You are forgetting that many particles like photons have momentum and no mass. Therefore you can run a photon source engine off a power source, lose no mass as thrust, yet accelerate your center of mass.
Before going speculative about teleportation and work holes, but past antimatter propulsion is a miniature black hole power source. A million metric ton black hole would radiate about three terawatts (with less mass dramatically raising the radiated power) and you could use magnetic fields to pump in material from in front of the ship. It would eat anything even photons and nutrinos. It should be able to power a decent sized ship and would be the most ideal power source known to modern physics.
It's one thing to list bug fixes as vulnerabilities but it's a bit misleading. Is it extremely minor or does it fully root the system? It would be way more informative to rate them 1-5 so at least someone could have a basic understanding of how bad the situation is even if it is somewhat subjective.
The universe is *not* deterministic. That is what Einstein was going on about when he was stating that God doesn't play dice. It turns out God does play dice and the universe is *not* deterministic. Perfect knowledge of the present state (also theoretically impossible), does not imply perfect knowledge of future states.
Umm the universe *is* deterministic to the greatest extent testable today. In quantum mechanics we have a wave function which basically is a probability distribution for each particle. Combine that with the Schrodinger wave equation and you have deterministic outcome. In fact if the multiple worlds interpretation pans out, which seems plausible as this is voted the most likely interpretation by actual physicists, all outcomes of the probability distribution are realized.
Penrose is a great physicist but just as awful about AI as hawking. Last time I checked the standard model of physics was not only deterministic it was also easily "algorithmic". So unless there is magic fairy dust from God farts making us think, it is actually possible to, in theory and eventually, simulate every atom in a human brain. It won't come to that as you don't even notice when a single neuron dies which is composed of a million billion atoms - the resolution of the simulation could be coarse and still likely work just fine. Waveform collapse happens all around us every nanosecond, there is no reason presented why meat makes it special, nor other types of noise with the same distribution aren't equally useful.
Your explanation is deeply flawed. The mistake you are making is assuming Physicalism as the zero-state, when it is clearly the more restrictive model by an extreme amount and hence would actually need extraordinary proof in its favor. What you are doing is junk-science. And hence it is a pure belief without rational basis. In fact, it also has some rather strong aspects of a mental illness as it denies individual existence.
This is hilarious. Physical reality, by scientific definition, is the "zero state" - what normal scientists call physical reality. Imagining events, though explainable through physical processes alone (see the standard model of physics), to be in some kind of magic fairyland space "outside" of physical reality is not only unscientific it also has some rather strong aspects of a mental disease as it denies reality. Once you come down off your LSD, think of a repeatable test for this other plane of existence. Show the world wrong and become more famous than Eienstien, Schrodinger, and Newton combined.
Its true that, in a strict sense, if physics is deterministic then there is no such thing as absolute free will. However, this neglects the computational complexity of the universe. The possibilities are so large with so many possible outcomes, that as an observer it feels totally free. You can never build a computer able to simulate at 100% fidelity more than the material it's made of, even the best sensors on machines or sensory inputs of living things capture the most meager of a fraction of a slice of the actual data of the universe that they are composed of or experience around them. In fact the sheer amount of data overwhelms any possible structure able to contain data and provide feedback of any kind thereby negating the concept of determining outcomes with arbitrary precision. From a computational complexity perspective we feel completely free to pick and choose events, which is indistinguishable from free will.
So in jest I say that half the population isn't sentient in the hopes you can understand sarcasm. But to deny the empirical evidence in front of your face that human AI is controlled by the brain which is affected by everything from drugs to surgery and which can be observed in real time during psychological experiments using fMRI - makes you religious and a reality denalist. It is far beyond obvious that human brains run only on physics not magic. I guess you are in that 50% I was joking about.
We already have national identification cards - they are called passports. You can even use a card version. What this brings us closer to are implantable transponder chips inserted into new born babies if you opt into the keep living plan.
So you have magic sauce that defies physics in your head? Because there are well over four billion examples of how it can be done already. To say it's not possible borders on religion. I'd accept not for the foreseeable future - but we have proof it is possible.
Non scientists taking creative liberties and spinning click bait headlines are at least partly to blame for all this impending super AI taking over the world. The remainder falls on Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry.
