Discussion
JustinP1 said:
Butter Face said:
JustinP1 said:
Did anyone notice the scene where the male CID bloke gets into the female officer's car?
She's stationary, looking straight ahead, and then rather robotically rotates her head than then smiles as she greets him.
I can't imagine that was random...?
10 points to this man!She's stationary, looking straight ahead, and then rather robotically rotates her head than then smiles as she greets him.
I can't imagine that was random...?
The bag in the throat was brilliant.
My Cylon God of course.
Guvernator said:
ikarl said:
Sorry, not sure I know what you mean when you say 'hokey websites', but I did read an article in The Economist a few months ago that made me think - http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21650526-ar...
I'm not an expert and don't profess to be one, but looking at the progress of computers now compared to 20 or 30 years ago the bounds are impressive. Pure computing ability has multiplied many times, computers have got smaller, faster and more energy efficient. I also believe there's something called 'Moore's Law'(?) which has been pretty consistant over the years and progress has been pretty much on track with that.
If a computer was tasked with improving itself and had free reign to do so, do you not think it would be possible for it to grow and improve? Could it learn? Could it learn how to understand (like a human brain)?
That economist article is a regurgitation of stuff we have been seeing\reading for years and is surprisingly sensationalist for that paper.I'm not an expert and don't profess to be one, but looking at the progress of computers now compared to 20 or 30 years ago the bounds are impressive. Pure computing ability has multiplied many times, computers have got smaller, faster and more energy efficient. I also believe there's something called 'Moore's Law'(?) which has been pretty consistant over the years and progress has been pretty much on track with that.
If a computer was tasked with improving itself and had free reign to do so, do you not think it would be possible for it to grow and improve? Could it learn? Could it learn how to understand (like a human brain)?
Computers are improving all the time but only because we are improving them. Could a computer learn how to learn or improve itself one day? Sure it could but it would need at least a base level of intelligence in order to be able to do that and more importantly, we'd still need to feed it power, data, storage space and increased processing capacity otherwise how would it grow? Where would it get the spare capacity to grow into beyond a certain point. A computer has physical limitations just like everything else. If you want to improve your computer you have to physically put more ram\storage in it, how will that change in the future? Even a very smart AI can't just magic this stuff up.
Man has the smartest computer yet invented in his skull but even that has limitations as to how much it can improve, remember and learn. Beyond a certain point it can't just make itself faster\smarter out of thin air. The progress of a learning AI would be a long slow process much like how a real human grows, improves and develops. It would take years and it would need external assistance in both how it develops and the physical requirements which we would directly control.
The idea that a computer could go from simple sentience (animals are sentient) to super-being and then get out of control and do a Skynet\try to take over the world, all within a couple of hours of being brought online is a little bit far-fetched.
TX.
ikarl said:
I don't think AI would want to take over the world, but it might treat us as if weren't even here... In much the same way we treat wasps. Do we care about them? well, unless they start arsing about and threatening us.
It looks like the first phase of them taking over is to take some kind of computer LSD.http://gizmodo.com/googles-dream-robot-is-running-...
And a slightly scary take on Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas which contains some swearing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyxSerkkP4o
From this I conclude that AI would destroy humans and report to their canine overlords.
smn159 said:
I assume that you mean, "The Singularity Is Coming" as this was the closest that I could find to the title. Sounds like an interesting read so I've just ordered a copy 
It is an interesting read. He thinks and tries to demonstrate that it'll revolutionise humanity almost overnight. Within certain timescales he believes AI will have conquered (amongst other things) age-related death and just about everything else you could possibly desire.According to him it's (Computers/AI's) growth is currently exponential not linear. Stay alive until about 2035 and you'll likely see this all come to pass he says. Interestingly he made certain timeline predictions (with an margin for error of +/- 5 years) in 2006 and some (he argues almost all) have actually come to pass. As an example he said something along the lines of "by 2015 we'll be talking to our phones and they'll be retrieving our requests from the Internet and talking back to you". "By 2015 VR will be upon us in a very big way". Well the former is true and the latter is about to come true.
If you google 'Kurzweil's Timeline to AI' or similar I'm sure you'll find it.
Yes, some he appears to get wrong, but then read his response to those criticisms and he has a point, maybe they actually did come to pass. He does agree that 1 prediction hasn't happened but I can't remember which or his explanation.
However, his perfectly reasoned prediction for the speed of the arrival of AI makes for very intriguing reading. Enjoy
mudflaps said:
However, his perfectly reasoned prediction for the speed of the arrival of AI makes for very intriguing reading. Enjoy
Perfectly reasoned, unless you understand anything about how computers are currently made. Current silicon technology certainly isn't going to cut it, no matter how fast or powerful it gets so unless there is a MAJOR and totally unforeseen breakthrough in quantum or organic computing or some such in the next few years (VERY unlikely as they aren't even in their infancy), it ain't going to happen. I very much doubt we'll be seeing any form of self learning AI by 2035, not even close. Yes.
