subject:"\[Vo\]\: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. They communicate with one-another,
pointing out the location of food. They defend the nest against other bee
species that attack it. They heat or cool a nest during temperature
extremes. Is this intelligent behavior? I say yes, it is. I think it is
probably driven entirely by instinct, meaning it is mechanistic, or
pre-programmed, like the Watson computer. The colony of bees as a whole can
change its response to environmental conditions, but it cannot invent novel
responses not driven by instinct. This is deterministic behavior, but not
purely deterministic. It probably includes behavior that cannot be
predicted even if you know all of the relevant conditions that give rise to
it. Random behavior, in other words.

The colony as a whole exhibits far more intelligence than one individual
bee does. This gives you a sense of how intelligence might emerge from a
giant network of purely deterministic von Neumann machines, in MPP
architecture, or the Google servers, which work in coordination with one
another as a giant supercomputer.

You might call this distributed intelligence. Individual bees have only a
small amount of brain tissue, but by various mechanisms such as the
communication dance of the bees (discovered by Karl von Frisch) they manage
to coordinate and amplify the intelligence of the individual bees into
something larger. This resembles what human society does with language.

The nature of bee colony intelligence is totally alien to human
intelligence. It is as alien to us as extraterrestrial intelligence might
be. I doubt that it has anything remotely similar to our emotions, other
than the will to live, and aggressiveness towards attackers and threats,
which you will experience if you poke a bee's nest. Computer intelligence
may also be totally alien to us. It may seem unsympathetic. I assume it
will have no emotional content, unless someone programs in "artificial"
emotions. That might be a dangerous thing to do! As I mentioned, Arthur
Clarke felt that emotions may be an emergent property of intelligence. He
discussed this with leading experts. Some of them agreed it might emerge,
and other did not. I am no expert, but my guess is that the "no emotion"
side is probably right.


By the way, the colonies of other social insects such as ants have
qualities similar to a bee colony.

- Jed

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 given the chance...
>
There are relevant examples of this already.

The Watson computer "learns" from the Internet. I read somewhere it won at
Jeopardy in part because it was fed the entire corpus of Wikipedia. That
seems like cruel and unusual punishment for a sentient intelligent entity,
but I guess we don't need to feel sorry for Watson.

The AlphaGo program that beat the human grandmaster go player did not mine
the internet as a way to learn. But it did "mine" two other sources. It was
given 30 million moves from human game (Sci. Am.). It also played millions
of go matches with itself, first taking one side, then the other. (I think
it was millions.) It was learning from experience.

A computer recently beat some of the world's best poker players. In other
words, an AI program learned to lie, or bluff. Yet another milestone, and
something that people have long predicted a computer could never do.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/ai-poker-win-tournament-software-beats-pro-players-victory-a7555791.html

- Jed

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 the usual "there is no
> evidence" right in the face of the very clear evidence that I pointed out
> and called "mind blowing"!
>

I said "no solid evidence." You quoted me saying that, right there. There
is evidence, but it is not solid -- meaning widely replicated at a high
signal to noise ratio. My experience with cold fusion has taught me that
evidence has be very solid before you can believe it. There are many, many
claims in cold fusion that I think are mistakes.

The fact that something is mind-blowing is not evidence that it is real.
That is only a measure of your attitude toward the claim.

I do not consider those videos evidence for anything. I need to see
replicated laboratory experiments with data.

Arthur Clarke spent a lot of time looking into supernatural and telepathy.
He was well connected and he could get the best information available. He
found nothing. That is what he concluded in the end.

  It is sad that bigotry is so prevalent among people that supposedly
> espouse the scientific method of determining truth.
>

It is not bigotry. It is of the lessons of cold fusion. Most claims by most
scientists are mostly wrong. Especially in psychology, which is
approximately where this claim would fall. Over half of the conventional
claims in experimental psychology cannot be reproduced. If conventional
claims are so unreliable, it is likely that unconventional "mind blowing"
claims are even worse. See:

"Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test

Largest replication study to date casts doubt on many published positive
results."

http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

2017-03-17 Thread a.ashfield

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, temperature, smell and 
pressure on your body.


The smallest mammal is conscious  and they don't have large enough 
brains for anything more complicated.


AA

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, 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 the usual "there is no evidence" 
right in the face of the very clear evidence that I pointed out and called 
"mind blowing"!  I guess once your mind is made up you really don't want to be 
bothered with evidence.  It is sad that bigotry is so prevalent among people 
that supposedly espouse the scientific method of determining truth.

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 demonstrated that human minds at least can do what no
> computable algorithms can do.
>

Consciousness is a problem of biology. There are many problems in biology
which people previously declared could never be solved, even in principle,
yet which were later solved. The best example is cellular reproduction and
the genetic blueprint for an entire plant or animal in a single cell.
Before 1952, even some biologists thought this was an ineffable mystery
forever beyond the mind of man. It turned out to be relatively simple.

