As an engineer I am constantly being told that unless I know what it is that I am required to do, I can have no way of judging when I have done it. Do we really know what intelligence is? Do we really know how a mind works?
The two strands of AI research, as I understand it, are approaching the problem from different routes: One aims to reproduce the mechanics of the brain ( neural nets ) and hopes that intelligence will emerge. If it does, how does that help us understand? We would create something intelligent, but be none the wiser how it works.
The other route is to mimic the actions of intelligent creatures ( like us ).
The two camps seem poles apart - Perceptrons by Minsky and Papert had a good go at destroying the alternative - but I don't see either saying "This is how the mind works, and this is how we are going to build a model to simulate that".
I studied cognitive science in the 80's and that just seemed to focus on a few algorithms that simulate some limited features of reasoning and knowledge. And a bit of prolog. All good fun, but are we really getting anywhere?
I've also read several authors who raise the same question, and I tend to agree.
>"Psychology is too descriptive and abstract to implement. Philosophy is important, but until you can build something, you can't do experiments and make real progress"
I agree with the first part, and I see where you are coming from in the second, but I would question the value of building "something" and doing experiments on it if you don't understand the relevance of the something to your primary objective. As an engineer though I can see that useful stuff will come out of those experiments ( knowledged based systems for example, and fuzzy logic reasoning ) - I just don't think they contribute to the primary question.
>I'd say we will understand intelligence with the advances of neuroscience
surely neuroscience will tell us how the brain works, not the mind. I don't subscribe to Descartes separation of the mind & body idea but I still find it difficult to understand how neuroscience would help. How would being able to explain what chemicals or electrical signals are moving around our heads in response to stimulus actually help to explain intelligence?
It would be like calling Vista a next generation operating system.
IMHO, the next generation in artifical intelligence - ie, going beyound anthropomorphic trickery - isn't going to happen until we actually understand what intelligence is. And to that we neen philosophers, not engineers. Once they get it worked out, we (the engineers) might be better equipped to do something.
Thanks to the likes of Thales and Descartes et al we have some great questions, but answers? I think not.
If someone thinks otherwise I'd love to hear about it.
I agree. It's a great read. Made me glad to be a programmer.
I'd also recommend "Code Complete".
Read both once a year:o)
Design by contract, like all the others, are just tools. Treat them as such, and use them when you feel appropriate. No matter how good a screwdriver you have, one is never enough.
Although popular with dozens of people in Europe, it's also spoke by one or two other people elsewhere. There is an esperanto internet TV station in Brazil. Last time I checked, Brazil wasn't part of the Europe mainland ( in the same way that the UK isn't )
The man had a signficant influence on my childhood, and the chance to be close to him was important to me. As I was staying at the hotel ( Five Mile Drive B&B ) about 100 yards from his grave, I took the chance to visit him.
>I'm sorry, I just don't understand our (as in human) fascination with death.
Why apologise? I don't care what you think, and neither does anyone else here.
Anyone interested in this point should read "The end of Medicine", reviewed on Slashdot recently.
I found it a sad read. In between the author explaining why he is a realli smart, cool guy, he takes you on a tour of the tech companies working in the US health care area. There is *big* money in detecting and dealing with the symptoms of bad life style. And a lot of the money is going on tech.
(The sad bit is how little is going on prevention - life style changes, proper food, exercise. Ah well)
>but the person who is hurt most by cheating is that student.
Hum, I would say they are least hurt. They obviously have no interest in learning, so have lost nothing.
IMHO, the people who loose out the most are the community at large ( i.e. the economy ) when an army of university educated but in-effective graduates get into the work place.
Sites offering to do your course work for a few dollars don't help either. This is a society problem, not the fault of Wikipedia. Our children expect so much for so little effort.
General purpose CPU's are not the ideal tool for brute force attacks on DES; there is a great book called 'cracking DES' that demonstrates an FPGA solution that is much more efficient, buck for buck. And watt for watt.
Not sure of it's effectiveness against triple DES though. Maybe ask Xilinx who has bought a few 10's of millions of FPGAs in the last 10 years;o)
Slashdot Mirror
>OK, now tell us why you think that.
As an engineer I am constantly being told that unless I know what it is that I am required to do, I can have no way of judging when I have done it. Do we really know what intelligence is? Do we really know how a mind works?
The two strands of AI research, as I understand it, are approaching the problem from different routes: One aims to reproduce the mechanics of the brain ( neural nets ) and hopes that intelligence will emerge. If it does, how does that help us understand? We would create something intelligent, but be none the wiser how it works.
The other route is to mimic the actions of intelligent creatures ( like us ).
The two camps seem poles apart - Perceptrons by Minsky and Papert had a good go at destroying the alternative - but I don't see either saying "This is how the mind works, and this is how we are going to build a model to simulate that".
I studied cognitive science in the 80's and that just seemed to focus on a few algorithms that simulate some limited features of reasoning and knowledge. And a bit of prolog. All good fun, but are we really getting anywhere?
I've also read several authors who raise the same question, and I tend to agree.
