Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > You don't want to close them all, since disinformation will be a top > weapon in the spy-vs-spy "Mad-ness" of the NWO... > *Will be? **Hah!*

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: I hope to be in the former group [people who control AI] and my intention > is to encourage my fellows not to take advantage of those in the latter > [everyone else]. > The persistent human tendency to hoard and

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Terry Blanton wrote: BTW, I have put a remote power switch on Alexa's wall wart. Because of: http://www.ajc.com/news/local/someone-asked-amazon-alexa-about-the-cia-and-the-answers-are-hilarious/yw0xC9jabt7N1ocCT5vkKK/ ... technical glitch? riiight ... Amazon installed more back doors than

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Jones Beene wrote: I suppose one could audition different "personalities" and even switch them back and forth. You could have an digital staff bigger than Downton Abbey if you wanted (at extra cost no doubt). My organic model came with

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Blaze Spinnaker wrote: As someone who works in the AI industry at a fortune 100 company, I can assure you the Singularity is arriving. Most of humanity is rapidly becoming a 2nd class citizen. Blaze - when do you see the advanced version of Siri, the intelligent personal assistant who is

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

wrote: I agree with your sentiments about windows-10. It’s a nightmare compared > to Vista, for example. > It does not seem any worse to me. The price is right! I do not make much direct use of it, but I have not seen anything worse than the old versions. Windows is

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

As someone who works in the AI industry at a fortune 100 company, I can assure you the Singularity is arriving. Most of humanity is rapidly becoming a 2nd class citizen. I am skeptical that we will get AI that can build AI, but I am confident that we will have AI, plus those who control the AI,

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Terry Blanton wrote: Jones Beenewrote: But I would love to have an intelligent personal assistant so long as it was more like Samantha and less like HAL. Personally, I agree but it's because I find it very difficult to separate Sam's voice from Scarlett's body. Besides, HAL (like IBM)

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Jones Beene wrote: But I would love to have an intelligent personal assistant so long as it was more like Samantha and less like HAL. Personally, I agree but it's because I find it very difficult to separate Sam's voice from Scarlett's

RE: [Vo]:12 years from now

@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:12 years from now Here is a provocative audio clip which is an artful melange of two AIs - HAL 9000 (From 2001) interacting with Samantha (from Her). The clip presents the appearance of emotion and conflict deriving from different programming styles. It also introduces

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Here is a provocative audio clip which is an artful melange of two AIs - HAL 9000 (From 2001) interacting with Samantha (from Her). The clip presents the appearance of emotion and conflict deriving from different programming styles. It also introduces the idea that the first AI

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Eric Walker wrote: > An application of AI that I think will be possible in the near-term > future, if there are not already people working on it: lie detection. > There is a school of behavioral psychology that believes that people's > behavior changes in subtle ways that

RE: [Vo]:12 years from now

, March 17, 2017 8:41 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:12 years from now On 17/03/2017 9:43 PM, bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote: >> "consciousness, . . . is a supernatural phenomenon." > RIGHT-ON. Like virtual quarks and spooky action at a distance, and > othe

RE: [Vo]:12 years from now

The quote you note is NOT MINE! Bob Cook Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 7:05 AM To: Vortex Subject: Re: [Vo]:12 years from now <bobcook39...@gmail.com> wrote: “I don't think machines will be able to duplicate what a bird brain can do, any

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

-Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Mar 17, 2017 2:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:12 years from now John Shop <quack...@outlook.com> wrote: All the advances that have been made are ones whi

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: In the 1950s many books and cartoons portrayed robots of the future as > being similar to people, walking on two legs with faces and hands. > The robots from Boston Dynamics are certainly a bit scarier than humanoid

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

An application of AI that I think will be possible in the near-term future, if there are not already people working on it: lie detection. There is a school of behavioral psychology that believes that people's behavior changes in subtle ways that betrays them when they knowingly tell a lie, even

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: The colony as a whole exhibits far more intelligence than one individual > bee does. ... The nature of bee colony intelligence is totally alien to > human intelligence. > Perhaps. But there is at least one way that

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Here is an interesting look at the question: What is real intelligence and what is merely a mechanistic imitation of intelligence? To address this, I say let's look at colony of bees. Bees are amazing creatures. They build nests with complex structures. They harvest food from the surroundings.

