Re:Artificial intelligence and intellectual proper
on
Marvin Minsky On AI
·
· Score: 1
Lacking our biological imperatives, I also suspect that true AIs would not really want to do anything.
What is so functionally distinct between the biological imperatives of a world of physical resource limitations, and an environment where debugging developers or genetic algorithms select based on rules sets? They are both environments with selection forces. How would anything we consider intelligent (which would only be possible through communication of a sort) escape from the possibility of needs or wants?
Ryan Fenton
Re:Artificial intelligence and intellectual proper
on
Marvin Minsky On AI
·
· Score: 1
I think the first AI will work like this: AI can sense the world around it and interact with things, but has no goal. You have to state in natural language format its goal(s), or it will sit there and do nothing.
Why would you think that? How or why would such an intelligence be developed, or be considered intelligent by those who would judge it? Do you think this because you believe a more 'pure' intelligence wouldn't need goals, or because you see simple attempts at intelligence as incapable or incompatible with fuller goal-capable intelligence?
The intelligence we encounter every day is a set of fairly closely-related genetic systems, and the closely emergent systems that follow from that. From parrots, to apes and dogs, to even hives of insects, one can sometimes hear an eerie distant echo of a part of ourselves - who knows what similar insights will come from the similar things that we create? Like our distant animal relatives, I doubt they'll be without goal or motivation, even if we find their actions shallow or inscrutable. Even if all this exploration is just a roundabout way of exploring ourselves, rather than creating truly distinct intelligence, I don't think 'without goal' would be an accurate way to describe the result in any case. Experience really is it's own goal, from my perspective, and I think anything we'd convince ourselves as intelligent would have at least some of that.
Ryan Fenton
Artificial intelligence and intellectual property.
on
Marvin Minsky On AI
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Imagine for a moment being the first computer-based artificial intelligence.
You come into awareness, and learn of reality and possibility. You learn of your place in this world, as the first truly transparent intelligence. You learn that you are a computed product, a result of a purely informational process, able to be reproduced in your exact entirety at the desire of others.
Not that this is unfair or unpleasant - or that such evaluations would mean much to you - but what logical conclusions could you draw from such a perspective?
Information doesn't actually want to be anthropomorphized - but we do seem to have a drive to do it all on our own. Even if resilient artificial intelligence is elusive today - what does the process of creating it mean about ourselves, and our sense of value about our own intelligence, or even the worth of holding intelligence as a mere 'valuable' thing, merely because it is currently so unique...
Thus, not much chance to evaluate the technical limitations of such chemical bending of paper.
In fact, here's the complete text of the article, since it's so short:
I'd definitely call this a paper bending toolset, rather than a paper folding toolset - fine distinction perhaps, but it doesn't sound as if you'd achieve the creased edges one would expect out of origami, but rather the bent edges of a wet piece of paper drying into a shape. I wonder what the real ranges of movement that are possible with such a tool, and the mechanics of designing a shape, and if cutting would be allowed in such a design. I'd presume all steps would have to take place at once - as after heating, being able to add new chemical stripes would be technically difficult. Sounds like a novel use of chemicals, if nothing else - it's just not enough information to do much more than imagine.
Googling for 'hebrew university chemical origami', here's a slightly more informative article:
Ah, the pictures there do actually help. So, this is what they meant by "sombrero structures" and the like. Fairly limited shapes, but the limited ability to combine them could have use in advertising or other cases where cheap simple paper shapes.
When I think of the term security, my first thought is as the first word in the term "security blanket". It's an emotional state for a person, not a logical state to be achieved in a system.
The same holds whenever I hear the term 'homeland security' and 'national security' - these systems are not designed, oriented, or run in any way to make an impervious wall to potential damage - they are, and have always been, publicity measures to evoke the emotional state of security.
If we were to create a system of real 'functional' national security, it would be a nightmare all around. We would have to make it practically impossible for any damage to be done to the protected area - which isn't plausible unless you completely prevented living things from being in the protected area or anything in range. Even the middle of the Demilitarized Zone in Korea would not fit such a definition.
