|
The road to Skynet...
Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:28:43 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc wrote: All of today's computers are simply huge extensions of the first very basic logic circuits. They are completely predictable. There was a guy named Kasparov who thought the same thing about chess playing computers. Yeah but, there were people, real live humans, reprogramming those specially designed computers after each match. Kasparov didn't get beaten by a computer he got beaten by a league of mathematicians. |
The road to Skynet...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:28:43 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc wrote: On Feb 27, 10:51 am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:48:53 -0500, "jamesgangnc" wrote: Skynet is total science fiction. We are as far from a self-aware electronic intelligence as an ape is from a computer. Yes - and in 1945 Arthur Clark published "Extra-Terrestrial Relays -- Can Rocket Stations Give Worldwide Radio Coverage?" which was the germ of the idea of today's communications via satellite. I might add that a lot of folks believed his idea to be fanciful at best and it wasn't until 1954 when Bell Lab's John Pierce proposed what was to become Echo and Telstar that expansion of communications into space was possible. Consider that up until the late '60s, anything above 700 Mhz was considered unusable for communications. How'd that work out? At the current rate of engineering and technical advancements in computing and processor size, is "Colossus" or Mike from "Moon is A Harsh Mistress" be far behind? It's only a matter of time. :) We don't even have the first clue about how our own self awareness works. "I think, therefore I am." - René Descartes :) All of today's computers are simply huge extensions of the first very basic logic circuits. They are completely predictable. Um...well, I guess that's why diagnostic software engineers aren't in high demand - completely predictable logic should produce complete predictable results. Right? And quantum computing isn't that far off - the mathematics is solid, it's just the engineering that's lagging behind. Wayne brought up Kasparov and Big Blue - Big Blue is relatively primitive by today's standards. Your examples are extensions of existing technology that could, and were predicted by some. Technically you could say that satellites were "predicted" during the 19th Century and even earlier, but that would be a stretch to consider what some thinkers were...well, no other way to put it, thinking. :) The technology to create self-awareness doesn't exist because we don't know what self-awareness is. Not true - self awareness is simple awareness of self - that self awareness is proof because one exists. Consciousness is another matter because it requires proof of identity. However, one has to be conscious if one is self-aware. Endless loop. The problem is not so much defining how one defines awareness or even conscioiusness, but how does one become aware or conscious. That may be a simple matter of critical mass in that the mere number of nodes may mimic neural connections. So it's entirely possible. Maybe not tomorrow or even in the next 50 years, but advances in computing, connectivity and "smart" nodes may just be the causitive effect. ~~ snip ~~ But mechanical self-awareness, that's so remote from now. Ah ha!! So you admit that it is possible. :) I agree with you mostly - in today's terms, it's not likely. Having said that, we are well on the road to Skynet whether we like it or not. As I said, it's just a matter of time. All your examples are still simply the consequences of the increase in computer performance. Chess playing computers simply leverage the machine's much faster ability to examine potential outcomes faster. They track previous moves by other players to "learn" what to assign the higher probabilities to. Again, predictable logic. Chess is a game with finite possible outcomes. Admittedly a very large number of possibilties but finite never the less. The fact that a computer can become undefeatable in chess is no different than your ability to never lose to a child in tic-tac-toe. In the world of cold logical actions, machines will eventually be superior to us in just about everything. Presently their ability to interact in the physical world is limited but that will change rapidly. But there are areas of human behavior that defy logic. We don't understand those areas. What was going on in Pacasso's mind when he produced a masterpiece? What is love? Why do we sometimes save another human, even our enemy, when doing so is completely against our own interests? Leaving higher dieties out of this, something is going on in our brain that appears to rise above computational. Is it simply some sort of computational algorythm that we do not understand yet? If so then maybe machine intelligence is predictable. But so far it doesn't appear to be explainable by a computational solution. But to think that the expansion of computational ability at some point crosses some magic threshold and becomes intelligence is unsupported by any theory. There is no reason to predict that outcome and every reason to think that it will simply be whole lot of computational ability. And a whole lot of computational ability does not mean one of them will spontaneously pick up a paint brush or a pencil and create something. Or decide to kill us. |
The road to Skynet...
