Interesting Video

[ManMadeSpoon]

http://www.scottmcleod.org/didyouknow.wmv

Saw this on another forum, and I have to say its pretty interesting stuff. If the assumptions in the video are true, I think we're in for an interesting next 20 years..

[I Hate Pants]

. Nintendo wasted over 140 million dollars to design a gamecube with a new controller. FUCKING INCREDIBLE!

. First year of my college computer course will go to waste.

. I'm one of the few people to still not have a myspace account

. computers will make us their bitches

That second song was from "Empire Earth".

[LimpBIT]

omg, that video is insane. By 2049 a computer will be invented that can exceed the capabilities of the human race.

[Jaged]

omg, that video is insane. By 2049 a computer will be invented that can exceed the capabilities of the human race.

That was saying that by 2049 a computer that can do that will cost $1000. If that is true, a computer will be invented much sooner that can do that.

[Sentrosi]

I don't have a mySpace account and don't plan on getting one.

[Rbstr]

Um, my computer already exceedes the computational capabilities of the human race.

If you put all of us in a room and told us to do 6940283/2521 my calculator with it's teeny couple mhz chip would easily figure out the answer before we could(Excluding autistic savants).

Big deal, computational power does not equal true problem solving capability. A computer can help, but it will never acctualy end up discovering the answer to a problem that does not have formula to find the answer already created(say the Grand unified theory or what have you), at least untill true artificial inteligence is created.

Yeah we're learning a shit ton of new things every day, alot of it isn't that important, most of it only adds a tiny extra bit of understanding to what we already know. None of it is discovering new rules.

My first year of college is never going to be out of date, calculus isn't going to be replaced, nor is mechanics, or basic chemistry. Well I suppose english may eventualy be worthless.

Yeah one day we'll figure out the formula that can be used to predict the outcome of any physical/chemical interaction, but it's going to be a fuckton harder to use than a simple formual newton came up with.

[Electrofreak]

You want crazy computing possibilities? If you've got some time (long article, several videos), check this out:

"Jeff Hawkins Hacks the Human Brain" (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/02/01/8398989/index.htm?postversion=2007020718)

This is the beginning of true AI folks, not pre-programmed stuff that simulates AI. These computers will learn, draw comparisons between things and make their own connections, associations, and decisions (in a controlled sense). This software will be open source within THIS YEAR.

[Hamma]

ONOES MY COMPUTER JUST BECAME SELF AWARE

[Kyonye]

Um, my computer already exceedes the computational capabilities of the human race.

If you put all of us in a room and told us to do 6940283/2521 my calculator with it's teeny couple mhz chip would easily figure out the answer before we could(Excluding autistic savants).

I think you misunderstood what it was talking about.

It said it would exceed the capabilities of a human. That means that it would be able to do something that humans could never accomplish, or figure out. What you said about the division problem is true, the calculator can do the problem faster than us, but still we can do that problem.

[Lartnev]

Is that actually feasable given the fact that computers are bound by human logic?

[Kikinchikin]

A computer will never be able to answer, "What is the meaning of life?"

[Jaged]

A computer will never be able to answer, "What is the meaning of life?"

For that matter, neither can a human.

[Baneblade]