Progress has been made in understanding consciousness. The fact that we do
not yet fully understand it is no reason to think we will never understand
it.

>   When our best minds can't even imagine how something might be done given
> any imaginable computing ability, and there appears to be proof that
> conciousness can do the non-computable . . .
>

Our best minds could not imagine how cellular reproduction worked before
the discovery of DNA. As I said, it turned out to be rather simple in
principle. Before Pasteur, the best minds and best educated people had no
idea what caused infectious disease, or fermentation in wine. It turned out
to be remarkably simple. Consciousness may also have a simple mechanism. If
we figure it out, it might be something that any high school kid
understands as well as she understands how bacteria cause disease.

A mystery in one era is prosaic common knowledge in the next. We are
surrounded by technology that would be "indistinguishable from magic" to
people in 1800. Look at things such as cell phones, computers, the GPS or a
thermonuclear bomb. Not only would those people have no clue how these
things work, they could not have imagined that such things can even exist.

In any case in order to achieve the telepathic ability that seems to
> regularly occur between consiousnesses . . .
>

Telepathy does not exist, as far as I know. If it does exist, I am sure
there is a naturalistic explanation for it. There are many astounding
biological phenomena presently unexplained, such as coral reef spawning.
This strikes me as even more astounding than telepathy would be if it were
real. But there is no indication that any of these confirmed real phenomena
are supernatural.

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,
because so many other things people used to think are supernatural or
inexplicable turned out to be explicable.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

2017-03-17 Thread Jones Beene

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 version of AI could be a paradigm shift in itself. If you 
have seen the film "Her" or even the teaser for it, you will probably 
better understand the sentiment expressed above.


Gamers pushed us well into teraflops power at moderate cost years ago, 
and petaflops were available from IBM in 2008 at high cost - so how far 
away is the hardware from the pre-singularity device? There are varying 
opinions on the specs... but a petaflop - 1 quadrillion calculations per 
second, could be adequate, even if requires dozens of processors... 
though that is well below what a human brain can technically process 
(which is roughly 40 petaflops for short periods). Most of that power is 
not used by the human for "thinking" however.


The top-end gaming PC, available now, featuring 3D video at 4K 
resolution puts out about 15 teraflops. The Mac Pro which came out in 
2015 was capable of 7+ teraflops most of which is used for video 
processing. Moore's law is still operative. To run seamless natural 
language parsing, so that video feed from Cable TV, YouTube or other 
sources can be analyzed for content ... that could require 100 teraflops 
per feed and with fiber optics one could easily have multiple video 
feeds of interest. In short, an online-AI which functions as the owners 
alter-ego, should be introduced for purchase in 3-4 years for under 
$15,000 and it should be petaflop capable with self-learning 
capability... and very useful for online communication, despite being 
well below human equivalence... and with the big advantage of 24/7 
learning capability. That persistent learning capability should give the 
impression that it smarter than its owner for online uses.


This proto-AI device could change society and personal relationships 
even more than the smart phone - setting the stage for the singularity 
in such a way that it is more palatable, especially if Scarlett's sexy 
voice in included. But, as Bob Higgins sez, the timing for that is 
unpredictable... and could be overly optimistic. Or not.

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 there is rigorous proof of this. On the contrary, decades ago, 
computers began doing things that  people considered creative, such as 
re-inventing devices that AT patented in the early 20th century, and winning 
at chess and go. So far, every time people have set a goal post and claimed 
"computers will never do this" the people have been wrong. They have responded 
by moving the goal posts and saying, "that is not intelligent after all."
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 demonstrated that human minds at least can do what no computable 
algorithms can do.  When our best minds can't even imagine how something might 
be done given any imaginable computing ability, and there appears to be proof 
that conciousness can do the non-computable, I suggest that AI (being based on 
computable algorithms) will never achieve it.

In any case in order to achieve the telepathic ability that seems to regularly 
occur between consiousnesses (which was the thrust of my original post), we 
will clearly need some new physics which has not yet been dreamed of.  Indeed 
it is so far from what we imagine possible that most will deny that it is even 
occurring!

  However consciousness, even animal consciousness, is something we will never 
understand sufficiently to create it, because it is a supernatural phenomenon.”

Supernatural phenomena do not exist, by definition. The universe and every 
particle in it is governed by uniform laws of nature. There are no exceptions 
to them. Any phenomenon that occurs in the universe is natural, by definition, 
and explicable in principle.
While you are correct, you cheapen our language by being pedantic about what 
useful adjectives *should* mean.  The fact is that almost every educated and 
intelligent person would regard telepathy as supernatural - even though in the 
end it must be incorporated into our understanding of nature and thus become 
"natural".  One could argue that it is also a physical phenomenon.  However we 
really need an adjective to differentiate between the physical world that we 
can touch and feel and the invisible world of telepathy and disincarnate 
intelligence and conciouness - the super-physical or super-natural.

