Re: [Vo]:12 years from now
On 17/03/2017 2:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: . . . I see no reason why this will not happen sooner or later. Machines are far from being able to do this now, because they have brains roughly the size of a bird's brain. Birds do not understand human language. . . . So I believed until quite recently. It appears that some birds can not only understand what you say but understand what you are *thinking* without you giving any visible or audible clue! They can also compose grammatically correct sentences in reply and all this with a brain the size of half a walnut! Here is a video to tickle your interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UX4d2nb7yU Here is the paper reporting all the precautions taken and statistical methods used to obtain the result: http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/testing-a-language-using-a-parrot-for-telepathy Other papers by the same scientist are listed here: http://www.sheldrake.org/research You will notice that there are quite a few in very high impact journals including a review paper. (It is very difficult to author a review paper because they are almost always by invitation only, and you will only be invited after you have become the recognized expert of a particular field). So this is not some backyard ignoramus messing about, but a world-class scientist. Mind blowing isn't it! You can also checkout some popular videos with information on some other areas of his research: Dogs knowing when their owner leaves for home: https://youtu.be/DkrLJhBC3X4 (He gives plenty more dog evidence but this segment was created in response to lies by a skeptic) People knowing who has rung before they answer the phone: http://youtu.be/_tQe7NXIcnw I don't think machines will be able to duplicate what a bird brain can do, any time, ever. Machines which we can invent are things that we can understand almost completely. However consciousness, even animal consciousness, is something we will never understand sufficiently to create it, because it is a supernatural phenomenon.
Re: [Vo]:12 years from now
On 17/03/2017 2:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: . . . I see no reason why this will not happen sooner or later. Machines are far from being able to do this now, because they have brains roughly the size of a bird's brain. Birds do not understand human language. . . . So I believed until quite recently. It appears that some birds can not only understand what you say but understand what you are *thinking* without you giving any visible or audible clue! They can also compose grammatically correct sentences in reply and all this with a brain the size of half a walnut! Here is a video to tickle your interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UX4d2nb7yU Here is the paper reporting all the precautions taken and statistical methods used to obtain the result: http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/testing-a-language-using-a-parrot-for-telepathy Other papers by the same scientist are listed here: http://www.sheldrake.org/research You will notice that there are quite a few in very high impact journals including a review paper. (It is very difficult to author a review paper because they are almost always by invitation only, and you will only be invited after you have become the recognized expert of a particular field). So this is not some backyard ignoramus messing about, but a world-class scientist. Mind blowing isn't it! You can also checkout some popular videos with information on some other areas of his research: Dogs knowing when their owner leaves for home: https://youtu.be/DkrLJhBC3X4 (He gives plenty more dog evidence but this segment was created in response to lies by a skeptic) People knowing who has rung before they answer the phone: http://youtu.be/_tQe7NXIcnw I don't think machines will be able to duplicate what a bird brain can do, any time, ever. Machines which we can invent are things that we can understand almost completely. However consciousness, even animal consciousness, is something we will never understand sufficiently to create it, because it is a supernatural phenomenon.
