Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Robot workers

Page 5 of 6 [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

17 Mar 2010, 8:17 am

ruveyn wrote:
waltur wrote:
i think cybernetics is the best option for humans remaining relevant, once surpassed by a.i.


Suprassed by A.I.? Not in a thousand years. Silicone and Germanium chips are far too gross.

ruveyn


See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 085833.htm

Single atom transistors.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Mar 2010, 8:30 am

Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
waltur wrote:
i think cybernetics is the best option for humans remaining relevant, once surpassed by a.i.


Suprassed by A.I.? Not in a thousand years. Silicone and Germanium chips are far too gross.

ruveyn


See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 085833.htm
Single atom transistors.


Interesting science, but getting a practical computer to work when it is up against the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a long row to hoe. I will believe it is practical when I see it. And even if we get atom size transistors working on quantum spin, that is still a long way to go to intelligence. Human intelligence is not computational. In fact no one knows the algorithmic rules that will produce generalized intelligence. There is not a clue in sight. Algorithms are one thing, generalized intelligence is quite another.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

17 Mar 2010, 8:42 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
waltur wrote:
i think cybernetics is the best option for humans remaining relevant, once surpassed by a.i.


Suprassed by A.I.? Not in a thousand years. Silicone and Germanium chips are far too gross.

ruveyn


See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 085833.htm
Single atom transistors.


Interesting science, but getting a practical computer to work when it is up against the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a long row to hoe. I will believe it is practical when I see it. And even if we get atom size transistors working on quantum spin, that is still a long way to go to intelligence. Human intelligence is not computational. In fact no one knows the algorithmic rules that will produce generalized intelligence. There is not a clue in sight. Algorithms are one thing, generalized intelligence is quite another.

ruveyn


All the present day electronics started as highly experimental laboratory experiments not so long ago. Insofar as intellect goes humanity in general has yet to exhibit much of that.



waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

17 Mar 2010, 11:12 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
waltur wrote:
i think cybernetics is the best option for humans remaining relevant, once surpassed by a.i.


Suprassed by A.I.? Not in a thousand years. Silicone and Germanium chips are far too gross.

ruveyn


See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 085833.htm
Single atom transistors.


Interesting science, but getting a practical computer to work when it is up against the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a long row to hoe. I will believe it is practical when I see it. And even if we get atom size transistors working on quantum spin, that is still a long way to go to intelligence. Human intelligence is not computational. In fact no one knows the algorithmic rules that will produce generalized intelligence. There is not a clue in sight. Algorithms are one thing, generalized intelligence is quite another.

ruveyn




so um..... do you believe that the human brain adheres to the laws of physics?

is the fact that "no one knows the algorithmic rules that will produce generalized intelligence" a magical wall preventing us from ever learning?

i'm pretty sure human brains are a fair bit more complex than single celled bacteria, and yet i also believe that the former evolved from the latter.


of course, we could just abandon this topic of advanced a.i. for the more enjoyable topic of YECism, as that easily explains how we'd find a situation in which we could not possibly build something as complex as ourselves, let alone more complex. as i've already stated, i'm not inclined to believe in magic. i didn't think you were either.

i'm not saying that you could run an a.i. construct on your macbook next week. i'm just saying that "i can't run it on my macbook" doesn't mean it's too complex to exist. "not in a thousand years."



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Mar 2010, 4:58 pm

waltur wrote:



so um..... do you believe that the human brain adheres to the laws of physics?

is the fact that "no one knows the algorithmic rules that will produce generalized intelligence" a magical wall preventing us from ever learning?

i'm pretty sure human brains are a fair bit more complex than single celled bacteria, and yet i also believe that the former evolved from the latter.


of course, we could just abandon this topic of advanced a.i. for the more enjoyable topic of YECism, as that easily explains how we'd find a situation in which we could not possibly build something as complex as ourselves, let alone more complex. as i've already stated, i'm not inclined to believe in magic. i didn't think you were either.



The fact that brains are physical does not imply that we are smart enough to produce a model that predicts the behavior in detail. For example, boiling oil is physical but we do not have an adequate algorithm for describing the turbulence. At this juncture there is no general, stable algorithm for producing solutions to all instances of the Navier Stokes equation.

Here is the situation. We do not know how the brain produces a general kind of intelligence such as we observe in our species. Furthermore at this juncture there is not even a glimmer of a theory that will do the trick. All we have are heuristics and rules of thumb, but no real theory. My inclination is not to hold my breath until such a theory is found. It could very well be that we are not smart enough to produce such a theory.

ruveyn



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

17 Mar 2010, 5:52 pm

ruveyn wrote:
The fact that brains are physical does not imply that we are smart enough to produce a model that predicts the behavior in detail. For example, boiling oil is physical but we do not have an adequate algorithm for describing the turbulence. At this juncture there is no general, stable algorithm for producing solutions to all instances of the Navier Stokes equation.

Here is the situation. We do not know how the brain produces a general kind of intelligence such as we observe in our species. Furthermore at this juncture there is not even a glimmer of a theory that will do the trick. All we have are heuristics and rules of thumb, but no real theory. My inclination is not to hold my breath until such a theory is found. It could very well be that we are not smart enough to produce such a theory.

ruveyn


Wisest words in the thread.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

17 Mar 2010, 7:46 pm

Janissy wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The fact that brains are physical does not imply that we are smart enough to produce a model that predicts the behavior in detail. For example, boiling oil is physical but we do not have an adequate algorithm for describing the turbulence. At this juncture there is no general, stable algorithm for producing solutions to all instances of the Navier Stokes equation.