On Feb 27, 9:51 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:48:53 -0500, "jamesgangnc" wrote: Skynet is total science fiction. We are as far from a self-aware electronic intelligence as an ape is from a computer. Yes - and in 1945 Arthur Clark published "Extra-Terrestrial Relays -- Can Rocket Stations Give Worldwide Radio Coverage?" which was the germ of the idea of today's communications via satellite. I might add that a lot of folks believed his idea to be fanciful at best and it wasn't until 1954 when Bell Lab's John Pierce proposed what was to become Echo and Telstar that expansion of communications into space was possible. Consider that up until the late '60s, anything above 700 Mhz was considered unusable for communications. How'd that work out? At the current rate of engineering and technical advancements in computing and processor size, is "Colossus" or Mike from "Moon is A Harsh Mistress" be far behind? It's only a matter of time. :) We don't even have the first clue about how our own self awareness works. "I think, therefore I am." - René Descartes :) Reenea had just finished a cup of coffee at an ourdoor cafe'. when the waitherss asked if he would lke nother cup. He mistakenly said. "No, child. I think not" and immediatly vanished into thin air. |
The road to Skynet...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:36:55 -0500, BAR wrote: Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:28:43 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc wrote: All of today's computers are simply huge extensions of the first very basic logic circuits. They are completely predictable. There was a guy named Kasparov who thought the same thing about chess playing computers. Yeah but, there were people, real live humans, reprogramming those specially designed computers after each match. Kasparov didn't get beaten by a computer he got beaten by a league of mathematicians. What the programmers did was use previous match data to bolster areas where Deep Blue made "iffy" decisions - similar to the way chess masters go over previous engagements they were involved in and their opponents to determine tendencies on their own part and their opponents. What ****ed Kasparov off was that Deep Blue got creative in one match which caused him to cry foul because he didn't think that a computer could come up with a winning counter to one of his probes. There is an absoutely fascinating book on the Kasparov/Deep Blue chess matches by Monty Newborn titled "Computer chess comes of age - Kasparov vs Deep Blue". I don't know if it's still in print, but your library should be able to get it. If not, I have it and would be glad to lend it to you. It didn't get "creative". If you put all the same data back into the same computer it would give you the same result. Everytime. And you could follow the decision tree that lead to that result if you were so inclined. That the program results were unanticipated doesn't make them "creative". |
The road to Skynet...
On Feb 28, 9:23*am, "jamesgangnc" wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:um7cs310g4kqo04k5770mrns2pmis4gb3k@4ax .com... On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:36:55 -0500, BAR wrote: Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:28:43 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc wrote: All of today's computers are simply huge extensions of the first very basic logic circuits. *They are completely predictable. There was a guy named Kasparov who thought the same thing about chess playing computers. Yeah but, there were people, real live humans, reprogramming those specially designed computers after each match. Kasparov didn't get beaten by a computer he got beaten by a league of mathematicians. What the programmers did was use previous match data to bolster areas where Deep Blue made "iffy" decisions - similar to the way chess masters go over previous engagements they were involved in and their opponents to determine tendencies on their own part and their opponents. What ****ed Kasparov off was that Deep Blue got creative in one match which caused him to cry foul because he didn't think that a computer could come up with a winning counter to one of his probes. There is an absoutely fascinating book on the Kasparov/Deep Blue chess matches by Monty Newborn titled "Computer chess comes of age - Kasparov vs Deep Blue". *I don't know if it's still in print, but your library should be able to get it. *If not, I have it and would be glad to lend it to you. It didn't get "creative". *If you put all the same data back into the same computer it would give you the same result. *Everytime. *And you could follow the decision tree that lead to that result if you were so inclined. That the program results were unanticipated doesn't make them "creative".- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Exactly! Zeros and ones, baby! |
The road to Skynet...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:32:57 -0500, "jamesgangnc"