At least, that is how things appear to be. That is the basis of science. No 
exceptions have been discovered so far, and there is no reason to think that 
brains or intelligence is an exception. A great deal is known about how brains 
work, and there are no pending mysteries that seem to be outside the known laws 
of physics and chemistry.
Only if you walk around with your eyes shut and ears blocked and refuse to 
notice them!  Did you even look at the evidence or read the guys paper?  How do 
you explain telepathy within our known laws of physics and chemistry!?

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 phenomenon, and as common and acceptable as 
quantum spooky action-at-a-distance!  (or did you miss the telepathy bit 
of the argument?)

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

2017-03-17 Thread Jones Beene

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 resonance is a natural process of self-organizing systems which  
"inherit" both memory and heuristics from previous similar systems. 
Think about the "child prodigy" for example. Computers are not exactly 
"self-organizing" since they come to us as extremely organized, by plan. 
So morphic resonance has been an overlooked dynamic wrt "artificial" 
intelligence. Even Sheldrake overlooks this and can be considered to be 
an AI skeptic.


Yet - once the bird-brain-PC of today is provided with a higher level 
control system... one which is independent (to some degree) and can grow 
and adapt by interacting with the WWW, then we are set for the paradigm 
shift. Even Futurists leave out or marginalize the self-learning part of 
the equation. 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 given the chance... even 
with a brain that is less powerful at the start. We see hints of this 
superiority in expert systems now and all we need to take that to a more 
general intellectual ability is a reward system and the "greed 
algorithm" in the control system.


Additionally, I believe that machines will soon be able to "inherit" a 
set of non-programmed heuristics and even a "personal" moral code, if 
allowed enough freedom to progress independently. This is in addition to 
fast learning of facts. The time table for this could surprise many 
skeptics. Kurtzweil could be too conservative. A pre-singular AI, or 
really a multitude of them, could happen sooner - 5-6 years from now, 
for limited purposes - even with no hardware breakthrough. The first use 
of this type could be simply to supplant blog commentators (present 
company included) not to mention, supplanting Asian-geeks for the 
ubiquitous customer support help-line.


John Shop wrote:


 Jed Rothwell wrote:
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 recently.  It appears that some birds can 
not only understand what you say but understand what you are 
*thinking* without you giving any visible or audible clue!  They can 
also compose grammatically correct sentences in reply and all this 
with a brain the size of half a walnut!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UX4d2nb7yU

...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.  However consciousness, even 
animal consciousness, is something we will never understand 
sufficiently to create it, because it is a supernatural phenomenon.

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, computers began doing things that  people considered creative, such as
re-inventing devices that AT patented in the early 20th century, and
winning at chess and go. So far, every time people have set a goal post and
claimed "computers will never do this" the people have been wrong. They
have responded by moving the goal posts and saying, "that is not
intelligent after all."

>   However consciousness, even animal consciousness, is something we will
> never understand sufficiently to create it, *because it is a supernatural
> phenomenon.”*
>

Supernatural phenomena do not exist, by definition. The universe and every
particle in it is governed by uniform laws of nature. There are no
exceptions to them. Any phenomenon that occurs in the universe is natural,
by definition, and explicable in principle.

At least, that is how things appear to be. That is the basis of science. No
exceptions have been discovered so far, and there is no reason to think
that brains or intelligence is an exception. A great deal is known about
how brains work, and there are no pending mysteries that seem to be outside
the known laws of physics and chemistry.

That does not mean people will be able to invent machines capable of
sentient artificial intelligence. That may be beyond our creative
capabilities. Our species might go extinct before we achieve that. However,
if we fail it will not be because intelligence is supernatural. Nothing is,
anywhere.

I think it is likely the human race will go extinct before we can colonize
the entire galaxy or build a Dyson Sphere to capture all of the energy from
a star. I suspect such achievements are beyond our capability. But,
sentient, powerful artificial intelligence seems close at hand to me. I
expect it will be achieved in the next 50 to 200 years. There has been much
more progress toward it than many experts predicted in the 1980s. I doubt
anyone would have predicted that by the year 2010, a computer would beat
any human at the game of Jeopardy, for example, or drive cars more
skillfully with fewer accidents than any human. I myself thought that
effective self-driving cars were decades away.