We are at least 50 years off from strong AI as in human level common sense about the world. Even simple automated systems by comparison like autonomous cars fully able to replace humans in all situations are decades off; What we have today is basically a fancy cruise control - the analogy holds for other "smart" systems. The stupidity we already see in human run systems is mostly due to greed and the average person not only shrugging off rational thinking, but demonizing it to the point of it being taboo. Good luck trying to get people to even follow more than two sentences or a very short anectdotal story. I'm not sure it is even addressable for 50 years as the current population certainly doesn't like thinking and can't be told otherwise.
It's my opinion lots of this fear stems from the fact most people have been doing their best to deny reality and avoid critical thinking at all costs and strong AI will force them to face that fear.
Again lol. Try hitting yourself over the head with a cast iron pan a few times while chugging some vodka. That will help you understand how it is the same complexity code, minimizing only the life inside the car with a preference to the driver, that matters. Ask consumers if they would rather be dead or 12 other people they don't know. Or if they would rather have their daughter killed than two street bums. It's simple free market enterprise.
Because none of those things decide the large scale decison making. Your car doesn't drive off a bridge to avoid people, or crash head on into a concrete barrier insread of some pedestrians. You are using logic and not emotion.
People, in America at least, will absolutely bust a gasket once the first actual deaths roll in and some egghead behind a desk in some remote part of the world "decides" who lives and who dies. Until it happens people won't care. Americans are very independent and a me first kind of crowd so it may be the righ ^h^h^h^h profitable choice for manufacturers is to simply protect the occupants no matter the collateral damage as long as they can't be held liable.
or how does the manufactorer stop me from simply driving too fast? in an age where most cars have country-specific software & hardware modifications, it makes zero sense for a car to be able to go (much) faster than the maximum allowed speed limit.
You are simply applying to much logical thought to the problem. first off there are some freeways where the top speed is 55 and others where it's 70+. But limit a vehicle to 75-80 and sales will drop dramatically. This is true on economy cars (many of which can't go that much faster anyhow) on up. Simply put its not profitable.
The farther away the particle is from the event horizon, the more energy it has---the closer it is to the event horizon, the less energy it has. As the particle falls into the blackhole, the combined system (particle + black hole) actually lose energy, resulting in a drop in mass---which is conveniently carried away by the particle leaving the event horizon area.
That sure sounds equivelant to a negative energy or mass to me.
Not quite. The virtual pair has a net energy of 0, and therefore isn't really "extracting" anything from the vacuum. If the pair weren't straddling a black hole, they'd recombine and disappear and nothing would happen. However, when one member of the pair is sucked into a black hole while the other particle escapes, the escaping particle must have a greater-than-zero amount of energy. Because of that, and the requirement that the two particles balance each other out, the black hole has necessarily absorbed a negative-energy (not negatively-charged, mind you, actually negative energy) particle, causing the black hole to shrink ever so slightly. Basically, while the particles originally came from vacuum, the energy was taken from the black hole.
Also, to an external observer this process looks exactly the same as if the black hole itself was slowly emitting particles and shrinking away. And if the black hole is emitting particles, we can use that to determine something about its internal state.
This is correct. The article is specifically addressing a mechanism by which quantum teleportation could release this information across the horizon. Granted to tell exactly what this is you would need to know the instaneous spin to a ludicrous precision, understand how quantum gravity works, understand the exact structure within the black hole, and several other far off concepts. However it is an interesting approach to solving this problem and could further research efforts.
While I'm sure NASA wants to grow potatoes on Mars, they are simply settling for growing them in carefully simulated soils. There are lots of technical challenges and it's interesting science. However, the title is somewhat misleading as there are no actual plans to grow them on Mars.
And you don't think autonomous cars, with subsidized AI, won't keep driving past the mall where you make regular purchases? Or the casino or liquor store if it's not out of the way. Or to be free it continually makes inane product or service placement suggestions? I'm not so sure that these centeralized AI models will be much different.
Yes when you compare supercomputer clusters to a common housefly it should be possible to exceed the housefly computational power. My point is it's not brute force, simply that we are decades behind on intelligent algorithms and getting hundreds to tens of thousands of these algorithms to effectively work together properly. That's likely what you would need to outperform a human with similar sensory input.
Slashdot Mirror
You are forgetting that many particles like photons have momentum and no mass. Therefore you can run a photon source engine off a power source, lose no mass as thrust, yet accelerate your center of mass.
