Dammit, but I like sandwiches. Maybe we just need to export our cultural love of sandwiches to China. That way we will still have something to offer them.
Yes, we should censor people that disagree with the idea that state of things is terrible. We would not want balanced discourse, would we?
People content with the state of things are already not as loud as the gripers; now you are suggesting that they be silenced altogether?
If so, you truly have found your place on slanted-dot. Actually with your low ID I guess you helped mold the place in your image.
And let's not start the whole "you are sheeple" argument; just because some have found their place in the world does not mean they are not as enlightened as you. Maybe you are just a malcontent.
Good point, information from an external source may actually be superior to information assimilated for oneself.
I am confused though, because you say "any true strong AI will have to [assimilate an information base for itself]" but then say that does not necessarily imply superiority. You mean superiority of the entity I would guess?
So are you implying that something beyond (better than) what we conceive of as AI might be gained from an external information base? Or just that even a strong AI may never be able to intuit some levels of knowledge (due to limitations) and an external information base could fill in such gaps by providing guaranteed assumptions? Either way, that makes sense. If you meant something else I would be interested in what that would be!
In terms of the entity being able to actually use/understand externally provided information productively, I would think that it would have to do some level of assimilation (even if at a level on top of the initial external information injection). Perhaps not, though. I suppose instead of growing a knowledge base around one's thought process one might be able to grow one's thought process around a knowledge base. I think we both agree that the latter seems less likely to succeed? Or at the very least I would think the latter's abilities would plateau since its process would be so dependent upon the initial knowledge base that it would probably assimilate new environmental data poorly.
Yes, I agree that the information compiled by hand or extracted is meaningless for AI. Fortunately, according to your link, Cyc is moving towards doing something with their data "via machine learning" (whatever specific methods they are using). I would imagine CMU will do much the same although I did not see mention of such in the TFA or its related publications.
I was snarky and terse with my first response. I may be regrettably mostly ignorant in terms of AI (although I am comp sci I did not pursue the field for a number of reasons) but the subject is an active interest of mine.
My response was due in part to the very common negativity of this community, especially the complaint "it's been done already". Too much like "Simpsons did it". I suppose I just contributed my own negative manure to the compost heap today...!
Most ideas have merit, even if they are derivative or have large overlaps with others. In fact, I would say that I hold with Thom Yorke:
"You make your little pond but if your pond isn't connected to the river, which isn't connected to an ocean, it's just going to dry up. It's just a little piss pool." Such an eloquent way to describe the Venn diagram of society.
But since you are lazy and probably didn't read the article
Oh, do we know each other? I did read TFA. And I read your Cyc link, my brainy and learned superior!
My kids assimilate their own information base. I do not directly inject it into their heads. If you do not see the difference then there is nothing more I can say. Why should I vomit a wall of text in an attempt to deride and intimidate you?
It seems to me that what you said is directly contrary to what you have issue with:
...since you present no evidence what difference 'developing on the internet' will make compared to 'developing by hand', you should go do a little searching and figure out what the actual difference will be, instead of randomly guessing
(Re)searching to figure out what the actual difference *might* be is exactly what CMU is doing here.
I am humble enough to admit that this particular project may not amount to anything. My point was that the two projects are distinct (at least based on the claims of those involved).
I would posit that a machine that determines its own storage structure would be more successful. I would guess that CMU's extracted data is being jammed into something designed by the team.
Yeah, the connections my brain developed over time in its own unique manner as I learned is exactly the same as a bunch of books put into bits. Not any different at all.
More fear-based talk. By your logic we shouldn't exist at all because we are not good.
If evil "somehow manages to grab power" don't worry. The good people will "somehow manage" to grab freedom back. Stop living your life in fear.
So basically we all have to die to make way for the future? This fearful mentality must die so that we all may live.
We'll cross those crisis bridges you mentioned when we come to them. Does that seem short sighted? It shouldn't; I don't think a person putting their own survival before unknown effects is unethical even in a "Jurassic Park" manner. Why else do we spend ungodly amounts of money on medical care for some individuals? We increase the efficiency and scale and suddenly people cry foul?
I've heard Aubrey talk about the "trance" that we are all seem to be in regarding death. This trance makes us all feel that eliminating death is bad, because death is natural, serves a purpose, and that without it the world would come crashing down. He's right -- there is something weird about the way we all want to die.
Eliminating death would simply be change. A big change, yes, but it could be good or bad. And if a change means people don't die then I find it pretty hard to swallow that it would be this terrible catastrophe.
Slashdot Mirror
I read that as "Craves Metal" and was scared as hell.
Dammit, but I like sandwiches. Maybe we just need to export our cultural love of sandwiches to China. That way we will still have something to offer them.
They have to be "on top". They have to kill the competition.
Ain't evolution a bitch? But we sure love the end results!
Yes, we should censor people that disagree with the idea that state of things is terrible. We would not want balanced discourse, would we? People content with the state of things are already not as loud as the gripers; now you are suggesting that they be silenced altogether? If so, you truly have found your place on slanted-dot. Actually with your low ID I guess you helped mold the place in your image.