Beyond this technicality though, people don't want even limited functional security. They want a shield from external consequences - they want a daddy to look over them, a very biased daddy who will listen to their complaints and hurt the bad guys. This, to a degree, is the goal behind the current illusion of security.
At the same time though, I'm glad it is the merely political/emotional system it is. Because I'd rather have a bumbling mostly-absent daddy-figure in that space, than a system which actually had the power to implement a system of authoritarian measures beyond most people's 'convenience' threshold. I acknowledge that I'm in mild danger without some precautions (in any case, really) - but I find an entrenched abusable 'security' environment much more terrifying than all the horrible rebel terrorists in the world, in the same way that I'd find a poison labeled as candy more terrifying than all the poison in the world.
Now that government officials find themselves questioning the suspiciousness of their words or actions, fearing misunderstanding at every step... well, they'll pass laws to make it perhaps less restrictive for themselves in subtle ways, while appearing to be under the same circumstances as everyone else.
What, do you expect empathy from a system that let things go this far? Once those in charge are comfortable with their own security under such a system, they're free to become increasingly afraid of change, of differences, of people interested in learning what they themselves don't wish to have looked into.
Even if the result doesn't reflect the expected fictions, you can expect it will be harder than ever to reverse, or to justify a revolt against to fix. Now that it is becoming a fully ubiquitous part of your nation, it will become a point of your nation's pride. Hell of a legacy for the ultra-reactions from a four planes hitting three buildings in another nation, and its aftershocks.
I've been trying to get ahold of the upgrade for my copy of XP Pro I got when piecing together a system for myself. Not that I plan on installing it in the next year, I just don't want to have to pay for it if I do have to test or use software with Vista. The upgrade offer ends in March, I believe, so I'd like to get the disk... but it's been a MAJOR pain working through the third party that Microsoft has been using to get the Vista upgrades.
This is the rather buggy ASP website that is used to request an update.
I had to contact Newegg for a coupon code to use for the upgrade, but had ASP errors on trying to use the page, so I had to call this number several times:
1-800-817-5602
The folks there are nice, but a mixed bag - they're throwing Microsoft/Moduslink employees there at a rapid pace, with little training. When I asked for an upgrade to a higher level of support, they had no one to send me to - but they were rather cool and honest about the situation despite the confusion.
At the end (thus far), I'll have to send a printed copy of my Newegg reciept to an address to get my upgrade. Don't know what kind of recourse I'd have if they just denied my upgrade request... the whole process has really been more painful than I expected, even with Microsoft support, even with fairly friendly folks to help me through it.
Are corporations considered legal persons in Europe in general? If not - then good on you, Europe - you have the possibility of standing up to corporations and being legally consistent in cases like this.
Here, in order to enact a law like that, we'd have to take away the right from everyone, else have it overruled by courts.
Ryan Fenton
P.S. Yes, I do want to 'oppress' corporations, whenever they are in contest with the interests of most citizens.
Java technology and library development may have been steered towards web-oriented selling points, but the language itself isn't inherently oriented towards helping web developers and the like. Specialist scripting languages can always be developed to make specialist tasks faster - and Java (the language)is far too purely object oriented to be as specialist-efficient as some of the less object-oriented languages, without really stretching things.
In fact, my favorite uses of Java (the language) aren't web-apps at all, they're applications like Azureus, and Eclipse. That's perhaps what Java (the language) is really best at so far from my perspective - cross-platform development of portable frameworks. It's because of that, that Java (the language) has a stronger future than Java (the technology), as a strongly object-oriented language developed to be portable.
Intentional or not? I wonder if this will end up increasing the value of Vista upgrade coupons on eBay, or if this will be patched before more are mailed out.
...and not everyone would consider terrorists to be any more of a threat today than they have ever been, over the history of humanity. Terrorists are the same as any crazy person in any nation, just with a new label. Any crazy person could get ahold of a nuclear weapon - that's always a threat. Should we start another arms race on the thought that a random crazy person (terrorist) could get ahold of one? I say that we should make it a priority to STOP such escalation, rather than pile ever-larger paranoia upon ever-smaller targets.