A computer will never be able to answer, "What is the meaning of life?"
life
1.the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2.the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
3.the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual: to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one.
4.a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul: eternal life.
5.the general or universal condition of human existence: Too bad, but life is like that.
6.any specified period of animate existence: a man in middle life.
7.the period of existence, activity, or effectiveness of something inanimate, as a machine, lease, or play: The life of the car may be ten years.
8.a living being: Several lives were lost.
9.living things collectively: the hope of discovering life on other planets; insect life.
10.a particular aspect of existence: He enjoys an active physical life.
11.the course of existence or sum of experiences and actions that constitute a person's existence: His business has been his entire life.
12.a biography: a newly published life of Willa Cather.
13.animation; liveliness; spirit: a speech full of life.
14.resilience; elasticity.
15.the force that makes or keeps something alive; the vivifying or quickening principle: The life of the treaty has been an increase of mutual understanding and respect.
16.a mode or manner of existence, as in the world of affairs or society: So far her business life has not overlapped her social life.
17.the period or extent of authority, popularity, approval, etc.: the life of the committee; the life of a bestseller.
18.a prison sentence covering the remaining portion of the offender's animate existence: The judge gave him life.
19.anything or anyone considered to be as precious as life: She was his life.
20.a person or thing that enlivens: the life of the party.
21.effervescence or sparkle, as of wines.
22.pungency or strong, sharp flavor, as of substances when fresh or in good condition.
23.nature or any of the forms of nature as the model or subject of a work of art: drawn from life.
24.Baseball. another opportunity given to a batter to bat because of a misplay by a fielder.
25.(in English pool) one of a limited number of shots allowed a player: Each pool player has three lives at the beginning of the game. �adjective
26.for or lasting a lifetime; lifelong: a life membership in a club; life imprisonment.
27.of or pertaining to animate existence: the life force; life functions.
28.working from nature or using a living model: a life drawing; a life class. �Idioms
29.as large as life, actually; indeed: There he stood, as large as life. Also, as big as life.
30.come to life, a.to recover consciousness. b.to become animated and vigorous: The evening passed, but somehow the party never came to life. c.to appear lifelike: The characters of the novel came to life on the screen.
31.for dear life, with desperate effort, energy, or speed: We ran for dear life, with the dogs at our heels. Also, for one's life.
32.for the life of one, as hard as one tries; even with the utmost effort: He can't understand it for the life of him.
33.get a life, to improve the quality of one's social and professional life: often used in the imperative to express impatience with someone's behavior.
34.not on your life, Informal. absolutely not; under no circumstances; by no means: Will I stand for such a thing? Not on your life!
35.take one's life in one's hands, to risk death knowingly: We were warned that we were taking our lives in our hands by going through that swampy area.
36.
to the life, in perfect imitation; exactly: The portrait characterized him to the life.

[Hamma]

I need to point CNN to this thread.. Sobekeus just answered the question that has been burning man kind for millenia.

:lol:

[Rbstr]

or he just made a play on words...

[Hamma]

Well with CNN covering Anna Nicole as if it's some kind of news story, they may not be interested in the meaning of life anyway.

[Kikinchikin]

Perhaps a better statement would have been, "Computers will never be able to philosophize."

[Baneblade]

Perhaps a better statement would have been, "Computers will never be able to philosophize."

Computers will never be able to pilot a Tactical Carrier along a Jump Stream either, but so what?

[Jaged]

life
1.the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2.the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
3.the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual: to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one.
4.a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul: eternal life.
5.the general or universal condition of human existence: Too bad, but life is like that.
6.any specified period of animate existence: a man in middle life.
7.the period of existence, activity, or effectiveness of something inanimate, as a machine, lease, or play: The life of the car may be ten years.
8.a living being: Several lives were lost.
9.living things collectively: the hope of discovering life on other planets; insect life.
10.a particular aspect of existence: He enjoys an active physical life.
11.the course of existence or sum of experiences and actions that constitute a person's existence: His business has been his entire life.
12.a biography: a newly published life of Willa Cather.
13.animation; liveliness; spirit: a speech full of life.
14.resilience; elasticity.
15.the force that makes or keeps something alive; the vivifying or quickening principle: The life of the treaty has been an increase of mutual understanding and respect.
16.a mode or manner of existence, as in the world of affairs or society: So far her business life has not overlapped her social life.
17.the period or extent of authority, popularity, approval, etc.: the life of the committee; the life of a bestseller.
18.a prison sentence covering the remaining portion of the offender's animate existence: The judge gave him life.
19.anything or anyone considered to be as precious as life: She was his life.
20.a person or thing that enlivens: the life of the party.
21.effervescence or sparkle, as of wines.
22.pungency or strong, sharp flavor, as of substances when fresh or in good condition.
23.nature or any of the forms of nature as the model or subject of a work of art: drawn from life.
24.Baseball. another opportunity given to a batter to bat because of a misplay by a fielder.
25.(in English pool) one of a limited number of shots allowed a player: Each pool player has three lives at the beginning of the game. ***8211;adjective
26.for or lasting a lifetime; lifelong: a life membership in a club; life imprisonment.
27.of or pertaining to animate existence: the life force; life functions.
28.working from nature or using a living model: a life drawing; a life class. ***8212;Idioms
29.as large as life, actually; indeed: There he stood, as large as life. Also, as big as life.
30.come to life, a.to recover consciousness. b.to become animated and vigorous: The evening passed, but somehow the party never came to life. c.to appear lifelike: The characters of the novel came to life on the screen.
31.for dear life, with desperate effort, energy, or speed: We ran for dear life, with the dogs at our heels. Also, for one's life.
32.for the life of one, as hard as one tries; even with the utmost effort: He can't understand it for the life of him.
33.get a life, to improve the quality of one's social and professional life: often used in the imperative to express impatience with someone's behavior.
34.not on your life, Informal. absolutely not; under no circumstances; by no means: Will I stand for such a thing? Not on your life!
35.take one's life in one's hands, to risk death knowingly: We were warned that we were taking our lives in our hands by going through that swampy area.
36.
to the life, in perfect imitation; exactly: The portrait characterized him to the life.

Ahh but where did you get that answer from? Google? Yeah I thought so.

You do realize you just proved that a computer can in fact answer that question.

[Baneblade]

www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) actually

[Jaged]

But still:
Computer 1
Human 0

[Baneblade]

Isn't that my point?

[Hamma]

:lol:

[Jaged]

Isn't that my point?

Oh, I thought you were quoting my post when you posted your original definition to prove that a human could in fact answer it.

[Rbstr]

But still:
Computer 1
Human 0

A computer didn't answer shit, it found where the answer was located.

A person wrote the definition

Jaged: 0
People that have brains: at least 50

[Kikinchikin]

I'm not trying to downplay the capability and merits of computers, rather highlight the limits of them and the abilities of humans that computers lack.

[Jaged]

A computer didn't answer shit, it found where the answer was located.

A person wrote the definition

Jaged: 0
People that have brains: at least 50

Your missing the point. The computer did know the answer. Yes, a human wrote it, but now the computer knows it. At a point, the difference is hardly relevant.

[Baneblade]

A computer didn't answer shit, it found where the answer was located.

A person wrote the definition

Jaged: 0
People that have brains: at least 50

Isn't that what most humans do as well?

[Rbstr]

A human being can figure out the meaning of a word out of context. You use the word "life" in a sentence and I know what it means, it defines a specific concept.

By your logic a dictionary "knows" the definition. But it doesn't. To a computer "life" is only a series of characters that point to a specific responce.

There's an though experiment called the "Chinese Room" that shows this
The Chinese Room argument is a thought experiment designed by John Searle (1980 [1]) as a counterargument to claims made by strong artificial intelligence (AI, also functionalism).

Searle laid out the Chinese Room argument in his paper "Minds, brains and programs," published in 1980. Ever since, it has been a mainstay of the debate over the possibility of what Searle called strong artificial intelligence. Supporters of strong artificial intelligence believe that an appropriately programmed computer isn't simply a simulation or model of a mind; it actually counts as a mind. That is, it understands, has cognitive states, and can think. Searle's argument against (or more precisely, thought experiment intended to undermine) this position, the Chinese Room argument, goes as follows:

Suppose that, many years from now, we have constructed a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. In other words, the computer takes Chinese characters as input and, following a set of rules (as all computers can be described as doing), correlates them with other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose that this computer performs this task so convincingly that it easily passes the Turing test. In other words, it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a human Chinese speaker. All the questions the human asks are responded to appropriately, such that the Chinese speaker is convinced that he or she is talking to another Chinese-speaking human. The conclusion proponents of strong AI would like to draw is that the computer understands Chinese, just as the person does.

Now, Searle asks us to suppose that he is sitting inside the computer. In other words, he is in a small room in which he receives Chinese characters, consults a rule book, and returns the Chinese characters that the rules dictate. Searle notes that he doesn't, of course, understand a word of Chinese. Furthermore, he argues that his lack of understanding goes to show that computers don't understand Chinese either, because they are in the same situation as he is. They are mindless manipulators of symbols, just as he is ***8212; and they don't understand what they're 'saying', just as he doesn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

A computer that can simply define a word is less capable of "knowing" than the speakign computer described.

[Peacemaker]

Robs arguement is pretty good.

Just remember, a computer no matter how good its AI is will need imput to do something. It cant ask its self a question that has nothing that starts a thinking process. For example a Computer could take audio imput and ask its self what words it just heard, then ask its self what these words mean, and how to respond. A computer however could not how ever respond correctly if sarcasm was used. A computer couldnt ask its self what would it respond if someone asked it a question that has not been asked yet. It needs the imput first. A human however can ask its self "What if she says no?"

[Jaged]

Well obviously I was not claiming artificial intelligence truly does exist. I am merely pointing out that computers have a ton of "knowledge" as well. Exactly what it is that makes humans self aware is unknown to us. I do not think it is impossible for computers to eventually gain this attribute.

[Baneblade]

Commander Data seemed to be pretty accurately portrayed at what artificial intelligence is probably going to be like capability and limitation wise. But I do suppose knowing the definition of a word and knowing what it means are not exactly the same thing.

[Rbstr]

Well obviously I was not claiming artificial intelligence truly does exist. I am merely pointing out that computers have a ton of "knowledge" as well.

Computers don't have knowledge, they have indexed data. To have knowledge you need to be able to apply it and think about it.

[Jaged]

Computers don't have knowledge, they have indexed data. To have knowledge you need to be able to apply it and think about it.

Yes... hence the quotation marks. What you are doing is propping up my argument into something it is not so you can more easily argue against it. You believe I am claiming that AI does exist today. This is not the case and I am not trying to say it is. I am merely saying that computers are on the track to having AI in the near future.

Look at it like this. We could easily program a computer today to mimic the actions of a goldfish. Perhaps we could even program it to replicate the actions of a dog, however it may be a bit of a stretch to get it 100***37; accurate with the computers we have today. Therefore you could conclude that the mental reasoning ability of computers today is somewhere in between that of a dog and a goldfish.

Once computers are able to think faster then a human brain can, who's to say that the difference between data and knowledge wont be breached?

While humans are programed by millions of years of evolution, computers are programmed by a few decades of human engineering. If you look at simple bacteria and other primitive life forms, it is hard to believe that they evolved into human beings. It is equally hard to believe that the computers of today will evolve into true AI. However, just like bacteria became humans, computers will eventually form AI.

[Peacemaker]

I imagine its not impossible in the future. I can see it happening.

[Sentrosi]

Well obviously I was not claiming artificial intelligence truly does exist. I am merely pointing out that computers have a ton of "knowledge" as well. Exactly what it is that makes humans self aware is unknown to us. I do not think it is impossible for computers to eventually gain this attribute.

Yeah, I'm a little late to this debate, so spare me some room.

Jaged makes a point of stating that "computers have a ton of "knowledge" as well." Well, some of you may remember these books called "Encyclopedias". Before the Internet and wiki's humans had to look up info inside these books. So, if I may extrapolate from Jaged's quote above, these encyclopedias should have become self aware then.

Also, the arguement for or against artificial intelligence is mute. The statement alone artificial intelligence is false. Either a thing is intelligent or not. Once a computer walks up to me and says, "I wish I could be more" I will say that that computer has become intelligent. Bettering your own environment is how humans have become intelligent.

Caveman days: "Brr, I am cold. I think if I kill that deer over there and rip it's fur from it I can become warm."

Throwing down some hard corp knowledge on you young pups. WERD! [flashing geek gang signs]

[Jaged]

Jaged makes a point of stating that "computers have a ton of "knowledge" as well." Well, some of you may remember these books called "Encyclopedias". Before the Internet and wiki's humans had to look up info inside these books. So, if I may extrapolate from Jaged's quote above, these encyclopedias should have become self aware then.

How many compute cycles do encyclopedias have? There is no way books could ever become self aware. There is no way they can get any smarter then they already are. Computers however are getting faster and faster every year. Eventually they will become self aware.

There is a difference.

Also, the arguement for or against artificial intelligence is mute. The statement alone artificial intelligence is false. Either a thing is intelligent or not. Once a computer walks up to me and says, "I wish I could be more" I will say that that computer has become intelligent. Bettering your own environment is how humans have become intelligent.

Now you are just arguing over semantics. Sure what you are saying is technically correct. Artificial intelligence is really just intelligence. However artificial intelligence is the term that we have agreed upon to refer to self aware machines. The English language does not always make complete logical sense, but thats just the way it is.



Btw, great thread. I love a good debate once in a while. I am calling for people to post more provocative material like this so that we can have more debates.

[Electrofreak]

You noobs, stop arguing about it and read the damn article I linked earlier.

THAT's the future of AI IMO. A computer that learns to create its own associations between stimuli and stored learned data (past stimuli), and can make decisions based upon those associations.

For example... you show a modern computer an orange, it may be able to use complex image-recognition software to identify it as an orange, but it doesn't know what an orange actually IS.

True AI will be this new software (going a ways out), where the computer learns by being shown many different oranges what an orange looks like, and can be demonstrated how an orange is peeled and consumed. This computer can potentially learn the orange is a consumable item. It could learn the same thing about an apple, and eventually be incorporated into a robot that, when asked by a human for something to eat, will identify and provide that person with a consumable item.

This is just the start... that article goes into some pretty awesome possibilities. How about a computer in your car that can tell the difference between pedestrians, other vehicles, animals, etc? Such a computer could be pre-loaded with behaviors of these objects, and will know best how to avoid hitting an animal versus a pedestrian or another vehicle. It'd also be able to watch the road for potential hazards like pot holes and debris, and most importantly actually understand the sort of threats they pose the vehicle (a blowing plastic bag is probably not going to require evasion for example). Modern computers can only achieve this sort of thing through very complex and touchy software.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/02/01/8398989/index.htm?postversion=2007020718

[Hamma]

As long as computers don't launch nuclear attacks on their enemies I am good.

[Giovanni]

As long as computers don't launch nuclear attacks on their enemies I am good.

:lol:

I can just picture it.

"Girl computer voice": SHE DOESN'T LIKE MY SHOES?!? MY SHOES!!! LAUNCH MISSILES!

[Hamma]

What I fear is computers picking up the mentality of all the 8 year old forum drama whores.

Could you imagine? :lol:

[Sentrosi]

Oh dear god....if the collective forum intelligence is what computers are going to base their 'intelligence' on I'm just going to go figure out how to play WoW/LotRO with an abacus.

[Rbstr]

I read your article Electro. The technology is quite niffty. But thus far it hasn't shown to be acctualy be self aware; it learns. I think it could have by my definition knowledge. Now we're down to semantices over intelligence, I'd go as far to say it is showing signs of rudementary intelligence, but no kind of human-like awareness.

To me it just seems to be an algorithm that systematicaly creates a database, an amazingly complex database, but we don't know how that relates to our own system of storing information. Untill it's developed further and acctualy studied outside of Numenta's labs we can't really know.

Is our "Self" or intelligence just the sum of all things we know? Or is it something else?


I think one key thing with computers is that It will need to have to ability to program it's self. IE, you hook up a robotic arm, and it can figure out how to use it though nothing but experimentation.

[Electrofreak]

Yeah, without a doubt it has a way to go, but I think they're doing the right thing by making it open source, that means experts from all over can develop their own algorithms to expand upon the "intelligence" of the AI.

Will it ever be self-aware? Who knows. The guy who is behind it all seems to think that all we really use is similar algorithms within our brains... though many neurologists argue that he's taking a very simplistic approach to how our grey matter works, which may be true.

Time will tell.

[Sentrosi]

90% of our brain hasn't been mapped out completely yet.

Damnit! I want my super mind bending break your will powers NOW!

[Lartnev]

What I fear is computers picking up the mentality of all the 8 year old forum drama whores.

Could you imagine? :lol:

:nodrama: :ugh:

All I know for sure is that neural networks are complicated enough without going for the real thing ;)