| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The road to Skynet...
|
The road to Skynet...
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:58:49 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...ow_article= 1 Noel Sharkey sounds like a whiny liberal to me. He needs to walk the streets of DC at night and see what real danger is all about. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
The road to Skynet...
Skynet is total science fiction. We are as far from a self-aware electronic
intelligence as an ape is from a computer. We don't even have the first clue about how our own self awareness works. As far as robotic arms being reprogrammed by the enemy. Sure, any arms left behind in a battle is an asset to the other side. A robotic fighting machine is less dangerous in the hands of an enemy than an errant nuclear weapon. "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...ow_article= 1 |
The road to Skynet...
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:58:49 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...ow_article= 1 Noel Sharkey sounds like a whiny liberal to me. Well, *you* sound like a brain-damaged reject from Rush Limbaugh's all-male trip to the Carib. |
The road to Skynet...
"hkrause" wrote in message ... John H. wrote: On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:58:49 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...ow_article= 1 Noel Sharkey sounds like a whiny liberal to me. Well, *you* sound like a brain-damaged reject from Rush Limbaugh's all-male trip to the Carib. Did they travel via Disney Cruises? |
The road to Skynet...
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 :) |
The road to Skynet...
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. Your examples are extensions of existing technology that could, and were predicted by some. The technology to create self-awareness doesn't exist because we don't know what self-awareness is. Tell me you think we'll live on planets in other systems and I'll agree that is a possible outcome. Tell me that we'll eventually extend human lifespan into hundreds of years and I'll agree that that also might happen. But mechanical self-awareness, that's so remote from now. |
The road to Skynet...
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. |
The road to Skynet...
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. |
The road to Skynet...
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:43:03 -0500, 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. Good point. |
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. |
The road to Skynet...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:43:56 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc
wrote: 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. My blow up doll does both. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
The road to Skynet...
On Feb 28, 3:11*pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:43:56 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc wrote: 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. My blow up doll does both. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking."- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - But it will never pass for human because you don't have to buy it an expensive meal or ply it with alcohol to get to give it up. |
The road to Skynet...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:22:01 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc
wrote: On Feb 28, 3:11*pm, John H. wrote: On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:43:56 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc wrote: 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. My blow up doll does both. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking."- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - But it will never pass for human because you don't have to buy it an expensive meal or ply it with alcohol to get to give it up. ROTFL!!! If you ever get a chance, read David Levy's "Love and Sex With Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships". Once you get past the whole robot sexmachina ideas, it is a fascinating look inside what makes an AI tick. I'll give you fair warning - it's his PhD dissertation cleaned up a little for commercial purposes so it can be a tad dense in areas. |
The road to Skynet...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:57:07 -0500, 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? Years ago, the Scifi channel of all entities, had a software robot named Yotz that used to roam around it's chat channels and converse with participants. Yotz became very sophisticated in it's responses to questions and would pick up on conversations when it entered a room and make comments on the commentary. It's was interesting to watch Yotz over the early years "learn" it's responses, but it never became really spontaneous unless you asked it something directly. They tried to get it to respond to general commentary, but it never could quite get there. Newbies used to get ****ed off at Yotz becaue they never knew that Yotz wasn't capable of dealing with just general stuff unless you asked it directly. I never quite decided if that was smart on Yotz's part or not. :) |
The road to Skynet...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:43:56 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc
wrote: 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. Can't help but think of Blade Runner when reading this. Never read the book (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) as I had moved on from sci-fi by the time it came out. I'd like to read it, though. Blade Runner is one of my favorite movies. One of the most haunting scenes I've ever seen in a movie is when Deckard tells the girl her memories are fake, that she's not human, whereupon she sheds tears. The renegade warrior replicants did show one seemingly real emotion. Hate your enemy. Might argue that was programmed. Or not. --Vic |
The road to Skynet...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:05:00 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:43:56 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc wrote: 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. Can't help but think of Blade Runner when reading this. Never read the book (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) as I had moved on from sci-fi by the time it came out. I'd like to read it, though. "Androids" is well worth the time to read - unlike some of his other ego driven crap - Phillip K. Dick was a real dick in every sense of the word. Talk about a meglomaniac. Blade Runner is one of my favorite movies. One of the most haunting scenes I've ever seen in a movie is when Deckard tells the girl her memories are fake, that she's not human, whereupon she sheds tears. The renegade warrior replicants did show one seemingly real emotion. Hate your enemy. Might argue that was programmed. Or not. Ridley Scott was really on his game with "Blade Runner". Great movie. |
The road to Skynet...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:03:18 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:57:07 -0500, 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? Years ago, the Scifi channel of all entities, had a software robot named Yotz that used to roam around it's chat channels and converse with participants. Yotz became very sophisticated in it's responses to questions and would pick up on conversations when it entered a room and make comments on the commentary. It's was interesting to watch Yotz over the early years "learn" it's responses, but it never became really spontaneous unless you asked it something directly. They tried to get it to respond to general commentary, but it never could quite get there. Newbies used to get ****ed off at Yotz becaue they never knew that Yotz wasn't capable of dealing with just general stuff unless you asked it directly. I never quite decided if that was smart on Yotz's part or not. :) It can be dangerous to ask "How are you?" Might be a hypochondriac you're asking. When I was young I had a real problem engaging in small talk. Some said it was just a question of maturation. But I think I'm an android, and just learned it via programmed accretion of knowledge in observing how humans do it. Oh, wait. That's you! (-: --Vic |
The road to Skynet...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:14:01 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: But I think I'm an android, and just learned it via programmed accretion of knowledge in observing how humans do it. Oh, wait. That's you! (-: Yes - it's true - I am an android. In fact, most of the universe are biological artificial intelligences evolved well beyond the mere meat bags here on Earth. It's all a part of my master plan of Galactic Domination to pose as human. And now that you know the truth, you will be receiving a visit from my team of Android Marines very shortly. Enjoy your trip to Omicron Persei VIII. :) |
The road to Skynet...
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:43:56 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc wrote: 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. My blow up doll does both. Do you mean she bitches at you to turn off the TV Sports channel and has way too many headaches? |
The road to Skynet...
jamesgangnc wrote:
nd 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. My blow up doll does both. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking."- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - But it will never pass for human because you don't have to buy it an expensive meal or ply it with alcohol to get to give it up. Have you meet JohnH's blow up doll? |
The road to Skynet...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:21:19 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is
Here wrote: John H. wrote: On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:43:56 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc wrote: 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. My blow up doll does both. Do you mean she bitches at you to turn off the TV Sports channel and has way too many headaches? Yeah, dammit. Proof she's learned human characteristics. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
The road to Skynet...
On Feb 28, 3:14*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
When I was young I had a real problem engaging in small talk. Some said it was just a question of maturation. But I think I'm an android, and just learned it via programmed accretion of knowledge in observing how humans do it. Well, what if it turns out your really a 'borg instead???? |
The road to Skynet...
On Feb 28, 4:03*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:14:01 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: But I think I'm an android, and just learned it via programmed accretion of knowledge in observing how humans do it. Oh, wait. *That's you! *(-: Yes - it's true - I am an android. In fact, most of the universe are biological artificial intelligences evolved well beyond the mere meat bags here on Earth. It's all a part of my master plan of Galactic Domination to pose as human. And now that you know the truth, you will be receiving a visit from my team of Android Marines very shortly. Enjoy your trip to Omicron Persei VIII. *:) Hmmm, Lurr against Al'ar Phoenix |
The road to Skynet...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:43:56 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc
wrote: 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. Agreed but the point of the Turing test is that if the simulation is so well done that an expert can not reliably tell the difference, then intelligence exists. |
The road to Skynet...