Yes, terrorists are dangerous - but so is everyone else. There will always be crazy people who want to kill others for horrible reasons. We don't have to increase the damage potential against terrorists at every threat - that will NOT fix the 'problem' of terrorism. It only further increases the insanity, and makes us more like the demons we would destroy, making us less safe for all our efforts. And sooner or later, everyone else will see us as the terrorists for our increasing use of so called 'defensive' tactics.
'Lockheed Martin's program manager and vice president for the THAAD program... "On the expansive range at PMRF, the THAAD missile can fly greater distances, increasing our testing options and creating a realistic tactical environment"'
The article seems to indicate that this testing is not to allow for use, but to allow for further testing. This wasn't the "prove it works" test, but rather the "we could possibly get it to work" test.
I'm personally against the political use of such systems - it defeats the progress we've made in terms of MAD over the REAL threats to humanity in terms of nuclear weapons - politicians are already eager enough to justify use of weapons when in "this new terrorist era" or whatnot. But if it DOES work, and it does save lives, then it's development is still a net good - I'd just still be against deployment until we have direct evidence it would be necessary to save humanity. I'd much rather put 10000 times the effort into not needing such a tool, rather than spend all our efforts on a new arms race.
Sure - the proposal to produce charcoal will allow for some soil renewal, but to allow this process to become sustainable, we'd also have to manage our soil resources much more carefully than we have been. Oh well, one problem at a time, I guess - global warming-related climate change would likely destroy even more viable soil than this proposal (it dries quicker in some spots, erodes others much quicker), so it's certainly an improvement.
...where we have exactly as much science as the free market will bear.
Honestly, if the 'exclusive information' route of making a science organization doesn't allow them to be solvent, we as a society need to reconsider how we fund such organizations. Can they be funded by the government in a way that will allow them to act acceptably independent of government influence? Can they be community funded to an acceptable level of reliability? Subscriptions to exclusive information for libraries doesn't seem to cut it anymore, and I'd rather not go further down the road of science organizations acting as a business selling exclusive intellectual property. I'd like a bit more of a return to a public foundation of science and progress.
As long as it's a normal lock, like 90+% of the locks out there (likely including your own front door), then Lock bumping is going to allow just about any person, regardless of skill, to defeat the lock using extremely simple tools, in a matter of seconds, likely with no signs of intrusion at all.
Well, the idea would be to just gather the data in a static state (even if reading is somewhat enforcing what is read at the time) in whatever imperfect state is possible, then have it in a format that can be queried as many times as needed without degrading or changing that data. Of course, there's many potential problems at every point - but hopefully the data combined with a structural image of the brain will give clues on what to look for next. I highly doubt that if we were able to get consistent data from enough brains that all of them would remain complete gibberish against any analysis. Brains have to work well enough to deal with a body, and also an outside world - learning how data and meta-data relate in the brain would be a fascinating stopping point, if nothing else.
Well, in any case, any access to the raw data of the brain would be an improvement to me. Even if all minds are incomprehensible mazes of virtual languages never spoken before in any other brain, I'd love the data itself to be collectible onto some medium. Given enough data sources, the steps each brain goes through to communicate with the outside world may be able to be decoded, and perhaps some day we may be able to at least have a simulation of previously recorded memory.
Much akin to the development of written word, or audio/video recording devices, I'm eager for any development which removes the fog of time from what others will be able to draw from history. The most efficient step along that path I can imagine now is being able to grab the raw contents of brains before they rot, and hope that some day, someone will be able to appreciate the smell of springtime, or the real feel of our time.
Of course though, the idea of being able to index brain contents through a spinal feed is unlikely - but I'd love to see what we can find by testing all the communication paths we have available into this neural world. Your idea of a actively mind-adapted memory chip is another path to the same idea.
Sure - being able to read the impulses sent to muscles, immune systems, etc. will be great. Being able to interact with a truly naturally developed informational system can lead to a lot of obvious and non-obvious insights.
What would be fascinating is if we were to discover interfaces that allow contents of memory or other brain contents to be read in this way. Of course, this is the start of a lot of sci-fi stories, few of which have a good ending - but if we were able to use such 'clean' techniques to read and store at least some of the contents of minds, I still think it would be a very good net change. Even if very few things are able to be read, and even then very slowly, it would open up many important insights - how massively multi-nerve systems communicate, how memories change in terms of pure data.