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Jones Beene wrote: > An ability to learn from an interactive network is the key - even if one > never gets out of cyberspace. Because the bird-brain-PC is essentially > tireless, working 24/7 it will be able to surpass the ability of the human > model for many tasks when

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

John Shop wrote: > > There is no solid evidence for it. Second, I am sure that if does exist, > it is natural, because so many other things people used to think are > supernatural or inexplicable turned out to be explicable. > > I am amazed that you have the gall to trot out

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Jed Rothwell wrote: AFAIK all of our great minds have so far failed to come to grips with consciousness The difficulty had been exaggerated. I don't think it is more than the ability of the brain to put together a 3D image of the local world and where you are in it. Plus things like sound,

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On 18/03/2017 2:23 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: The fact is that almost every educated and intelligent person would regard telepathy as supernatural . . . First, I regard it as mythical, not supernatural. There is no solid evidence for it. Second, I am sure that if does exist, it is natural,

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

John Shop wrote: All the advances that have been made are ones which can be imagined and > achieved with sufficiently advanced technology. However AFAIK all of our > great minds have so far failed to come to grips with consciousness and some > (eg Penrose) have

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Long before the singularity of 2029, we should be seeing "proto-AI" machines of surprising capability, costing less than a ladies handbag (Hermes). By 2020 the market for this kind of alter ego could be huge, at least for the males who can avoid springing for the handbag. This kind of early

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On 17/03/2017 10:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > wrote: I don't think machines will be able to duplicate what a bird brain can do, any time, ever. Machines which we can invent are things that we can understand almost completely. I do not think

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On 17/03/2017 9:43 PM, bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote: >> "consciousness, . . . is a supernatural phenomenon." > RIGHT-ON. Like virtual quarks and spooky action at a distance, and > other real phenomena. I am surprised that you agreed so readily that telepathy between consciousnesses is a real

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Aha, the thread about a time-table for the AI "singularity" moves on to morphic resonance - my favorite counter-argument to the "bird brain" stance... which posits that the current state of AI is far from human-like. It is closer than many of us think with only a few improvements. Morphic

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

wrote: “I don't think machines will be able to duplicate what a bird brain can do, > any time, ever. Machines which we can invent are things that we can > understand almost completely. > I do not think there is rigorous proof of this. On the contrary, decades ago,

RE: [Vo]:12 years from now

it, because it is a supernatural phenomenon.” RIGHT-ON. Like virtual quarks and spooky action at a distance, and other real phenomena. Bob Cook Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: John Shop Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 11:34 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:12 years from now On 17/03

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On 17/03/2017 2:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: . . . I see no reason why this will not happen sooner or later. Machines are far from being able to do this now, because they have brains roughly the size of a bird's brain. Birds do not understand human language. . . . So I believed until quite

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

On 17/03/2017 2:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: . . . I see no reason why this will not happen sooner or later. Machines are far from being able to do this now, because they have brains roughly the size of a bird's brain. Birds do not understand human language. . . . So I believed until quite

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

I wrote: > , and application of the concepts to problem solving in a completely >> different domain. This still requires invention. >> > > Of course. However, neural networks can probably provide the basis for > this. > I mean they can provide the foundation. Like this: High level

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Bob Higgins wrote: I submit that using neural techniques to solve a problem is not AI. > Well, your brain is neural network of a similar nature. It is not just an analogy; the brain really is a neural network. Clearly, this architecture can give rise to intelligence.

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Bob Higgins wrote: Hmmm... Didn't your program insist that you include all of the words in the > sentences that are needed? :) re-read below. > No, it just flagged missing words. 120,000 words is enough to cover most vocabulary. The trick is to allow additional user

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

AI and multilevel neural network are nothing new. In 88 when I was student , Yann Lecun was a reference in the domain... Older than Cold Fusion But the size of the network and the data were too small. Internet also overtake the priority on AI, Expert System, neural network, Natural language

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

I submit that using neural techniques to solve a problem is not AI. Neural programming is a different solution type - more like comparing writing a program in a sequential language like C or Fortran compared to a data driven language like Labview that is fundamentally multi-threaded. If it were

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Neural network improvements to Google translate are described here. Look at the sample sentence. https://blog.google/products/translate/found-translation-more-accurate-fluent-sentences-google-translate/ See also: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/magazine/the-great-ai-awakening.html

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Bob Higgins wrote: That is the problem with the work of Futurists - many of the massive > changes in our lives comes from seminal inventions whose timing cannot be > predicted. Once that seminal invention is proved, progress from > engineering can be rapid, or can be

