Glen writes:
"But some conception of interruptibility or parallelism seems necessary also.
If a UTM couldn't stop, mid-algorithm, to work on some other problem, then
perhaps death is still needed?"
Humans have minimal short term memory, but an extended UTM could yield any
number of
On 10/30/2017 12:01 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Odd that some conservatives give embedded worth to lives that have
> demonstrated none yet (pro-lifers), and change the rules as life progresses.
> Why the act of faith in the first place? Why no conservatives advocating
> one-child-per-family,
< Our universality depends fundamentally on babies. In order for progress to
be made, the old farts, with all their outdated ideas, must die so the young
turds can do things their way. Sure, we want to keep the old farts around and
exploit them as best we can. But at some point, those
Roger writes:
“It seems that this sort of dead code, undead code, zombie code problem is
fairly ubiquitous in information processing systems. No matter whose system,
there are always things around that don't go away because nobody cared to do
anything about them. They always need a clean
Hm. I suppose we could think of a UTM in the same way we think of an ANN. A
large enough ANN becomes a look up table. A UTM could be conceived (simply?)
as some sort of an index for all the algorithms (possible or real). Rather
than extending out in time (complicated, infinitely extensible
There's a funny post on Bunnie's blog today (
https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=5018) about learning to use LiteX in
place of Vivado for FPGA design. It's because Vivado wastes FPGA footprint
by rolling in circuits you don't need, because Vivado is given away for
free by Xilinx who would love
That was a lot, forcing me to cherry-pick. 8^) I disagree with the *fairly*
quickly part. The time scales being traversed are huge, as you point out. When
you make the argument that death happens fairly abruptly you bias that comment
towards a few scales, namely the ones related to
I'm wondering if pupating isn't more relevant to the topic than moulting?
As for molting, I was surprised to learn that lobsters (and other
decapods?) appear to avoid/eschew cellular senescence... and their
apparent increase in sexual reproductivity with age... death seems to
come (if not
Steve writes:
< Of course, the confines of a career in (big) academia
or government or industry can provide a narrowing, as can the
conveniences of modern (professional) living where one needn't repair
their own vehicles (flat tire? call AAA! oil change light? Stop at
Jiffy Lube!) or grow their
Roger writes:
“It seems that this sort of dead code, undead code, zombie code
problem is fairly ubiquitous in information processing systems. No
matter whose system, there are always things around that don't go away
because nobody cared to do anything about them. They always need a
Glen writes:
"The trick is, as you point out, we don't need so many from the same gene
pool(s)! Again, perhaps my Bastard status biases me. The (socialist?) idea
that we all end up rearing the kids the breeders produce was built in from the
start. What we need are large incentives to steer
Interesting that I was once part of a DARPA-funded project at Carnegie
Mellon on this very topic. One indicator of an anthrax attack was sales of
flu medications!
George Duncan
Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
georgeduncanart.com
See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and
fyi
Tom Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c)505.473.9646(h)
Society of Professional Journalists
Good question. But I tend to think the problem is less about plasticity and
more about specialization. As we've seen, specialized (artificial)
intelligence is relatively easy, compare termites to humans. So-called general
intelligence (or universal constructors) is much harder. The distance
Molting is a fantastic metaphor. But do we have any species to look to that
molts for greater generality instead of greater specialty? I suppose we could
argue that some species jump from one specialty to another via molting. But
that passes the buck to some set of processes that hold the
My actual question is more like: Is death universal or is a finite lifetime
just a sufficient solution found by evolution (and carbon-based life)? Must
memories be purged for progress, or is it just that that they _can_ be without
particular harm to the species?
There was a piece on 60
"But I think what it, ultimately devolves to is that humans come very close to
universal constructors. With the reflective layers of brain and opposable
thumbs, we can do almost anything ... with the right resources, right context,
etc."
I'm looking forward to AI companies succeeding at
I used to argue with my parents (a lot) about whether or not humans were
different from animals, mostly because my mom claimed animals don't have souls.
She's right, of course, because nobody has souls. 8^) But I think what it,
ultimately devolves to is that humans come very close to universal
That was a lot, forcing me to cherry-pick. 8^) I disagree with the *fairly*
quickly part. The time scales being traversed are huge, as you point out. When
you make the argument that death happens fairly abruptly you bias that comment
towards a few scales, namely the ones related to
Glen writes:
Odd that some conservatives give embedded worth to lives that have demonstrated
none yet (pro-lifers), and change the rules as life progresses. Why the act
of faith in the first place? Why no conservatives advocating
one-child-per-family, or income requirements for
20 matches
Mail list logo