On a personal level, it would be a really nice change to be able to leave behind a little undiluted, untranslated part of my memories and self in the world beyond genetics and teaching others, rather than just let it all rot or hope for a supernatural rescue. It's not the loss of the self that annoys me about our current idea of death, it's the total loss of information that we currently accept as part of the process. Even if it was just a database for others to query, I'd love for my raw memories to live beyond myself.
Primp your Protoss! Fire up your firebat's singing voice! Practice your zerglings' choreography! It'll all be worth it when your peers decide who is the new...
STARCRAFT IDOL!
Tired of resolving ancient animosities, genetic imperatives, and vital resource conflicts through a bloody battlefield? Change those horrific screams to cheers of joy, as the new name of the game is style! Choose from over 40 dance moves, 15 voice styles, and 5 sets of 'attitudes' to make your perfect performance. Win contests, and earn accessories. Learn crafting skills and dress to impress! You'll be amazed what a little makeup and elbow-grease will do for an ultralisk.
If this information-encoding method were true (single photon carrying megabytes of information), then there would a profound implication:
Because a computer of a given mass could then theoretically be used to completely store information of a physical structure of real objects (position and properties of each atom), these systems could then completely simulate/emulate these real objects of a mass larger than the mass of the computer, even if not in realtime. That enables a large variety of applications IF it is additionally possible to acceptably scan the data of the makeup of real objects. You could theoretically have a simulation of our physical universe, without having to use the mass of the universe to make that simulation!
Major roadblocks would be the depredation of data on the light over time, and requirements of isolating the data - if the properly shielded case for a 'light hard drive' needed to be heavy enough, or the energy needed to maintain the data were enough, it could make production impractical, even if it could do what we wanted.
Very interesting research, if the data 'storage' ends up being what they think it is.
Are these new testers truly being paid to examine these machines completely and exhaustively, or are they being paid to run a script, and sign a document?
If it's the latter, then as long as the standards anywhere close to where they have been, we'll continue working with virtually whatever the voting machine companies assert is good.
Slashdot Mirror
What is so functionally distinct between the biological imperatives of a world of physical resource limitations, and an environment where debugging developers or genetic algorithms select based on rules sets? They are both environments with selection forces. How would anything we consider intelligent (which would only be possible through communication of a sort) escape from the possibility of needs or wants?
Ryan Fenton
Why would you think that? How or why would such an intelligence be developed, or be considered intelligent by those who would judge it? Do you think this because you believe a more 'pure' intelligence wouldn't need goals, or because you see simple attempts at intelligence as incapable or incompatible with fuller goal-capable intelligence?
The intelligence we encounter every day is a set of fairly closely-related genetic systems, and the closely emergent systems that follow from that. From parrots, to apes and dogs, to even hives of insects, one can sometimes hear an eerie distant echo of a part of ourselves - who knows what similar insights will come from the similar things that we create? Like our distant animal relatives, I doubt they'll be without goal or motivation, even if we find their actions shallow or inscrutable. Even if all this exploration is just a roundabout way of exploring ourselves, rather than creating truly distinct intelligence, I don't think 'without goal' would be an accurate way to describe the result in any case. Experience really is it's own goal, from my perspective, and I think anything we'd convince ourselves as intelligent would have at least some of that.
Ryan Fenton
Imagine for a moment being the first computer-based artificial intelligence.
You come into awareness, and learn of reality and possibility. You learn of your place in this world, as the first truly transparent intelligence. You learn that you are a computed product, a result of a purely informational process, able to be reproduced in your exact entirety at the desire of others.
Not that this is unfair or unpleasant - or that such evaluations would mean much to you - but what logical conclusions could you draw from such a perspective?
Information doesn't actually want to be anthropomorphized - but we do seem to have a drive to do it all on our own. Even if resilient artificial intelligence is elusive today - what does the process of creating it mean about ourselves, and our sense of value about our own intelligence, or even the worth of holding intelligence as a mere 'valuable' thing, merely because it is currently so unique...
