It seems to me that the ability to copy a human mind is almost prerequisite to strong AI.
I wouldn't go that far. I see what we would call "strong AI" to be pretty much a different "species" of consciousness.
It seems that with each new metaphor we invent for describing the human brain, we also convince ourselves that our minds really are as simple as our metaphors suggest.
Have to agree with you there. The more we learn, the more we don't know about the human mind. I like Matt Ridley's comparison in "Genome" of knowledge acquisition to that of felling a forest - as we clear more area, there is more unknown surrounding us.
In "The Age of Spiritual Machines", Kurzweil seems worried about legistation and making copies/backups of our minds. I think that Kurzweil is overlooking the possible quantum aspect of the human mind. In order to replicate it fully, we might have to capture the quantum state of every pulse in the brain as well - otherwise we might have a "dead" copy. However, in order to make a copy of a quantum state, we must destroy the original and never know anything about the state (this is how quantum teleportation works). If we destroy the original, we kill the person. I'm not saying that this scenario is fact, just a definite possibility.
Personally (being pretty well versed in AI), I see the future unfolding as a symbiotic relationship between man and machine. We already use computers and other hardware to do tasks for us, it is just a matter of time before the hardware becomes embedded in us - say as a math co-processor;). Machines will get more intelligent - and maybe one day conscious. Who knows, maybe it'll all culminate in a VGER-like existence!
There's a real possibility that we just aren't smart enough to figure out how we work, and so the only route to strong AI is to make monkey-see, monkey-do copies.
I actually did have the idea of having a system that can learn from mimicry using neural and possibly a genetic algorithm to train robots to work in dangerous environments (like lunar mining). If anyone has the $$$ to fund it, let me know;).
And while procreation is a time-honored method of doing that...
And damn fun, too!
I do think that Kurzweil is a visionary, though I may not see eye-to-eye on all of his points.
Don't worry, the price will come down. Eventually, computers will be disposable just like some cell phones;)
Re:What would you use it for?
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 1
My guess would be that it would be like old LCD screens in that you can't see it very well if you are at an angle - only worse since the the direction of the LCDs are focused in a particular direction that intersect around the sweet spot.
I have to agree with you on that point. Until the day that time travel becomes possible, the best we can do is run simulations to see if a theory is possible. I guess I didn't put enough emphasis on the could happen.
Re:What would you use it for?
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 1
Since you can only see the the image (while in 3D mode) near a particular "sweet spot", it could be used for privacy. No one else could see what you're looking at.
Add a wheel;). Although you don't get the same resolution, you do get another axis of motion.
Re:3d displays cannot work
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 1
err... ummm... you're nuts.
Depth perception comes from parallax between your eyes. NOT from how long it takes the light to reach each eye. You're thinking of stereophonic sound.
Re:Does anybody have more info?
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 1
I second that request for more information. I'm curious if they've simply doubled each pixel and biased each to be more intence in a particular direction or if they are utilizing interference in some way. My guess would be the first. If you could do something using interference, it would be able to be seen from all angles if done properly - like a static hologram.
Yeah, creationists often use the complexity of some organs to refute the supposed incremental nature of evolution. However, it may be that biologists just haven't discovered the intermediate forms of the organs. They've already postulated some intermediat e forms - like the gills on water-bound insect larvae enlarging to skate across the surface of the water and then enlarging again to become wings.
I'm sure that the bombardier beetle's defense mechanism had some sort of intermediate form as well. I find it highly unlikely that something like that would just lie dormant almost perfectly encoded in the genome.
Maybe there needs to be a new field of Probabilist Evolutionary Biology. I would think that computer simulations using genetic algorithms could prove whether or not this could happen in nature.
Speaking of... my money is on evolution itself as an engineer - in the form of genetic algorithms and their kin. If quantum computing ever becomes available to industry, I'm sure that running a GA on a quantum computer would yield some pretty incredible results.
On the other hand, there's always H.G. Wells' vision in that we could become so dependent on these tools that we don't understand the principle behind them. Fearing something like this would simply make us luddites.
Of course, computers are supposed to complement us in their abilities as number crunchers. Why not let them do their job to free up some time to think about problems in a more abstract sense that our brains are suitable for?
But the shutter has to stay open for a certain amount of time even if it is in sync with the centrifuge. This will cause motion blur that will ruin a picture (or individual frame) - especially if you're looking at something microscopic.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have too many bug reports, you lose your mirror and end up focusing on fixing them to reduce your paranoia!
