Artificial Intelligence

[5614]

NavajoEverclear: you cannot apply science to God! soz, but the two dont mix! and as the origins of God is argued, there is no way we can talk about if He has evolved or not, sorry, but its just unreal, and stupid to do!

 

LucidDreamer: seemingly you didnt read one of my posts carefully my 2nd post on this page [page3] the middle part said basically, that yes, i agree with you, it is highly unlikely, and i said it was damn near impossible, and that i voted never on the poll, so agreed to your last post! but i am saying that, maybe it is possible, the things are there, but as you said, ppl still cant do it! but that doesnt mean its impossible! so yes, unlikely, and as of yet, impossible, but maybe one day, the current technologies will be understood enough to get somewhere! but they started NOW, are already here, and ready, waiting, for someone to work some magic, wire it all together, and make AI, the foundation is here, we need the rest of the building now, if you see where im coming from!

[LucidDreamer]

I don't want to get into the argument about whether God evolved, but I do know that man describes God as all knowing, all powerful, and omnipresent. These are three things that man is always seeking to become.

[5614]

yes indeed:

 

"man seeks to become greater, that is mans purpose"

"in our dreams, we seek to be what we cannot achive, unrivled greatness"

"dreams are only real in our head"

 

man wants to become powerful, and better, so inevitably, if God exists! we want to become like God, as God is the MOST powerfull thing ever known!

[Sayonara]

Individuals don't evolve.

[NavajoEverclear]

Individuals don't evolve.

 

well i didn't mean that God himself evolved, but is a product of evolution

(or if exists at all is your choice to believe or not, or care or not)

 

you cannot apply science to God! soz, but the two dont mix! and as the origins of God is argued, there is no way we can talk about if He has evolved or not, sorry, but its just unreal, and stupid to do!

 

WHY dont the two mix? That is your belief not mine, and i dont see why your view is the best one. Of coarse if God is as advanced as he is he probably works with principals of science that we don't have the ability to comprehend, but he still doesn't work outside the laws of physics.

 

I had a logical reason for my belief why God evolved, and why we can evolve into Gods (not idividually of coarse, but by aiming the evolution of our descendents). Your belief consists of some blind idea that he is above everything and that i am stupid.

 

You can hold your belief and i will be fine with it, but you are clearly not thinking through WHY you are opposing me, because your argument is infinitately to weak to convince me.

[AtomicMX]

you should read nietzsche's books.

[NavajoEverclear]

I think i've heard of that Dude, what section of the library would they be in? Can you give me a summary about him?

[AtomicMX]

philosophy... mmmm he wrote the antichrist, zaratustra, moral genealogy and plenty other.. beyond of the good and bad... many intresting...

i suggest The antichrist for the ocation.

[TheProphet]

5614: I was under the impretion that quantum entagnlement only seemed to work once.. Gotta check that thread again too se whom said it, (not that it wasen't able to use more times but he indicated a problem that could result in that) And still quantum computers are far away and yet we don't know how it will look in reality! And to download in lightspeed seems lightyears away...

[5614]

well kinda, the qunatum entaglement link can be broken, but nothing is to stop it being re-former, yes, check out the link again, if you dont understand, post a reply to that thread, it needs to get back onto the main home pg again!!!!!!

 

quantum computers are probably a long way away, but still a realistic possibility for the next 50 or 100 years!

 

downloading at the speed of light is a very realistic, with fibre optics becoming more popular, the only problem is cost, fibre optic wires are crushed, compressed glass, i believe, although have never broken one to see, they are not solid galss! otherwise they couldnt bend, so when i was told they were crushed glass, it seemed realistic! if i connected my computer, to another, using a fibre optic network, with the expensive wires, and special router or hub, then if my computer could work at those speads, then yes, i could download at the speed of light! so you say: "but computers dont work that fast yet..." i say "correct" so i would download at the speed of my computer.... if i can install a 1.5GB game, in about 3-5mins, then i could download that same file, 1.5GB in about 3-5mins! thats mega quick, as normally, a single CD or 700MB can take hours to download! and thats half the size; approx!

