined
Then there is the OS and then the programming lang.
Those would have to be developed from scratch.
The electronics would start to hit a wall from current limiting at the base 5 area.
Today computers use serial data streams. They are fast but there was a
device that operated by parallel transfers . That was the SCSI disk controllers.
Today's systems lay down data to an HD, bit by bit.
SCSI passed it back and forth by 8 bits at one clock pulse. Plus since they
were considered "intelligent devices" The microchip didn't waste it precious
clock pulses pulling and placing data from the HD. SCSI controlled it all.
At the same clocking speed SCSI was 8 times faster and more efficient.
Now apply that to today's chips where all operations transfer by parallel
mean within the chip itself and your computer increases in speed by a factor of thousands to almost a million.
That is only for base 2 system we use today.
This wouldn't be parallel computing in today's sense. (multiple computers
working in tandem .) It's at the chip manufacturing level.

Base 3 or higher would need a rethink of semiconductor manufacturing and how was it going to operate.

Another idea they kicked around was using light or a photon computer. Then
again I never got into the specifics of it.. was it using binary like the electronic
systems or was it something totally different.
What's this silver looking ring doing on my finger?
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

Some of these issues, for instance discussion of the human brain, have been dealt with in my thread about how did evolution produce consciousness and intelligence. I don't think our brains are specialized. It has obviously gone well beyond what primates would need to survive in nature. Mankind, and his brain specifically, is successful because of generalization, and not specialization. For this and many other reasons, I do not think there is such thing as knowledge that we are inherently incapable of knowing. Knowledge is the awareness of facts. Are there facts that we are incapable of knowing? Those who have tried to put limits on our possible knowledge have always underestimated us. For instance, it was thought that we would never be able to know the composition of the stars, but that is merely a failure of imagination. It turns out that it is fairly easy to discover the composition of stars. We do not depend upon our senses for knowledge. We use all of the electromagnetic spectrum, and now even gravity ways to acquire perception into reality. These are not windows into the universe that are available to us because of our senses or any other fact of evolution. We have transcended our evolutionary context as primates on earth, and have extended our potential for knowledge to the entire universe
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

Zarathustra wrote: We have transcended our evolutionary context as primates on earth, and have extended our potential for knowledge to the entire universe
I think, in a gestalt way, I mostly agree...but I'd quibble/shift/frame it differently [while not being sure whether it is fundamentally distinct in fact, or just communicatively due to lack of pure mind-reading and empathy].

I'd say as things are now, no single individual can understand even a sliver of the knowable that ALREADY exist.
Corporately---that's another matter [and I'm sure was at least partly intended/underlying what you said, given totality of your posts/ideas I've seen.]

I'd say evolution has ascended to a higher, but inclusive, domain.
The rules of selection remain fully in force...but they are operating on more/additional demands/needs/challenges...AND it generated a brain that CAN address some [soon many, near-soon all] of those demands/needs/challenges by rational/likely/experimental choices instead of random/chaotic mutation.

In addition to that...in limited cases now, but in many [most? all?] cases in the future, we can correct errors/mistakes/dangers after the fact of occurrence, but BEFORE wiping out lives/groups of lives. [[such as...we find a way to splice people to be faster, stronger, more intelligent, but then it turns out there is a high rate of "defects," like psychopathy, schizophrenia, brain cancer, charismatic totalitarian xenophobes....we can fix it BEFORE they become Khan.]]

Aside on above---I'm not at all sure, actually pretty sure NOT---we can, purely biologically, make faster AND stronger AND more intelligent all at once. As I think I mentioned sometime before, evidence now suggests the opposite of what we used to think...we used to think we were weak physically, but that made us [evolutionary pressure] get smarter to survive. But now it seems we became weaker BECAUSE we were getting smarter...and energy is a prime cost factor in evolution, and brains are fucking EXPENSIVE. And wordsmiths were literally mightier than sword-swingers.

Cyborgs change that quite a bit, of course. There will still be trade-offs between folk at the same level/on the same "step"...but it's pretty easy to cyber someone to exceed a "natural" person in every domain at once. We can almost do that today.

[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

Yeah Im not uber excited to become a cyborg lol 😜 but I guess if its a replacement hip, then a replacement this or that ... maybe it would seem not sooo foreign, unnatural and alien.

