The problem with Cyc is that we are not born knowing these millions of obvious things (because we learn some...)
While it's true that we're born "knowing" some things (like infants instinctively know not to crawl over a ledge and to hold their breath under water), that's not the problem with Cyc. The knowledge that humans know has to be encoded into a machine since a machine isn't born knowing anything at all. For a given piece of knowledge, it therefore doesn't matter whether it's innate or learned in humans.
... and I can deal with situatons that I have never considered by reasoning.
Due in part to lots of previous situations that approximate (whether you realize it or not) the current one.
Using open source development, a project to establish a tool kit for AI programming fundamentals could be born.
The source code (and the development thereof) is the least of the problems. The problem is what to write, not what language or API to use. AI isn't hurting for lack of code or API. It's hurting because humans don't know how to develop AI systems. As I mentioned previously, we won't know until we know how humans are intelligent.
Adding code-in-their-spare-time open-source developers having very little if any education or understanding of AI isn't going to help.
Although mentioned in a (lone) paragraph in the article, I don't know why we haven't heard more about the Cyc project. Lenat's premise that you can't have intelligence without knowing the millions of "obvious" things about the world, aka, "common sense" seems intuitively right.
Re:Will we ever have *real* AI?
on
AI Going Nowhere?
·
· Score: 1, Informative
The problem with AI... is that computers... are a just billions and billions of switches. You'll never have real, true intelligence because computers don't 'know' anything except on and off.
Funny, but human brains are just billions and billions of neurons that either fire (on) or don't (off). Yet, apparantly, humans have intelligence.
The problem with having "true" intelligence in machines is that we don't know how humans have "true" intelligence. We can't very well replicate something we don't know.
Microsoft doesn't innovate. They don't have to. They can sit on their collective fat asses and rake in the money because, in many environments, consumers have no choice. It's only external pressures (Apple and Mac OS X, Linux, etc) that force Microsoft to "innovate" which really means ripping off what's already been done.
Don't believe me? Look at the "new" Athens PC. (Go down to "Gates offers tour of 'Athens' prototype PC.")
Wide-aspect ratio, flat panel display, one cable between it and the computer. Gee, where have I seen that before. Even the desktop image looks very similar to the default OS X desktop.
OK, they "innovated" to build-in a phone. Big deal.
[Microsoft has] done a lot of good for innovation. By developing and supporting a common platform (the Win32 API), they have allowed for tons of innovation in software.
Such as? Microsoft has retarded computer, software, and operating systems for decades. As the market dominant player, they could have developed a robust OS that didn't crash decades ago. (Unix existed, doesn't crash: therefore, it could have been done.) They could have pushed the industry forward with their money, resources, and research. But instead they allowed the "Blue screen of death" to become a house-hold phrase. Know why? Because they could and people were still buying their crap. They saved tons of money not making their OS better.
Indeed, most non-geek computer users truly believe that computers aren't reliable because they crash a lot. Put such people in front of a Unix machine (a Mac running OS X is the best example), and you get an astonished response: "It doesn't crash!"
Microsoft doesn't innovate. They don't have to. They can sit on their collective fat asses and rake in the money because, in many environments, consumers have no choice. It's only external pressures (Apple and Mac OS X, Linux, etc) that force Microsoft to "innovate" which really means ripping off what's already been done.
No I didn't: I just don't think it's a valid point.
They could have easily had somthing resembling a d-pad, instead of the non-intuitive mess that the design forces you to put up with. They didn't make it easy, natural, or obvious.
I think "Use the left-most button to go left and the right-most button to go right" is fairly intuitive.
It would have cost them next to nothing to have a left and right button as well as the up and down.
It cost them even less than that: zero. Any game software that warrants use of left/right buttons can easily override the DateBook and Memos buttons. Palm allowed the buttons to be overrridden in software precisely for this purpose.
I haven't seen much with integrating pagers, but I sure know that if I had both cell phone and pager service, I'd much rather have an integrated cell phone and pager than I would an integrated cell phone and PDA or cell phone and digital camera.
