First of all, there needs to be convergence of science: All scientists of various disciplines have to combine their results. All historic scientific findings have to be integrate as well. If you only look at OS history, you see how many good things have come and gone, seldomly someone thinks about integrating all of the available knowledge on OSes into a new OS. And this also applies to AIs. To create an AI, we have to consolidate all our knowledge. Then, it should be fairly easy.
But we don't even know currently if the brain contains our mind. We know that our brain serializes physical perception and has a memory storage facility related to 4-dimensional (3D-space/time) memories. Also, it may be responsible in part for controlling our body, although the spinal cord and the digestive system seem to have their own control mechanism. But that doesn't mean our consciousness is located in our brain. If you look at a spider, for instance, their glands for web production are so small they're out of reach for our best electron microscopes, and seemingly impossible to study. Perhaps we would have to analyze down to the subatomic level to find out which circuitry is being used. And perhaps this also applies to studying the brain. A single neuron appears to be a relatively simple construct, but we don't know anything about the real circuitry that makes up a neuron, and its logical function. We know there's inputs and outputs.
But that doesn't explain why the smallest insects have huge memories and social behavior. We don't know where (and if) the memory is stored in a bee's brain, for example. A bee can remember flower fields over tens of kilometers apart, and knows exactly where its beehive is. Bees and ants have very complex societies. We could analyze their brains on a subatomic level, and then we might find out if there's a multidimensional control system somewhere. So far we don't even think about insects as having their own mind and consciousness. Because we attribute intelligence to brain size. But perhaps brain size has nothing to do with it.
The old short story you mentioned was written by Fredric Brown.:-)
If AI development focuses on abstract concepts, like the mind, then it can be written like a normal software application. It would have the speed of the computer system it runs on. If such an AI was capable of learning, it would quickly outperform humans, perhaps within minutes. (Did you see the movie Colossus? When the American and Russian machine begin to synchronize to each other, develop their own common language and soon outsmart their creators?)
Dystropies of smart computers often involve a level of thinking that is equal to that of humans (because the creators of these stories were human). Hence, such stories cannot predict the mind of a true AI. If it has the capability to evolve, it might evolve into something we could barely understand.
But I wouldn't think of it as a horror scenario. Rather, such a system could be a great benefit to mankind, a true problem solver. (unlike as written by Douglas Adams, Deep Thought would not deliver an answer like "42".;-) )
Perhaps we would have less work to do, but we could enjoy infinitely more freedom and infinite resources. (just like the Culture from the novels of Iain M. Banks)
The scientists have not produced a viable AI so far, because they focus on the brain rather than on the mind. Brain function is poorly understood, as brain scientists often admit, and hence, there's no way to deduct an AI from brain function. The right thing to do would be to focus on abstract things, namely the human mind itself, as it is understood by psychology, perhaps. Even spirtuality can help. If god existed, how would s/he think? What would a ghost be like? What is the soul? What does our soul feel? These things are those that are the key to artificial intelligence. Not functional elements of a device we don't fully understand.
Hey did you read the Culture series of science-fiction novels by Iain M. Banks?:-)
I think the concept of self-evolving AI is very awesome!:-)
Writing a mind program is very interesting... if we understand how the human mind works in abstract terms, then we should be able design AIs. I'm baffled at the apparent stagnation in AI development. Weren't we supposed to have this already in the 80ies?;-)
Re:Anything else out there?
on
The State of X.Org
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Exactly. And the OOXML standard has already been ratified by ECMA anyway, almost two years ago. There are so many standards that aren't followed, that one more or less really doesn't matter.;-)
When I look at the C++ standard, or the POSIX standard -- they're used as guidance, but they aren't implemented by the word, because it's not always possible. The OOXML standard became obsolete the moment Office 2007 was brought to market.
Standards are often used as a sales argument, and I guess that's what Microsoft was trying to do. To be able to say: "We support standards!":-D
Yes, but the Chinese stopped another Transrapid project in China. The existing system had a fire caused by its batteries. Perhaps the problems can be ironed out in the future.
p.s.: The aliens of Duke 3D were also a class of their own. (ok, the aliens of Half Life also weren't bad) But you could literally sit there and think Waaah!! Aliens!! That was so cool!:-)
(oh, and there were always multiple ways to complete a level, lots of hidden passages, rooms and stuff)
Man, Duke 3D totally rocked!! I played entirely through it and cheated only on the end bosses.;-)
What's great about Duke 3D is that you had more freedoms than in other shooters that came later: You could swim, fly, use water to heal yourself, move to any position on the map if you had the right gear (like jetpack, anti-poison boots, etc.). And the atmosphere of Duke 3D was absolutely unique. The humor!! Sometimes I was just sitting there, laughing.