Maybe there will come a day when its all very natural πŸ€·β€β™€οΈ
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Ur Dead
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:17 am

Post by Ur Dead »

From talking about an intelligent machine to plugging into the thing.

Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. We will become the Borg (cyborgs)
Then some crazy hacker comes along and kuchuncks the bleeding
thing. Probably forces every plugged-in person to do calisthenics in binary
mode. A machine like this isn't be totally safe. It will have to be buried under
kilometers of rock, in a concrete bunker, within a faraday cage immersed in a coolant bath.

How about a nice game of chess?
What's this silver looking ring doing on my finger?
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11489
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by peter »

In terms of our development, I'm sure I've read that our forebears of times gone past were harder, stronger, faster than we, with super-sensitive senses to boot. Perhaps as brain size increases it's energy demands become too great to support the concurrently high demands of that physical superiority at the same time: ie something had to give and in the selection battle it was big brains that won the day. I imagine there would be a selective pressure towards increasing brain size before a threshold would be reached where increasing the size further would demand a cost on physical capabilities; at that point a 'choice' would have to be made.
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

I think humans are just lazy asses .. we dont DO anything to retain our physical strength .. most humans work in sedentary workplaces these days or with minimal physical demand.

Though life expectancy was a lot lower than many of our forebears ..

I think we humans are probably quite capable of intelligent thought and physical stamina, strength and resilience.

We maybe need a better balance .. we cant just check out intellectually .. as we lose .. we become intellectually slower and sloppy .. the same is true of our physical state .. if we become sloth like ... we suffer all manner of physical ailments as a result .. so no winning for us.

Those that put the effort in .. either intellectually or physically .. if they possess the capability .. will be the overall beneficiaries of that effort.

Those that dont .. will lose.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Ur Dead
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 2295
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:17 am

Post by Ur Dead »

Skyweir wrote:I think humans are just lazy asses .. we dont DO anything to retain our physical strength .. most humans work in sedentary workplaces these days or with minimal physical demand.
The only part of the human body that is exercised are the thumbs.


Twitter...
What's this silver looking ring doing on my finger?
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

Skyweir wrote: I think we humans are probably quite capable of intelligent thought and physical stamina, strength and resilience.
Why do you folk always go to places that aren't implied??
[[[you, too, peter]]].

Of course we can be. In fact, as I've posted elsewhere, it's known that physical activity enhances brain function [definitely], and perhaps even base intelligence [possibly]...at least up to a point.
Minimums, ideals, and maximums.
Our ancestors...even the super-recent ones, in the last few hundred years...had some superiority to what most of us ARE, but not over what we COULD be now. [we haven't lost the genes/code for it, yet, we just don't develop it]
But they also paid for it. Early death for adults, crippling disabilities, constant sicknesses, near total ignorance for nearly all of them. [[and the supposed superiority didn't prevent the masses of miscarriages, dead infants/toddlers and mothers---after all, each woman gave birth to somewhere between 2 and 4 times as many children---but population growth was about 1/2 the current.]]

And no matter HOW hard you worked, no human could come anywhere close to the strength of an average ape/monkey. THAT was the main point.

If you have a tribe of proto-humans, and some of them are 1% stronger, while others are 1% smarter...over generations, the smarter ones end up being us, the stronger ones extinct. [generally...randomness still happens.]
Mostly because being stronger is only an advantage in limited situations.
Smarter is better in almost all situations. [[and in fact can more than compensate for physical weakness in most of the strength tests. Doesn't matter how hard you can swing your big club when I've invented spear throwing. Doesn't matter what you can lift and carry when I've got wheels and rope, carts and pulleys. If I can cook my food, but you are still eating it raw, you are in big, big, trouble]]
There MIGHT be boundaries on that...there definitely would be IF intelligence didn't more than compensate, and IF we were/are limited to pure animal bodies.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

V

Its not so much about .... lol _ .. going places not implied .. its ____ well from my perspective.. addressing the physical condition of humans. We all hear that humans are becoming physically weaker. As if ... its a consequence of greater intellectual investment..

I call bullshit on that .. humans becoming weaker has little to do with humanitys overall intellectual advancement and more to do with simple laziness .. and self imposed inertia.

Oh we need replacement body parts .. πŸ€·β€β™€οΈ Yeah well some individuals might .. but most just don't take care of their bodies ..

So the call for cyborgness pampers to that demographic.. why should anyone care about their physical health and wellbeing if the alternative to effort is simply bionics or robotics?

Some scientific advancements are not about a physical benefit .. even though they well may perform that physical function.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

Skyweir wrote: I call bullshit on that .. humans becoming weaker has little to do with humanitys overall intellectual advancement and more to do with simple laziness .. and self imposed inertia.
There are two separate issues in this...actually a 1, a 1a, and a two.
1---IF humans had the same physical demands today as the past, even the very recent past, we'd be thinner, run farther, lift more weight...AND die younger, sicker.
1a---on the other hand, we've gone, in roughly 3 generations, from daily demands exceeding the maximum for benefits [for most people] to daily life not meeting the minimum demands for benefits as far as brain/body synergies.
So, IF we weren't lazy, and met the maximums, we'd STILL be "weaker" in some physical senses than even our near ancestors...but ONLY in very limited physical senses. And even our worst-lazy folk are far better off in most ways than most of them were.

down-note...there is some evidence that we've reached, and perhaps surpassed, optimum brain-demand returns. The constant, life-long, high-stress mental demands have crossed into injury/damage levels.

2---our muscles and bones and such are definitely weaker than any of our near-relatives...our cousins, our siblings, our pre-modern grandparents...and that is [almost] definitely BECAUSE energy and nutrients are limited, and evolutionary pressures "chose" big brains [which are extremely expensive energy/nutrient-wise] over thicker bones and stronger muscles.
I'll say it again: there was competition between the word-wielders and the sword-swingers, and the pen won...and kept winning. More words, more ink, bigger and better thoughts.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

On your point 2 :mrgreen: I completely agree .. compared to our NEAR relatives. And compared to our western relatives in the 1800s western society.. we generally speaking face a lot LESS physical demands ..

I mean we dont build our own homes, slaughter our meat, grow and harvest our nutritional needs, make our own furniture, bail in our water, preserve, clean everything by hand etc .. generally speaking ... of course 😏 As some of us still do some of those things ;) πŸ˜¬πŸ™„ but likely not all 😏

But people didnt live as long as they do now .. and infant mortality was higher .. and they died of thinks like rickets.. not having enough vit C in their diets.

On your point 1 .. IF humans were as active as their counterparts in the past, even the more recent past .. theyd be thinner, run farther, have greater stamina and physical resilience.. be in better health and no doubt live longer ... all things being equal of course.

Your 1a is very fascinating.. I agree that IF we remain lazy or we werent as lazy we would still be better off today .. physically.. than we were a few generations ago.

But my point is that human physical weakness is not a trade off or consequence for greater intellectual capabilities...

Why?

First, those who exercise the maximum capability of their intellectual potential still represents only a small percentage of the human race. 😎 so theres that πŸ€”

Second, there is no direct trade off. πŸ€·β€β™€οΈ You can be intellectual and physically active .. πŸ€·β€β™€οΈ no?

Ok so living in a modern western society.. where so much is automated, ie machines that wash our clothes, machines we jump in that transport us places, machines that harvest our crops, build our machines lol πŸ˜‚ :haha:

So life is way easier and a lot less physical demanding .. true .. for most western developed societies. But our diets are fucked up, our attitudes are lazy .. sure some do the gym thing, not allergic to the notion of walking .. in some communities.. sports are encouraged. Outer heightened intellects make us more aware and informed about our health and wellbeing.. both physical and mental.

So theres that πŸ€”

;)

We dont really HAVE to be weaker ..

I agree about the impact of increased stress in our lives and the absolute toxic impact that has on humans.

But I think there were always stressors .. I mean we no longer attend public hanging, drawing and quaterings πŸ€·β€β™€οΈ burning at the stakes, public trials that involved torture etc. Or not knowing where the next dollar or crust of bread is coming from?