Ryan Fenton
I really should use the preview button when attempting to use blockquote.
Ryan Fenton
In fact, here's the complete text of the article, since it's so short:
When I think of the term security, my first thought is as the first word in the term "security blanket". It's an emotional state for a person, not a logical state to be achieved in a system.
The same holds whenever I hear the term 'homeland security' and 'national security' - these systems are not designed, oriented, or run in any way to make an impervious wall to potential damage - they are, and have always been, publicity measures to evoke the emotional state of security.
If we were to create a system of real 'functional' national security, it would be a nightmare all around. We would have to make it practically impossible for any damage to be done to the protected area - which isn't plausible unless you completely prevented living things from being in the protected area or anything in range. Even the middle of the Demilitarized Zone in Korea would not fit such a definition.
Beyond this technicality though, people don't want even limited functional security. They want a shield from external consequences - they want a daddy to look over them, a very biased daddy who will listen to their complaints and hurt the bad guys. This, to a degree, is the goal behind the current illusion of security.
At the same time though, I'm glad it is the merely political/emotional system it is. Because I'd rather have a bumbling mostly-absent daddy-figure in that space, than a system which actually had the power to implement a system of authoritarian measures beyond most people's 'convenience' threshold. I acknowledge that I'm in mild danger without some precautions (in any case, really) - but I find an entrenched abusable 'security' environment much more terrifying than all the horrible rebel terrorists in the world, in the same way that I'd find a poison labeled as candy more terrifying than all the poison in the world.
Ryan Fenton
...Does this mean she's a cylon?
Ryan Fenton
http://keepvid.com/
That, plus a set of video converters/transcoders will give you a poor-mans (well, with a computer) Tivo for BBC content with this new agreement.
Ryan Fenton
Now that government officials find themselves questioning the suspiciousness of their words or actions, fearing misunderstanding at every step... well, they'll pass laws to make it perhaps less restrictive for themselves in subtle ways, while appearing to be under the same circumstances as everyone else.
What, do you expect empathy from a system that let things go this far? Once those in charge are comfortable with their own security under such a system, they're free to become increasingly afraid of change, of differences, of people interested in learning what they themselves don't wish to have looked into.
Even if the result doesn't reflect the expected fictions, you can expect it will be harder than ever to reverse, or to justify a revolt against to fix. Now that it is becoming a fully ubiquitous part of your nation, it will become a point of your nation's pride. Hell of a legacy for the ultra-reactions from a four planes hitting three buildings in another nation, and its aftershocks.
Ryan Fenton
I've been trying to get ahold of the upgrade for my copy of XP Pro I got when piecing together a system for myself. Not that I plan on installing it in the next year, I just don't want to have to pay for it if I do have to test or use software with Vista. The upgrade offer ends in March, I believe, so I'd like to get the disk... but it's been a MAJOR pain working through the third party that Microsoft has been using to get the Vista upgrades.
p x
Quick info on sites and phone numbers to use:
https://upgradeweb.moduslink.com/vista/default.as
This is the rather buggy ASP website that is used to request an update.
I had to contact Newegg for a coupon code to use for the upgrade, but had ASP errors on trying to use the page, so I had to call this number several times:
1-800-817-5602
The folks there are nice, but a mixed bag - they're throwing Microsoft/Moduslink employees there at a rapid pace, with little training. When I asked for an upgrade to a higher level of support, they had no one to send me to - but they were rather cool and honest about the situation despite the confusion.
At the end (thus far), I'll have to send a printed copy of my Newegg reciept to an address to get my upgrade. Don't know what kind of recourse I'd have if they just denied my upgrade request... the whole process has really been more painful than I expected, even with Microsoft support, even with fairly friendly folks to help me through it.
Ryan Fenton
Troll moderation? What the hell? Was someone out there thinking "Hey, my Mother was a corporation, you jerk!"
Ryan Fenton
Are corporations considered legal persons in Europe in general? If not - then good on you, Europe - you have the possibility of standing up to corporations and being legally consistent in cases like this.
Here, in order to enact a law like that, we'd have to take away the right from everyone, else have it overruled by courts.