 

so as i have said multiple time, light speed computing, downloading, and computer connections, ARE VERY REALISTIC, if you are a millionaire!

[5614]

You can hold your belief and i will be fine with it, but you are clearly not thinking through WHY you are opposing me, because your argument is infinitately to weak to convince me.

 

ok, firstly, i apologize, i did not mean to offend you in any way soz, can we be friends now!!!

 

i said, dont mix God and science because:

 

God is a belief, where is the scientific proof that God exists, if God made the world, how, science says, matter cannot be made, nor removed from this universe, so could God make planets, people, anything?

 

God is part of religion, based on faith, based on accounts of people from long ago, the world grew up on religion, multiple different ones, but where is the proof, the He, that all powerful one ever has, is or is going to exist?

 

as for whether he evlolved or not, i shall try not to come back to this topic, after this post, unless someone else raises the subject, God if he exists, [we must take all views into account,] how He came into existence, how He does His stuff, we cannot know, the whole point of God is that He is beyond our human boundaries, maybe, we could become like Him one day, who knows, that depends on your religion, and that religions view, however, at this precise moment in time, when i post this message, we are not like Him, He is beyond our boundaries!

 

that is my view, appologies again to NavajoEverclear.

[Sayonara]

so as i have said multiple time, light speed computing, downloading, and computer connections, ARE VERY REALISTIC, if you are a millionaire!

When I said "computation with light" earlier, I was not referring to optical communications.

[5614]

When I said "computation with light" earlier, I was not[/b'] referring to optical communications.

 

what where you referring to then?

 

light & computers, i made the assumption of optical fibre networking, cabling, and other methods, basically, anywhere where there is a wire, you can replcae it with an optical fibre wire, and have the data wizzed around at the speed of light, which seemed topical, but not what you meant?

 

so what do you mean?

[TheProphet]

Sayonara: Im with u on that one! Liked the experiment when Hau (ior was it another scientist hmm) Managed to trap light into a form of memory =) And also reading out single photons spin(i belive, some vital info atleast) through rubudium atomsm without destroing the orginial info of the Photons.

 

5614: I understand Quantum Entagnlement so far (i belive i helped u with it in that thread just don't remember what whas said about it's scarce condition. Whas it tha one u measured it again the effect disapeared.. too me this would be interperted as once is possible put twice is not... altough i might be wrong on that point. must check which thread it was...

Of course lightspeed downloads are possible(within given time). but i was under the wrong impression that u forgot our snail computers for the moment, but i se you didn't! But too med 10 mbit broadband i wuite good and we even have 100mbit here now (not to me since i live in the country) bu i know of many that can have it for €90. And that is FAST. Even for whole dvd:s. But the systembuss and hard drives have hard time to cope with this speeds..

[5614]

Of course lightspeed downloads are possible(within given time). but i was under the wrong impression that u forgot our snail computers for the moment, but i se you didn't! But too med 10 mbit broadband i wuite good and we even have 100mbit here now (not to me since i live in the country) bu i know of many that can have it for €90. And that is FAST. Even for whole dvd:s. But the systembuss and hard drives have hard time to cope with this speeds..

 

first the easy bit, fibre optic stuff, the bottom part of what u said: while you say our snail computers, i say, snail internet, sure, our computers cant work at the speed of light! they will ALWAYS be limited to the speed of electricity, as, some part will have to run on electricity, unless light, and photons become an energy source, there will always be some electrical circuit, which is the 1st limit to the computer speed, when we talk about fibre optics, that is! as i said before, the computer would download at the speed of which the HDD can write, which is pretty fast, as i said before, my turbo HDD, extra fast, for an extra £10 [uK money] that writes about 1.5GB in 3-5mins, thats fast enough! lol, i was on 56K till a few weeks ago, not even a month yet, remember the old 56K days, if i could download 1.5GB in under 5mins, i would not complain that my computer was not up to speed, but yes, i see where you are coming from.

