Turing's definition was that strong AI was that which fell inside the set of all higher intelligence. In other words, a functional definition.
Alternatively, you can use a variant of the definition used by animal behaviourologists - the ability to perform new tasks by deductive reasoning rather than practice, instruction or copying, requiring indirect thinking. So self-awareness and the mirror test requires the capacity to not only connect the image to self but utilize it.
The test the crows managed required making a tool to obtain material to make a tool to perform a novel task unrelated to those familiar to them.
That's basic intelligence. High intelligence requires symbolic thought, the capacity to describe such things and thus a higher level of indirection.
That's when you get into strong AI. Triple indirection.
Arthur C Clarke, I think, or it may have been Asimov, suggested all art is deliberate caricature of reality, in order to communicate symbolically.
So real art must distort perspective with intent to convey graphically ideas through the symbolism of distortion.
That means real art requires an artist who has ideas they wish to communicate and a metaphorical language of their own devising they wish to communicate those ideas in.
So, does the AI have such a language they can both send and receive in? And can they describe these ideas and their relationship to the language?
That the tribe in power is de-facto innocent? That might makes right? That your side justifies your crimes?
No?
Then don't set an order and prosecute all the guilty together. Whatever their side, whatever their agenda.
But you're opposed to that, you don't want your side prosecuted at all. Get out of jail free cards for all. And you don't care if the other side hasn't committed an offence, you want them harassed anyway.
Which means it's not the criminality that bothers you, but the politics. You can't stand it when those who think differently don't fail the way you think they should.
If they won't comply with your beliefs, dammit you'll make them.
Comcast had a deal with the other providers - none of them would offer service in rival territiry, or if they did, they'd accidentally deliver something different. This is direct from the chief engineer at CenturyLink in that area
The Ars Technica article on the ISP whose lines were illegally cut by Comcast would seem to confirm territorial claims maintained by violence and protection rackets.
Definitely, Comcast should be investigated, as should all the major ISPs. To the extent that illegal monopolies exist over territory, or other criminal acts under RICO or other relevant legislation are taking place, the guilty should be in court for those acts.
The guilty should not become innocent by right of cash. Ever. Whatever side they're on in any debate. A side does not make you innocent. Nor does any cause, or any political philosophy.
Nobody claimed science was about truth, besides yourself.
You throw up more and more straw men, each one knocked down. Give it up.
Why should I define a fact, when you claim to have all the answers? You talk of the church but are the only one here with the divine revelations. Curious.
If you don't think you know how I define fact, then you can claim nothing about such a definition until you know it. In that case, you, not I, are the one with the religious doctrine.
If you claim you do know, then you are definitely nothing more than a preacher.
You want to know how I define facts? Then ask nicely. As long as you're the Taliban of wisdom, you are asking nothing.
This is a credible source - a former CIA operative working in the weapons inspections team. He was not some gullible fool, he had worked on this sort of stuff for many years and he was very good at his job. He was not caught lying, or bribing newspapers. The anonymous folks you quote were.
There was no yellowcake there. There were no WMD labs. The program had been shut down after the first Gulf War and never restarted. You cannot make things be by wishing.
I listed several facts. You have not objected to them.
I listed two credible original sources. You have not disputed them.
Your argument, then, is what? That two escapades that led to a trial and word of the year were maybe not known about? That Americans were oblivious to Scooter and his pardon? That the rest of the world (20x larger) were?
Do you think France was ignorant? On the balance of probability, alone.
You can't falsify an argument with demands you never parameterized.
The models are stable and scaleable. And they show that the current destabilization through deforestation plus CO2 levels is going to lead to collapse.
Natural models have worked fine and have been scaleable since 1968.
The model you described is discrete time. Nature doesn't use discrete time so much, although you can simulate it with a very short time base or by having each entity on an independent concurrent thread. Either way, you get a smoother time.
This is important. The equations of the models are non-differentiable at any point because there's no deterministic value between any two points. For that reason, there's no integral. If there's no integral, then it's meaningless to take aggregate time as though it meant anything.
The model isn't the problem, it's aggregating time that's the problem.
We've had such maths since 1968. Works fine, when applied correctly. Edward Lorenz studied it extensively, as did James Lovelock. Their models all work fine and Lovelock's models increase in stability exponentially as you scale them up.
Our models are right. They work just fine when applied right, as shown by Daisyworld getting more stable as you increase species and decrease abstraction.
A.K. Dewdney's Bugs shows the same behaviour as well.
The problem is the way they're being applied. They're non-linear dynamic systems that are sensitive to initial conditions, non-differentiable and turbulent.
As you'll be aware from Gleik's book on Chaos, you have to be within certain parameters before this becomes a dynamic equilibrium. Outside of that, it won't work.
Slashdot Mirror
Turing's definition was that strong AI was that which fell inside the set of all higher intelligence. In other words, a functional definition.
Alternatively, you can use a variant of the definition used by animal behaviourologists - the ability to perform new tasks by deductive reasoning rather than practice, instruction or copying, requiring indirect thinking. So self-awareness and the mirror test requires the capacity to not only connect the image to self but utilize it.
The test the crows managed required making a tool to obtain material to make a tool to perform a novel task unrelated to those familiar to them.
That's basic intelligence. High intelligence requires symbolic thought, the capacity to describe such things and thus a higher level of indirection.
That's when you get into strong AI. Triple indirection.
However, one should never validate one's own work. You're going to introduce subconscious bias. Same reason you should never test your own code.
Present a hypothesis to explain new data, then test that hypothesis by falsification.
Showing that there are alternatives is good and correct.
Misunderstanding by non-scientists merely shows schools do not teach people correctly. That's not the scientists' problem.