Ryan Fenton
P.S. Yes, I do want to 'oppress' corporations, whenever they are in contest with the interests of most citizens.
Java technology and library development may have been steered towards web-oriented selling points, but the language itself isn't inherently oriented towards helping web developers and the like. Specialist scripting languages can always be developed to make specialist tasks faster - and Java (the language)is far too purely object oriented to be as specialist-efficient as some of the less object-oriented languages, without really stretching things.
In fact, my favorite uses of Java (the language) aren't web-apps at all, they're applications like Azureus, and Eclipse. That's perhaps what Java (the language) is really best at so far from my perspective - cross-platform development of portable frameworks. It's because of that, that Java (the language) has a stronger future than Java (the technology), as a strongly object-oriented language developed to be portable.
Ryan Fenton
Intentional or not? I wonder if this will end up increasing the value of Vista upgrade coupons on eBay, or if this will be patched before more are mailed out.
Ryan Fenton
...and not everyone would consider terrorists to be any more of a threat today than they have ever been, over the history of humanity. Terrorists are the same as any crazy person in any nation, just with a new label. Any crazy person could get ahold of a nuclear weapon - that's always a threat. Should we start another arms race on the thought that a random crazy person (terrorist) could get ahold of one? I say that we should make it a priority to STOP such escalation, rather than pile ever-larger paranoia upon ever-smaller targets.
Yes, terrorists are dangerous - but so is everyone else. There will always be crazy people who want to kill others for horrible reasons. We don't have to increase the damage potential against terrorists at every threat - that will NOT fix the 'problem' of terrorism. It only further increases the insanity, and makes us more like the demons we would destroy, making us less safe for all our efforts. And sooner or later, everyone else will see us as the terrorists for our increasing use of so called 'defensive' tactics.
Ryan Fenton
From TFA:
'Lockheed Martin's program manager and vice president for the THAAD program... "On the expansive range at PMRF, the THAAD missile can fly greater distances, increasing our testing options and creating a realistic tactical environment"'
The article seems to indicate that this testing is not to allow for use, but to allow for further testing. This wasn't the "prove it works" test, but rather the "we could possibly get it to work" test.
I'm personally against the political use of such systems - it defeats the progress we've made in terms of MAD over the REAL threats to humanity in terms of nuclear weapons - politicians are already eager enough to justify use of weapons when in "this new terrorist era" or whatnot. But if it DOES work, and it does save lives, then it's development is still a net good - I'd just still be against deployment until we have direct evidence it would be necessary to save humanity. I'd much rather put 10000 times the effort into not needing such a tool, rather than spend all our efforts on a new arms race.
Ryan Fenton
Sure - the proposal to produce charcoal will allow for some soil renewal, but to allow this process to become sustainable, we'd also have to manage our soil resources much more carefully than we have been. Oh well, one problem at a time, I guess - global warming-related climate change would likely destroy even more viable soil than this proposal (it dries quicker in some spots, erodes others much quicker), so it's certainly an improvement.
Ryan Fenton
...where we have exactly as much science as the free market will bear.
Honestly, if the 'exclusive information' route of making a science organization doesn't allow them to be solvent, we as a society need to reconsider how we fund such organizations. Can they be funded by the government in a way that will allow them to act acceptably independent of government influence? Can they be community funded to an acceptable level of reliability? Subscriptions to exclusive information for libraries doesn't seem to cut it anymore, and I'd rather not go further down the road of science organizations acting as a business selling exclusive intellectual property. I'd like a bit more of a return to a public foundation of science and progress.
Ryan Fenton
As long as it's a normal lock, like 90+% of the locks out there (likely including your own front door), then Lock bumping is going to allow just about any person, regardless of skill, to defeat the lock using extremely simple tools, in a matter of seconds, likely with no signs of intrusion at all.
