On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 9:06:11 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/18/2018 7:41 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 8:35:59 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/18/2018 12:15 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 12:09:37 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/18/2018 6:11 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 4:25:07 AM UTC-6, Russell Standish 
>>> wrote: 
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 05:19:22PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: 
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> > On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>>> > > But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intelligence? AG 
>>>> > > 
>>>> > > 
>>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/father-artificial-intelligence-singularity-less-30-years-away
>>>>  
>>>> > 
>>>> > So we need to sharpen the question.  Exactly *what* is 30yrs away? 
>>>> > 
>>>> > Brent 
>>>> > 
>>>>
>>>> According to the title (I haven't RTFA), it's the 
>>>> singularity. Starting from a point where a machine designs, 
>>>> and manufactures improved copies of itself, technology will supposedly 
>>>> veer from it's exponential path (Moore's law) etc to hyperbolic. Being 
>>>> hyperbolic, it reaches infinity within a finite period of time, 
>>>> expected to be a matter of months perhaps. 
>>>>
>>>> Given that we really don't understand creative processes (not even 
>>>> good old fashioned biological evolution is really well understood), 
>>>> I'm sceptical about the 30 years prognostication. It is mostly based on 
>>>> extrapolating Moore's law, which is the easy part of technological 
>>>> change. 
>>>>
>>>> This won't be a problem for my children - my grandchildren perhaps, if 
>>>> I ever end up having any. 
>>>>
>>>> Cheers 
>>>>
>>>
>>> One thing a computer can not do is ask a question. I can ask a question 
>>> and program a computer to help solve the problem. In fact I am doing a 
>>> program to do just this. I am working a computer program to model aspects 
>>> of gravitational memory. What the computer will not do, at least computers 
>>> we currently employ will not do is to ask the question and then work to 
>>> solve it. A computer can find a numerical solution or render something 
>>> numerically, but it does not spontaneously act to ask the question or to 
>>> propose something creative to then solve or render the solution.
>>>
>>>
>>> You must never have applied for a loan online.
>>>
>>
>> It can only do what it has been programmed to do. I can't act independent 
>> of its program, such as wondering if some theory makes sense, or coming up 
>> with tests of a theory. Or say, it can't invent chess, it can only play it 
>> better than humans. It can't "think" out of the box. AG
>>
>>
>> Yes, keep repeating that over and over.  Repitition makes a convincing 
>> argument...for some people.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
> *What's your countervailing evidence? You want to think it can think, and 
> that's YOUR repetitious argument. AG *
>
>
>
> https://www.ted.com/talks/maurice_conti_the_incredible_inventions_of_intuitive_ai#t-184772
>
> Brent
>

*I viewed it. Very impressive what they can do. However, I'd be MORE 
impressed, indeed HUGELY impressed with the existence of consciousness, if 
without an algorithm explicitly programming it, the computer would REFUSE 
to do as commanded. AG *

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to