Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:writer doesn't get jeopardy, or much of anythin (Score 1) 363

by mcgrew (#48450705) Attached to: Alva Noe: Don't Worry About the Singularity, We Can't Even Copy an Amoeba

You people who believe in the singularity very obviously don't know how a computer works. It's simply an electric abacus; look at schematics for an ALU or a logic gate. How many beads do I need to put on my abacus before it becomes self-aware?

The danger is anthropomorphism; it's simply too easy to fool people into believing they see sentience where there is none. Evil people will use this to their evil ends.

Comment: A history of model planes in Ohio (Score 1) 35

by Roblimo (#48449807) Attached to: Ohio College Building Indoor Drone Pavilion

My father grew up in Akron, OH, and in the 1930s it had the world's largest building - a no-longer-used airship hangar. My dad and his friends used the hangar to fly microfilm models - http://www.indoorduration.com/... - and I think this is the hanger -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

So indoor model-flying seems to be an Ohio tradition. I know my dad enjoyed doing it as a teenager.

Comment: Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... (Score 1) 360

by ultranova (#48449487) Attached to: Cops 101: NYC High School Teaches How To Behave During Stop-and-Frisk

If Officer Friendly breaks your arm throwing you against a car to violently frisk you, it makes it that much easier for your lawyer to end his career

This is completely at odds with everything I've heard about US legal system, where the victims need to prove they didn't provoke the attacker ("stand your ground"), especially if the attacker is a cop, so citation needed.

Comment: Re:Philosophy -- graveyard of fact (Score 2) 363

by jd (#48447337) Attached to: Alva Noe: Don't Worry About the Singularity, We Can't Even Copy an Amoeba

Not true. The Scientific Method is itself a philosophy, as is mathematics. (Mathematics is not a science, it is a humanity and specifically a philosophy.) Mathematics is the core of all science.

Your understanding of philosophy clearly needs some refreshing. I suggest you start with Bertrand Russel's formalization of logic and progress to John Patrick Day's excellent textbook on mathematical philosophy. It's clear you do not know what serious (as opposed to populist) philosophers are concerned with. This is no better than judging physics by Fleich and Pons' Cold Fusion work, or judging biology by examining 1960s American perversions of brain surgery.

You've got to look at the real work. And the odds are that there's more in your computer that was developed by a philosopher than ever came close to a "non-philosophical" scientist (whatever those might be).

Comment: No it isn't that we won't (Score 1) 363

But that we are so far from any kind of AI that worrying about what form it might take is stupid. Yes, there are lots of things that might happen in the far future. Until they are closer, worrying about them is silly. There have been stories from people who are all paranoid about AI and think we need to start making with the rules. No we don't, we are so far away we don't even know how far away we are. We also have no idea what form it'll take. May turn out that self awareness is a uniquely biological trait and we never make computers that are truly strong AI.

Also if you are betting your life (regardless of if this means an actual bet, singular investment of all assets, etc) on something far off, you are a moron. You have no idea when a technology will happen, if it'll even be possible, and if it is if it'll even be marketable. Want a great example? SED, surface-conduction electron-emitter display. Reasonably chance you've never even heard of it. Was a new tech from Canon, basically a flat, large, hig rez take on CRT. Offered extremely high refresh rates (and thus low blur) great contrast ratio, wide viewing angle, etc. Very exciting display technology lots of people looked forward to as an LCD alternative. Wouldn't displace LCD, but would be a better technology for many uses. It was real too, actual working sets were shown at CES in 2006.

What happened? Well as a result of litigation, the financial downturn, and the general market, they decided to pack it in and stop development. They shut down and liquidated that division in 2010, and there's been no further development. So despite it being real and doable, it didn't happen and almost certainly never will happen.

Now compare that to the concept of strong AI, which we have no idea if it even can exist, if it does what form it will take, and if so what technology will be required. Maybe not the best thing to be betting the farm on.

Comment: Re:AI researcher here (Score 2) 363

by jd (#48447321) Attached to: Alva Noe: Don't Worry About the Singularity, We Can't Even Copy an Amoeba

Expert systems are not intelligent. They're nothing more than a fancy version of Animals. If/then/else isn't even weak AI and a binary search of an index is just a search. It doesn't mimic an expert, because experts only start with simple diagnostic tools like that. That's the beginning, not the end. Experts know when answers are off and know how to recover from it - when it's unimportant and when it's absolutely critical. Experts also know how to handle cases never encountered before, because they don't just know a bunch of checklist questions, they know how information relates and they know the patterns that are generic across all cases, known and unknown. You can't program an Expert System Shell with Category Theory maps, Prolog isn't going to know what to do with meta-abstraction.

Neural Networks are debatable. Fundamentally, a Neural Network is a very large set of multi-input gates. Nothing more. If it's trained, then all you've done is simplified the derivation of the gates. You've not added any intelligence. Self-organizing networks are another beast entirely. These can be argued to be "intelligent", since the human brain is ultimately nothing more than a gigantic conglomerate of gates itself. The only reason you have the illusion of intelligence is that there's self-organizing involved. However, no self-organizing neural net on any computer yet built is so powerful that it can simulate the functioning of a nematode's brain. Strong AI, which is what most non-CS people think of as AI, cannot yet even be described. We have no comprehension of what it is, therefore cannot build it.

What the professor is really talking about though, as indicated by the reference to cellular biology, is not AI but ALife. Nothing currently in existence can be called true artificial life, although the Bugs program from Scientific American is a good start. Artificial Life is many orders of magnitude harder than Strong AI. It's not enough to emulate the properties of intelligence, you have to emulate the reason for there needing to be intelligence in the first place. Even those working on Strong AI aren't tackling such self-consistency issues, far too complex for them.

(It's clear that most AI work is incompatible with a self-consistent Strong AI, so I'm inclined to believe Singularity isn't going to be here for a while. Progress is, as others have noted, somewhere between non-linear and exponential, but even if we assume exponential, it'll be between 75-150 years before Strong Artificial Life is within reach, where Strong ALife is Strong AI and Artificial Life and self-consistency.)

Comment: Re:Yeah right (Score 1) 118

but how can you move your sub contractor's, their sub contractor's etc. production out of China?

Either by investing in new companies in region xyz, or by making your own start-up contractors and then selling them off as "unprofitable" that has happened in China quite a bit.

Comment: Re:no hope for political solution (Score 1) 130

by phantomfive (#48445311) Attached to: Prospects Rise For a 2015 UN Climate Deal, But Likely To Be Weak

I've never met anyone who can argue successfully against action on climate in an open debate.

Well, since you are being the judge of 'successful,' I'm not surprised you've never seen that. You are no different than most people in that you don't like to lose your own argument.

In the case of climate change, people and politicians are happy to help the environment. You will rarely see a politician who says he wants to hurt the environment.

It's only when you get down to specific propositions that people object. How much are you willing to help the environment? Are you willing to double the price of gas (to decrease demand)? Are you willing to significantly increase your electric bill? The answer to these for most people is no, they aren't.

But if it's just 'doing something', sure, I'm in favor of 'doing something,' as long as it doesn't negatively effect me.

Little known fact about Middle Earth: The Hobbits had a very sophisticated computer network! It was a Tolkien Ring...

Working...