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
Peter Gluck wrote: mre cells with death after (no) heat. > I do not know what this sentence means. Perhaps you are saying that Pd-D does not produce heat after death. That's incorrect. It does. There is no input power, so the COP is infinite. > probably not true for Ti- very abundent element have worked with it. For > CF remeber Scaramuzzi and our friend Chino has done a lot with Ti. > Au is Au and has it s place in electromivvcs. > So please do not mention PD based commercial energy sources. > You have not given any technical or practical reason why Pd-D cannot be commercialized. If these other metals work, there would be no reason to use Pd. But if they do not, and Pd is the only choice, it can produce a significant fraction of our energy. Fleischmann was correct about that, and you are wrong. > Re the Exh 1, surely i have it and what you are missing is the hourly and > the recorded data which will make you smarter and will determine you to not > pontificate. > As far as I know, there is no hourly data. Anyone can see that Penon and Rossi stuffed imaginary numbers into these spreadsheets. One-hour data that agrees with this would also be imaginary. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
mre cells with death after (no) heat. probably not true for Ti- very abundent element have worked with it. For CF remeber Scaramuzzi and our friend Chino has done a lot with Ti. Au is Au and has it s place in electromivvcs. So please do not mention PD based commercial energy sources. Re the Exh 1, surely i have it and what you are missing is the hourly and the recorded data which will make you smarter and will determine you to not pontificate. good night, peter On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Peter Gluck wrote: > > b) The heavy water gives D2 with a consume of energy good COP is >> say 1.30 to be optimist . . . >> > > There have been many cells with heat after death for long periods. That is > a COP of infinity. Once the reaction is understood and controlled, I am > confident a low COP will be possible. > > > >> , so you will consume 780 W (power) for getting 100 w power= imagine >> your generator s a huge F&P Cell- or do you have different idea? >> > > F&P achieved much better COPs than this. > > > >> For any rational human being it is clear the PdD CF/LENR in its actual >> stage of development cannot be a commercial energy source. >> > > Of course! That is equally true of Ti, Au and Ni. It isn't even clear that > Ni cold fusion exists. > > > >> You could learn a lot from the 1MW 1year test of Andrea Rossi. Real or >> not, it is instructive. >> > > You can learn all you need to know from Rossi's data. It is fake. If you > can't see that, you have lost all ability to analyze experimental data. The > data is here, uploaded by Rossi himself: > > http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/ > 01/0128.1_Exhibit_1.pdf > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:to create a better LENR culture (ii)
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/03/mar-16-2017-creation-of-true-lenr.html peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Palladium cold fusion as an energy source
Peter Gluck wrote: b) The heavy water gives D2 with a consume of energy good COP is > say 1.30 to be optimist . . . > There have been many cells with heat after death for long periods. That is a COP of infinity. Once the reaction is understood and controlled, I am confident a low COP will be possible. > , so you will consume 780 W (power) for getting 100 w power= imagine your > generator s a huge F&P Cell- or do you have different idea? > F&P achieved much better COPs than this. > For any rational human being it is clear the PdD CF/LENR in its actual > stage of development cannot be a commercial energy source. > Of course! That is equally true of Ti, Au and Ni. It isn't even clear that Ni cold fusion exists. > You could learn a lot from the 1MW 1year test of Andrea Rossi. Real or > not, it is instructive. > You can learn all you need to know from Rossi's data. It is fake. If you can't see that, you have lost all ability to analyze experimental data. The data is here, uploaded by Rossi himself: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/0128.1_Exhibit_1.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:12 years from now
I wrote: > , and application of the concepts to problem solving in a completely >> different domain. This still requires invention. >> > > Of course. However, neural networks can probably provide the basis for > this. > I mean they can provide the foundation. Like this: High level problem-solving inventions (yet to come) BUILT ON Neural network processing BUILT ON MPP architecture BUILT ON Von Neumann computer architecture - Jed
Re: [Vo]:12 years from now