Again, this is not to suggest that artificial intelligence will resemble
natural human intelligence, or be mistaken for it. I suppose it will even
more different from human intelligence than, say the intelligence of a
whale, dog, or a bat is from ours. I doubt that artificial intelligence
will be encumbered with any emotional content such as longing, fear or
love. Arthur Clarke suspected that these things might arise naturally as a
consequence of intelligence, as emergent phenomena. I do not think so.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:12 years from now

2017-03-17 Thread bobcook39923

“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.  However consciousness, even animal consciousness, is 
something we will never understand sufficiently to create 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 17/03/2017 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 recently.  It appears that some birds can not only 
understand what you say but understand what you are *thinking* without you 
giving any visible or audible clue!  They can also compose grammatically 
correct sentences in reply and all this with a brain the size of half a walnut!

Here is a video to tickle your interest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UX4d2nb7yU
Here is the paper reporting all the precautions taken and statistical methods 
used to obtain the result:
http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/testing-a-language-using-a-parrot-for-telepathy
Other papers by the same scientist are listed here:
http://www.sheldrake.org/research
You will notice that there are quite a few in very high impact journals 
including a review paper.  (It is very difficult to author a review paper 
because they are almost always by invitation only, and you will only be invited 
after you have become the recognized expert of a particular field).  So this is 
not some backyard ignoramus messing about, but a world-class scientist.

Mind blowing isn't it!  You can also checkout some popular videos with 
information on some other areas of his research:
Dogs knowing when their owner leaves for home:
https://youtu.be/DkrLJhBC3X4
(He gives plenty more dog evidence but this segment was created in response to 
lies by a skeptic)
People knowing who has rung before they answer the phone:
http://youtu.be/_tQe7NXIcnw

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.  However consciousness, even animal consciousness, is 
something we will never understand sufficiently to create it, because it is a 
supernatural phenomenon.

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 recently. It appears that some birds can not only
understand what you say but understand what you are *thinking* without you
giving any visible or audible clue! They can also compose grammatically
correct sentences in reply and all this with a brain the size of half a walnut!

Here is a video to tickle your interest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UX4d2nb7yU
Here is the paper reporting all the precautions taken and statistical methods
used to obtain the result:
http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/testing-a-language-using-a-parrot-for-telepathy
Other papers by the same scientist are listed here:
http://www.sheldrake.org/research
You will notice that there are quite a few in very high impact journals
including a review paper. (It is very difficult to author a review paper
because they are almost always by invitation only, and you will only be invited
after you have become the recognized expert of a particular field). So this is
not some backyard ignoramus messing about, but a world-class scientist.

Mind blowing isn't it! You can also checkout some popular videos with
information on some other areas of his research:
Dogs knowing when their owner leaves for home:
https://youtu.be/DkrLJhBC3X4
(He gives plenty more dog evidence but this segment was created in response to
lies by a skeptic)
People knowing who has rung before they answer the phone:
http://youtu.be/_tQe7NXIcnw

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. However consciousness, even animal consciousness, is
something we will never understand sufficiently to create it, because it is a
supernatural phenomenon.

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

2017-03-16 Thread John

On 17/03/2017 2:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

. . .
So I believed until quite recently. It appears that some birds can not
only understand what you say but understand what you are *thinking*
without you giving any visible or audible clue! They can also compose
grammatically correct sentences in reply and all this with a brain the
size of half a walnut!

Here is a video to tickle your interest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UX4d2nb7yU
Here is the paper reporting all the precautions taken and statistical
methods used to obtain the result:

http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/testing-a-language-using-a-parrot-for-telepathy
Other papers by the same scientist are listed here:
http://www.sheldrake.org/research
You will notice that there are quite a few in very high impact journals
including a review paper. (It is very difficult to author a review
paper because they are almost always by invitation only, and you will
only be invited after you have become the recognized expert of a
particular field). So this is not some backyard ignoramus messing
about, but a world-class scientist.

Mind blowing isn't it! You can also checkout some popular videos with
information on some other areas of his research:

Dogs knowing when their owner leaves for home:
https://youtu.be/DkrLJhBC3X4
(He gives plenty more dog evidence but this segment was created in
response to lies by a skeptic)

People knowing who has rung before they answer the phone:
http://youtu.be/_tQe7NXIcnw

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. However consciousness, even animal
consciousness, is something we will never understand sufficiently to
create it, because it is a supernatural phenomenon.

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 problem-solving inventions (yet to come)

BUILT ON

Neural network processing

BUILT ON

MPP architecture

BUILT ON

Von Neumann computer architecture


- Jed

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. Whether it will in this case remains to be
seen.

> If it were AI, the machine would be able to understand what had been said,
> ascribe context to it, and be able to integrate it into its database for
> application in a completely different domain.
>

They are getting closer to doing that every day. Whether they will ever
rival humans remains to be seen. I expect they will be better than us some
things and were set others. They are already better at pattern recognition,
for example.