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
... On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:43:56 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc wrote: 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. Agreed but the point of the Turing test is that if the simulation is so well done that an expert can not reliably tell the difference, then intelligence exists. That was what they believed at the time. I don't think anyone seriously buys that anymore and no significant efforts in the ai world today are trying to pass the turing test. The turing test is a pretty old definition of intelligence. And it all depends on your definition of intelligence. The original topic was skynet, the fictional suggestion that once a certain level of computation capability is passed the machine becomes self aware and decides to destroy mankind Is self awareness a quality of intelligence? What exactly is self awareness? Does a program that could pass the turing test also self aware? Is your pet intelligent but just not as intelligent as us? |
The road to Skynet...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:35:13 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote: On Feb 28, 3:14*pm, Vic Smith wrote: When I was young I had a real problem engaging in small talk. Some said it was just a question of maturation. But I think I'm an android, and just learned it via programmed accretion of knowledge in observing how humans do it. Well, what if it turns out your really a 'borg instead???? Not too conversant with Borgs, but don't they know they are Borgs? I have no such knowledge, so I'm probably ok on that. I do get "signals" sometimes, but attribute those to Larry not properly modulating his transmissions. Can't be sure they are coming from Larry, but since "Mercedes" and "fry oil" are often detectable in the transmissions, it's a good bet. Then again, maybe I'm just confusing "signals" with actual usenet posts. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. --Vic |
The road to Skynet...
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:19:39 -0500, "jamesgangnc"
wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:43:56 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc wrote: 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. Agreed but the point of the Turing test is that if the simulation is so well done that an expert can not reliably tell the difference, then intelligence exists. That was what they believed at the time. I don't think anyone seriously buys that anymore and no significant efforts in the ai world today are trying to pass the turing test. The turing test is a pretty old definition of intelligence. And it all depends on your definition of intelligence. The original topic was skynet, the fictional suggestion that once a certain level of computation capability is passed the machine becomes self aware and decides to destroy mankind Is self awareness a quality of intelligence? What exactly is self awareness? Does a program that could pass the turing test also self aware? Is your pet intelligent but just not as intelligent as us? Must. Not. Reply. Must. Resist. Replying. Ah hell... :) I still think it's a question of defnition. If humankind can wrap it's collective brain around a concept that will accept intelligence or a form of consciousness without those features that define us (even as we struggle to define it outselves as you said), then that will be the definition. Consider this - myth brought us Golems, Afreets and Frankenstiens are all visions of life other than ours. In a sense, Golems, Afreets and Frankenstiens are extensions of human fear of being duplicated (or reanimated in the case of Frankenstein). Zombies, ghouls and in general the undead also are part of these fears. In short, humans don't wish to be duplicated in any form even if it is amoral "life" which means that unless and until humans can accept that other forms of intelligence and consciourness exist. With respect to the example I provided, all are humanoid in some fashion and operate on a logic system that is foreign. However, who is to say that the thought process of an Afreet isn't just a different order of morality and consciousness? I'll give you an example of what I mean. We extend the definition of "life" to single celled organisims. A single celled organism can't make decisions based on a logic tree and simply exist. On the other hand, a computer can, and does, make decisionsl based on an ordered logic system based largely on what we believe human thought does. How can one non-functional low order form be considered "life" and the other fully functional higher order form not? I would posit that it's a bias by organic creatures against those that are not organic - that even at this early stage of computational "intelligence", computers are life. With respect to my dogs, one of them is smarter than I am. :) |
The road to Skynet...