The thing is that nothing on the current crop of cellphone/PDA devices or even just plain cellphones has to change one bit to incorporate paging since SMS exists.
All that needs to change is software/hardware on the back-end in cellular providers' switching centers to provide a POTS-to-SMS gateway just like there are already e-mail-to-SMS gateways.
There are any number of reasons why this hasn't happened:
Paging companies are too entrenched and defend their markets against cellular companies.
There's not enough of a return-on-investment for cellular companies to get into the market.
Companies can probably make more money keeping them separate. For example, they can charge at least $35/mo for cell service and probably as much for pager service (athough I actually have no idea what pager service rates are). If they offered paging as an add-on service to cell service, they couldn't get away with more than $5/mo additional (probably).
Note: the above are educated guesses only. If somebody knows the real reasons, I'd like to hear them.
If Fink keeps building up steam..., maybe that will convince Apple that it's worthwhile to support a few staffers to start porting UNIX cl tools to OS X.
Why pay for the cow when you can get the milk for free? I'm sure those volunteering for Fink will continue to do so without being paid by Apple. A benefit is that Apple doesn't have to support anything done by Fink, including technical support calls.
Incorrect premise: I've used the service and I don't own an iPod (probably never will since I'm simply not the type who be-bops walking down the street or on the train).
Granted, the iPod is a great marketing extra, but it's not a requirement.
The company name was the same as the product name: Empeg. The were bought by Rio who was later bought by SONIC|blue.
While I agree it is a very cool device, the problem with it is that if you replace your stock radio with it, then you have no radio since the Empeg unit didn't have a radio tuner (AFAIK).
Check ebay to see if you can still find one
Why are you telling me? I'm not in the market for such a device. You probably meant to reply to the original questioner, not me. Please be more careful with your replies.
Funny... I submitted a question very similar to this one and it was rejected. IMHO, Cliff shouldn't be the only one to approve Ask Slashdot questions.
Anyway, I ended up getting a
Neo car jukebox. It mounts on your desktop computer as a hard disk, then you unplug it and plug it into yout car. The nifty thing is that they have adapter units for various head units to fool them into thinking it's a CD changer.
What I'm wondering is why the music store is locked out to anyone except OS X users with iTunes 4.
If you watched
Jobs' special music event, he wants the system to "just work," i.e., have the music automatically dropped into iTunes and not downloaded into some folder you have to go find, then add it to iTunes manually.
The other reason, just as with the iPods, is to give all the innovations to Mac (OS X) users first. (The reason should be obvious.) If you meant OS 9 as opposed to OS X, Jobs has said a long time ago that OS 9 is dead.
You are in your favorite coffee house, zipping along at G-speed, when some loser B-Card holder opens up that ancient Apple boat-anchor, and slams the whole building down to B-Speed.
Considering that the DSL link to the coffee house is only probably at most 1.5Mbps, being forced to throttle down to 11MBps on the LAN is irrelevant.
If you have an off-the-shelf router box doing the PPPoE (e.g., something from MacSense or Netgear), then the computers you have attached to it are irrelevant.
No, but you can file a US Postal Prohibitory Order against them to stop them from mailing you CDs. If they mail you a CD after that, the US Postal Service will go after them.
Thanks to 397 US 728: Rowan, DBA American Book Service, et al., v. United States Post Office Department, et al., 1970, you can prohibit the receipt of anything by US Postal mail.
Sure enough, by the letter of the law, NATs would be illegal. It prohibits owning or creating any technology that is used to knowingly modify a communications sevice in ways unauthorized by the service provider.
That presupposes that NATs are "unauthorized by the service provider."
While I have no great love for telcos in general, SBC's (for example) Terms of Service explicitly allow NATs. They even sell "home routers" that allow multiple computers to be connected simultaneously (i.e., a NAT box) on their web site. Heck, SBC even explictly allows servers to be run. The way they exercise control is by limiting upstream bandwidth to 128Kpbs. (You can pay more per month to get the limit raised.) 128Kbps and my static IP is just fine for me to ssh server on to my Linux box.