Bob Higgins wrote: I submit that using neural techniques to solve a problem is not AI. > Well, your brain is neural network of a similar nature. It is not just an analogy; the brain really is a neural network. Clearly, this architecture can give rise to intelligence. Whether it will in this case remains to be seen. > If it were AI, the machine would be able to understand what had been said, > ascribe context to it, and be able to integrate it into its database for > application in a completely different domain. > They are getting closer to doing that every day. Whether they will ever rival humans remains to be seen. I expect they will be better than us some things and were set others. They are already better at pattern recognition, for example. > Not only would it have translated what it read, but it would have learned > something about the psychology of what had been said - not just how to > better convey it in a different language. > I see no reason why this will not happen sooner or later. Machines are far from being able to do this now, because they have brains roughly the size of a bird's brain. Birds do not understand human language. However they are capable of doing remarkable things. Their ability to navigate three-dimensional space is astounding. As I pointed out in my book, if a chicken gets into your kitchen and you chase after it, you will see that it is better at evasion than you are at catching a chicken. (I know about this because we used to keep chickens.) > We are really far away from this type of AI concept learning, concept > incorporation into it own intelligence . . . > I am not sure what that means. Do you mean interfacing peoples brains to computers? Or do you mean making machine intelligence similar to our brains. I see no reason to make AI resemble human intelligence. This is like making airplanes that flap their wings, imitating birds. > , and application of the concepts to problem solving in a completely > different domain. This still requires invention. > Of course. However, neural networks can probably provide the basis for this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:12 years from now
Bob Higgins wrote: Hmmm... Didn't your program insist that you include all of the words in the > sentences that are needed? :) re-read below. > No, it just flagged missing words. 120,000 words is enough to cover most vocabulary. The trick is to allow additional user defined words. It was a simple program. Here is the thing, though. On the scale of convenience between 0 and 100, writing with pen and ink is 1. A typewriter is around 3; an electric typewriter with correction features is 5. The word processing program I wrote in 1978 was at 90. Today's word processing programs are up at 100. Or if you have to write in Japanese or include many graphics, they are even higher. The point is that any computer is incomparably better than no computer. The leap from having no computer to having one is something that young people nowadays never experience, so they can never fully appreciate computers the way I do. Along the same lines, my mother learned to drive a model T Ford at age 13 and she appreciated cars more than I did, or any person does today. She also loved to drive them. Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, But to be young was very heaven!--Oh! times, In which the meagre, stale, forbidding ways Of custom, law, and statute, took at once The attraction of a country in romance! - Wordsworth, "French Revolution" The first generation to experience cold fusion will feel it is wonderful, and the panacea for all our technical ills. The generation that follows will take it for granted and complain about its limitations. That's human nature. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:12 years from now
AI and multilevel neural network are nothing new. In 88 when I was student , Yann Lecun was a reference in the domain... Older than Cold Fusion But the size of the network and the data were too small. Internet also overtake the priority on AI, Expert System, neural network, Natural language Processing, and it was followed by Grid computing, Mobile internet... Statistic translation also But in fact neural network was discretely integrated in many niche programs, and deep learning get back in fashion because it could manager, and worked better, with huge data. I've met a guy using deep learning, to detect pictures of Luxury good from French Brand, bought for cheat in France and sold on Alibaba in China... Facebook is known to detect nudity or forbidden image that way... with some well known mistake, that i find quite logical. Google plan to start that to organize anti #fakenews censorship (down indexation)... All that could be fantastic if it was not centralized, if you could choose your censorship ruling, your nudity preferences. I see two moves for AI evolution. One, leading to anthropomorphic/animality, is integration of motivation and feeling/mood into AI in physical devices... the famous Chicken bot of Jed. Another move is the distribution. AI have the power to be more perfect than human, so it must stay associated with humans, empowering people, not controlling them. the nightmare could be what I see as Google/facebook AI filtering, which could be more efficient, blind, and totalitarian than the Catholic Church and it's index. an AI can implement the Law, and all the Law, and this cannot work. A, AI designed by Caltech could have made Cold Fusion disapear on earth like some demand Climate skepicism be banned, and we try to ban nazism or hate speech. "Hell is paved with good intents". I prefer an imperfect earth, and a perfect hell. In fact like there is many people, there should be any AI, competing, associated, specialized, with different approach, different tastes, different strategies, and if possible educated differently by different people, different culture. An AI should be always in competition with dissenting AI, a rule of free market. No monopoly in ideas, in market, or in AI. 2017-03-16 15:31 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell : > Bob Higgins wrote: > > That is the problem with the work of Futurists - many of the massive >> changes in our lives comes from seminal inventions whose timing cannot be >> predicted. Once that seminal invention is proved, progress from >> engineering can be rapid, or can be slow, but it usually moves forward. I >> think LENR is still in need of at least some seminal understanding that is >> presently missing. >> > > Definitely it needs this! > > > I believe AI is in a similar state of waiting for that seminal invention >> that makes AI practical. >> > > I think the breakthrough has already come. In the last few years, > tremendous progress has been made with multilevel neural networks. This > technique that made it possible for a computer to beat the world's best go > player, and it has recently had a tremendous impact on Google translate, > making it far more like a human translator. This all happened in the last > several months. > > Neural networks were proposed in the 1950s. A lot of work was done on them > in the 1960s, but not much progress was made. Computers back then were not > powerful enough to implement an effective version of these networks. I > think they had roughly as much computing power as an insect brain. The > biggest computers today have roughly as much power as a bird or mouse brain. > > This article shows an interesting animation: > > http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/robots- > artificial-intelligence-jobs-automation > > Scroll down to where it says, "how long until computers have the same > power as the human brain?" They are predicting this will happen around the > year 2025. > > As I said, modern neural networks are multilevel, meaning one network > interfaces to another, which goes to another, and so on. This is called a > deep neural network. The original networks were single level. This does not > work anywhere near as well. The program that won at go has billions of > individual decision points (artificial neurons), as I recall, in two main > deep networks, policy and value. Twenty years ago, it would have taken > weeks or months to run such a gigantic program. > > https://gogameguru.com/i/2016/03/deepmind-mastering-go.pdf > > https://www.tastehit.com/blog/google-deepmind-alphago-how-it-works/ > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:12 years from now
I submit that using neural techniques to solve a problem is not AI. Neural programming is a different solution type - more like comparing writing a program in a sequential language like C or Fortran compared to a data driven language like Labview that is fundamentally multi-threaded. If it were AI, the machine would be able to understand what had been said, ascribe context to it, and be able to integrate it into its database for application in a completely different domain. Not only would it have translated what it read, but it would have learned something about the psychology of what had been said - not just how to better convey it in a different language. We are really far away from this type of AI concept learning, concept incorporation into it own intelligence, and application of the concepts to problem solving in a completely different domain. This still requires invention. Comparing machine to human intelligence for Futurist predictions not only must presume indefinite timing of inventions to move it forward, but must also account for a sliding scale in our measure of human performance. There are recent reports that the speed of cognitive processing in the brain is much faster in (if I can coin a term) "cog-nits/second" than they had previously estimated. On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Neural network improvements to Google translate are described here. Look > at the sample sentence. > > https://blog.google/products/translate/found-translation- > more-accurate-fluent-sentences-google-translate/ > > See also: > > https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/magazine/the-great-ai-awakening.html > > https://www.cnet.com/news/google-translate-machine- > learning-neural-networks/ > > - Jed >
Re: [Vo]:12 years from now
Neural network improvements to Google translate are described here. Look at the sample sentence. https://blog.google/products/translate/found-translation-more-accurate-fluent-sentences-google-translate/ See also: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/magazine/the-great-ai-awakening.html https://www.cnet.com/news/google-translate-machine-learning-neural-networks/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:12 years from now
Bob Higgins wrote: That is the problem with the work of Futurists - many of the massive > changes in our lives comes from seminal inventions whose timing cannot be > predicted. Once that seminal invention is proved, progress from > engineering can be rapid, or can be slow, but it usually moves forward. I > think LENR is still in need of at least some seminal understanding that is > presently missing. > Definitely it needs this! I believe AI is in a similar state of waiting for that seminal invention > that makes AI practical. > I think the breakthrough has already come. In the last few years, tremendous progress has been made with multilevel neural networks. This technique that made it possible for a computer to beat the world's best go player, and it has recently had a tremendous impact on Google translate, making it far more like a human translator. This all happened