Dear all, i think it is all said. Please stop this annoying discussion.
This list is called "use-revolution", so maybe we can come back to this again. Thank you! Matthias Am 03.05.2010 um 07:47 schrieb Randall Lee Reetz: > Why don't you ask the guys at adobe if their content is really aware. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Wood <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 9:27 PM > To: How to use Revolution <[email protected]> > Subject: OT?: AI, learning networks and pattern recognition (was: Apples > actual response to the Flash issue) > > Now we're getting somewhere that actually has some vague relevance to > the list. > > > On 2 May 2010, at 22:39, Randall Reetz wrote: > >> I had assumed your questions were rhetorical. > > If I ask the same questions multiple times you can be sure that > they're not rhetorical. > >> When I say that software hasn't changed I mean to say that it hasn't >> jumped qualitative categories. We are still living in a world where >> computing exists as pre-written and compiled software that is >> blindly executed by machines and stacked foundational code that has >> no idea what it is processing, can only process linearly, all >> semantics have been stripped, it doesn't learn from experience or >> react to context unless this too has been pre-codified and frozen in >> binary or byte code, etc. etc etc. Hardware has been souped up. So >> our little wrote tricks can be made more elaborate within the >> substantial confines mentioned. These same in-paradigm restrictions >> apply to both the software users slog through and the software we >> use to write software. >> >> As a result, these very plastic machines with mercurial potential >> are reduced to simple players that react to user interrupts. They >> are sequencing systems, not unlike the lead type setting racks of >> Guttenburg-era printing presses. Sure we have taught them some >> interesting seeming tricks – if you can represent something as >> digital media, be it sound, video, multi-dimentional graph space, >> markup – our sequencer doesn't know enough to care. > > So for you, for something to be 'revolutionary' it has to involve a > full paradigm shift? That's a more extreme definition than most people > use. > >> Current processors are capable of 6.5 million instructions per >> second but are used less than a billionth of available cycles by the >> standard users running standard software. > > From a pedantic, technical point of view, these days if the processor > is being used that little then it will ramp down the clock speed, > which has some environmental and practical benefits in itself. ;-) > >> As regards photo editing software, anyone aware of the history of >> image processing will recognize that most of the stuff seen in >> photoshop and other programs was proposed and executed on systems >> long before some guys in france democratized these algorithms for >> consumer use and had their code acquired by adobe. It used to be >> called array arithmetic and applied smoothly to images divided up >> into a grid of pixels. None of these systems "see" an image for its >> content except as an array of numbers that can be crunched >> sequentially like a spread sheet. >> >> It was only when object recognition concepts were applied to photos >> that any kind of compositional grammar could be extracted from an >> image and compared as parts to other images similarly decomposed. >> This is a form of semantic processing and has its parallels in other >> media like text parsers and sound analysis software. > > You haven't looked up what content-aware fill *is*, have you? It's > based on the same basic concepts of pattern-matching/feature detection > that facial recognition software is based on but with a different > emphasis. > > To paraphrase, it's not facial recognition that you think is the only > revolutionary feature in photography in twenty years, it's pattern- > matching/detection/eigenvectors. A lot of time and frustration would > have been saved if you'd said that in the first place. > >> Semantics opens the door to the building of systems that >> "understand" the content they process. That is the promised second >> revolution in computation that really hasn't seen any practical >> light of day as of yet. > > You're jumping too many steps here - object recognition concepts are > in *widespread* use in consumer software and devices, whether it's the > aforementioned 'focus-on-a-face' digital cameras, healing brushes in > many different pieces of software, feature recognition in panoramic > stitching software or even live stitching in some of the new Sony > cameras. > > Semantic processing of content doesn't magically enable a computer to > initiate action. > >> Data mining really isn't semantically mindful, simply uses >> statistical reduction mechanisms to guess at the existence of the >> location of pattern ( a good first step but missing the grammatical >> hierarchy necessary to work towards a self optimized and domain >> independent ability to detect and represent salience in the stacked >> grammar that makes up any complex system. > > Combining pattern-matching with adaptive systems, whether they be > neural networks or something else is another matter - but it's been a > long hard slog to find out that this is what you're talking about. > > Adaptive systems themselves are also quite widespread by now, from > Tivos learning what programmes you watch to predictive text on an > iPhone, from iTunes 'Genius' playlists & recommendations through to > Siri (just bought up by Apple, as it happens). > >> Such systems will need