Sadly, there are some hidden elements to all that techno-optimism. E.g.
https://nitter.cz/billyperrigo/status/1615682180201447425#m
<tongue-in-cheek>
sounds like the "woke mob" is interfering with patriotic bestial
pedophiles who are just exercising their first, second, maybe fifth
and just in case, the ninth amendment rights? ...
</tic>
Every time I respond to a Captcha challenge, I feel as if I'm being
conscripted to help train an image recognition ML model. And do we know
how (not if) OpenAI, et alii are using *our questions* to train a new
(subset of) model?
On 1/18/23 00:40, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
I totally agree that realizable behavior is what matters.
The elephant in the room is whether AI (and robotics of course) will
(not to replace but to) be able to do better than humans in all
respects, including come up with creative solutions to not only the
world's most pressing problems but also small creative things like
writing poems, and then to do the mental and physical tasks required
to provide goods and services to all in the world,
Sam Altman said there are two things that will shape our future;
intelligence and energy. If we have real abundant intelligence and
energy, the world will be very different indeed.
To quote Sam Altmen at
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms
<https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms>
:
"intelligence and energy have been the fundamental limiters towards
most things we want. A future where these are not the limiting
reagents will be radically different, and can be amazingly better."
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 03:06, Marcus Daniels <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Definitions are all fine and good, but realizable behavior is
what matters. Analog computers will have imperfect behavior, and
there will be leakage between components. A large network of
transistors or neurons are sufficiently similar for my purposes.
The unrolling would be inside a skull, so somewhat isolated from
interference.
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 2:11 PM
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NickC channels DaveW
I don't quite grok that. A crisp definition of recursion implies
no interaction with the outside world, right? If you can tolerate the
ambiguity in that statement, the artifacts laying about from an
unrolled recursion might be seen and used by outsiders. That's not to
say a trespasser can't have some sophisticated intrusion technique.
But unrolled seems more "open" to family, friends, and the occasional
acquaintance.
On 1/17/23 13:37, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I probably didn't pay enough attention to the thread some time
ago on serialization, but to me recursion is hard to distinguish from
an unrolling of recursion.
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
