On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this conversation
That's because Darwinian Evolution produced the only thing that I am
absolutely positively 100% certain is conscious.
and in that domain there very strong
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 10:04:48AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Mathematica discovers new solutions to Differential Equations that have
never been solved before every hour of every day; if you mean basic
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 01:34:04PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
Mathematica discovers new solutions to Differential Equations that have
never been solved before every hour of every day; if you mean basic
techniques for solving Differential Equations the most important ones were
discovered in the
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Mathematica discovers new solutions to Differential Equations that have
never been solved before every hour of every day; if you mean basic
techniques for solving Differential Equations the most important ones were
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have sufficient
patience,
This is basically the Chinese Room argument in a new disguise, I think. A
person with IQ80 could simulate Shakespeare's brain
On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote:
A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have sufficient
patience,
Interestingly, it turns out that those with moderate IQs have the highest
levels of patience. They are aware that they don't have a V8 engine upstairs so
they
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:03:53 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote:
A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have sufficient
patience,
Interestingly, it turns out that those with moderate IQs have the highest
levels of
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 1:54:41 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:03:53 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote:
A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have
sufficient patience,
Interestingly, it
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to
this later with the rest, cheer.
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:02:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to
this
this bit is actually your core reasoning on my reading: *Evolution can see
intelligence but it can't directly see consciousness any better than we
can*
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:08:56 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:02:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 1:54:41 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:03:53 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote:
A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have
sufficient patience,
Interestingly, it
Al Hibbs - I am still receiving every one of your posts TWICE. Please stop
placing my personal email address in the cc field of each of your posts. My
inbox is full to bursting with you. You are, in addition, a very prolific and a
very verbose writer. This amounts to a kind of torture, albeit
Kim - we spoke about this luv, I assumed all was good. However, I have just
noticed a little ticky box about original authorwhich I am duly
unticking.
I hope this helps...but if things are as bad as you illustrate, perhaps
half a torture is still a torture too much by 'alf, as they say.
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 4:50:24 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Kim - we spoke about this luv, I assumed all was good. However, I have
just noticed a little ticky box about original authorwhich I am duly
unticking.
I hope this helps...but if things are as bad as you illustrate,
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 5:04:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 4:50:24 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Kim - we spoke about this luv, I assumed all was good. However, I have
just noticed a little ticky box about original authorwhich I am duly
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:20:25AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
OK fine, but can you find the exact solutions to differential equations
better than Mathematica? I don't think so.
Not me personally, but the
On 20 Jun 2014, at 4:40 pm, John Clark wrote:
Creativity is a subjective judgement made by a observer of a task performed
by somebody else, it is not inherent in the task itself.
So what. If the outcome of the task is the creation of new value then it's been
a creative act to bring about
On 20 Jun 2014, at 3:06 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
I would always call coming up with something that was difficult (or
complex) and novel and interesting creative.
That's not creative - that's innovative. Let's get this sorted out now.
Innovation is not the same
On 20 Jun 2014, at 3:21 am, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
As someone who can juggle 5 balls, I would say there really is very little,
if any, creativity involved. It's purely training of muscle memory over
hundreds/thousands of repetitions. I'm not even sure how
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
to my knowledge, not one new DE solution has been found by Mathematica.
To my knowledge, not one new DE solution has not been incorporated into
Mathematica.
it's database is upgraded by the solutions being found
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:31:26 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:55:18 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
it
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:31 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
most people can't juggle 5 balls. A few people can, but nobody thinks
they are creative because of it.
I think you'd have to admit that all
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
you could define creativity as the ability to generate interesting
things.
OK.
I was trying to avoid interesting to not get into a circular
definition.
There is no circularity. Although there are several
As someone who can juggle 5 balls, I would say there really is very little,
if any, creativity involved. It's purely training of muscle memory over
hundreds/thousands of repetitions. I'm not even sure how creativity would
enter the equation... I suppose you could be creative about how you train
I'm ok nowadays with creativity, beauty, aesthetics as undefinable pointer
to transcendental properties better not named or scrutinized, but
inhabited, lived and interpreted by various entities.
Difficulty, novelty, interest, as with any list, or the various definitions
laid down by history, seem
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 17 Jun 2014, at 10:02 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well
understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
OK fine, but can you find the exact solutions to differential equations
better than Mathematica? I don't think so.
Not me personally, but the professional mathematicians studying DEs
definitely.
Bullshit.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:20 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
OK fine, but can you find the exact solutions to differential
equations better than Mathematica? I don't think so.
Not me personally,
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk.
No problem.
The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious,
always show up
it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to this
later with the rest, cheer.
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
most people can't juggle 5 balls. A few people can, but nobody thinks
they are creative because of it.
I think you'd have to admit that all else being equal juggling is more
creative than not juggling, at least a
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to
this later with the rest, cheer.
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:55:18 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to
this
What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well
understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that yet.
Kim, what do you think of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On 17 Jun 2014, at 10:02 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well
understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that yet.