 

5614: I understand Quantum Entagnlement so far (i belive i helped u with it in that thread just don't remember what whas said about it's scarce condition. Whas it tha one u measured it again the effect disapeared.. too me this would be interperted as once is possible put twice is not... altough i might be wrong on that point. must check which thread it was...

 

yes, when two particles are entagled, their stated are set, to copy each other, they start off the same.

 

however this bond between them is weak, and is broken in many a way. for example, by measuring one of the atoms, the bond is broken, and major changes to the atoms properties also break the bond, however, minor changes will not, so, a minor change could be made, and the other atom, would follow suit!

 

now this is where i remind all, i am not a physicist, quantum entaglement is PHD level university stuff, I DONT KNOW,

 

as far as i can see, if this is your question two particles could be multiple times entagled with each other! once, the bond is broken, and again, because, after all, once the bond is broken, they appear as just ordinary atoms, with an unusual past! so i cant see why they couldnt be entagled more than once, if the bond was broken,

 

is that what you were asking? does it help? why does it make a difference, if they cant, just use a different atom!

[DoorNumber1]

It is pre-programmed, just not in the way you are thinking. An Artificial Intelligence is programmed with rules that allow it to learn. Not only is it capable of learning, it is able to do it in a heuristic fashion, and it can teach itself to think in new ways.

 

Thank you! Finally a good point.

You have to laugh when you look at how people view intelligence. Can you have an "intelligent" conversation with a baby? I have a 3 yr old niece who, I must say, is the cutest and smartest little kid I've ever seen in my entire life... but then again my opinion's biased! And you know, I can't have an "intelligent" conversation with her. I can talk about lots of things, but they're all sort of silly and superficial and they must relate, in some way, back to her. In 10 years though (probably a huge overestimate considering how intelligent her father is), when she learns more about the world, I'd be able to have that intelligent conversation people speak of. But I think I'll miss how things are now.

What babies do when they come out, essentially, is spend all of their time just soaking up input from the world. They have certain needs, like eating (and the natural consequences of eating) and they take care of those first. Then they watch you and listen. They test you to see how you respond. They yell, they cry, they hit you and they bite you. They mimic you. And in that manner they learn from you. And, of course, they do this to inanimate objects and quickly learn the difference between you and, say, a wall (even though there's not much difference with some people). They speak because you're always talking to them. I'm pretty sure that if you looked at your baby every two minutes and said only "kitty" you can guess what his/her first word would be.

So how do we create artificial intelligences? They'll have to be partially hardcoded. Any program is. And they need to want to learn. A baby is hardcoded, to some extent, when it pops out. It seeks human contact (hell, even dogs seek each other's warmth and touch when they're born... it's what social creatures do) and with no guarantee that the mother will provide for it. It puts itself in a position to have its basic needs taken care of and from which it can start soaking up human knowledge. A baby's cute and that makes us want to play with it. If we had that same desire to play with a young machine and we put even a fraction of the time into educating it that we do a human being I think we'd be shocked at what that little machine could do.

After that it comes down to good learning heuristics and a good framework (that can update itself) into which it'll store and link it's learned knowledge. How to make that... good question! But it's a worthy challenge.

 

I voted "I don't know" by the way. You can never be too certain about such things

[DoorNumber1]

how did this find its way into this thread? haha

(referring to in-depth discussions on quantum computing, etc)

[5614]

(referring to in-depth discussions on quantum computing, etc)

 

because quantum computing is a way of getting a more powerful computer.

 

originally, the discussion said "we cannot program AI"

then: "our computers cant handle it"

then: "so... make computers more powerful"

then: "how?"

then "quantum computing"

 

i think, that was it, approx!