Humans are generally better off today than theyve ever been ... and they can be physically fit and healthy as they are intellectually capable .. or live in a highly technologically advanced environment and still be healthy physically .. and strong.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

If they become so .. with the exception of those without the capability.. its only because those who inherit our modern world with all its convenience choose inertia over activity. And they lose .. from a physical perspective and from a health perspective. Its never too late to turn that around .. unless it is.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

Skyweir wrote: But my point is that human physical weakness is not a trade off or consequence for greater intellectual capabilities...

Why?

First, those who exercise the maximum capability of their intellectual potential still represents only a small percentage of the human race. 😎 so theres that πŸ€”

Second, there is no direct trade off. πŸ€·β€β™€οΈ You can be intellectual and physically active .. πŸ€·β€β™€οΈ no?

Starting at the last, yes, you can be active in both...and within boundaries, being active in both is beneficial to both. [for several reasons, including especially, but not limited to, the fact that the body and the brain are not entirely separated but the opposite---dependent at a base level.]

Nevertheless---there are cost/benefit trade-offs. Serious ones.
It's simply a matter of energy, at root, though complex because we're complex organisms.

And only a small percentage exercise maximum intellectual potential---that's true, and it's a bad trade...everyone SHOULD exercise their own potentials to maximum. [which must include some physical endeavors, or fail].
Because it is terrible, in almost every meaningful way, to deride, limit, marginalize the mind.

For instance, a shitload of people in the U.S. [particularly on the right, but not entirely] LOVE to say "not everyone needs/should/can have a college education, they can [insert blah blah here].
They MAY be correct in a narrow sense...but it's bullshit otherwise.
Not everyone WANTS to maximize their brains---and that's fine, if they choose it...but everyone should be able to, and it should be basically free.

Because there is no way we could have a billion Einsteins...
But we could EASILY have several billion people with 105 IQ instead of 100.
And that's a HUGE fucking deal. I can't even come up with a metaphor/hyperbole big enough to illustrate how much that would matter in progressing the world [[and an equivalent increase in strength would have almost ZERO impact at best---probably a NEGATIVE impact, if your preference is to increase human value/good, not increase bullying/violence.]]
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

I agree .. it is bullshit .. anyone that wants a college education should be able to access one imho. Its how it works here. And individuals are capable of self selecting, even young'uns.

On that note from a political perspective, I believe education should be accessible for all. Governments should make it accessible. I understand from the Tank that the US government does make this possible. And makes advancement a possibility for anyone who seeks it.

The costs of courses are seemingly astronomical though .. but I guess that depends on the course one wants to do.And absolutely some people have no interest in intellectusa
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

sorry .. new computer and have to split it .. tried editing but .. meh

so yes .. I agree some people have no interest in intellectual pursuits and that IS fine.

That's a very interesting distinction V .. ie the value of having more intellectually advanced humans on the planet as a whole. I would hope that was so and I can think of no reason that it wouldn't be. I have often tended to think in terms of human enlightenment .. that the more intelligent may result in greater enlightenment .. but alas that is not always the case, it would seem.

Would a billion Einsteins or several billion Einsteins make for a more enlightened existence? Im not sure .. but yeah at least perhaps wed be more technologically acute? I don't know. Though you might .. or others might? Would more intelligent humans result in a better world? Intelligence is only one aspect of a human .. how they interpret and apply their knowledge is kinda different though isn't?

But at least we may be on the right path?

Yeah physical strength has a very different value .. but I guess to me .. its not about advancements in physical strength .. or being a 132IQ equivalent physically .. its about to me at least .. in not compromising physical wellbeing for intelligence .. and to my mind it is that that is not a trade off.

Pete .. as to your point about our forebears .. I don't agree. Im currently working on a sheep station that has ruins on the property .. from the 1800s and the doorways are lower, the rooms are very small .. indeed the dwellings themselves are quite small. Compared to us most of our forebears were smaller, shorter .. and probably a lot fitter than the average human today. And I think it is the average today that makes the point, doesn't it?

The average westerner today is likely no where near as fit as our forebears. The west has significant issues with obesity, even morbid obesity, and a myriad of diet related as well as general health issues, that may not have been experienced by our forebears. But our forebears were taken out by rickets, giving birth, polio etc that are less of an issue that faces most westerners today.