Duke 3D was such a smart game. I've never seen one like it again. If Duke Nukem Forever is published, I'll definitely get it just to see what it's like.
Have you recently taken a look at the Windows SDK documentation? Since NT 4.0, the Windows API has gotten a couple thousand new API functions. (no joke! to say it with Luke Skywalker: "Look at the size of that thing!";-) )
That's perhaps why Windows versions for other platforms are so stripped down. It's simply not humanly possible to port all that platform dependent code. There are probably thousands of bugs related to portability issues in Windows. The problem would not exist, well, if they'd rewrite it to run on their CLR. Also, Microsoft loves to come up with new driver models in every Windows release that forces hardware vendors to rewrite their drivers for every Windows release. I've read a comment recently that said that the issue would be solved in Vista and forthcoming versions, but I'm not so sure about that, since they reputedly can't even stick to their own OOXML standard.
Well, that's millions of Windows licenses wasted. For instance, in the so-called embedded market (where CPUs often have power near or equal to desktop machines), there's a need to run Win32 applications unmodified (with Windows CE costing too much in regard of development time etc.). And Microsoft is simply neglecting that market.
Your benchmarks for portability are both stupid and meaningless. They aren't meaningless because most companies developing software for Windows assume it's an x86-only platform. So far, Microsoft has not endorsed writing portable software for Windows. Most companies don't even know what's involved in developing portable software.
You forgot Itanium. Yes, that's news to me that there's Windows running on Itanium. I always thought Itanium was used only in UNIX servers.
The XBox 360 runs a derivative of the NT kernel. How derivative is it? Can I run MS Office on it?
They're already selling a portable OS right now. Windows NT is publicly available, at retail, for x86, x86-64 and ia64. You mean Windows Vista runs on Itanium CPUs? If that's true, that would be interesting.
The reason you can only buy NT for x86, x86-64, and ia64 is because there aren't any other mainstream hardware platforms it makes economic sense to release it on. People from the industry sector would strongly disagree. Millions of computers can't run Windows because their CPU isn't supported. Microsoft has been missing plenty of business opportunity right there. And of course leaves plenty of market to other OS vendors!:-)
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, there needs to be convergence of science: All scientists of various disciplines have to combine their results. All historic scientific findings have to be integrate as well. If you only look at OS history, you see how many good things have come and gone, seldomly someone thinks about integrating all of the available knowledge on OSes into a new OS. And this also applies to AIs. To create an AI, we have to consolidate all our knowledge. Then, it should be fairly easy.
But we don't even know currently if the brain contains our mind. We know that our brain serializes physical perception and has a memory storage facility related to 4-dimensional (3D-space/time) memories. Also, it may be responsible in part for controlling our body, although the spinal cord and the digestive system seem to have their own control mechanism. But that doesn't mean our consciousness is located in our brain. If you look at a spider, for instance, their glands for web production are so small they're out of reach for our best electron microscopes, and seemingly impossible to study. Perhaps we would have to analyze down to the subatomic level to find out which circuitry is being used. And perhaps this also applies to studying the brain. A single neuron appears to be a relatively simple construct, but we don't know anything about the real circuitry that makes up a neuron, and its logical function. We know there's inputs and outputs.
But that doesn't explain why the smallest insects have huge memories and social behavior. We don't know where (and if) the memory is stored in a bee's brain, for example. A bee can remember flower fields over tens of kilometers apart, and knows exactly where its beehive is. Bees and ants have very complex societies. We could analyze their brains on a subatomic level, and then we might find out if there's a multidimensional control system somewhere. So far we don't even think about insects as having their own mind and consciousness. Because we attribute intelligence to brain size. But perhaps brain size has nothing to do with it.
The old short story you mentioned was written by Fredric Brown. :-)
;-) )
If AI development focuses on abstract concepts, like the mind, then it can be written like a normal software application. It would have the speed of the computer system it runs on. If such an AI was capable of learning, it would quickly outperform humans, perhaps within minutes. (Did you see the movie Colossus? When the American and Russian machine begin to synchronize to each other, develop their own common language and soon outsmart their creators?)
Dystropies of smart computers often involve a level of thinking that is equal to that of humans (because the creators of these stories were human). Hence, such stories cannot predict the mind of a true AI. If it has the capability to evolve, it might evolve into something we could barely understand.
But I wouldn't think of it as a horror scenario. Rather, such a system could be a great benefit to mankind, a true problem solver. (unlike as written by Douglas Adams, Deep Thought would not deliver an answer like "42".