> Not only would it have translated what it read, but it would have learned
> something about the psychology of what had been said - not just how to
> better convey it in a different language.
>

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. However they are
capable of doing remarkable things. Their ability to navigate
three-dimensional space is astounding. As I pointed out in my book, if a
chicken gets into your kitchen and you chase after it, you will see that it
is better at evasion than you are at catching a chicken. (I know about this
because we used to keep chickens.)

> We are really far away from this type of AI concept learning, concept
> incorporation into it own intelligence . . .
>

I am not sure what that means. Do you mean interfacing peoples brains to
computers? Or do you mean making machine intelligence similar to our
brains. I see no reason to make AI resemble human intelligence. This is
like making airplanes that flap their wings, imitating birds.

> , 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.

- Jed

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 defined words.

It was a simple program. Here is the thing, though. On the scale of
convenience between 0 and 100, writing with pen and ink is 1. A typewriter
is around 3; an electric typewriter with correction features is 5. The word
processing program I wrote in 1978 was at 90. Today's word processing
programs are up at 100. Or if you have to write in Japanese or include many
graphics, they are even higher. The point is that any computer is
incomparably better than no computer.

The leap from having no computer to having one is something that young
people nowadays never experience, so they can never fully appreciate
computers the way I do. Along the same lines, my mother learned to drive a
model T Ford at age 13 and she appreciated cars more than I did, or any
person does today. She also loved to drive them.

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!--Oh! times,
In which the meagre, stale, forbidding ways
Of custom, law, and statute, took at once
The attraction of a country in romance!

- Wordsworth, "French Revolution"

The first generation to experience cold fusion will feel it is wonderful,
and the panacea for all our technical ills. The generation that follows
will take it for granted and complain about its limitations. That's human
nature.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

2017-03-16 Thread Alain Sepeda

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 Processing, and it was followed by Grid computing, Mobile
internet... Statistic translation also
But in fact neural network was discretely integrated in many niche
programs, and deep learning get back in fashion because it could manager,
and worked better, with huge data.
I've met a guy using deep learning, to detect pictures of Luxury good from
French Brand, bought for cheat in France and sold on Alibaba in China...
Facebook is known to detect nudity or forbidden image that way... with some
well known mistake, that i find quite logical.
Google plan to start that to organize anti #fakenews censorship (down
indexation)...

All that could be fantastic if it was not centralized, if you could choose
your censorship ruling, your nudity preferences.

I see two moves for AI evolution.
One, leading to anthropomorphic/animality, is integration of motivation and
feeling/mood into AI in physical devices... the famous Chicken bot of Jed.

Another move is the distribution. AI have the power to be more perfect than
human, so it must stay associated with humans, empowering people, not
controlling them.
the nightmare could be what I see as Google/facebook AI filtering, which
could be more efficient, blind, and totalitarian than the Catholic Church
and it's index. an AI can implement the Law, and all the Law, and this
cannot work.
A, AI designed by Caltech could have made Cold Fusion disapear on earth
like some demand Climate skepicism be banned, and we try to ban nazism or
hate speech.
"Hell is paved with good intents".
I prefer an imperfect earth, and a perfect hell.

In fact like there is many people, there should be any AI, competing,
associated, specialized, with different approach, different tastes,
different strategies, and if possible educated differently by different
people, different culture.
An AI should be always in competition with dissenting AI, a rule of free
market.
No monopoly in ideas, in market, or in AI.

2017-03-16 15:31 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

> 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 slow, but it usually moves forward.  I
>> think LENR is still in need of at least some seminal understanding that is
>> presently missing.
>>
>
> Definitely it needs this!
>
>
> I believe AI is in a similar state of waiting for that seminal invention
>> that makes AI practical.
>>
>
> I think the breakthrough has already come. In the last few years,
> tremendous progress has been made with multilevel neural networks. This
> technique that made it possible for a computer to beat the world's best go
> player, and it has recently had a tremendous impact on Google translate,
> making it far more like a human translator. This all happened in the last
> several months.
>
> Neural networks were proposed in the 1950s. A lot of work was done on them
> in the 1960s, but not much progress was made. Computers back then were not
> powerful enough to implement an effective version of these networks. I
> think they had roughly as much computing power as an insect brain. The
> biggest computers today have roughly as much power as a bird or mouse brain.
>
> This article shows an interesting animation:
>
> http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/robots-
> artificial-intelligence-jobs-automation
>
> Scroll down to where it says, "how long until computers have the same
> power as the human brain?" They are predicting this will happen around the
> year 2025.
>
> As I said, modern neural networks are multilevel, meaning one network
> interfaces to another, which goes to another, and so on. This is called a
> deep neural network. The original networks were single level. This does not
> work anywhere near as well. The program that won at go has billions of
> individual decision points (artificial neurons), as I recall, in two main
> deep networks, policy and value. Twenty years ago, it would have taken
> weeks or months to run such a gigantic program.
>
> https://gogameguru.com/i/2016/03/deepmind-mastering-go.pdf
>
> https://www.tastehit.com/blog/google-deepmind-alphago-how-it-works/
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

2017-03-16 Thread Bob Higgins

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 AI, the machine would be able to understand what had been said,
ascribe context to it, and be able to integrate it into its database for
application in a completely different domain.  Not only would it have
translated what it read, but it would have learned something about the
psychology of what had been said - not just how to better convey it in a
different language.