Before going speculative about teleportation and work holes, but past antimatter propulsion is a miniature black hole power source. A million metric ton black hole would radiate about three terawatts (with less mass dramatically raising the radiated power) and you could use magnetic fields to pump in material from in front of the ship. It would eat anything even photons and nutrinos. It should be able to power a decent sized ship and would be the most ideal power source known to modern physics.
It's one thing to list bug fixes as vulnerabilities but it's a bit misleading. Is it extremely minor or does it fully root the system? It would be way more informative to rate them 1-5 so at least someone could have a basic understanding of how bad the situation is even if it is somewhat subjective.
The universe is *not* deterministic. That is what Einstein was going on about when he was stating that God doesn't play dice. It turns out God does play dice and the universe is *not* deterministic. Perfect knowledge of the present state (also theoretically impossible), does not imply perfect knowledge of future states.
Umm the universe *is* deterministic to the greatest extent testable today. In quantum mechanics we have a wave function which basically is a probability distribution for each particle. Combine that with the Schrodinger wave equation and you have deterministic outcome. In fact if the multiple worlds interpretation pans out, which seems plausible as this is voted the most likely interpretation by actual physicists, all outcomes of the probability distribution are realized.
Well air travel is quite optional. Passports should be made free and then there would be no need for all this extra nonsense.
Also yes cellphones do bring us closer to having the communication technology implanted directly into you, hopefully this is optional as well.
Penrose is a great physicist but just as awful about AI as hawking. Last time I checked the standard model of physics was not only deterministic it was also easily "algorithmic". So unless there is magic fairy dust from God farts making us think, it is actually possible to, in theory and eventually, simulate every atom in a human brain. It won't come to that as you don't even notice when a single neuron dies which is composed of a million billion atoms - the resolution of the simulation could be coarse and still likely work just fine. Waveform collapse happens all around us every nanosecond, there is no reason presented why meat makes it special, nor other types of noise with the same distribution aren't equally useful.
Your explanation is deeply flawed. The mistake you are making is assuming Physicalism as the zero-state, when it is clearly the more restrictive model by an extreme amount and hence would actually need extraordinary proof in its favor. What you are doing is junk-science. And hence it is a pure belief without rational basis. In fact, it also has some rather strong aspects of a mental illness as it denies individual existence.
This is hilarious. Physical reality, by scientific definition, is the "zero state" - what normal scientists call physical reality. Imagining events, though explainable through physical processes alone (see the standard model of physics), to be in some kind of magic fairyland space "outside" of physical reality is not only unscientific it also has some rather strong aspects of a mental disease as it denies reality. Once you come down off your LSD, think of a repeatable test for this other plane of existence. Show the world wrong and become more famous than Eienstien, Schrodinger, and Newton combined.
Its true that, in a strict sense, if physics is deterministic then there is no such thing as absolute free will. However, this neglects the computational complexity of the universe. The possibilities are so large with so many possible outcomes, that as an observer it feels totally free. You can never build a computer able to simulate at 100% fidelity more than the material it's made of, even the best sensors on machines or sensory inputs of living things capture the most meager of a fraction of a slice of the actual data of the universe that they are composed of or experience around them. In fact the sheer amount of data overwhelms any possible structure able to contain data and provide feedback of any kind thereby negating the concept of determining outcomes with arbitrary precision. From a computational complexity perspective we feel completely free to pick and choose events, which is indistinguishable from free will.
So in jest I say that half the population isn't sentient in the hopes you can understand sarcasm. But to deny the empirical evidence in front of your face that human AI is controlled by the brain which is affected by everything from drugs to surgery and which can be observed in real time during psychological experiments using fMRI - makes you religious and a reality denalist. It is far beyond obvious that human brains run only on physics not magic. I guess you are in that 50% I was joking about.
This included the phone numbers, date of birth, and email addresses as well. But at this point it's ho-hum as insecure data is stolen daily.
We already have national identification cards - they are called passports. You can even use a card version. What this brings us closer to are implantable transponder chips inserted into new born babies if you opt into the keep living plan.
xkcd suspicion
So you have magic sauce that defies physics in your head? Because there are well over four billion examples of how it can be done already. To say it's not possible borders on religion. I'd accept not for the foreseeable future - but we have proof it is possible.
Non scientists taking creative liberties and spinning click bait headlines are at least partly to blame for all this impending super AI taking over the world. The remainder falls on Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry.