I think it is human intelligence that has changed these things for western nations .. I guess that's pretty much a given ;)

My point is that we don't HAVE to compromise our physical selves for our intellectual selves.

V is dead right .. of course there are energy costs of exercising our intellect .. and for exercising our physical bodies. I agree. What I don't agree with is that .. that constitutes an inevitable consequence of intellectual advancement. WE can be intelligent and maintain and sustain our physicality.

Anyway .. as I look at of the very large window from this office .. at the sheep grazing in front of me .. the rolling hills, the river at the bottom of the slope .. I am not sure we can ever be 100% well .. intellectually or physically isolated from the natural environment. What humans have not completely come to understand is the viable physical benefits of being in touch with nature. Whether it be your garden, or a large 200 acre property like the one I am on. There are therapeutic benefits from seeing and engaging with our physical environments.

I think its the stress of modern living that is the greatest compromise to ones physical and mental wellbeing.


Ive said it before .. my experience of relocating to this rural area has done absolute wonders for both my mental and physical wellbeing. Arguably more my physical wellbeing though. The same for my husband .. who retired before me because of his health. He had acute necrotising pancreatitis .. that was later diagnosed chronic pancreatitis and he was given 7 years .. and that was in 2010 .. he was forever in and out of hospital .. for months at a time. He hasn't been hospitalised for the past 6 years weve lived here. His job was high pressure, government lawyer, going to the Administration Appeals Tribunal, dealing with appellants .. the majority who were pedophiles and other persons with criminal or intelligence records. Now he deals with sheep, alpaca, cattle, horses, poultry on a small piece of rural paradise. We have both lost weight .. are a lot fitter and stronger .. and that did not come at the expense of our intellects. Nor visa versa.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

To kinda-sorta get back on topic.
I think I mentioned somewhere that there was machine-learning thing where the machine "learned" to make predictions on chaotic/turbulent data just by "watching," like people mostly due, without doing---or even "knowing"---any of the underlying math of those things. And better than people
Well, one of those is mentioned in this article...but it goes on to look at some implications...
[[it should probably be in the close...but I found it, it does relate to science, and I'll put it in my demesne if I feel like it. ;) ]]

Hey, peter, you should read it cuz, like me in an exchange with you, points out that Ptolemy wasn't really DOING anything beyond drawing charts.


https://singularityhub.com/2018/08/10/c ... n-science/
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

It is impressive that Alpha Zero has this capability ..
Last year, a program called AlphaZero taught itself the rules of chess from scratch in about a day, and then went on to beat the world's best chess-playing programs.
Did it "teach itself" or was it programmed into its .. umm program ____

And if it taught itself .. how did it do that? How did it know the existence of "chess" or the concept of "chess". I think that is rather interesting.
Many of these algorithms begin with a blank slate of blissful ignorance, and rapidly build up their "knowledge" by observing a process or playing against themselves, improving at every step, thousands of steps each second.
I don't have the answers. But unless we can articulate why science is about more than the ability to make good predictions, scientists might also soon find that a "trained AI could do their job."
As a "trained AI" .. so programmed?

Not that this diminishes this impressive capability .. at all. Cos it doesnt. But an AI is what it is because of human intelligence. The AI surpasses human capability absolutely .. but if not for Ptolemy, Copernicus, Gallileo, Kepler and Newton .. the evolution of intelligence would not enable the functionality of AIs today. Its all part of the intelligence continuum .. isnt it?
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

Skyweir wrote:
As a "trained AI" .. so programmed?

. But an AI is what it is because of human intelligence.
Not that I disagree, entirely, with much of what you said...

BUT....

We spend more than a decade [for hard stuff, more than two] "programming" our offspring.

Only a small number find something new [[almost every AI, once it has it's "goal" discovers something new...of course people CARE about discovering and WANT to do it...AI just runs.]]

Also, no human would be what they are without a metric shit ton of the intelligence of viruses and bacteria and plants and beasts and time....

[[[OTOH, and and aside, nod towards you...the nearly publishable thing I'm working on depends/revolves around in subtext [volume 1] more explicit later the apparent fact of that difference between how living minds and crafted/manufactured minds come to be..and what they want, and why, and how best to get it.]]]
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
Post Reply

Return to β€œThe Loresraat”