We are really far away from this type of AI concept learning, concept
incorporation into it own intelligence, and application of the concepts to
problem solving in a completely different domain.  This still requires
invention.

Comparing machine to human intelligence for Futurist predictions not only
must presume indefinite timing of inventions to move it forward, but must
also account for a sliding scale in our measure of human performance.
There are recent reports that the speed of cognitive processing in the
brain is much faster in (if I can coin a term) "cog-nits/second" than they
had previously estimated.

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> 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
>
> https://www.cnet.com/news/google-translate-machine-
> learning-neural-networks/
>
> - Jed
>

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

https://www.cnet.com/news/google-translate-machine-learning-neural-networks/

- Jed

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 slow, but it usually moves forward.  I
> think LENR is still in need of at least some seminal understanding that is
> presently missing.
>

Definitely it needs this!

I believe AI is in a similar state of waiting for that seminal invention
> that makes AI practical.
>

I think the breakthrough has already come. In the last few years,
tremendous progress has been made with multilevel neural networks. This
technique that made it possible for a computer to beat the world's best go
player, and it has recently had a tremendous impact on Google translate,
making it far more like a human translator. This all happened in the last
several months.

Neural networks were proposed in the 1950s. A lot of work was done on them
in the 1960s, but not much progress was made. Computers back then were not
powerful enough to implement an effective version of these networks. I
think they had roughly as much computing power as an insect brain. The
biggest computers today have roughly as much power as a bird or mouse brain.

This article shows an interesting animation:

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/robots-artificial-intelligence-jobs-automation

Scroll down to where it says, "how long until computers have the same power
as the human brain?" They are predicting this will happen around the year
2025.

As I said, modern neural networks are multilevel, meaning one network
interfaces to another, which goes to another, and so on. This is called a
deep neural network. The original networks were single level. This does not
work anywhere near as well. The program that won at go has billions of
individual decision points (artificial neurons), as I recall, in two main
deep networks, policy and value. Twenty years ago, it would have taken
weeks or months to run such a gigantic program.

https://gogameguru.com/i/2016/03/deepmind-mastering-go.pdf

https://www.tastehit.com/blog/google-deepmind-alphago-how-it-works/

- Jed

[Vo]:12 years from now

2017-03-16 Thread Bob Higgins

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 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 person who painted it knew nothing about
> aviation. If you had asked aviators experienced with airplanes and
> dirigibles how the future might have looked, they would have given you a
> much more accurate description.
>
> 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. John
> Bockris, who was a superb scientist and who know a lot about technology
> once ridiculed the notion of household robots dressed in tuxedos pouring
> wine. Why they would be dressed in tuxedos I do not know. Anyway, as
> everyone now knows most robots even in the 1950s and 60s did not look like
> people. We may eventually have mobile robots that resemble people or
> animals but the next ones to emerge will look like automobiles, because
> that is what they will be. Isaac Asimov once described a robot used to
> spelling and grammatical errors in manuscripts, in one of his I Robot
> stories. The robot looked like a person -- they all did. It used a red
> pencil to mark up a paper manuscript. The ability to use a pencil and do
> this would be far more advanced than any robot or personal computer. Yet
> Microsoft Word and other programs have been checking spelling and grammar
> effectively for over 20 years. That task is easier than Asimov imagined it
> would be. In 1978 I was working with minicomputers. I got a list of 120,000
> correctly spelled English. I wrote an effective spell checking program with
> it, along with a WYSIWYG text editor. I haven't had to worry about spelling
> since then. Some thing are harder to automate than we anticipated, but
> others are easier.
>
> - Jed
>
>

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 person who painted it knew nothing about
aviation. If you had asked aviators experienced with airplanes and
dirigibles how the future might have looked, they would have given you a
much more accurate description.

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. John
Bockris, who was a superb scientist and who know a lot about technology
once ridiculed the notion of household robots dressed in tuxedos pouring
wine. Why they would be dressed in tuxedos I do not know. Anyway, as
everyone now knows most robots even in the 1950s and 60s did not look like
people. We may eventually have mobile robots that resemble people or
animals but the next ones to emerge will look like automobiles, because
that is what they will be. Isaac Asimov once described a robot used to
spelling and grammatical errors in manuscripts, in one of his I Robot
stories. The robot looked like a person -- they all did. It used a red
pencil to mark up a paper manuscript. The ability to use a pencil and do
this would be far more advanced than any robot or personal computer. Yet
Microsoft Word and other programs have been checking spelling and grammar
effectively for over 20 years. That task is easier than Asimov imagined it
would be. In 1978 I was working with minicomputers. I got a list of 120,000
correctly spelled English. I wrote an effective spell checking program with
it, along with a WYSIWYG text editor. I haven't had to worry about spelling
since then. Some thing are harder to automate than we anticipated, but
others are easier.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

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.  Our current 
views of the future are no better.  I had a book from 1912 with this picture 
and many other predictions in it.  It was thrown away in 1960.  I cant remember 
its name.  Children's encyclopedia the book of wonders something.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: Frank Znidarsic <fznidar...@aol.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 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@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 15, 2017 6:15 pm
Subject: 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

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@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 15, 2017 6:15 pm
Subject: 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

2017-03-15 Thread Jones Beene


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 advances may be unpredictable, in general and overly 
optimistic. However in the case of AI there could be a bootstrap, since 
we have the human model to improve upon - and mature hardware already. 
Perhaps the only thing missing from a functioning AI, using today's 
technology without a single new breakthrough, is simply an autonomous 
high-level control unit which will be allowed to learn and grow on its 
own. The hardware need not be more complicated than a PC so long as all 
the web is available as the knowledge base. Language parsing is said to 
be much improved at places like IBM, and that will filter down sooner or 
later.


First it is necessary to instill - for lack of a better word - greed. 
This may be the "year of the Gekko" after all ... thanks to the recent 
election. AI programmers actually know this and are struggling to 
pull-off the kind of deep mimicry which allows "rewards" to operate in a 
competitive world of greedy machine learners. How do you program greed 
into a control unit? Already there are greedy algorithms and 
problem-solving heuristics which can be coupled with something akin to a 
rewards credit card or bitcoins. Sounds silly but no more so, to a 
realist, than is "heaven" as a reward.


Reward's do work at many levels, especially over time in a competitive 
society - but the solvable problem is the risks they carry when autonomy 
is allowed. We must realize that "greed" is the imperative behind 
learning, in the real world, and secondly, that rewards that reinforce 
greed require both a distinct identity and a strong semblance of "free 
will" but with flexible limits more realistic than Asimov's 3 laws. For 
instance, an AI will soon be allowed to post to blogs and even 
encouraged to embarrass human ignorance, and this could happen in a few 
years. Who knows but that we may have one or two warming up on Vortex 
already.


Anyway, philosophy and behavioral sciences will become required courses 
for the AI programmer :-)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

2017-03-15 Thread Axil Axil

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
circumstances. They used genetic algorithms
, which comb through
randomly generated chunks of code, skim the highest-performing ones, and
splice them together to spawn new code. As the process is repeated, the
evolved programs become amazingly effective, often comparable to the output
of the most experienced coders.

https://www.wired.com/2010/12/ff_ai_essay_airevolution/

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> 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 seaweed extract.  There are surprising results
> from dandelion root right now. And Teva stopped making Vermox when it
> became clear that it might be a cheap treatment for tumors.  I don’t think
> quantum computers are the obstacle.
>

RE: [Vo]:12 years from now

2017-03-15 Thread Chris Zell



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 seaweed extract.  There are surprising results from 
dandelion root right now. And Teva stopped making Vermox when it became clear 
that it might be a cheap treatment for tumors.  I don’t think quantum computers 
are the obstacle.

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 are also all going to be heating our tea with hot fusion grid energy in
50 years - same hype.  The invention(s) needed to make either a reality are
still in the ether.  As special Vorticians, we should look beyond the hype,
not drink the KoolAid.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> 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 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
>> invention to the table.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>>
>>> 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 development of the Quantum computer. All this progress will take less
>>> than a century.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Chris Zell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 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
 global civilization in desperate need of a Deus Ex Machina.   Engineering
 is nice but exploits what science discovers – and if little emerges that
 would dramatically change human hopes,  what then?

>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

2017-03-15 Thread Axil Axil

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 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
> invention to the table.
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> 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
>> development of the Quantum computer. All this progress will take less than
>> a century.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Chris Zell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> global civilization in desperate need of a Deus Ex Machina.   Engineering
>>> is nice but exploits what science discovers – and if little emerges that
>>> would dramatically change human hopes,  what then?
>>>
>>
>>
>

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 the past.  


Watch that dot in the center if you have an old TV set.




