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 <janap...@gmail.com> 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 <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> > 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 <janap...@gmail.com> 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 <chrisz...@wetmtv.com> >>> 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? >>>> >>> >>> >> >