Kim, what do you think of this:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk.
No problem.
The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious,
always show up together, never one on its own.
I don't see how you could know that, the only being you
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Solving differential equations still requires creativity, and will always
do so
OK fine, but can you find the exact solutions to differential equations
better than Mathematica? I don't think so.
Perhaps you mean
On 16 Jun 2014, at 03:37, Kim Jones wrote:
hY
You don't need to have a theory of intelligence in order to use one,
any more than you need to know how to tune a piano in order to know
how to play one or understand the workings of a combustion engine to
know how to drive a car. There is
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:15:17PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Solving differential equations still requires creativity, and will always
do so
OK fine, but can you find the exact solutions to differential
On 6/17/2014 4:55 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Nevertheless, I could well imagine there being some groups that could
justify employing a researcher to perform the necessary literature
search and creatively summarise the results to feed into someone
else's work. Politicians spring to mind as
On Monday, June 16, 2014 5:49:55 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
So, in that paragraph I was summing up that:
In making your argument that the current problem of
? Another sucker born every minute
On 16 Jun 2014, at 1:14 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
That guy was Edward de Bono. He was the first one to say that intelligence is
the horsepower of the car whereas thinking ability is the skill with which the
car is driven.
If that's Edward de
On 16 Jun 2014, at 8:42 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Besides Di Bono, there's the dude Bruce Bueno Di Mesquito, who's supposed to
be the great predictor.
Link? Clip? Interesting
K
--
You received this message because you are
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 11:44:24 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jun 2014, at 03:34, Pierz wrote:
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 11:52:02 AM UTC+10, Liz R wrote:
On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well
understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that
yet.
The definition of creativity is not constant, it is whatever computers
@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 7:15 am
Subject: Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On 16 Jun 2014, at 8:42 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Besides Di Bono, there's the dude Bruce Bueno Di Mesquito, who's supposed to
be the great
On Monday, June 16, 2014 7:18:14 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 16, 2014 5:49:55 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
So, in that paragraph I was
On Monday, June 16, 2014 3:29:43 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Kim Jones kimj...@ozemail.com.au
javascript: wrote:
What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well
understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
So, in that paragraph I was summing up that:
In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was
equal between computers and humans:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:29:42AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well
understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that
yet.
On 15 Jun 2014, at 03:34, Pierz wrote:
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 11:52:02 AM UTC+10, Liz R wrote:
On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 5:34:10 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:43 AM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote
A lot is understood about intelligence in humans
Almost nothing is understood about intelligence in humans, otherwise we
could double our IQ...
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On the other hand there is no harder job in the world than being a
intelligence theorist, but at least if you happen to stumble upon the
correct intelligence theory the fact that you've suddenly become the
world's first
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 4:14:37 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Kim Jones kimj...@ozemail.com.au
javascript: wrote:
On the other hand there is no harder job in the world than being a
intelligence theorist, but at least if you happen to stumble upon the
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 4:41:21 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 4:14:37 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Kim Jones kimj...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
On the other hand there is no harder job in the world than being a
intelligence
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:39 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
John. You have just mentioned I.Q. which is a specific kind of measure.
Would you be willing to clarify where you stand on the science behind I.Q.?
I was using the term IQ, perhaps sloppily, as a sort of shorthand, I
certainly didn't
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:41 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
What you seem to be doing John, is trying to make a position that
something is equal across distinct domains (like computers and humans)
Yes, that is exactly precisely what I am doing.
that involves implicitly or otherwise
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 5:16:22 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:41 AM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
What you seem to be doing John, is trying to make a position that
something is equal across distinct domains (like computers and humans)
Yes, that is
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 5:03:28 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:39 AM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
John. You have just mentioned I.Q. which is a specific kind of measure.
Would you be willing to clarify where you stand on the science behind I.Q.?
I was
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
So, in that paragraph I was summing up that:
In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was equal
between computers and humans:
I'm saying computers and humans should be judged equally and judged on what
they
On 16 Jun 2014, at 1:14 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
That guy was Edward de Bono. He was the first one to say that intelligence
is the horsepower of the car whereas thinking ability is the skill with
which the car is driven.
If that's Edward de Bono's theory of
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
So, in that paragraph I was summing up that:
In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was
equal between computers and humans:
On 14 Jun 2014, at 03:49, LizR wrote:
On 13 June 2014 20:44, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
sophisticated piece of modern software such as a modern OS or even
this humble mailing list/forum software we are using is already
On Friday, June 13, 2014 5:54:01 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with our
current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'.
If
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 11:43:47 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, June 13, 2014 5:54:01 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com wrote:
The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with our
current conception
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 3:31:12 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 02:22:56PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom later.
On 14 June 2014 14:27, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
javascript: wrote:
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 4:41:45 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
On 6/13/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
javascript: wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong,
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 12:19:16 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 4:41:45 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
On 6/13/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 12:13:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 3:31:12 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 02:22:56PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom
later.