And let's not start the whole "you are sheeple" argument; just because some have found their place in the world does not mean they are not as enlightened as you. Maybe you are just a malcontent.
Good point, information from an external source may actually be superior to information assimilated for oneself.
I am confused though, because you say "any true strong AI will have to [assimilate an information base for itself]" but then say that does not necessarily imply superiority. You mean superiority of the entity I would guess?
So are you implying that something beyond (better than) what we conceive of as AI might be gained from an external information base? Or just that even a strong AI may never be able to intuit some levels of knowledge (due to limitations) and an external information base could fill in such gaps by providing guaranteed assumptions? Either way, that makes sense. If you meant something else I would be interested in what that would be!
In terms of the entity being able to actually use/understand externally provided information productively, I would think that it would have to do some level of assimilation (even if at a level on top of the initial external information injection). Perhaps not, though. I suppose instead of growing a knowledge base around one's thought process one might be able to grow one's thought process around a knowledge base. I think we both agree that the latter seems less likely to succeed? Or at the very least I would think the latter's abilities would plateau since its process would be so dependent upon the initial knowledge base that it would probably assimilate new environmental data poorly.
Yes, I agree that the information compiled by hand or extracted is meaningless for AI. Fortunately, according to your link, Cyc is moving towards doing something with their data "via machine learning" (whatever specific methods they are using). I would imagine CMU will do much the same although I did not see mention of such in the TFA or its related publications.
I was snarky and terse with my first response. I may be regrettably mostly ignorant in terms of AI (although I am comp sci I did not pursue the field for a number of reasons) but the subject is an active interest of mine.
My response was due in part to the very common negativity of this community, especially the complaint "it's been done already". Too much like "Simpsons did it". I suppose I just contributed my own negative manure to the compost heap today...!
Most ideas have merit, even if they are derivative or have large overlaps with others. In fact, I would say that I hold with Thom Yorke: "You make your little pond but if your pond isn't connected to the river, which isn't connected to an ocean, it's just going to dry up. It's just a little piss pool." Such an eloquent way to describe the Venn diagram of society.
But since you are lazy and probably didn't read the article
Oh, do we know each other? I did read TFA. And I read your Cyc link, my brainy and learned superior!
My kids assimilate their own information base. I do not directly inject it into their heads. If you do not see the difference then there is nothing more I can say. Why should I vomit a wall of text in an attempt to deride and intimidate you?
It seems to me that what you said is directly contrary to what you have issue with:
...since you present no evidence what difference 'developing on the internet' will make compared to 'developing by hand', you should go do a little searching and figure out what the actual difference will be, instead of randomly guessing
(Re)searching to figure out what the actual difference *might* be is exactly what CMU is doing here.
I am humble enough to admit that this particular project may not amount to anything. My point was that the two projects are distinct (at least based on the claims of those involved).
I would posit that a machine that determines its own storage structure would be more successful. I would guess that CMU's extracted data is being jammed into something designed by the team.
I'm not sure why this would be any different.
Yeah, the connections my brain developed over time in its own unique manner as I learned is exactly the same as a bunch of books put into bits. Not any different at all.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=how+much+wood+could+a+woodchuck+chuck
so, in summary, the carjacker *did* turn into a goat and christ *did not* die for our sins?
Your sig is great for your last post!
So they edited out T-Mobile (because Google makes headlines interesting but T-Mobile does not) but left the rest. Copy and paste ftl.
This inconsistency is easily explained. I am good looking and charming. You... well, yeah...
Fairy nuff
I thought that might be the case but reading it made my brain hurt.
They fixed it
Title finally write good
Cute, but it was actually me replying.
You ever run someone down with your house?
I am unimpressed. THIS is a more amazing engineering feat.
Invalidation of software patents was patented by me back in 2003.
I feel sorry for whomever they put on the task of discerning which videos fit these categories. Boring.
But sooner or later, the novelty of creating giant animated penii will wear off.
Speak for yourself
8========D ~~
More fear-based talk. By your logic we shouldn't exist at all because we are not good.
If evil "somehow manages to grab power" don't worry. The good people will "somehow manage" to grab freedom back.
Stop living your life in fear.
So basically we all have to die to make way for the future? This fearful mentality must die so that we all may live.
We'll cross those crisis bridges you mentioned when we come to them. Does that seem short sighted? It shouldn't; I don't think a person putting their own survival before unknown effects is unethical even in a "Jurassic Park" manner. Why else do we spend ungodly amounts of money on medical care for some individuals? We increase the efficiency and scale and suddenly people cry foul?
I've heard Aubrey talk about the "trance" that we are all seem to be in regarding death. This trance makes us all feel that eliminating death is bad, because death is natural, serves a purpose, and that without it the world would come crashing down. He's right -- there is something weird about the way we all want to die.
Eliminating death would simply be change. A big change, yes, but it could be good or bad. And if a change means people don't die then I find it pretty hard to swallow that it would be this terrible catastrophe.
The rest of the world really needs to start using only English. Honestly, it really is worth the effort to switch.
Not as dangerous as Enema Territory to be sure, but probably more fun.