Those parts of the brain are low activity.
All you've shown is that if you kill the print spooler, a computer can't print.
Arthur C Clarke, I think, or it may have been Asimov, suggested all art is deliberate caricature of reality, in order to communicate symbolically.
So real art must distort perspective with intent to convey graphically ideas through the symbolism of distortion.
That means real art requires an artist who has ideas they wish to communicate and a metaphorical language of their own devising they wish to communicate those ideas in.
So, does the AI have such a language they can both send and receive in? And can they describe these ideas and their relationship to the language?
The brain is a Turing Complete machine.
If a human is capable of true art, any computer with sufficient resources can do likewise.
Weak AI is a tool, granted.
Strong AI, by definition, is an individual no different from any other artist.
The human brain is just an algorithm.
A very big and complicated algorithm, yes, but still only a Turing Complete algorithm.
Thus, self-awareness and the capacity to declare something art are merely products of sufficiently complex algorithms.
By implication, you cannot argue that humans can do anything a sufficiently advanced AI cannot. The difference isn't in the nature, only in the scale.
You can, at best, argue weak AI cannot create art.
Would be as capable of creation as a human. If the AI can't create, neither can the human.
The Internet is a natural monopoly and ISPs complain they can't serve rural areas.
Transfer control to each State.
No, not really.
That the tribe in power is de-facto innocent? That might makes right? That your side justifies your crimes?
No?
Then don't set an order and prosecute all the guilty together. Whatever their side, whatever their agenda.
But you're opposed to that, you don't want your side prosecuted at all. Get out of jail free cards for all. And you don't care if the other side hasn't committed an offence, you want them harassed anyway.
Which means it's not the criminality that bothers you, but the politics. You can't stand it when those who think differently don't fail the way you think they should.
If they won't comply with your beliefs, dammit you'll make them.
Comcast had a deal with the other providers - none of them would offer service in rival territiry, or if they did, they'd accidentally deliver something different. This is direct from the chief engineer at CenturyLink in that area
The Ars Technica article on the ISP whose lines were illegally cut by Comcast would seem to confirm territorial claims maintained by violence and protection rackets.
Definitely, Comcast should be investigated, as should all the major ISPs. To the extent that illegal monopolies exist over territory, or other criminal acts under RICO or other relevant legislation are taking place, the guilty should be in court for those acts.
The guilty should not become innocent by right of cash. Ever. Whatever side they're on in any debate. A side does not make you innocent. Nor does any cause, or any political philosophy.
https://m.webtoons.com/en/supe...
https://therealstanlee.com/ori...
Stan Lee's final creations... ...that we know of...
Nobody claimed science was about truth, besides yourself.
You throw up more and more straw men, each one knocked down. Give it up.
Why should I define a fact, when you claim to have all the answers? You talk of the church but are the only one here with the divine revelations. Curious.
If you don't think you know how I define fact, then you can claim nothing about such a definition until you know it. In that case, you, not I, are the one with the religious doctrine.
If you claim you do know, then you are definitely nothing more than a preacher.
You want to know how I define facts? Then ask nicely. As long as you're the Taliban of wisdom, you are asking nothing.
That's not a credible source. Unnamed officials who we know lied? And whose unsubstantiated claims were later disproved?
Sorry, you're an idiot if you think outright fraud constitutes a credible source.
No, I want a credible source. From a credible news outlet that wasn't taking bribes.
https://www.theguardian.com/me...
This is a credible source - a former CIA operative working in the weapons inspections team. He was not some gullible fool, he had worked on this sort of stuff for many years and he was very good at his job. He was not caught lying, or bribing newspapers. The anonymous folks you quote were.
So why do you choose the swamp? I'm curious.
Even if true (doubtful), one newspaper article in one newspaper with limited circulation in one country is not the liberal press.
Care to show a credible source?
There was no yellowcake there. There were no WMD labs. The program had been shut down after the first Gulf War and never restarted. You cannot make things be by wishing.
I listed several facts. You have not objected to them.
I listed two credible original sources. You have not disputed them.
Your argument, then, is what? That two escapades that led to a trial and word of the year were maybe not known about? That Americans were oblivious to Scooter and his pardon? That the rest of the world (20x larger) were?
Do you think France was ignorant? On the balance of probability, alone.
You can't falsify an argument with demands you never parameterized.
Implementation errors are not specification errors.
Beware of confusing dynamic equilibria with static equilibria. Both are stable, but in different ways.
On the contrary.
The models are stable and scaleable. And they show that the current destabilization through deforestation plus CO2 levels is going to lead to collapse.
Natural models have worked fine and have been scaleable since 1968.
The model you described is discrete time. Nature doesn't use discrete time so much, although you can simulate it with a very short time base or by having each entity on an independent concurrent thread. Either way, you get a smoother time.
This is important. The equations of the models are non-differentiable at any point because there's no deterministic value between any two points. For that reason, there's no integral. If there's no integral, then it's meaningless to take aggregate time as though it meant anything.
The model isn't the problem, it's aggregating time that's the problem.
We've had such maths since 1968. Works fine, when applied correctly. Edward Lorenz studied it extensively, as did James Lovelock. Their models all work fine and Lovelock's models increase in stability exponentially as you scale them up.
Our models are right. They work just fine when applied right, as shown by Daisyworld getting more stable as you increase species and decrease abstraction.
A.K. Dewdney's Bugs shows the same behaviour as well.
The problem is the way they're being applied. They're non-linear dynamic systems that are sensitive to initial conditions, non-differentiable and turbulent.
As you'll be aware from Gleik's book on Chaos, you have to be within certain parameters before this becomes a dynamic equilibrium. Outside of that, it won't work.