If you're interested in the subject, I'd recommend Michio Kaku's 'Future of the Mind'.
Moore's Law was always only approximate, and I'm pretty sure when he put it out there he did not consider the point at which chips are getting to the limit of what is physically possible on a silicon chip. Much smaller and electrons don't stay where they are supposed to due to quantum effects.
Yes, you could say you can just run X chips in parallel, but even then, you are looking at a computer the size of a house to even replicate the brain of say a dog.
If you're interested in the subject, I'd recommend Michio Kaku's 'Future of the Mind'.
Moore's Law was always only approximate, and I'm pretty sure when he put it out there he did not consider the point at which chips are getting to the limit of what is physically possible on a silicon chip. Much smaller and electrons don't stay where they are supposed to due to quantum effects.
Yes, you could say you can just run X chips in parallel, but even then, you are looking at a computer the size of a house to even replicate the brain of say a dog.
Guvernator said:
so unless there is a MAJOR and totally unforeseen breakthrough in quantum or organic computing or some such in the next few years (VERY unlikely as they aren't even in their infancy), it ain't going to happen.
So you're saying NASA's Kurzweil doesn't understand computers?Per Wiki; Raymond "Ray" Kurzweil is an American author, computer scientist, inventor, futurist, and is a director of engineering at Google.
Not in their infancy? I'd dispute that. Not in everyday use perhaps.
http://www.wired.com/2013/06/d-wave-quantum-comput...
"For what it’s worth, Google is matter-of-fact in calling the D-Wave a quantum computer. And it should come as no surprise that it just hired Sergio Boixo, one of the researchers behind the USC paper. The machine is housed at NASA’s Ames Research Center, not far from Google’s headquarters, in a place the company calls the Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab. At Google, the semantics aren’t nearly as important as the task at hand."
In short, things are moving - and FAST.
JustinP1 said:
Yes, you could say you can just run X chips in parallel, but even then, you are looking at a computer the size of a house to even replicate the brain of say a dog.
Yes, today the size of house to as you say "replicate the brain of say a dog" but this 2015 and other advances are being made and what's the one lesson about computers that we've learnt since their inception?Also, other avenues are being explored to overcome the silicon chip limiter for instance 3-D silicon chips.
http://www.gizmag.com/high-rise-3d-chips-big-data/...
From that article
This research is still in its early stages, but the scientists say their design and manufacturing techniques are scalable and could lead to a significant leap in computing performance.
"Monolithic 3D integration of logic and memory and emerging nanotechnologies like CNT transistors are promising steps for building the next generation of ultra-high efficiency and high performance electronic systems that can operate on massive amounts of data," says Shulaker. "The ability to operate on massive amounts of data in an energy-efficient manner could enable new applications that we can’t dream of today."
If you accept that exponential and not linear growth is happening then it's only a matter of time and not much time at that.
mudflaps said:
If you accept that exponential and not linear growth is happening then it's only a matter of time and not much time at that.
They've been saying that since the 50's where they mocked up robots that did the ironing. We've always been on the cusp of exponential growth, but all that happens is that there is relative stagnation for a period followed by a step forward faster then Moore's law evening itself out.
I don't like being a nay-sayer to people who are willing to put their thoughts onto PH like you guys above, but when it comes to an authority on these things (and they are things I *don't* fully understand) I have to weigh up who I should pay attention to...
So on one hand I have; NASA experts, Google directors, world renowned scientists, world class universities. On the other hand there are some 'anonymous' folk on here, who I don't know anything about
Please don't read this as though I'm not grateful for your input, I really am, but I hope you can understand why I would put more weight to what I can read on the subject elsewhere
So on one hand I have; NASA experts, Google directors, world renowned scientists, world class universities. On the other hand there are some 'anonymous' folk on here, who I don't know anything about
Please don't read this as though I'm not grateful for your input, I really am, but I hope you can understand why I would put more weight to what I can read on the subject elsewhere
ikarl said:
I don't like being a nay-sayer to people who are willing to put their thoughts onto PH like you guys above, but when it comes to an authority on these things (and they are things I *don't* fully understand) I have to weigh up who I should pay attention to...
So on one hand I have; NASA experts, Google directors, world renowned scientists, world class universities. On the other hand there are some 'anonymous' folk on here, who I don't know anything about
Please don't read this as though I'm not grateful for your input, I really am, but I hope you can understand why I would put more weight to what I can read on the subject elsewhere
You are falling for WMD syndrome, which is perfectly natural and human.So on one hand I have; NASA experts, Google directors, world renowned scientists, world class universities. On the other hand there are some 'anonymous' folk on here, who I don't know anything about
Please don't read this as though I'm not grateful for your input, I really am, but I hope you can understand why I would put more weight to what I can read on the subject elsewhere
By that I mean at some point there was a meeting with Blair et al, around a big table with experts from all around the world, and the question was asked:
"In your opinion does Iraq have WMD, and if they do, how quickly could they become operational?". The answers were along the lines of:
5 Years, No. No. No. 5-10 Years. 10 Years. No. No. 6 months.
Of course, history tells us they acted on the person who gave the scariest answer.