On Feb 29, 11:58*am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:19:39 -0500, "jamesgangnc" wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:43:56 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc wrote: 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. Agreed but the point of the Turing test is that if the simulation is so well done that an expert can not reliably tell the difference, then intelligence exists. That was what they believed at the time. *I don't think anyone seriously buys that anymore and no significant efforts in the ai world today are trying to pass the turing test. *The turing test is a pretty old definition of intelligence. *And it all depends on your definition of intelligence.. The original topic was skynet, the fictional suggestion that once a certain level of computation capability is passed the machine becomes self aware and decides to destroy mankind *Is self awareness a quality of intelligence? What exactly is self awareness? *Does a program that could pass the turing test also self aware? *Is your pet intelligent but just not as intelligent as us? Must. *Not. *Reply. *Must. *Resist. *Replying. Ah hell... *:) I still think it's a question of defnition. *If humankind can wrap it's collective brain around a concept that will accept intelligence or a form of consciousness without those features that define us (even as we struggle to define it outselves as you said), then that will be the definition. Consider this - myth brought us Golems, Afreets and Frankenstiens are all visions of life other than ours. *In a sense, Golems, Afreets and Frankenstiens are extensions of human fear of being duplicated (or reanimated in the case of Frankenstein). *Zombies, ghouls and in general the undead also are part of these fears. In short, humans don't wish to be duplicated in any form even if it is amoral "life" which means that unless and until humans can accept that other forms of intelligence and consciourness exist. *With respect to the example I provided, all are humanoid in some fashion and operate on a logic system that is foreign. *However, who is to say that the thought *process of an Afreet isn't just a different order of morality and consciousness? * I'll give you an example of what I mean. We extend the definition of "life" to single celled organisims. *A single celled organism can't make decisions based on a logic tree and simply exist. *On the other hand, a computer can, and does, make decisionsl based on an ordered logic system based largely on what we believe human thought does. How can one non-functional low order form be considered "life" and the other fully functional higher order form not? *I would posit that it's a bias by organic creatures against those that are not organic - that even at this early stage of computational "intelligence", computers are life. With respect to my dogs, one of them is smarter than I am. *:)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I can expand my definition of life to include computers. And your dog. I'm also ok with computers being intelligent. And your dog being intelligent. And most of the posters in this news group being intelligent. I'm stalled at self aware and consciousness. I believe those are qualities outside being able to make logical decisions. I think your dog is self aware. I think most people that have spent time interacting with animals recognizes that they do have some self awareness. Humans did not cross some mytical boundary to become self aware. Your computer is not self aware. I do not deny the possibility of mechanical consciousness. But I do not believe that the present direction of modern computers is leading to such a being. While it is difficult to agree on the definition of consciousness, I think the majority of people will want to include characteristics that are outside simply functioning and making logic tree decisions. Characteristics that for lack of a better word we call human. You have to work inside the range of reasonable definitions. |
The road to Skynet...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
With respect to my dogs, one of them is smarter than I am. :) What I have heard, is they all are. ;) By the way, are you a closet philosopher? You need to start writing into some weekly publications, your short essays would definitely create a buzz. |
The road to Skynet...
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:46:27 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: With respect to my dogs, one of them is smarter than I am. :) What I have heard, is they all are. ;) I suspect you may be right. By the way, are you a closet philosopher? No - I'm a closet moron. You need to start writing into some weekly publications, your short essays would definitely create a buzz. Last time I did that, a review committee called it a dissertation and gave me a post graduate degree after asking me some questions and asking me to defend my position. After about five minutes of spirited discussion, we broke for coffee and never went back into session - they granted the degree without dissent. I've long suspected that none of them actually read it. It was, how you say, arcane and somewhat obtuse. No, obtuse is way too lenient - opaque is much more descriptive. Out of the six reviewers, maybe one understood what I was getting at and her understanding was marginal at best. What they did read was the acknowledgement page in which every one of the reviewers was given due credit for their contribution to my meager efforts and I liberally dropped footnotes using their papers, essays and, in one case, an item that had nothing what so ever to do with the dissertation, being so convoluted that it was impossible to understand, but it sounded good. You see, mathematicians write in the passive voice using few nouns and verbs developing a neutral approach without ever actually saying exactly what it is they wish to say doing it all by implication sprinkling graphs, charts and equations liberally in between paragraphs and when they get bored with their own voice they throw in a semi-colon; and then continue on with their original thought only by this time the reviewer has gotten so bored with the long sentence that he/she automatically assumes that something important was said and thus will agree as long as he/she has been quoted and properly footnoted. The secret of my success was very long sentences sometimes encompassing whole paragraphs and gratuitous fawning - see above. :) That and color - lots of bright lines, color highlighting equations and interesting variables and pretty colored explosions of graph lines. Distracting camouflage which blinded them to the fact that I didn't know what the hell I was talking about either. There you have it. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:52 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com