wrote: All your examples are still simply the consequences of the increase in computer performance. Chess playing computers simply leverage the machine's much faster ability to examine potential outcomes faster. They track previous moves by other players to "learn" what to assign the higher probabilities to. Again, predictable logic. Chess is a game with finite possible outcomes. Admittedly a very large number of possibilties but finite never the less. The fact that a computer can become undefeatable in chess is no different than your ability to never lose to a child in tic-tac-toe. In the world of cold logical actions, machines will eventually be superior to us in just about everything. Presently their ability to interact in the physical world is limited but that will change rapidly. Good point, but I would posit that a human's ability to define and adjust is no different than a computer's ability to do the same. The main reason that Kasparov complained was that the computer, in a fit of creativity, did something that he didn't expect. In his view, only a human mind could resolve the permutatiaons of his attack and respond the way Deep Blue did. When the logic streams were eventually published, it turns out that there wasn't any human intervention - the computer did exactly what it did by resolving and "computing" (if you will) the variables involved and developed a move based entirely on the current positions and downstream by ten moves. At this point, I would like to point out that I'm not a chess master by any stretch of the imagination - I play, but I'm not very good at it because I'm not a strategically oriented type of person being way to impulsive - call it a difference between strategy and tactics. I'm great on short term gain, if you will, but lose the overall strategic battle - call it win the battle, lose the war. Having said that, it's my understanding that chess masters do much the same as the computer- they look at current possibilities, extend the position variables to moves ten and twelve iterations out, examine the potentials of response based on past incllinations, experiences, etc., and develop their attacks, defenses and traps based on those variables. You may not wish to define this creative move as "inventive" but rather the result of cold logic circuitry - you are looking at it from a literal perspective and I won't argue that. I would prefer to look at it as creative because the results were creative and as evidence would seem to indicate, so did Kasparov as the move took him totally by surprise as in unexpected. Now, you could argue that he might not have accepted the same move by a human as "creative", but I wouldn't place a bet on it. But there are areas of human behavior that defy logic. We don't understand those areas. What was going on in Pacasso's mind when he produced a masterpiece? What is love? Why do we sometimes save another human, even our enemy, when doing so is completely against our own interests? Leaving higher dieties out of this, something is going on in our brain that appears to rise above computational. Is it simply some sort of computational algorythm that we do not understand yet? If so then maybe machine intelligence is predictable. But so far it doesn't appear to be explainable by a computational solution. Very good points, but I think that are missing an important distinction. Human emotions, or even concerns, might not necessarily be the defining element of computational intelligence. Intelligence does not necessarily encompass those features that make us who we are. Is it necessary that Homo Robiticus be artists, musicians or have compassion? I would suggest that it's not necessary to be a replicant of us because at that point, they become us. What I am suggesting is that artificial intelligence can be self-aware with all that implies sans that which makes Home Sapiens what it is. In short - a whole different life form. But to think that the expansion of computational ability at some point crosses some magic threshold and becomes intelligence is unsupported by any theory. There is no reason to predict that outcome and every reason to think that it will simply be whole lot of computational ability. And a whole lot of computational ability does not mean one of them will spontaneously pick up a paint brush or a pencil and create something. Or decide to kill us. I suspect we will eventually agree to disagree. :) And as this is WAY outside the pervue of a, in theory, boating oriented newsgroup, I yield to you for the last word. It's been fun. |
The road to Skynet...
|
The road to Skynet...
On Feb 28, 11:34*am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:32:57 -0500, "jamesgangnc" wrote: All your examples are still simply the consequences of the increase in computer performance. *Chess playing computers simply leverage the machine's much faster ability to examine potential outcomes faster. *They track previous moves by other players to "learn" what to assign the higher probabilities to. *Again, predictable logic. *Chess is a game with finite possible outcomes. *Admittedly a very large number of possibilties but finite never the less. *The fact that a computer can become undefeatable in chess is no different than your ability to never lose to a child in tic-tac-toe. *In the world of cold logical actions, machines will eventually be superior to us in just about everything. *Presently their ability to interact in the physical world is limited but that will change rapidly. Good point, but I would posit that a human's ability to define and adjust is no different than a computer's ability to do the same. *The main reason that Kasparov complained was that the computer, in a fit of creativity, did something that he didn't expect. *In his view, only a human mind could resolve the permutatiaons of his attack and respond the way Deep Blue did. *When the logic streams were eventually published, it turns out that there wasn't any human intervention - the computer did exactly what it did by resolving and "computing" (if you will) the variables involved and developed a move based entirely on the current positions and downstream by ten moves. At this point, I would like to point out that I'm not a chess master by any stretch of the imagination - I play, but I'm not very good at it because I'm not a strategically oriented type of person being way to impulsive - call it a difference between strategy and tactics. *I'm great on short term gain, if you will, but lose the overall strategic battle - call it win the battle, lose the war. Having said that, it's my