in the last several months. Neural networks were proposed in the 1950s. A lot of work was done on them in the 1960s, but not much progress was made. Computers back then were not powerful enough to implement an effective version of these networks. I think they had roughly as much computing power as an insect brain. The biggest computers today have roughly as much power as a bird or mouse brain. This article shows an interesting animation: http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/robots-artificial-intelligence-jobs-automation Scroll down to where it says, "how long until computers have the same power as the human brain?" They are predicting this will happen around the year 2025. As I said, modern neural networks are multilevel, meaning one network interfaces to another, which goes to another, and so on. This is called a deep neural network. The original networks were single level. This does not work anywhere near as well. The program that won at go has billions of individual decision points (artificial neurons), as I recall, in two main deep networks, policy and value. Twenty years ago, it would have taken weeks or months to run such a gigantic program. https://gogameguru.com/i/2016/03/deepmind-mastering-go.pdf https://www.tastehit.com/blog/google-deepmind-alphago-how-it-works/ - Jed
[Vo]:12 years from now
Hmmm... Didn't your program insist that you include all of the words in the sentences that are needed? :) re-read below. On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:09 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Frank Znidarsic wrote: > > Look at the picture. They predicted tug boat airplanes, painted floating >> signs, boies as flight path markers. They knew that air travel was coming >> but they could only extend the existing technology to explain it. > > > That is a great picture. But the person who painted it knew nothing about > aviation. If you had asked aviators experienced with airplanes and > dirigibles how the future might have looked, they would have given you a > much more accurate description. > > In the 1950s many books and cartoons portrayed robots of the future as > being similar to people, walking on two legs with faces and hands. John > Bockris, who was a superb scientist and who know a lot about technology > once ridiculed the notion of household robots dressed in tuxedos pouring > wine. Why they would be dressed in tuxedos I do not know. Anyway, as > everyone now knows most robots even in the 1950s and 60s did not look like > people. We may eventually have mobile robots that resemble people or > animals but the next ones to emerge will look like automobiles, because > that is what they will be. Isaac Asimov once described a robot used to > spelling and grammatical errors in manuscripts, in one of his I Robot > stories. The robot looked like a person -- they all did. It used a red > pencil to mark up a paper manuscript. The ability to use a pencil and do > this would be far more advanced than any robot or personal computer. Yet > Microsoft Word and other programs have been checking spelling and grammar > effectively for over 20 years. That task is easier than Asimov imagined it > would be. In 1978 I was working with minicomputers. I got a list of 120,000 > correctly spelled English. I wrote an effective spell checking program with > it, along with a WYSIWYG text editor. I haven't had to worry about spelling > since then. Some thing are harder to automate than we anticipated, but > others are easier. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:12 years from now
Frank Znidarsic wrote: Look at the picture. They predicted tug boat airplanes, painted floating > signs, boies as flight path markers. They knew that air travel was coming > but they could only extend the existing technology to explain it. That is a great picture. But the person who painted it knew nothing about aviation. If you had asked aviators experienced with airplanes and dirigibles how the future might have looked, they would have given you a much more accurate description. In the 1950s many books and cartoons portrayed robots of the future as being similar to people, walking on two legs with faces and hands. John Bockris, who was a superb scientist and who know a lot about technology once ridiculed the notion of household robots dressed in tuxedos pouring wine. Why they would be dressed in tuxedos I do not know. Anyway, as everyone now knows most robots even in the 1950s and 60s did not look like people. We may eventually have mobile robots that resemble people or animals but the next ones to emerge will look like automobiles, because that is what they will be. Isaac Asimov once described a robot used to spelling and grammatical errors in manuscripts, in one of his I Robot stories. The robot looked like a person -- they all did. It used a red pencil to mark up a paper manuscript. The ability to use a pencil and do this would be far more advanced than any robot or personal computer. Yet Microsoft Word and other programs have been checking spelling and grammar effectively for over 20 years. That task is easier than Asimov imagined it would be. In 1978 I was working with minicomputers. I got a list of 120,000 correctly spelled English. I wrote an effective spell checking program with it, along with a WYSIWYG text editor. I haven't had to worry about spelling since then. Some thing are harder to automate than we anticipated, but others are easier. - Jed