On 14 June
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:43 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
A lot is understood about intelligence in humans
Almost nothing is understood about intelligence in humans, otherwise we
could double our IQ by knowing which modes of thought are productive and
which just waste time and lead
On 6/14/2014 9:34 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:43 AM, ghib...@gmail.com mailto:ghib...@gmail.com
wrote:
A lot is understood about intelligence in humans
Almost nothing is understood about intelligence in humans, otherwise we could double our
IQ by knowing which
On 15 Jun 2014, at 2:34 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand there is no harder job in the world than being a
intelligence theorist, but at least if you happen to stumble upon the correct
intelligence theory the fact that you've suddenly become the world's first
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 11:52:02 AM UTC+10, Liz R wrote:
On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
javascript: wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
sophisticated
piece of
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 06:34:51PM -0700, Pierz wrote:
No - we are hitting limits now in terms of miniaturization that are posing
serious challenges to the continuation of Moore's law. So far, engineers
have - more or less - found ways of working around these problems, but this
can't
On 15 June 2014 13:34, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure we can reward a program for correctly solving a problem in some
kind of learning algorithm, but anyone who understands programming and
knows what is really going on when that occurs must surely wonder how
incrementing a register
On 15 June 2014 13:34, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote from ... someone: If the brain were so simple we could understand
it, we'd be so simple we couldn't.
Excellent!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe
Meh. The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with our
current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'. It is
perfectly clear that the Eliza-like program here just has some bunch of
pre-prepared statements to regurgitate and the programmers have tried to
The closest I've seen to a computer programme behaving in what might be
called an intelligent manner was in one of Douglas Hofstadter's books. (I
think it designed fonts or something?) At least as he described it, it
seemed to be doing something clever, but nowhere near the level needed to
pass
or even hugely.
On 13 June 2014 19:49, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The closest I've seen to a computer programme behaving in what might be
called an intelligent manner was in one of Douglas Hofstadter's books. (I
think it designed fonts or something?) At least as he described it, it
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any sophisticated
piece of modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble mailing
list/forum software we are using is already hugely mind-bogglingly
incremental. It has evolved over decades of incremental improvement
involving
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any sophisticated
piece of modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble mailing
list/forum software we are using is already hugely mind-bogglingly
incremental. It has
An intuition pump I use to think about the level of effort required to
achieve true AI is that it takes a human brain at least a year or two of
continuous training before it results in a talking human. Several more
years before you get to to the point where you can't easily trick that
little human
On 13 Jun 2014, at 10:44, Pierz wrote:
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
sophisticated piece of modern software such as a modern OS or even
this humble mailing list/forum software we are using is already
hugely mind-bogglingly incremental. It has evolved over
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with our
current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'.
If there is a fundamental problem with determining the level of
intelligence in something
On 6/13/2014 12:49 AM, LizR wrote:
The closest I've seen to a computer programme behaving in what might be called an
intelligent manner was in one of Douglas Hofstadter's books. (I think it designed fonts
or something?) At least as he described it, it seemed to be doing something clever, but
On 6/13/2014 9:53 AM, John Clark wrote:
That's a classic example of the sore loser syndrome, those humans with their deep human
insights will get clobbered by the computer in just a few moves. And I don't want to
hear about how that doesn't count because of blah blah and all the machine is
On Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:20:16 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me would be
doesn't this logically pre-assume a set of explicit standards existed in
the first
On 13 June 2014 20:44, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
sophisticated piece of modern software such as a modern OS or even this
humble mailing list/forum software we are using is already hugely
mind-bogglingly incremental. It has
On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
sophisticated
piece of modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble mailing
list/forum
On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
sophisticated
piece of modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble mailing
list/forum
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 01:52:01PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going by a
comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the processors
haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more cores, i.e.
they've been
Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom later.
On 14 June 2014 14:27, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 01:52:01PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going by
a
comparison of
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 02:22:56PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom later.
On 14 June 2014 14:27, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 01:52:01PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Moore's law appears to have
We all have our little kinks :)
On 14 June 2014 14:38, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 02:22:56PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom later.
On 14 June 2014 14:27, Russell Standish
On 6/13/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
sophisticated
piece of modern
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 08:41:42PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/13/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago,
going by a comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That
is, the processors haven't increased much in speed, but they have
On 14 June 2014 15:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I have a theory that no matter how fast they make the processors
Microsoft will devise an operating system to slow them down.
Brent
The first time Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck will be when
they build vacuum
On 12 Jun 2014, at 8:54 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
But when I asked my computer if it could manage that, it said I'm afraid I
can't do that, Liz.
Also it refuses to open the front door, so I'm stuck in the garage.
Open the pod bay doors, HAL..HAL - open the pod bay doors,
On 12 Jun 2014, at 10:38, Kim Jones wrote:
On 12 Jun 2014, at 8:54 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
But when I asked my computer if it could manage that, it said I'm
afraid I can't do that, Liz.
Also it refuses to open the front door, so I'm stuck in the garage.
Open the pod bay
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