[Vo]:12 years from now

Hmmm... Didn't your program insist that you include all of the words in the sentences that are needed? :) re-read below. On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:09 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Frank Znidarsic wrote: > > Look at the picture. They predicted tug boat

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Frank Znidarsic wrote: Look at the picture. They predicted tug boat airplanes, painted floating > signs, boies as flight path markers. They knew that air travel was coming > but they could only extend the existing technology to explain it. That is a great picture. But the

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

r 15, 2017 8:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:12 years from now New York Sky harbor by 1950 circa 1910 https://40.media.tumblr.com/7c35fdbcd088b24fbd1aee7c0734407f/tumblr_nuhrnkfvpT1tn7avwo1_500.jpg -Original Message- From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskim

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now Bob Higgins wrote: > That is the problem with the work of Futurists - many of the massive > changes in our lives comes from seminal inventions whose timing cannot > be predicted... I believe AI is in a similar state of waiting for that > seminal invention that makes AI practical.

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Bob Higgins wrote: That is the problem with the work of Futurists - many of the massive changes in our lives comes from seminal inventions whose timing cannot be predicted... I believe AI is in a similar state of waiting for that seminal invention that makes AI practical. The timing of

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

By using probability-based algorithms to derive meaning from huge amounts of data, researchers discovered that they didn’t need to teach a computer how to accomplish a task; they could just show it what people did and let the machine figure out how to emulate that behavior under similar

RE: [Vo]:12 years from now

What Quantum Computers do is solve optimization problems based on Big data that is not organized or sequenced such as... find the cure to cancer from a million experiments worth of data. I recall a Japanese study from about 30 years ago that produced dramatic results in tumors using a

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

OK, I get that about quantum computers. This is something that an existing parallel computer can also do, it would just take longer. It provides no real leg up in making a learning, adaptive, thinking machine possible. Possible applicability to AI is just part of the quantum computer hype... we

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

What Quantum Computers do is solve optimization problems based on Big data that is not organized or sequenced such as... find the cure to cancer from a million experiments worth of data. On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: > I don't see anything about

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Here is the movie. https://scifist.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/the-twonky/ I cant believe that this movie scared me why I was a young kid. Frank

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Here it is the Twonky now playing on comet. https://scifist.wordpress.com/2016/01/09/the-twonky/ It intends to do good but in effect it takes over. Perhaps proceeding the yesterday's intelligence revelations where the government is monitoring everything. A view of the singularity from

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

A view of a robot from 1953. Twonky. Now playing on the Comet channel. I first saw this show when I was very young. Lightning bolts came out the TV set in the movie. When I tuned off my TV and a dot appeared in the center of the screen. I ran away before a bot could come out. Today when

[Vo]:12 years from now

I don't see anything about quantum computing that is set to make AI take a giant leap forward. AI still needs substantial core inventions to make a truly adaptively thinking machine. Same is true for the next generation Intel processor. Neither computing technology brings, in itself, an AI

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

The realization of AI will follow the maturation of the quantum computer. The current computing tech is coming to an end point. Cp,puting using light instead of electrons will make the AI paradigm possible. Light is based on boson tech and coherence which will enable and drive forward the

[Vo]:12 years from now

That is the problem with the work of Futurists - many of the massive changes in our lives comes from seminal inventions whose timing cannot be predicted. Once that seminal invention is proved, progress from engineering can be rapid, or can be slow, but it usually moves forward. I think LENR is

RE: [Vo]:12 years from now

Who among you would have expected that after the Fleischmann- Pons results ( 1989) that we would be in 2017 without acceptance or a saleable product? Much the same goes for a cure for cancer – or aging – or free energy generally. Where some of you see rapid progress, I see stagnation and a

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

While we may not have reached the singularity, I already feel "enhanced" by my connection (fingers and eyes) to the computer. My old boss used to describe computers as "brain amplifiers" when pitching the purchase of new computers to management (asking, "how much amplification do you want?"). It

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

Technology has been moving fast doubling every five years for a long time now. I see no reason for it to stop now. This is what I have 1923. https://antiqueradio.org/art/RadiolaIII03.jpg This is what I want 1928. http://www.indianaradios.com/RCA%20Radiola%2060%20Radio.htm

[Vo]:12 years from now

With or without LENR (hopefully with) "The Singularity Is Near" "Near" being the operative variable to be concerned about today as it is the Ides of March. The date when "Humans Transcend Biology" was a 2006 non-fiction book about artificial intelligence and the future of humanity by