>"Psychology is too descriptive and abstract to implement. Philosophy is important, but until you can build something, you can't do experiments and make real progress"
I agree with the first part, and I see where you are coming from in the second, but I would question the value of building "something" and doing experiments on it if you don't understand the relevance of the something to your primary objective. As an engineer though I can see that useful stuff will come out of those experiments ( knowledged based systems for example, and fuzzy logic reasoning ) - I just don't think they contribute to the primary question.
>I'd say we will understand intelligence with the advances of neuroscience
surely neuroscience will tell us how the brain works, not the mind. I don't subscribe to Descartes separation of the mind & body idea but I still find it difficult to understand how neuroscience would help. How would being able to explain what chemicals or electrical signals are moving around our heads in response to stimulus actually help to explain intelligence?
Damm, caught out by the philosophy police
It would be like calling Vista a next generation operating system.
IMHO, the next generation in artifical intelligence - ie, going beyound anthropomorphic trickery - isn't going to happen until we actually understand what intelligence is. And to that we neen philosophers, not engineers. Once they get it worked out, we (the engineers) might be better equipped to do something.
Thanks to the likes of Thales and Descartes et al we have some great questions, but answers? I think not.
If someone thinks otherwise I'd love to hear about it.
>I suggest you read it.
:o)
I agree. It's a great read. Made me glad to be a programmer.
I'd also recommend "Code Complete".
Read both once a year
Design by contract, like all the others, are just tools. Treat them as such, and use them when you feel appropriate. No matter how good a screwdriver you have, one is never enough.
> Would you choose an ad-supported online version of Microsoft Office over other free options like OpenOffice or Google Apps for Your Domain?"
No. Thanks for asking. Unless someone can explain to me why OpenOffice doesn't cut it.
>Does Esperanto count?
No.
Although popular with dozens of people in Europe, it's also spoke by one or two other people elsewhere. There is an esperanto internet TV station in Brazil. Last time I checked, Brazil wasn't part of the Europe mainland ( in the same way that the UK isn't )
> (that's a rough translation from European).
:o)
Thats a very broad brush
Go on, say something in European.
Micros£oth
:o)
That gets my vote for the best of the bunch
And you guys only use dollars because
Micro$oft looks rubbish spelt as Micro£oft
Well I can't speak for humanity, but in my case:
The man had a signficant influence on my childhood, and the chance to be close to him was important to me. As I was staying at the hotel ( Five Mile Drive B&B ) about 100 yards from his grave, I took the chance to visit him.
>I'm sorry, I just don't understand our (as in human) fascination with death.
Why apologise? I don't care what you think, and neither does anyone else here.
>Why would Artificial Intelligence be developed before CompSci was? I think you meen AI in the 80's,
You obviously don't know much about AI.
>All the basic, conceptual groundwork has been laid.
That was said in the 70's about computer science,
and in the 60's about artifical intelligence,
and in the 19th century about physics.
In other words, I doubt it.
>but he has not shit on his grave just yet
Last time I was at his grave ( www.drivesentinel.co.uk/personal/jrr1.jpg ) there wasn't any evidence of it!
>There's been a bit of evidence that the negative consequences of obesity were overblown
Who the hell said that?
>The spoiler is the business of health care --
Anyone interested in this point should read "The end of Medicine", reviewed on Slashdot recently.
I found it a sad read. In between the author explaining why he is a realli smart, cool guy, he takes you on a tour of the tech companies working in the US health care area. There is *big* money in detecting and dealing with the symptoms of bad life style. And a lot of the money is going on tech.
(The sad bit is how little is going on prevention - life style changes, proper food, exercise. Ah well)
>but the person who is hurt most by cheating is that student.
Hum, I would say they are least hurt. They obviously have no interest in learning, so have lost nothing.
IMHO, the people who loose out the most are the community at large ( i.e. the economy ) when an army of university educated but in-effective graduates get into the work place.
Sites offering to do your course work for a few dollars don't help either. This is a society problem, not the fault of Wikipedia. Our children expect so much for so little effort.
... for they are subtle and quick to anger.
And, being solicitors, are never far from, er, a solicitor.
Fair play to them for trying though.
This is just fucking stupid.
We are all moving into a throw-away society. Attitudes like that are the reason for so much crap being dumped into the oceans.
Christ, will people wake up.
>It's their attitude that I find amusing - they really couldn't give a shit.
It's your attitude that I find amusing - They are preventing an illegal acting being commited in our country. Why should they give a shit?
>Or when converted to binary, it turned out to be an mp3 of the latest song from [insert-RIAA-label]
:o)
How about if I released it as a record? Would it then become illegal?
I can't believe it would sound any worse than the rubbish kids are listening to today
General purpose CPU's are not the ideal tool for brute force attacks on DES; there is a great book called 'cracking DES' that demonstrates an FPGA solution that is much more efficient, buck for buck. And watt for watt.
;o)
Not sure of it's effectiveness against triple DES though. Maybe ask Xilinx who has bought a few 10's of millions of FPGAs in the last 10 years
>he thinks it is not necessary to steal from others to make a living.
>If you prefer to deal with thieves
And while extremists like yourself hold such polarised views, the majority will never take you seriously.
I'm curious to know why my opinion should be considered flamebait - or is saying anything less than positive about RMS a sin these days?
I wouldn't classify having a family as a difficulty :o)
I'd rather think of it as growing up.