Probably lack of sleep, but would that be the 'cosmic constant' that Einstein later removed from the theories because he'd only put it in to keep his theories in line with his own (personal. as opposed ot scientific) views on the universe?
Perhaps the orbit is polar so that the orbital plane of the satellite is at 90 degrees to the spin of the earth? (assuming it's spin poles and not magnetic poles).
Yes, part of AI is the fact that it is impressive.
However, it does have pratical aspects: Signal lag between Mars and Earth for the Pathfinder mission was about 10 minutes. The robot had to have a certain ability to make it's own decisions - whether to go on, turn back, etc. However, as such missions become more ecomplicated, and reach further from Earth (say, Europa, Titan) then obviously a computer capable of weighing various data and making intelligent decision based on them will be better suited than a dumb computer using what is essentially an if-then loop. The same goes for any situation where a computer is 'in charge' - nuclear power plants, etc. After all, if the computer has to consult humans, then there is immediate potential for misunderstanding, loss of time, etc.
Secondly, one of the things that humans are good at is pattern recognition - but one of the things we're bad at is storing vast amounts of data in our concious minds (ever had the feeling that you recognise something/one from somewhere, but don't know where?). If a computer had such a pattern recognition ability, it could apply it to much larger sample sets of data than a human could in the same time. A recognition of this limitation is the basis of the novella "Sucker Bait" by Issac Asimov, where a Mneomic Service is trained form birth to have perfect memories, and then apply the human pattern recognition ability to this information - precisely because computers were unable to.
- An AI discussion - one of the few things that brings me out of my shell.
You've obviously never heard of spontaneous pair production, have you. Heisenberg's UP allows for the creation of particle-antiparticle pair so long as their lifespan dt (the time between creation and annihilation)obeys dE*dt >~ h. This says that the heavier the particles (with larger rest mass energy) and their antiparticle partners, the shorter period of time they can exist.
Purely an interested amateur, but the heavier particles existing for less time (presumably, dE is inversely proportional to dt?) would mean that the greater than in that should become a less than ? I may be confused, but it would seem that way if it's meant as an upward limit. With the grater than, it would imply a *lower* limt - particles would have to be heavier than a certain weight:-)
- Not pedantic, bored, and hoping that he stays logged on this time.
Of course, this is not to say that computers will be incapable of acting human or simulating a self-aware being. I think eventually computers (robots) will be able to simulate human actions/emotion, but they will still lack that "human nature"
OF course, this gives rise to the question - how do know that something which *seems* self-aware *is not* self-aware. Surely anything which has the appearance of conciousness - which passes the Turing test, whatever - shoudl be considered concious? After all, how do we know that anbybody else is truly concious? We can't - it's simply a reasonable assumption, given that a] they're humans as well (probably), and b] they seem self-aware. It would seem that if a is false, then many seem to consider b to be insufficient - why is that?
Slashdot Mirror
You poison the last puppy, obviously.
Mark, who doesn't like dogs.
Probably lack of sleep, but would that be the 'cosmic constant' that Einstein later removed from the theories because he'd only put it in to keep his theories in line with his own (personal. as opposed ot scientific) views on the universe?
:-)
If not, oops
- Wondering where all that caffenie went.
Perhaps the orbit is polar so that the orbital plane of the satellite is at 90 degrees to the spin of the earth? (assuming it's spin poles and not magnetic poles).
- Ignore me. Insufficient coffee.
Yes, part of AI is the fact that it is impressive.
However, it does have pratical aspects:
Signal lag between Mars and Earth for the Pathfinder mission was about 10 minutes. The robot had to have a certain ability to make it's own decisions - whether to go on, turn back, etc. However, as such missions become more ecomplicated, and reach further from Earth (say, Europa, Titan) then obviously a computer capable of weighing various data and making intelligent decision based on them will be better suited than a dumb computer using what is essentially an if-then loop. The same goes for any situation where a computer is 'in charge' - nuclear power plants, etc. After all, if the computer has to consult humans, then there is immediate potential for misunderstanding, loss of time, etc.
Secondly, one of the things that humans are good at is pattern recognition - but one of the things we're bad at is storing vast amounts of data in our concious minds (ever had the feeling that you recognise something/one from somewhere, but don't know where?). If a computer had such a pattern recognition ability, it could apply it to much larger sample sets of data than a human could in the same time. A recognition of this limitation is the basis of the novella "Sucker Bait" by Issac Asimov, where a Mneomic Service is trained form birth to have perfect memories, and then apply the human pattern recognition ability to this information - precisely because computers were unable to.
- An AI discussion - one of the few things that brings me out of my shell.
You've obviously never heard of spontaneous pair production, have you. Heisenberg's UP allows for the creation of particle-antiparticle pair so long as their lifespan dt (the time between creation and annihilation)obeys dE*dt >~ h. This says that the heavier the particles (with larger rest mass energy) and their antiparticle partners, the shorter period of time they can exist.
:-)
Purely an interested amateur, but the heavier particles existing for less time (presumably, dE is inversely proportional to dt?) would mean that the greater than in that should become a less than ?
I may be confused, but it would seem that way if it's meant as an upward limit. With the grater than, it would imply a *lower* limt - particles would have to be heavier than a certain weight
- Not pedantic, bored, and hoping that he stays logged on this time.
Of course, this is not to say that computers will be incapable of acting human or simulating a self-aware being. I think eventually computers (robots) will be able to simulate human actions/emotion, but they will still lack that "human nature"
/.ers enter their .sigs manually.
OF course, this gives rise to the question - how do know that something which *seems* self-aware *is not* self-aware. Surely anything which has the appearance of conciousness - which passes the Turing test, whatever - shoudl be considered concious? After all, how do we know that anbybody else is truly concious? We can't - it's simply a reasonable assumption, given that
a] they're humans as well (probably), and
b] they seem self-aware.
It would seem that if a is false, then many seem to consider b to be insufficient - why is that?
- REAL
Actually, I'm quite prepared to believe we have a 9th planet...
/.ers enter their .sigs manually
The possibility of a tenth planet, that's probably much less likely...
-REAL
I'm just *waiting* for the day when somebody dares to finish that line
-- MarkWCats