 

reasoning: if we have quantum computing, the more powerful quantum computer might be able to handle the complexities of AI

[paganinio]

just see how fast the IT industry is growing in the past 50 years

Bill Gates said in 2010 computers would be out of date.(don't know whether he really said so)

[Kedas]

just see how fast the IT industry is growing in the past 50 years

Bill Gates said in 2010 computers would be out of date.(don't know whether he really said so)

 

He probably meant the computer you have now

Although mine is already out of date

[5614]

indeed computers have come soo far over the last 50 years, but surely [imagine the graph] the massive up-climb of the past 50 years, must level off somewhere, its just we dont know where!

 

maybe it will level off for a bit, and then quantum computing will come along, and then, those 50 years, will be like the last 50 years, all over again. me hopes its soon!

[Sayonara]

indeed computers have come soo far over the last 50 years, but surely [imagine the graph'] the massive up-climb of the past 50 years, must level off somewhere, its just we dont know where!

Yes, we do know.

 

We already did this bit.

[Wolfman]

no offense but its because of dreams that we achieve important things in life and they are not only real in our heads dreams can come true if you are dedicated enough. We would have never reached the moon if we had never dreamnt of it ect...

 

But anyway just to think that its possible to have the equivalent of a big blue(the chess playing super computer) but with the ability to think on its own is scary but fascinating.

[DoorNumber1]

Yeah, that is a logical direction of an AI debate. But do we feel that what AI needs is more powerful computers or more powerful algorithms? I think that current AI research is in need of a jump on the algorithm side. Powerful computers can't do jack when the set of data they're supposed to handle (ie ALL data a potential intelligence comes into contact with) is so large. Take internet search engines: do you think that they work because there's a HUGE computer out there comparing your results against every page it's ever seen? Naw. Just too much data so do any such comparison. It took a really tricky, really clever algorithm that allowed altavista (and later google) to do the type of searching that's happening and handle that much info. I think we're asking a bit too much from our machines.

[Yakuzi]

i still think that YOU cannot create something cleverer than yourself' date=' as it would be based on you:-

 

unless: you taught it stuff, and other people taught it stuff, and then it would be as clever as multiple people combined, it would be cleverer than one individual, but at the same time, there is only a certain amount one can program into a robot, think of everything you know, then multiply it by the number of ppl the robot will think like! its soooooo much info, it would take years to program it all!

 

plus, its one thing doing something biologically, there is no limit, in a sense

 

but there is a limit to how much one can program into a robot! and i think that to make a robot significantly cleverer than us, would be tooo much!!

 

sure you could make it cleverer than ur average class working man, but it would be based on one, or a few people, and there are things that those people wont know, and that will be a floor for the robots inteligence, if you see what i mean!

 

unless you program everyone, in the worlds brain into a robot, there will still be some things it doesnt know!

[/quote']

 

Intelligence is something else than knowledge. Early man was as intelligent as modern man. He didn't know as much as we do now, but he was still as inventive as we are and would react much like us were he brought up in our society. A Pygmy who has lived in the rainforest for his or her whole life could have the same IQ as you for example, or as Einstein, it's just education and knowledge that sets them apart from us.

I think AI will eventually become smarter than humans, but not for a long time. AI is in it's protozoa phase atm, but it's evolution will surely progress a lot faster than human evolution. Sure, there will be some dents in the graph, but the overall graph will be an exponential one imo.

 

OT

downloading at the speed of light is a very realistic' date=' with fibre optics becoming more popular, the only problem is cost, fibre optic wires are crushed, compressed glass, i believe, although have never broken one to see, they are not solid galss! otherwise they couldnt bend, so when i was told they were crushed glass, it seemed realistic!

[/quote']

 

Actually, Fiber Optic cables are created by melting a cylinder of very pure glass. The cable itself is composed of a core with a high index of refraction where the light travels through, surrounded by a cladding with a lower index of refraction. This will cause the Total Internal Reflection. A few miles of FO cable is already cheaper than the equivalent in copper atm.