One add-on features a detailed model of the Mars rovers in interplanetary cruise configuration, together with two proposed trajectories for each rover. Add a high-resolution (8k x 4k) texture and bump map for Mars, and you'll have a very detailed and accurate simulation of the Mars missions. We're still trying to get trajectory data from the ESA so that we can make an add-on for the Mars Express mission.
Mind shaped by evolution
on
AI in Sci-Fi
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Most speculation on AI (this article by Ian Watson included) ends up describing a mind that sounds much too human. Megalomania, a desire to be human, and a profound curiosity about the universe (and humans in particular) are traits that are routinely assigned to AI in science fictions. I think such characterstics are unlikely to appear in 'real' AI; rather, they show the limited imagination of the author. The terrible boredom endured by some AIs in fiction seems merely to be the author's own horror at the idea of being trapped inside the dark box of a computer, deprived of all senses. Why should a machine mind not be perfectly content with such a state? Why should an AI want to have ultimate power, understand the universe, or even have a sense of self-preservation?
The human mind is a product of evolution. Without a sense of self-preservation and desire not to die, the human species would have been quickly eliminated by natural selection. So what is there to endow AI with a similar desire? Perhaps AI will be created through some sort of genetic programming; the character of the AI will be determined by the selection forces in an artificial evolution. In this case, a sense of self-preservation is likely to develop. But I very much doubt that some other traits commonly ascribed to AI would arise, especially any kind of desire to be human, which the AI is likely to find as repulsive as the idea of being a computer is to humans! The AI would only desire the things that enabled it to compete successfully and reproduce instances of itself.
I have doubts that we'd recognize a mind created by a process other than natural or artificial evolution as intelligent. An AI generated by explicit programming and training seems like it would be either unrecognizably alien (about as close to human as web browser), or such an obvious reflection of it's programming and training that it's not regarded as intelligent.
I develop an Open Source 3D space simulation called Celestia that runs on Linux, Windows, and MacOS X. The Linux and Mac users are a minority, but a very significant one whose contributions to the project are disproportionate to their numbers. I would be very disappointed to see OpenGL disappear on the Windows platform. In order to continue cross-platform support, I'd be forced to write an abstraction layer on top of Direct3D and OpenGL. It's not impossible to write such a layer, but it's time-consuming to implement, and it's more code to maintain, update, and debug. I know that I represent a minority opinion. The majority of 3D apps (games mostly) are single platform, but for those of us that do write cross-platform, the loss of OpenGL on Windows would be a big setback.
However, the fact that Microsoft has withdrawn from the OpenGL ARB does not necessarily mean that they're going to stop supporting OpenGL on their OSes. As long as they allow OpenGL to run natively on future versions of Windows, I'm not too bothered by their withdrawal. Reading the last few years' ARB meeting notes, it's apparent that MS hasn't contributed all that much aside from some fuss about the ARB_vertex_program extension possibly infringing on one of their patents.
Hopefully, MS will decide to at least maintain their current minimal support for OpenGL on Windows. If nothing else, Doom 3 might be enough to convince them to keep OpenGL around.
And one final thing . . . Contrary to some of the comments expressed here, OpenGL is definitely not standing still. OpenGL 1.5 has standard extensions for vertex and pixel programs. It seems that the OpenGL ARB has stepped up their pace lately, and essential extensions are being approved much more quickly than before. It's a different approach to API design--more incremental than the one MS uses for DirectX--but I think it's wrong to claim that it's clearly inferior.
Slashdot Mirror
That is all . . .
--Chris
That's a very old version of Celestia, built in the days when g++ was much less picky about certain C++ constructs. Go get version 1.3.0 from here.
--Chris
The Maine model may be the largest in the US, but it's not the largest in the world . . . This one in Sweden has Pluto 300km from the Sun.
--Chris
If you have a decent 3D graphics card and an interest in unmanned space exploration, you should download Celestia:
a ges/mer.htm
http://www.shatters.net/celestia/
It runs on Windows, Linux, and OS X . . . Then, install one of the many spacecraft add-ons here:
http://homepage.eircom.net/~jackcelestia/
Images are here:
http://homepage.eircom.net/~jackcelestia/browseim
One add-on features a detailed model of the Mars rovers in interplanetary cruise configuration, together with two proposed trajectories for each rover. Add a high-resolution (8k x 4k) texture and bump map for Mars, and you'll have a very detailed and accurate simulation of the Mars missions. We're still trying to get trajectory data from the ESA so that we can make an add-on for the Mars Express mission.
--Chris
You can already get a Celestia add-on with the new moons:
http://shatters.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2112
--Chris
Most speculation on AI (this article by Ian Watson included) ends up describing a mind that sounds much too human. Megalomania, a desire to be human, and a profound curiosity about the universe (and humans in particular) are traits that are routinely assigned to AI in science fictions. I think such characterstics are unlikely to appear in 'real' AI; rather, they show the limited imagination of the author. The terrible boredom endured by some AIs in fiction seems merely to be the author's own horror at the idea of being trapped inside the dark box of a computer, deprived of all senses. Why should a machine mind not be perfectly content with such a state? Why should an AI want to have ultimate power, understand the universe, or even have a sense of self-preservation?
The human mind is a product of evolution. Without a sense of self-preservation and desire not to die, the human species would have been quickly eliminated by natural selection. So what is there to endow AI with a similar desire? Perhaps AI will be created through some sort of genetic programming; the character of the AI will be determined by the selection forces in an artificial evolution. In this case, a sense of self-preservation is likely to develop. But I very much doubt that some other traits commonly ascribed to AI would arise, especially any kind of desire to be human, which the AI is likely to find as repulsive as the idea of being a computer is to humans! The AI would only desire the things that enabled it to compete successfully and reproduce instances of itself.
I have doubts that we'd recognize a mind created by a process other than natural or artificial evolution as intelligent. An AI generated by explicit programming and training seems like it would be either unrecognizably alien (about as close to human as web browser), or such an obvious reflection of it's programming and training that it's not regarded as intelligent.
--Chris
I develop an Open Source 3D space simulation called Celestia that runs on Linux, Windows, and MacOS X. The Linux and Mac users are a minority, but a very significant one whose contributions to the project are disproportionate to their numbers. I would be very disappointed to see OpenGL disappear on the Windows platform. In order to continue cross-platform support, I'd be forced to write an abstraction layer on top of Direct3D and OpenGL. It's not impossible to write such a layer, but it's time-consuming to implement, and it's more code to maintain, update, and debug. I know that I represent a minority opinion. The majority of 3D apps (games mostly) are single platform, but for those of us that do write cross-platform, the loss of OpenGL on Windows would be a big setback.
However, the fact that Microsoft has withdrawn from the OpenGL ARB does not necessarily mean that they're going to stop supporting OpenGL on their OSes. As long as they allow OpenGL to run natively on future versions of Windows, I'm not too bothered by their withdrawal. Reading the last few years' ARB meeting notes, it's apparent that MS hasn't contributed all that much aside from some fuss about the ARB_vertex_program extension possibly infringing on one of their patents.
Hopefully, MS will decide to at least maintain their current minimal support for OpenGL on Windows. If nothing else, Doom 3 might be enough to convince them to keep OpenGL around.
And one final thing . . . Contrary to some of the comments expressed here, OpenGL is definitely not standing still. OpenGL 1.5 has standard extensions for vertex and pixel programs. It seems that the OpenGL ARB has stepped up their pace lately, and essential extensions are being approved much more quickly than before. It's a different approach to API design--more incremental than the one MS uses for DirectX--but I think it's wrong to claim that it's clearly inferior.
--Chris