The person who gave the answer of '6 months' was highly qualified and was acting in the best of his ability. However, he was proven wrong.
The moral is just because a few people shout a scary thing, it does not make it definitive because at the end of the day they are still in the minority.
JustinP1 said:
mudflaps said:
If you accept that exponential and not linear growth is happening then it's only a matter of time and not much time at that.
They've been saying that since the 50's where they mocked up robots that did the ironing. We've always been on the cusp of exponential growth, but all that happens is that there is relative stagnation for a period followed by a step forward faster then Moore's law evening itself out.
"20,000 years worth of advancement in the next hundred years compared to growth in the 20th century." Hence the warnings from Musk, Gates, Hawking et all.
mudflaps said:
JustinP1 said:
mudflaps said:
If you accept that exponential and not linear growth is happening then it's only a matter of time and not much time at that.
They've been saying that since the 50's where they mocked up robots that did the ironing. We've always been on the cusp of exponential growth, but all that happens is that there is relative stagnation for a period followed by a step forward faster then Moore's law evening itself out.
"20,000 years worth of advancement in the next hundred years compared to growth in the 20th century." Hence the warnings from Musk, Gates, Hawking et all.
Back to the Future II was set in 2015
2001 a Space Odyssey
In the Terminator, Skynet becomes sentient in 1997.
There's plenty more examples, but the point I am making is even in science fiction, predictions of development have been grossly overestimated compared to the reality of what has actually occurred.
JustinP1 said:
1984 was set in 1984
Back to the Future II was set in 2015
2001 a Space Odyssey
In the Terminator, Skynet becomes sentient in 1997.
There's plenty more examples, but the point I am making is even in science fiction, predictions of development have been grossly overestimated compared to the reality of what has actually occurred.
Those are all Science Fiction films and in no way attempted to make accurate predictions of the future. They were entertainment.Back to the Future II was set in 2015
2001 a Space Odyssey
In the Terminator, Skynet becomes sentient in 1997.
There's plenty more examples, but the point I am making is even in science fiction, predictions of development have been grossly overestimated compared to the reality of what has actually occurred.
(I might also point out the Space Shuttle in 2001 but won't
)The point is Kubrick was film maker not a scientist and had no credentials in the scientific or computing field - neither were the creators of the other films you mention (Cameron et all).
You're not comparing Apples with Apples. Dr Who is likewise set now
mudflaps said:
JustinP1 said:
1984 was set in 1984
Back to the Future II was set in 2015
2001 a Space Odyssey
In the Terminator, Skynet becomes sentient in 1997.
There's plenty more examples, but the point I am making is even in science fiction, predictions of development have been grossly overestimated compared to the reality of what has actually occurred.
Those are all Science Fiction films and in no way attempted to make accurate predictions of the future. They were entertainment.Back to the Future II was set in 2015
2001 a Space Odyssey
In the Terminator, Skynet becomes sentient in 1997.
There's plenty more examples, but the point I am making is even in science fiction, predictions of development have been grossly overestimated compared to the reality of what has actually occurred.
(I might also point out the Space Shuttle in 2001 but won't
)The point is Kubrick was film maker not a scientist and had no credentials in the scientific or computing field - neither were the creators of the other films you mention (Cameron et all).
You're not comparing Apples with Apples. Dr Who is likewise set now
The point is that if development was really exponential, and especially at the rate that you've mentioned, then the reality would be development far past where even science fiction writers predicted.
It's not.
ikarl said:
I don't like being a nay-sayer to people who are willing to put their thoughts onto PH like you guys above, but when it comes to an authority on these things (and they are things I *don't* fully understand) I have to weigh up who I should pay attention to...
So on one hand I have; NASA experts, Google directors, world renowned scientists, world class universities. On the other hand there are some 'anonymous' folk on here, who I don't know anything about
Please don't read this as though I'm not grateful for your input, I really am, but I hope you can understand why I would put more weight to what I can read on the subject elsewhere
If I've learnt anything from 15 years working in IT. Most of what experts say is marketing bullsSo on one hand I have; NASA experts, Google directors, world renowned scientists, world class universities. On the other hand there are some 'anonymous' folk on here, who I don't know anything about
Please don't read this as though I'm not grateful for your input, I really am, but I hope you can understand why I would put more weight to what I can read on the subject elsewhere
t and you have to understand the strategy of the organisation, and then use that to read between the lines and see what's really being said.In it's simplest form it's along the lines of: Company A says "AI could be live in 5 years" really means "Our project has stalled and we want legislation to stop AI from Company B being allowed".
Of course Company B is also bulls
tting and they are both doing it to keep the share price up and show how much of a "market leader" they are and pull the wool over the eyes of Gartner to get into the "Magic Quadrant" of doom.Or I could just be really cynical.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff