TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- I mean, I guess I'm a member.
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Demoted Well shoo', duo core processors already perform better than the human brain by being able to perform two different operations at the same time equally as well. Now they're coming out with quad core processors which can perform eight tasks at the same time. I have no Blue's fucking clue if that is in any way tied to neurally equal, but it does say something.

quantum computing isn't too far away either, and although i wouldn't guarantee it'll be here by 2020, i should probably buy some stock in one of the companies working in that field

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles No, not really. Moralism is a symptom of very specific ideologies, most often "evangelistic" ones. It's probably most common among fundamentalist religions but isn't limited to them by any means. Read for more.

I still believe deeply-founded political bias could/does easily sway into hypocrisy on some subtle level. There's probably many other circumstances as well that this falls under categorically, as it "isn't limited to them by any means".

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T his prediction for a computer 'neurally equal' to a human being in 2020 makes complete sense based on the history of computing.

The problem will be programming or evolving appropriate algorithms to simulate, mimic, or surpass human intelligence. It's much harder to put a time table on that than to put a time table on the development of faster processors.

Processor speed is pretty much already there anyway, and it has already allowed computers to surpass humans at pretty much all algorithmically simple and non-ambiguous tasks, which is cool. But bottom-up design, which has pretty much replaced the failed "programmed expert" model in futuristic AI hopes, is still in its infancy.

But it will come.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles But it will come.

...that's what she said.

Ok, yeah, I had to c0r this thread down a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles The problem will be programming or evolving appropriate algorithms to simulate, mimic, or surpass human intelligence. It's much harder to put a time table on that than to put a time table on the development of faster processors. Processor speed is pretty much already there anyway, and it has already allowed computers to surpass humans at pretty much all algorithmically simple and non-ambiguous tasks, which is cool. But bottom-up design, which has pretty much replaced the failed "programmed expert" model in futuristic AI hopes, is still in its infancy. But it will come.

all it takes is an unrestricted learning program, a good database, a way to acquire data beyond the database, and the ability to reprogram itself, and we're soon evolutionarily outdated.

"Learning" is not so simple an operation as your statement makes it sound.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles "Learning" is not so simple an operation as your statement makes it sound.

that's why we're talking 2020 for an equal specimen (well, that and processing power)

Of course, the best way to gauge progress on this is to ask things like, "What sort of AI do we have right now? Can it fool somebody into thinking that it is human, and for how long, and under what circumstances? What are the obstacles to making an AI that does a better job of this, and how long will each one of them take to overcome?"

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Of course, the best way to gauge progress on this is to ask things like, "What sort of AI do we have right now? Can it fool somebody into thinking that it is human, and for how long, and under what circumstances? What are the obstacles to making an AI that does a better job of this, and how long will each one of them take to overcome?"

a personalized Jabberwacky can pass the Turing test.

edit: the public Jabberwacky could easily pass for Xenocreator_PG_ on this forum, too.

Even more so than Kurzweil's claims for superhuman AI, I am skeptical toward claims about the potential for increasing maximum human lifespan.

But then, how soon we achieve the second may depend on how soon we achieve the first.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Even more so than Kurzweil's claims for superhuman AI, I am skeptical toward claims about the potential for increasing maximum human lifespan. But then, how soon we achieve the second may depend on how soon we achieve the first.

yeah, i won't vouch for that part of his writings just yet either.

~120 years seems to be the magical mark that nobody has been able to do much of anything about yet, even for all the great advances in medical technology and the increase in average lifespan brought about by them.

But maybe with lots of superintelligent robotic doctors working alongside us, something can be done.

I do believe that nature has a self-regulatory controller installed in its system which will take care of the excess population by systematic decimation until the balance is restored.

What excess population?

Excess in the sense that it stretches the limits of the naturally available resources. It could either be a global or a local phenomenon.

Okay. What I was getting at is whether you think this is currently happening.

Actually, I gave a very simplistic explanation about the said controller. The natural regulating authority is everywhere. Evolution and extinction are part of the same process. And the same process will regulate the human population depending on the conditions. Ironically, this Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is part of the same controlling process since we as human beings are part of the nature.

I don't necessarily support the idea of working toward human extinction, but otherwise, I totally agree with this.

This is something I have tried to illustrate in previous threads about my desire to adopt and not have any natural children.

We are far over-populated, and there are hundereds of thousands of children who need help...

Instead of creating more babies, we should be dealing with the amount we have that we can't even take care of.

Also, it reinforces my argument FOR abortion.

I don't think people are really aware of how badly we are over populated. It is thought that within the next 10 years, we are going to have a water problem, and within the next 35 years, we're going to have an oil issue.

Some people even think that by 2050, the earth will "expire".

Anyway, I digress.

I agree with the general premise of this "VHEMT".

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa We are far over-populated,

No.

quote:

and there are hundereds of thousands of children who need help...

Very true, and a good reason to adopt.

quote:

Instead of creating more babies, we should be dealing with the amount we have that we can't even take care of.

It isn't that people can't take care of the many children who live in starvation and neglect. World resources and technology would support them easily enough. It's that people won't. The unequal distribution of technology and resources benefits a significant number of people in the short run, so they do little or nothing to alter it.

quote:

It is thought that within the next 10 years, we are going to have a water problem, and within the next 35 years, we're going to have an oil issue.

Maybe. These things were also thought by Paul Ehrlich (and others) in the '70s, and he even put his money where his doomsday-proclaiming mouth was and bet on it.

He lost.

quote:

Some people even think that by 2050, the earth will "expire".

What does this mean? Sounds like "Gaia" nonsense on the face of it, but maybe you were thinking of something else.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles No. Very true, and a good reason to adopt. It isn't that people can't take care of the many children who live in starvation and neglect. World resources and technology would support them easily enough. It's that people won't. The unequal distribution of technology and resources benefits a significant number of people in the short run, so they do little or nothing to alter it. Maybe. These things were also thought by Paul Ehrlich (and others) in the '70s, and he even put his money where his doomsday-proclaiming mouth was and bet on it. He lost. What does this mean? Sounds like "Gaia" nonsense on the face of it, but maybe you were thinking of something else.

Source on 2050 expiration

Source for same article, different website


EDIT: How can you say we aren't over populated??

quote:

How can you say we aren't over populated??

In the extreme: not all arable land is being used, the arable land that is being used is not being used as effectively as possible, and much of the vegetable food ends up going to industrial or animal-feed uses that are, strictly speaking, unnecessary for pure survival. Anyway, more "non-arable" land becomes "arable" all the time because of agricultural advances.

Also, America, UK, and other fat nations eat far more than they have to.

The main problems are ones of distribution, political problems, not fundamental economic ones of growing enough food. Now, under these conditions, it may well be true that certain areas of the earth are over-populated based on the level of food production that their local political and economic situation can realistically sustain, but this does not mean that the entire world has an "overpopulation" problem, any more than the entire world has a "hurricane problem" when the south-east part of the U.S. gets hit. And the solution is not to yell, "Yo, you brown people, stop having so many kids!" -- Euro-Americans are not the "culprits" in population growth at all, really, and in fact at least some European countries have net negative population "growth" -- but to remedy the nasty politics and technological poverty that are causing food to be distributed in heinously unequal ways.

I'm not having kids because I think it's a sucker's game, at least in this twisted fucking mega-tribe.

BUMPED.

In case Theresa still wants to discuss this.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles BUMPED. In case Theresa still wants to discuss this.

LOL... saw I was on a posting spree and thought you would try to get my attention?

Anyway, I still agree that humans need to lay off the breeding a little. I don't advocate for human extinction, but.... weeding out a bit would be healthy.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.