Here is the situation. We do not know how the brain produces a general kind of intelligence such as we observe in our species. Furthermore at this juncture there is not even a glimmer of a theory that will do the trick. All we have are heuristics and rules of thumb, but no real theory. My inclination is not to hold my breath until such a theory is found. It could very well be that we are not smart enough to produce such a theory.

ruveyn


Wisest words in the thread.


Religions have been prizing ignorance for centuries. It's a pity when someone trained in scientific disciplines joins that enthusiasm.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

17 Mar 2010, 8:54 pm

Sand wrote:
Religions have been prizing ignorance for centuries. It's a pity when someone trained in scientific disciplines joins that enthusiasm.


You seemed to do that yesterday with your poetic treatise on the foolishness of messing with evolution. The suggestion in your words that 'nature knows better' smacks of religion, as does the idea that our actions are somehow outside of nature. The fact that we try to change nature isnt un-natural; our meddling is a process of nature.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

17 Mar 2010, 9:01 pm

Fuzzy wrote:
Sand wrote:
Religions have been prizing ignorance for centuries. It's a pity when someone trained in scientific disciplines joins that enthusiasm.


You seemed to do that yesterday with your poetic treatise on the foolishness of messing with evolution. The suggestion in your words that 'nature knows better' smacks of religion, as does the idea that our actions are somehow outside of nature. The fact that we try to change nature isnt un-natural; our meddling is a process of nature.


You read me wrong. It is in the nature of intelligent and capable curiosity to screw around with nature. But nature with it's slow fumbling has devised processes and solutions that are still puzzling and amazing researchers. It deserves great respect for its accomplishments but not the kind of religious awe that infers its domain is unapproachable.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

17 Mar 2010, 11:35 pm

Sand wrote:
You read me wrong. It is in the nature of intelligent and capable curiosity to screw around with nature. But nature with it's slow fumbling has devised processes and solutions that are still puzzling and amazing researchers. It deserves great respect for its accomplishments but not the kind of religious awe that infers its domain is unapproachable.


In that case you didnt say anything particularly novel nor exciting. In fact, a friend of mine in high school was famous for similar such pronunciations. I'll always remember one thing he said because I was so flabbergasted at the banality of wasted breath. "Some people say the universe has an end, while others say it is endless."

You took the time to crank(or grind?) out a poem that can be summed up as "We be messin with natures stuff before we even understands it"? Everybody is now informed, but nobody is enlightened. I expected more from you and I guess I read too much into your poem.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


DrizzleMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 887

18 Mar 2010, 12:01 am

That reminds me of Dresden Codak...

[img][650:800]http://i.imgur.com/W03eh.jpg[/img]


_________________
The plural of platypus.


Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

18 Mar 2010, 12:10 am

DrizzleMan wrote:
That reminds me of Dresden Codak...


Thats my favourite from dresden codak.

Just today I received my DK designed shirt "You're a good man, Charlie Darwin".

http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Sc ... ry_Code=DC


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Mar 2010, 12:16 am

Fuzzy wrote:
Sand wrote:
You read me wrong. It is in the nature of intelligent and capable curiosity to screw around with nature. But nature with it's slow fumbling has devised processes and solutions that are still puzzling and amazing researchers. It deserves great respect for its accomplishments but not the kind of religious awe that infers its domain is unapproachable.


In that case you didnt say anything particularly novel nor exciting. In fact, a friend of mine in high school was famous for similar such pronunciations. I'll always remember one thing he said because I was so flabbergasted at the banality of wasted breath. "Some people say the universe has an end, while others say it is endless."

You took the time to crank(or grind?) out a poem that can be summed up as "We be messin with natures stuff before we even understands it"? Everybody is now informed, but nobody is enlightened. I expected more from you and I guess I read too much into your poem.


I am not devoted to tickling your fancy. I merely pointed out with that quick spontaneous rhyme that there is a great deal in the solutions that nature has devised that is still surprising to human efforts and its accomplishments should be respected. I did not in any way intimate, as ruveyn seemed to do and as religion repeatedly declares that the successes of nature are eternal mysteries not to be approached. If you are already informed of this, my comment was not for you but for those who thought otherwise. If you expect me to donate the secrets of the mechanics of intellect you hugely over rate my capability and I am sorry to disappoint you.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Mar 2010, 12:27 am

Sand wrote:

Religions have been prizing ignorance for centuries. It's a pity when someone trained in scientific disciplines joins that enthusiasm.


What ignorance. I simply do not confuse a set of working heuristics with a complete and comprehensive theory. And I have yet to see an artificial entity which has general intelligence and creativity. When I see it with my two old eyes, I will surely believe it.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Mar 2010, 12:39 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:

Religions have been prizing ignorance for centuries. It's a pity when someone trained in scientific disciplines joins that enthusiasm.


What ignorance. I simply do not confuse a set of working heuristics with a complete and comprehensive theory. And I have yet to see an artificial entity which has general intelligence and creativity. When I see it with my two old eyes, I will surely believe it.

ruveyn


Since both you and I are well on the road to physical oblivion we may well miss the event but with the proper effort and enthusiasm which seems to be currently in operation I find it likely it will occur.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Mar 2010, 12:42 am

Sand wrote:

Since both you and I are well on the road to physical oblivion we may well miss the event but with the proper effort and enthusiasm which seems to be currently in operation I find it likely it will occur.


I have worked in the field of A.I. for some years. I have earned the right to be skeptical about it. I know the problems, I know the difficulties, I have some scientific training and I understand the mathematical difficulties. My skepticism is well founded. It is not bigoted ignorance; rather it is a grasp of the difficulties.

ruveyn