We are at least 50 years off from strong AI as in human level common sense about the world. Even simple automated systems by comparison like autonomous cars fully able to replace humans in all situations are decades off; What we have today is basically a fancy cruise control - the analogy holds for other "smart" systems.
The stupidity we already see in human run systems is mostly due to greed and the average person not only shrugging off rational thinking, but demonizing it to the point of it being taboo. Good luck trying to get people to even follow more than two sentences or a very short anectdotal story. I'm not sure it is even addressable for 50 years as the current population certainly doesn't like thinking and can't be told otherwise.
It's my opinion lots of this fear stems from the fact most people have been doing their best to deny reality and avoid critical thinking at all costs and strong AI will force them to face that fear.
Again lol. Try hitting yourself over the head with a cast iron pan a few times while chugging some vodka. That will help you understand how it is the same complexity code, minimizing only the life inside the car with a preference to the driver, that matters. Ask consumers if they would rather be dead or 12 other people they don't know. Or if they would rather have their daughter killed than two street bums. It's simple free market enterprise.
Because none of those things decide the large scale decison making. Your car doesn't drive off a bridge to avoid people, or crash head on into a concrete barrier insread of some pedestrians. You are using logic and not emotion.
People, in America at least, will absolutely bust a gasket once the first actual deaths roll in and some egghead behind a desk in some remote part of the world "decides" who lives and who dies. Until it happens people won't care. Americans are very independent and a me first kind of crowd so it may be the righ ^h^h^h^h profitable choice for manufacturers is to simply protect the occupants no matter the collateral damage as long as they can't be held liable.
or how does the manufactorer stop me from simply driving too fast? in an age where most cars have country-specific software & hardware modifications, it makes zero sense for a car to be able to go (much) faster than the maximum allowed speed limit.
You are simply applying to much logical thought to the problem. first off there are some freeways where the top speed is 55 and others where it's 70+. But limit a vehicle to 75-80 and sales will drop dramatically. This is true on economy cars (many of which can't go that much faster anyhow) on up. Simply put its not profitable.
Sounds like the state of the world only a decade before the subjugation of the human race.
It's not negative energy.
The farther away the particle is from the event horizon, the more energy it has---the closer it is to the event horizon, the less energy it has. As the particle falls into the blackhole, the combined system (particle + black hole) actually lose energy, resulting in a drop in mass---which is conveniently carried away by the particle leaving the event horizon area.
That sure sounds equivelant to a negative energy or mass to me.
Not quite. The virtual pair has a net energy of 0, and therefore isn't really "extracting" anything from the vacuum. If the pair weren't straddling a black hole, they'd recombine and disappear and nothing would happen. However, when one member of the pair is sucked into a black hole while the other particle escapes, the escaping particle must have a greater-than-zero amount of energy. Because of that, and the requirement that the two particles balance each other out, the black hole has necessarily absorbed a negative-energy (not negatively-charged, mind you, actually negative energy) particle, causing the black hole to shrink ever so slightly. Basically, while the particles originally came from vacuum, the energy was taken from the black hole. Also, to an external observer this process looks exactly the same as if the black hole itself was slowly emitting particles and shrinking away. And if the black hole is emitting particles, we can use that to determine something about its internal state.
This is correct. The article is specifically addressing a mechanism by which quantum teleportation could release this information across the horizon. Granted to tell exactly what this is you would need to know the instaneous spin to a ludicrous precision, understand how quantum gravity works, understand the exact structure within the black hole, and several other far off concepts. However it is an interesting approach to solving this problem and could further research efforts.
While I'm sure NASA wants to grow potatoes on Mars, they are simply settling for growing them in carefully simulated soils. There are lots of technical challenges and it's interesting science. However, the title is somewhat misleading as there are no actual plans to grow them on Mars.
And you don't think autonomous cars, with subsidized AI, won't keep driving past the mall where you make regular purchases? Or the casino or liquor store if it's not out of the way. Or to be free it continually makes inane product or service placement suggestions? I'm not so sure that these centeralized AI models will be much different.
These are called taxis. And now uber.
Yes when you compare supercomputer clusters to a common housefly it should be possible to exceed the housefly computational power. My point is it's not brute force, simply that we are decades behind on intelligent algorithms and getting hundreds to tens of thousands of these algorithms to effectively work together properly. That's likely what you would need to outperform a human with similar sensory input.