Someone needs to establish a proper global AI committee to assess all these silly attempts and classify their relevance in the field. This is clearly an attempt to get headlined more than to really contribute to the field. We have yet to create properly working algorithm that aids software to initiate creative processes without human (or other) intervention. Or am I wrong here?
It is important to understand that IT professionals are distinctly different from computer scientists (although even the latter do not know the difference these days). One applies what is yielded from the work of the other (figure out who's who).
For instance, an IT professional may know how to implement a netfilter traffic policing scheme based on independent research (even through a simple glance at the man pages) and/or knowledge garnered through professional studies. However, he/she will not know the intricate mathematics that ensure performance levels or robustness. They may not even know how to write userspace components for netfilter. Yet, they can serve as a network security 'specialist' in an organization.
The difference between IT professionals and computer scientists need to be recognized, understood and respected. The lack of this respect has led many organizations to hire IT professionals where they should be looking for computer scientists. This is a problem. It is a problem that will lead to both the demise of an employment market as well as cutting edge ventures in computing. IT professionals should stop deluding themselves into thinking that they are computer scientists. Just because one knows how to code in C# doesn't mean he/she has Donald Knuth's insights (or that of Ray Kurzweil, Michael Abrash, Gordon Moore, Leonard Adleman, Bill Joy, etc)
Steve Jobs would be ideal for the job given that he knows the trends better than anyone else. What the top CIO/CTO dawg in government will need to do is fuel the future by exploiting the trends. Of course, in this regard Ray Kurzweil would be a goood choice too.
Over here in the Maldives we pay ~USD45 to every 250MB for a 256kbps DSL line. When newer better technology comes in that price is going to sky-rocket. When are the enablers of technology going to start thinking about moderating that which they breed?
i gather from the topic of your proposed work that what you're looking for doesn't necessarily have to be written works of science fiction. hence, i propose that emphasis be made on the more popular mediums of stimulus at present - for instance, the good old tube. i believe recent students of science have been more motivated from movies such as 'space odyssey 2001' than the actual book. and it's often sad that the motivational importance of theatrical work such as 'virtuosity', 'hackers' (yes, even a pitiful teen-gala such as that makes it's point), 'star wars', 'dune', and even 'space balls' (humor often carries weight) are downplayed by the nonchalance of movie critics.
movies aside, what about the importance of music? everytime i listen to joe satriani's 'surfing with the alien' i miss the plane of reality and my mind goes into hyperdrive. not to mention anaema and their masterpieces such as 'H'. excellent for coding! (isn't computer science part of the bigger whole that is science?)
games! all sorts of games play crucial roles in molding or motivating a young (or even a mature and 'scientific') mind. the rail guns, the plasma rifles, the translocators and what-nots. how about simulation of real space-flight?
the world has changed. let's not think of literature as the main motivational force anymore. this 'brave new world' (PBU iron maiden) has a lot more to offer.
Slashdot Mirror
Minsky (or even Kurzweil) can disagree all he wants, but I've yet to hear of the celebration of truly autonomous first step. One might point at the software that won at jeopardy or the one that beat the Turing test, but did they really 'pick' their own fights, or 'choose' their strategies all by 'themselves'? jeopardy winner: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/pictures/110217-watson-win-jeopardy-ibm-computer-humans-science-tech-artificial-intelligence-ai/ turing test beater: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/01/botprize-2012-programmers_n_1928349.html
Someone needs to establish a proper global AI committee to assess all these silly attempts and classify their relevance in the field. This is clearly an attempt to get headlined more than to really contribute to the field. We have yet to create properly working algorithm that aids software to initiate creative processes without human (or other) intervention. Or am I wrong here?
It is important to understand that IT professionals are distinctly different from computer scientists (although even the latter do not know the difference these days). One applies what is yielded from the work of the other (figure out who's who). For instance, an IT professional may know how to implement a netfilter traffic policing scheme based on independent research (even through a simple glance at the man pages) and/or knowledge garnered through professional studies. However, he/she will not know the intricate mathematics that ensure performance levels or robustness. They may not even know how to write userspace components for netfilter. Yet, they can serve as a network security 'specialist' in an organization. The difference between IT professionals and computer scientists need to be recognized, understood and respected. The lack of this respect has led many organizations to hire IT professionals where they should be looking for computer scientists. This is a problem. It is a problem that will lead to both the demise of an employment market as well as cutting edge ventures in computing. IT professionals should stop deluding themselves into thinking that they are computer scientists. Just because one knows how to code in C# doesn't mean he/she has Donald Knuth's insights (or that of Ray Kurzweil, Michael Abrash, Gordon Moore, Leonard Adleman, Bill Joy, etc)
Steve Jobs would be ideal for the job given that he knows the trends better than anyone else. What the top CIO/CTO dawg in government will need to do is fuel the future by exploiting the trends. Of course, in this regard Ray Kurzweil would be a goood choice too.
What I'm saying is that someone should think about a technology governance structure as did FSF inspire open source methodology.
Over here in the Maldives we pay ~USD45 to every 250MB for a 256kbps DSL line. When newer better technology comes in that price is going to sky-rocket. When are the enablers of technology going to start thinking about moderating that which they breed?
i gather from the topic of your proposed work that what you're looking for doesn't necessarily have to be written works of science fiction. hence, i propose that emphasis be made on the more popular mediums of stimulus at present - for instance, the good old tube. i believe recent students of science have been more motivated from movies such as 'space odyssey 2001' than the actual book. and it's often sad that the motivational importance of theatrical work such as 'virtuosity', 'hackers' (yes, even a pitiful teen-gala such as that makes it's point), 'star wars', 'dune', and even 'space balls' (humor often carries weight) are downplayed by the nonchalance of movie critics. movies aside, what about the importance of music? everytime i listen to joe satriani's 'surfing with the alien' i miss the plane of reality and my mind goes into hyperdrive. not to mention anaema and their masterpieces such as 'H'. excellent for coding! (isn't computer science part of the bigger whole that is science?) games! all sorts of games play crucial roles in molding or motivating a young (or even a mature and 'scientific') mind. the rail guns, the plasma rifles, the translocators and what-nots. how about simulation of real space-flight? the world has changed. let's not think of literature as the main motivational force anymore. this 'brave new world' (PBU iron maiden) has a lot more to offer.