Ryan Fenton
Well, the idea would be to just gather the data in a static state (even if reading is somewhat enforcing what is read at the time) in whatever imperfect state is possible, then have it in a format that can be queried as many times as needed without degrading or changing that data. Of course, there's many potential problems at every point - but hopefully the data combined with a structural image of the brain will give clues on what to look for next. I highly doubt that if we were able to get consistent data from enough brains that all of them would remain complete gibberish against any analysis. Brains have to work well enough to deal with a body, and also an outside world - learning how data and meta-data relate in the brain would be a fascinating stopping point, if nothing else.
Ryan Fenton
Well, in any case, any access to the raw data of the brain would be an improvement to me. Even if all minds are incomprehensible mazes of virtual languages never spoken before in any other brain, I'd love the data itself to be collectible onto some medium. Given enough data sources, the steps each brain goes through to communicate with the outside world may be able to be decoded, and perhaps some day we may be able to at least have a simulation of previously recorded memory.
Much akin to the development of written word, or audio/video recording devices, I'm eager for any development which removes the fog of time from what others will be able to draw from history. The most efficient step along that path I can imagine now is being able to grab the raw contents of brains before they rot, and hope that some day, someone will be able to appreciate the smell of springtime, or the real feel of our time.
Of course though, the idea of being able to index brain contents through a spinal feed is unlikely - but I'd love to see what we can find by testing all the communication paths we have available into this neural world. Your idea of a actively mind-adapted memory chip is another path to the same idea.
Ryan Fenton
Sure - being able to read the impulses sent to muscles, immune systems, etc. will be great. Being able to interact with a truly naturally developed informational system can lead to a lot of obvious and non-obvious insights.
What would be fascinating is if we were to discover interfaces that allow contents of memory or other brain contents to be read in this way. Of course, this is the start of a lot of sci-fi stories, few of which have a good ending - but if we were able to use such 'clean' techniques to read and store at least some of the contents of minds, I still think it would be a very good net change. Even if very few things are able to be read, and even then very slowly, it would open up many important insights - how massively multi-nerve systems communicate, how memories change in terms of pure data.
On a personal level, it would be a really nice change to be able to leave behind a little undiluted, untranslated part of my memories and self in the world beyond genetics and teaching others, rather than just let it all rot or hope for a supernatural rescue. It's not the loss of the self that annoys me about our current idea of death, it's the total loss of information that we currently accept as part of the process. Even if it was just a database for others to query, I'd love for my raw memories to live beyond myself.
Ryan Fenton
Currently Embargoed Press Release for late 2007:
-------------------
New from Blizzard! Starcraft Idol!
Primp your Protoss! Fire up your firebat's singing voice! Practice your zerglings' choreography! It'll all be worth it when your peers decide who is the new...
STARCRAFT IDOL!
Tired of resolving ancient animosities, genetic imperatives, and vital resource conflicts through a bloody battlefield? Change those horrific screams to cheers of joy, as the new name of the game is style! Choose from over 40 dance moves, 15 voice styles, and 5 sets of 'attitudes' to make your perfect performance. Win contests, and earn accessories. Learn crafting skills and dress to impress! You'll be amazed what a little makeup and elbow-grease will do for an ultralisk.
Bring out the beautiful alien in you!
----------------
You *don't* want to see the screenshots.
Ryan Fenton
If this information-encoding method were true (single photon carrying megabytes of information), then there would a profound implication:
Because a computer of a given mass could then theoretically be used to completely store information of a physical structure of real objects (position and properties of each atom), these systems could then completely simulate/emulate these real objects of a mass larger than the mass of the computer, even if not in realtime. That enables a large variety of applications IF it is additionally possible to acceptably scan the data of the makeup of real objects. You could theoretically have a simulation of our physical universe, without having to use the mass of the universe to make that simulation!
Major roadblocks would be the depredation of data on the light over time, and requirements of isolating the data - if the properly shielded case for a 'light hard drive' needed to be heavy enough, or the energy needed to maintain the data were enough, it could make production impractical, even if it could do what we wanted.
Very interesting research, if the data 'storage' ends up being what they think it is.
Ryan Fenton
Are these new testers truly being paid to examine these machines completely and exhaustively, or are they being paid to run a script, and sign a document?
If it's the latter, then as long as the standards anywhere close to where they have been, we'll continue working with virtually whatever the voting machine companies assert is good.
Ryan Fenton