understanding that chess masters do much the same as the computer- they look at current possibilities, extend the position variables to moves ten and twelve iterations out, examine the potentials of response based on past incllinations, experiences, etc., and develop their attacks, defenses and traps based on those variables. You may not wish to define this creative move as "inventive" but rather the result of cold logic circuitry - you are looking at it from a literal perspective and I won't argue that. *I would prefer to look at it as creative because the results were creative and as evidence would seem to indicate, so did Kasparov as the move took him totally by surprise as in unexpected. Now, you could argue that he might not have accepted the same move by a human as "creative", but I wouldn't place a bet on it. But there are areas of human behavior that defy logic. *We don't understand those areas. *What was going on in Pacasso's mind when he produced a masterpiece? *What is love? *Why do we sometimes save another human, even our enemy, when doing so is completely against our own interests? *Leaving higher dieties out of this, something is going on in our brain that appears to rise above computational. *Is it simply some sort of computational algorythm that we do not understand yet? *If so then maybe machine intelligence is predictable. *But so far it doesn't appear to be explainable by a computational solution. Very good points, but I think that are missing an important distinction. Human emotions, or even concerns, *might not necessarily be the defining element of computational intelligence. *Intelligence does not necessarily encompass those features that make us who we are. *Is it necessary that Homo Robiticus be artists, musicians or have compassion? *I would suggest that it's not necessary to be a replicant of us because at that point, they become us. *What I am suggesting is that artificial intelligence can be self-aware with all that implies sans that which makes Home Sapiens what it is. In short - a whole different life form. But to think that the expansion of computational ability at some point crosses some magic threshold and becomes intelligence is unsupported by any theory. *There is no reason to predict that outcome and every reason to think that it will simply be whole lot of computational ability. *And a whole lot of computational ability does not mean one of them will spontaneously pick up a paint brush or a pencil and create something. *Or decide to kill us. I suspect we will eventually agree to disagree. *:) And as this is WAY outside the pervue of a, in theory, boating oriented newsgroup, I yield to you for the last word. And I'll take it :-) I would say that those human qualities that you would be willing to give up in your machine intelligence world are the features that make us self aware. Our human qualities color our decisions such that they defy logic. In your soulless machine world what would be the point? If one of your machines eventually did make the leap beyond logic I suspect it would find it's entire existence depressing beyond all belief. Imagine waking up one day and finding yourself the only one among a world of souless automatons who's every move is completely predictable. Is that not truly becoming self aware? Conversely if you could not see the futility of such a mindless existence how could you be characterized as self aware? Could there be a self perpetuating world of machines that carries on indefinitely? Sure, why not. Bacteria do it. But neither fit my definition of selfwareness. Seems we seldom have more than one or two boating topics a day anyway. But hope springs eternal! |
The road to Skynet...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:36:34 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc
wrote: Seems we seldom have more than one or two boating topics a day anyway. But hope springs eternal! And spring is right around the corner for you high latitude folks. It was in the 80s here last week but a chilly 40 something this morning. Hopefully the pool will warm up by late afternoon. Back to computers: Read up on "the Turing Test" for some fresh insights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test As you can see, this discussion has been going on for a long time. I would postulate that Kasparov's automated opponent has already passed the test within its limited realm. At some point, and it may have already started, computers will be expertly programmed to simulate feelings, emotion and creative thought. When the simulations become so well done that world class experts can't tell the difference, what do you have then? |
The road to Skynet...
On Feb 28, 1:57*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:36:34 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc wrote: Seems we seldom have more than one or two boating topics a day anyway. *But hope springs eternal! And spring is right around the corner for you high latitude folks. *It was in the 80s here last week but a chilly 40 something this morning. Hopefully the pool will warm up by late afternoon. Back to computers: *Read up on "the Turing Test" for some fresh insights: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test As you can see, this discussion has been going on for a long time. *I would postulate that Kasparov's automated opponent has already passed the test within its limited realm. *At some point, and it may have already started, computers will be expertly programmed to simulate feelings, emotion and creative thought. *When the simulations become so well done that world class experts can't tell the difference, what do you have then? Simulating human behavior is far from possessing human characteristics. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com