to work all of the time. ALL OF THE TIME! >> Only pausing momentarily to pay attention to our interactions as >> needed. Once they are running, these systems will subsume all of >> the manual activity we have been made to perform to this day. Think >> "fly by wire" for processing. > > That's a really REALLY bad analogy. FBW is a pilot-initiated control > system. It's smaller/lighter (the initial reason for it's use) and it > reacts to changes faster than the pilot can to stop stalls etc, in a > similar way to ABS systems in a car reducing the chances of a skid. It > doesn't *initiate* anything in itself, it's 'just' a moderated control/ > feedback system. > >> Gone is the need to discreetly encode every single bit in exactly >> the only possible sequence. > > This sentence makes no sense. Did you mean 'process' rather than > 'encode'? > >> What it means is the difference between writing a letter and our >> computer interceding by understanding the meta-intent of the wrote >> and inefficient processes we engage in today – what are letters >> for? What resources is this user or entity after and why? Who has >> those resources? Whom of those who have the desired resources need >> something that we might have in exchange? How are the vectors of >> intent among all entities entangled and grouped and how can our >> systems work towards the optimization of this global intent matrix? > > I like William Gibson or Stuart & Cohen as much as the next SF fan, > but again you're taking too many steps at once. > > Emergent behaviour from a complex system (such as bypassing letter > writing by finding another way of communicating or reason for doing > things) is *emergent behaviour* - by definition you can't predict what > form it will take and you can't *plan* for it. You can't even plan > that it will *happen*. > > In the same way, setting up a protocol for a network doesn't let you > predict that most internet traffic some years later will be via > Facebook or MMORPGs. > >> So, when I use the word "revisionist" I am calling attention to the >> old sheep dressed up in new clothing but still being sheep. > > Having now looked in a number of dictionaries on and offline, I stand > with Richmond's response. In common usage it's a word with very > specific connotations and they aren't ones that people associate with > software. With Steve Jobs, perhaps, but not with software. ;-) > >> Software feature creep is not really evolving software. > > That's a matter of definition. Within the photography field, apps like > Aperture and LightRoom have had huge impacts on people's ways of > working (often making whole suites of other apps redundant in one go), > looking at a wider field the explosion of geolocation features and > services has revolutionised mobile devices and our interactions with > them, multi-touch devices are giving us new ways to physically > interact with computing systems. > >> That the jump is so long in coming is understandable. It is easy to >> send a punch card through a machine and have it react accordingly >> every time. The jump from wrote execution of static code to self >> aware semantically self optimized pattern engines is a big big big >> jump. But it isn't as big as it might at first seem. It is >> happening. It will happen. And computing will finally result in >> the kind of substantial increase in productivity that its expense >> requires. > > 1. Much of what you're talking about as a final aim is emergent > behaviour - you *can't* predict what will or won't happen, or when. > > 2. We've already been through the substantial increases in > productivity that the expense of computing requires. Increased > productivity isn't the problem - *expected* productivity is the > problem because it automatically increases as productivity increases. > > 3. Adaptive systems don't just happen. They need to be trained, and > for the level of abstraction you're talking about they have to be > trained *a lot*. From a pragmatic point of view, much of that > increased productivity will be swallowed up by learning to be a good > system trainer, in the same way that certain types of information > research have been vastly increased via the net, only to be swallowed > up in learning to use search engines efficiently and learning how to > winnow out all the chaff. > > 4. The level of independent action you appear to be happy with in a > computer gives most people the screaming heebie-jeebies and flashbacks > to "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that". > > 5. Most importantly, your entire body of communications on the list > appears to miss out a vital step - how do adaptive systems magically > morph into systems capable of initiating actions without user or > programmer input? I'm uncomfortably reminded of S. Harris's 'then a > miracle occurs' cartoon. :-( > http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php > > 6. On a slightly more tongue-in-cheek note, enjoy the minutes between > the first ubiquitous 'self aware semantically self optimized pattern > engine' and dying/transcending/experiencing "It's life Jim, but not as > we know it" in the ensuing technological singularity. ;-) > > > Ian > > > P.S. It's 'rote', not 'wrote'. I know it's just a typo, but it's one > that drastically alters some of your > sentences._______________________________________________ > use-revolution mailing list > [email protected] > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution > > > _______________________________________________ > use-revolution mailing list > [email protected] > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