Perhaps we would have less work to do, but we could enjoy infinitely more freedom and infinite resources. (just like the Culture from the novels of Iain M. Banks)
The scientists have not produced a viable AI so far, because they focus on the brain rather than on the mind. Brain function is poorly understood, as brain scientists often admit, and hence, there's no way to deduct an AI from brain function. The right thing to do would be to focus on abstract things, namely the human mind itself, as it is understood by psychology, perhaps. Even spirtuality can help. If god existed, how would s/he think? What would a ghost be like? What is the soul? What does our soul feel? These things are those that are the key to artificial intelligence. Not functional elements of a device we don't fully understand.
Hey did you read the Culture series of science-fiction novels by Iain M. Banks? :-)
:-)
;-)
I think the concept of self-evolving AI is very awesome!
Writing a mind program is very interesting... if we understand how the human mind works in abstract terms, then we should be able design AIs. I'm baffled at the apparent stagnation in AI development. Weren't we supposed to have this already in the 80ies?
How did I know this gets labelled redundant? ;-)
Exactly. The BSDs have much to offer. I've come to really like OpenBSD. It's great for development. :-)
Mod parent up, that's not redundant!
ECMA already approved the standard in 2006.
Sure, because OOXML is insanely complex. ;-)
Yeah, just think about all the possibilities: All those many incompatible OOXML implementations that are yet to be made! ;-)
Exactly. And the OOXML standard has already been ratified by ECMA anyway, almost two years ago. There are so many standards that aren't followed, that one more or less really doesn't matter. ;-)
When I look at the C++ standard, or the POSIX standard -- they're used as guidance, but they aren't implemented by the word, because it's not always possible. The OOXML standard became obsolete the moment Office 2007 was brought to market.
Standards are often used as a sales argument, and I guess that's what Microsoft was trying to do. To be able to say: "We support standards!" :-D
Yes, but the Chinese stopped another Transrapid project in China. The existing system had a fire caused by its batteries. Perhaps the problems can be ironed out in the future.
Yeah. The freezer and the RPG could also be a lot of fun! ;-)
Damn, I never tried the multiplayer mode.
p.s.: The aliens of Duke 3D were also a class of their own. (ok, the aliens of Half Life also weren't bad) But you could literally sit there and think Waaah!! Aliens!! That was so cool! :-)
(oh, and there were always multiple ways to complete a level, lots of hidden passages, rooms and stuff)
Man, Duke 3D totally rocked!! I played entirely through it and cheated only on the end bosses. ;-)
What's great about Duke 3D is that you had more freedoms than in other shooters that came later: You could swim, fly, use water to heal yourself, move to any position on the map if you had the right gear (like jetpack, anti-poison boots, etc.). And the atmosphere of Duke 3D was absolutely unique. The humor!! Sometimes I was just sitting there, laughing.
Duke 3D was such a smart game. I've never seen one like it again. If Duke Nukem Forever is published, I'll definitely get it just to see what it's like.
Have you recently taken a look at the Windows SDK documentation? Since NT 4.0, the Windows API has gotten a couple thousand new API functions. (no joke! to say it with Luke Skywalker: "Look at the size of that thing!" ;-) )
That's perhaps why Windows versions for other platforms are so stripped down. It's simply not humanly possible to port all that platform dependent code. There are probably thousands of bugs related to portability issues in Windows. The problem would not exist, well, if they'd rewrite it to run on their CLR. Also, Microsoft loves to come up with new driver models in every Windows release that forces hardware vendors to rewrite their drivers for every Windows release. I've read a comment recently that said that the issue would be solved in Vista and forthcoming versions, but I'm not so sure about that, since they reputedly can't even stick to their own OOXML standard.
yup.
If they ever do a DB-backed file system in Windows, they better have a look at OS/400 beforehand. ;-)
That's all true, I guess. The CLR should produce faster code, however, they need to work on its performance.
That's why I wrote "I64" (x86-64) not "IA-64". I wasn't sure if Windows exists for Itanium. If it does, then good.
NT 3.5 and 4.0 aren't sold anymore, so it doesn't matter for users of PowerPC hardware if there was a PPC version millenia ago.
Well, that's millions of Windows licenses wasted. For instance, in the so-called embedded market (where CPUs often have power near or equal to desktop machines), there's a need to run Win32 applications unmodified (with Windows CE costing too much in regard of development time etc.). And Microsoft is simply neglecting that market.
Well then, where's Vista for PowerPC?
And have you ever looked into the manuals of I64 and AMD64 CPUs? What's the difference to IA-32?