Sadly, that was the first thing I searched for. Boy, what an association.
I was refreshing, though.
it was a girl who ran the study!
*ducks*
Damn! Just when I was going to suggest the name KillerFS!
How about PSP2P or P2PSP or PSP2PSP, then :).
Get your modding kits ready!
I had my Nokia phone go through the clothes washer - and after basking a day or two in a hot car, it worked just fine!
rofl .. would that be asstif or mo-ass?
uh .. huh huh ... he said 'MUF'
Good point ... it could be mercury vapor for all we know.
yeah ... groovity
I wouldn't go that far. I see what we would call "strong AI" to be pretty much a different "species" of consciousness.
It seems that with each new metaphor we invent for describing the human brain, we also convince ourselves that our minds really are as simple as our metaphors suggest.
Have to agree with you there. The more we learn, the more we don't know about the human mind. I like Matt Ridley's comparison in "Genome" of knowledge acquisition to that of felling a forest - as we clear more area, there is more unknown surrounding us.
In "The Age of Spiritual Machines", Kurzweil seems worried about legistation and making copies/backups of our minds. I think that Kurzweil is overlooking the possible quantum aspect of the human mind. In order to replicate it fully, we might have to capture the quantum state of every pulse in the brain as well - otherwise we might have a "dead" copy. However, in order to make a copy of a quantum state, we must destroy the original and never know anything about the state (this is how quantum teleportation works). If we destroy the original, we kill the person. I'm not saying that this scenario is fact, just a definite possibility.
Personally (being pretty well versed in AI), I see the future unfolding as a symbiotic relationship between man and machine. We already use computers and other hardware to do tasks for us, it is just a matter of time before the hardware becomes embedded in us - say as a math co-processor
There's a real possibility that we just aren't smart enough to figure out how we work, and so the only route to strong AI is to make monkey-see, monkey-do copies.
I actually did have the idea of having a system that can learn from mimicry using neural and possibly a genetic algorithm to train robots to work in dangerous environments (like lunar mining). If anyone has the $$$ to fund it, let me know
And while procreation is a time-honored method of doing that
And damn fun, too!
I do think that Kurzweil is a visionary, though I may not see eye-to-eye on all of his points.
Why does that page look eerily like a javadoc-generated page? Looks like everyone is getting interface ideas from everyone else :).
Don't worry, the price will come down. Eventually, computers will be disposable just like some cell phones ;)
My guess would be that it would be like old LCD screens in that you can't see it very well if you are at an angle - only worse since the the direction of the LCDs are focused in a particular direction that intersect around the sweet spot.
I have to agree with you on that point. Until the day that time travel becomes possible, the best we can do is run simulations to see if a theory is possible. I guess I didn't put enough emphasis on the could happen.
Since you can only see the the image (while in 3D mode) near a particular "sweet spot", it could be used for privacy. No one else could see what you're looking at.
Add a wheel
Depth perception comes from parallax between your eyes. NOT from how long it takes the light to reach each eye. You're thinking of stereophonic sound.
I second that request for more information. I'm curious if they've simply doubled each pixel and biased each to be more intence in a particular direction or if they are utilizing interference in some way. My guess would be the first. If you could do something using interference, it would be able to be seen from all angles if done properly - like a static hologram.
I'm sure that the bombardier beetle's defense mechanism had some sort of intermediate form as well. I find it highly unlikely that something like that would just lie dormant almost perfectly encoded in the genome.
Maybe there needs to be a new field of Probabilist Evolutionary Biology. I would think that computer simulations using genetic algorithms could prove whether or not this could happen in nature.
However, some people have speculated that telepathy could exist through a form of quantum entanglement. This is a pretty big speculation, though.
On the other hand, there's always H.G. Wells' vision in that we could become so dependent on these tools that we don't understand the principle behind them. Fearing something like this would simply make us luddites.
Of course, computers are supposed to complement us in their abilities as number crunchers. Why not let them do their job to free up some time to think about problems in a more abstract sense that our brains are suitable for?
Why not just contract to two into "G'nux" or "GNux" (guh-NUKS verus NUKS)?
But the shutter has to stay open for a certain amount of time even if it is in sync with the centrifuge. This will cause motion blur that will ruin a picture (or individual frame) - especially if you're looking at something microscopic.