But something about the originals makes them "better".
I think it has something to do with simply being at the right place at the right time - like the beatles. The beatles didn't really make the era, the era made the beatles.
If you don't think that the cultural climate has more to do with the art that is created than the artists that create it just think of the parallel with this old question - if you had been born in china 1000 years ago, would you have been a christian?
Of course not.
If the beatles were born today, would they be world famous?
Of course not.
It's the climate - the fact that the beatles/zeppelin/whoever were able to be moved/inspired by the culture of the time to create what they did. And it has something to do with the technology of the time as well.
If you want to hear something that should blow your musical (artistic) appreciation gene out of the water then just listen to/watch Diego Stocco's Experibass video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
He's caught in the culture of our time. He would not have been who he is even 20 years ago. He and his music are creations (indirectly, but definitely) of a culture of hackers and makers, just as the classic rockers and their rock were the creations of a culture of exploration and discovery.
Nowadays...well, the culture is not exploration and discovery, but exploitation and refinement....but I wonder if I sense a subtle change in the winds?....
I came up with this recently when I was trying to define why some games make you want to play them more than others and I realized that it might apply to just about any activity that people engage in. Do this to housework/chores and voila! People will do it. The challenge is how to do this to chores and such. If I could just find a way to make making things this way also be this way...moving on...
Now, I'm not saying people will not do things that are not all three of those, but I'm saying that people will do things that are all three of those. Maybe I have defined an activity which elicits a very basic type of "flow".
I now welcome the critical crucible of slashdot with open arms (and fireproof pants).
What I really would want to know why I should care?
It depends on how much you care about the future, and how far into the future you care to care.
If you care only about tomorrow and don't care that much about what happens tomorrow, then you should not care in the least.
If you care about the next 10 years, and care a good amount about it, then you should care a bit because AI research is information science research, and humans are information animals and tool animals and thus information tools are very important and AI is a very powerful information tool - even if mostly theoretical at this point.
If you care about the next century, and you care a lot about it, then you should care a lot - because this next 100 years will be the first century of a real-time information web splayed over the planet between the little human individuals scurrying about on the surface, and the wealth of information stored and transmitted (which might be the same thing!) will continue to grow - and to make use of that gargantuan information store, we need information processing capabilities beyond anything we have today, and certainly beyond the capability of unaided, or non-computationally aided, human minds.
If you care about the next millennium and beyond, then you should find my ideas interesting and subscribe to my newsletter because I want us to be around for the long haul because I like people and I think we are neat and I think the universe, being rather impartial, could do with a bit more intelligence. Brains, after all, are the best way I know of for the universe to appreciate itself and so I think we should appreciate the inevitability that to appreciate larger things, we need larger brains.
Intelligent life, while admittedly is a potential cause of, is actually the first possible defense that this planet's ecosystem has evolved against an extinction level event.
Stopping a super volcano might still be a bit of a stretch at this current time (give it time though), but the whole asteroid thing - intelligent life actually might have a chance, even right now, of stopping another big whack to the planet.
Think about how the shell evolved: might intelligent life be some kind of earth shell? some kind of life shield?
To be clear, I don't ascribe to some magical teleological aspect of the universe, nor some gaia hypotesis: I'm not saying this is WHY we are here or WHY we were made - but hey, shells evolve big and small - why couldn't we, humanity, become life and earths greatest ally?
Sure, we mightn't, but why we shouldn't nor couldn't?
Hopefully "soon" we get a good foothold on Mars, and hopefully, and this sounds weird I know, there is NO life on Mars. Because that would give us a nice "sterile planetary lab" on which to experiment as we find ways to control global climates without operating on the only global climate we have available - which we happen to depend on completely and utterly for our survival.
Better to start experimenting on another one as soon as possible, because even when we get a handle on our climate changing activities, nature is standing by with a much larger list of climate changing activities which we will have to confront.
Maybe Venus too - if we can fix that place we can fix anywhere! So Mars would be like our lab and Venus is like our final exam.
And I think we really need to pass this course.
People will continue to work. If they don't work, they are broken. Broken people don't work. People break when something goes wrong. Something is wrong right now. This is why there are people who don't work.