It's typically the cable companies that have Draconian TOS because they are used to the model of charging for every TV in the house. (FYI, cable companies are expressly forbidden from doing this in Santa Clara, California by local ordinance.) Used to their model, they want to charge for every computer in your house too.
No, I don't work for SBC or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof, nor even in the telecommunications industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Adding code-in-their-spare-time open-source developers having very little if any education or understanding of AI isn't going to help.
Although mentioned in a (lone) paragraph in the article, I don't know why we haven't heard more about the Cyc project. Lenat's premise that you can't have intelligence without knowing the millions of "obvious" things about the world, aka, "common sense" seems intuitively right.
The problem with having "true" intelligence in machines is that we don't know how humans have "true" intelligence. We can't very well replicate something we don't know.
Wide-aspect ratio, flat panel display, one cable between it and the computer. Gee, where have I seen that before. Even the desktop image looks very similar to the default OS X desktop.
OK, they "innovated" to build-in a phone. Big deal.
Indeed, most non-geek computer users truly believe that computers aren't reliable because they crash a lot. Put such people in front of a Unix machine (a Mac running OS X is the best example), and you get an astonished response: "It doesn't crash!"
Microsoft doesn't innovate. They don't have to. They can sit on their collective fat asses and rake in the money because, in many environments, consumers have no choice. It's only external pressures (Apple and Mac OS X, Linux, etc) that force Microsoft to "innovate" which really means ripping off what's already been done.
All that needs to change is software/hardware on the back-end in cellular providers' switching centers to provide a POTS-to-SMS gateway just like there are already e-mail-to-SMS gateways.
There are any number of reasons why this hasn't happened:
- Paging companies are too entrenched and defend their markets against cellular companies.
- There's not enough of a return-on-investment for cellular companies to get into the market.
- Companies can probably make more money keeping them separate. For example, they can charge at least $35/mo for cell service and probably as much for pager service (athough I actually have no idea what pager service rates are). If they offered paging as an add-on service to cell service, they couldn't get away with more than $5/mo additional (probably).
Note: the above are educated guesses only. If somebody knows the real reasons, I'd like to hear them.Granted, the iPod is a great marketing extra, but it's not a requirement.
If you have questions on the Neo, e-mail me privately.
While I agree it is a very cool device, the problem with it is that if you replace your stock radio with it, then you have no radio since the Empeg unit didn't have a radio tuner (AFAIK).
Why are you telling me? I'm not in the market for such a device. You probably meant to reply to the original questioner, not me. Please be more careful with your replies.Anyway, I ended up getting a Neo car jukebox. It mounts on your desktop computer as a hard disk, then you unplug it and plug it into yout car. The nifty thing is that they have adapter units for various head units to fool them into thinking it's a CD changer.
The other reason, just as with the iPods, is to give all the innovations to Mac (OS X) users first. (The reason should be obvious.) If you meant OS 9 as opposed to OS X, Jobs has said a long time ago that OS 9 is dead.
If you have an off-the-shelf router box doing the PPPoE (e.g., something from MacSense or Netgear), then the computers you have attached to it are irrelevant.
Thanks to 397 US 728: Rowan, DBA American Book Service, et al., v. United States Post Office Department, et al., 1970, you can prohibit the receipt of anything by US Postal mail.
While I have no great love for telcos in general, SBC's (for example) Terms of Service explicitly allow NATs. They even sell "home routers" that allow multiple computers to be connected simultaneously (i.e., a NAT box) on their web site. Heck, SBC even explictly allows servers to be run. The way they exercise control is by limiting upstream bandwidth to 128Kpbs. (You can pay more per month to get the limit raised.) 128Kbps and my static IP is just fine for me to ssh server on to my Linux box.
It's typically the cable companies that have Draconian TOS because they are used to the model of charging for every TV in the house. (FYI, cable companies are expressly forbidden from doing this in Santa Clara, California by local ordinance.) Used to their model, they want to charge for every computer in your house too.
No, I don't work for SBC or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof, nor even in the telecommunications industry.