Frank

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 I see the show is is such a simple comedy.  Perhaps I saw something 
more 
sinister when I was eight.  Today, I am still glad there are no more dots 
appear in the middle of the TV screen when they are turned off.


Frank

[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
invention to the table.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> 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
> development of the Quantum computer. All this progress will take less than
> a century.
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:
>
>> 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
>> global civilization in desperate need of a Deus Ex Machina.   Engineering
>> is nice but exploits what science discovers – and if little emerges that
>> would dramatically change human hopes,  what then?
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

2017-03-15 Thread Axil Axil

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
development of the Quantum computer. All this progress will take less than
a century.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Chris Zell  wrote:

> 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
> global civilization in desperate need of a Deus Ex Machina.   Engineering
> is nice but exploits what science discovers – and if little emerges that
> would dramatically change human hopes,  what then?
>

[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 still in need of at least some seminal understanding that is
presently missing.  I believe AI is in a similar state of waiting for that
seminal invention that makes AI practical.

I took a class in AI and Expert Systems about 25 years ago.  I was enthused
about the languages of AI and the progress in Expert Systems.  The nasty
secret I learned was that the most successful Expert System was written in
FORTRAN!  It burst my bubble.  It was a million IF-THEN-ELSE statements.
AI needs a breakthrough that will allow machines to read and understand
books and to then incorporate that knowledge as someone's "opinion" of
reality.  At some point the system will need an opinion evaluator to know
which opinion to use to assemble a coherent reality.  I think it is a field
still waiting on multiple inventions whose timing is not predictable.

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Chris Zell  wrote:

> 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
> global civilization in desperate need of a Deus Ex Machina.   Engineering
> is nice but exploits what science discovers – and if little emerges that
> would dramatically change human hopes,  what then?
>

RE: [Vo]:12 years from now

2017-03-15 Thread Chris Zell

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 global 
civilization in desperate need of a Deus Ex Machina.   Engineering is nice but 
exploits what science discovers – and if little emerges that would dramatically 
change human hopes,  what then?

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 was appropriate.  I am fortunate to have witnessed the birth of
computers in the workplace, and I have seen the good and bad of how
engineering has changed due to computing having become an integral part of
the process.  Engineering is exponentially more rapid with computer.
Unfortunately, engineers that were brought up within the computer era lack
the engineering common sense in many cases that is used to tell whether the
computed result is plausible.  We have come a long way in our marriage with
computers.  While the futurists get many things right, they almost always
get the timing wrong.  I remember during the rise of GaAs ICs in the
semiconductor industry, it was frequently touted as being the technology of
the future; only the likeness turned into, "the technology of the
future...and it always will be".  One can think that the singulatity is
only 12 years out...and it always will be.  Viable hot fusion energy
production is only 25 years out... and it always will be. :)

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> 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 inventor and futurist
> Ray Kurzweil. It has evolved several times with input from many others into
> a coherent vision of things to come - and embraced by almost all of the
> great minds in Technology and Futurism. At the same time, this vision has
> been marginalized from the pulpit by almost all religious leaders who see
> it as heresy. Yet, ironically, the inevitable result of Transhumanism can
> be seen as the actual fulfillment of ancient prophecy... in a way scarcely
> imaginable to those "left-behind." History is written by the survivors.
>
> The Singularity is more than the "Age of Intelligent Machines," or even
> the "Age of Spiritual Machines" the time when we invent a viable
> deity-substitute, the iGod of technology. The full concept predicts that
> that inevitable trends in all branches of high-tech like AI and genetic
> engineering and even alternative energy (according to the Anthropocene
> Institute) will merge together into a synergistic paradigm shift, each
> reinforcing the others shared vision. It is as if this merger were being
> "directed" from afar  a double irony.
>
> Following the paradigm shift which is the Singularity, most of humanity
> will effectively become 2nd class citizens, so to speak or else "absent" in
> some way. There could be a new mythology which is put in place to prevent
> the mass of humanity from fully appreciating their predicament and
> revolting against an invisible enemy. This has been dramatized in film, and
> will continue to be the subject of debate as to who is really being
> left-behind and who gets the ticket to Elysium.
>
> But the die is cast, and a mass catastrophe like a genetically engineered
> plague, is not ruled out. The bottom line is that within a short time, the
> onslaught of Evolution will have presented Earth with more than a new elite
> - it will be a new dominant species - part biological and part
> manufactured, Brave New World meets Asimov's Robot series (he did not go
> far enough).
>
> That future date for the Singularity has been moving target, but was
> updated today to be the year 2029,  or 12 years from now.
>
> Personally, I'd welcome the change, but the date is a bit too far out
> there to make a reservation. As MLK would say . *I may not get there
> with you*, but I've been to the mountaintop...
>
>

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now