So, solve what's wrong and people will work.
What makes people work? Energy.
Solve energy problems and people will work.
(Hans Moleman is inside a phone booth at the bird sanctuary with birds attacking him.)
Hans Moleman: (into the phone) Hello, I need the largest seed bell you have. (pause) No, that's too big.
My point is that some things can be too big: but not a supercollider.
Humorbot 5.0: So I said, "Super-collider? I just met her!" [audience laughs] And then they built the super collider.
Also insert here some observation about theoretical maximum energies, public misunderstandings and political obstacles.
There are men and women in the Congo, slaving away in giant pits in order to extract gold and other precious metals from the earth. This gold will go into phones and tablets made by companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft. Anthony Levandowski has never worked in a pit mine nor will his children...
And maybe if you would let him finish working on his robots, then no one's children will! Alas, it seems that no mind can be flexible enough to wrap itself around the reasoning of narrow-minded. I mean, these protesters' points are not so wrong, the problem is merely that their reasoning is so not complete - and yet they take complete action!
I wonder if ignorance must remain unaware of itself in order to survive...
when I was a child. The odd thing, is that my memory is mostly about my father's reaction, and the look on his face. A look of shock and disbelief. The failure of infallible American tech.
It was the failure of 'infallible' American money.
Money and technology are such strange bedfellows. On the one hand the connection between them is obvious and inextricable, but on the other lies the question of progress. Money is required to develop and ultimately build a technology, and yet by virtue of the money invested that technology is expected to create money - usually more than was invested in the first place. So, in an way, from money's perspective all that technology is designed to do is to create money - anything else that technology does is a mere byproduct of the process of developing it to make more money.
In other words, according to money, any technology which does nothing but make more money is a perfect technology.
This might explain why things like FOSS and any "Open" technology movement is perceived as so vile and abominable a thing by money. How can a technology not take nor make money? I think it causes money to be a little nervous that technology can exist without it. After all, since money is anything accepted as payment for goods or services, doesn't that mean that money can actually be nothing?
And by the way I asked money if it cared that I anthropomorphize it and it said it couldn't care less.
The cause and reason for why people can become suicidal or depressed is evolution - not intelligence. This was covered in http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/10/24/2213234/the-neuroscience-of-happiness
I would like to put a stop to all this tongue-in-cheekiness we people always seem to espouse when talking about intelligent beings being predisposed to destruction and self-destruction - and loathing and self-loathing.
A perhaps relevant anecdote: Per the above slashdot story, I have been training myself to dwell and ruminate on common everyday moments of happiness, and I've found that my outlook has become...'better' would not be the right word, although it is a valid word...I think 'clearer'....'brighter'... This mental/emotional training has been most interesting. One of my experiences is the way my brain feels when I do this: because the mechanisms of dwelling and rumination, while applicable to positive and happy thoughts, are most accostomed to horrible horrible and sad thinking, when you place a happy or positive thought into thier machinery you get the feeling that such an action is somehow...'inapproriate' - but in the good way.
Like showing a Disney movie in a horror theater.
But do so, and the audience will change.
Back from that tangent: So my underlying point is that whatever machinery or modules of thought or mind which lead to the self-destructive behavior of humans; those can be used for different purposes. I will end this post with two relevant, though rather unrelated statements:
The deadly jaws of the cat safely carry the kitten.
Life wants only to replicate - destruction and creation are both factors involved in that process and it is intelligence that finally allows for the choice on how to proceed and compassion (which comes from a larger view of things) to guide our choices.
Philosophical discussions on the definition of creation versus destruction may now ensue
but you knew that
For what it is worth, here is a circuit I developed to see what the gate configuration (nor only) would look like for the implementation of a condition that the input switches be:
you know, the counting integers 0,1,2,3 - the same code that I have on my luggage. I thought there might be a fun implementation related to security or something - a hybrid mechanical/electronic locking system.
It turned out to be super hard for me to figure out this final result. Nonetheless, the result was most interesting and I encourage you to find a more efficient configuration.
I did this using basic logic and a crapton of that time-honored tradition of guessing and trial and error.
I can only begin to imagine the complexity of trying to implement and design circuits based on algorithms written in anything above assembler level.