It was a common phenomenon to be observed ever since a complex methodology existed that researchers, especially the most successfully extraverted, did not understand what they were doing, analysis-wise.
But it is a relief, I suppose, for machine-learning metholodists, that they for sure find the find-what-I-want switch easily.
Amen...
TFS: "Apple CEO Tim Cook said, "For too many of our friends and family, life has been cut short or the quality of their life is too often lacking...."
Yes, I bet the friends and especially the families of CEOs (Cook's base salary $1.4 million, cash bonus $2.8 million in 2012) suffer a lot, more than those of the remaining citizens. Not to forget the grief that especially Cook has with all the criticism that Apple does almost pay no taxes.
More on topic: I can well imagine how life prolongement via Google would look like sensors and actors controlled by Google (get your life stream optimized on our servers).
From 'The Mote in God's Eye' (Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle)
Quote from WikiPedia "... On the ground, Engineers drive at breakneck speed on crowded roads without fear of collision, and upon reaching destination, will dismantle their cars so they won’t take too much parking space.".
TFS probably was done by a sleep deprived individuum.
The point is the alarmingly high percentage of children affected in some countries, especially the US, combined with reasons and large scale effects.
CC.
Thank you, your comments render a much better understanding on my side
However, let me add a few thoughts. perceptions... no continuous real-world sensors
To me, that sounds a lot like conceptual learning isolated from perception. YMMV
Though, I do not know whether "intelligent" behaviour may emerge without the challenges that a body full of sensors as well as (parallel) means to cope with these that is interfaced to a brain that (my view) on a high level (call it consciously, think focus of attention) is concentrating on controlling one task, namely generating "intention" or "goals". Forgetting could be an actively decided optimization parameter, as opposed to a byproduct of capacity.
Which may occur in the "real world" as well, though presumably focussed in the realm of "emotions" (BTW, this raises the question how emotions interact with more or less cognitive processes). not a constantly active information stream
Crucial, and I am fine with the whole paragraph, especially as you somehow emphasize the "tool" aspect, which gives you a lot more degrees of freedom compared to efforts to engineer some "reality". Also, being self-destructive indicates "not intelligent"?
This is taken out of context, namely "immediate trust". My remark was triggered by an (admittedly dim) recall of a classification
that Stegmüller made (K1, K2, K3 systems) with regard to teleological systems. IIRC, one can extend the scheme to a continuum from acting immediately in response to an input to tailoring the action to the outcome of building a "complete" model/simulation of the context (warning: recursion ahead).
I agree that suicide might be an "intelligent choice". Ethics and moral add yet another layer. Besides, an artificial intelligence...
You are probably better of if you call your envisioned system along the lines of "cognitive augmentation". This lowers expectations while still complex enough, shifts the focus from "basic" to "applied" (funding? I speculate "applied" has more appeal) and makes the goal scalable (creating backdoors when confronted with too many nontrivial problems) by redefinition of the target group. Intelligence requires weariness? Intelligence negates meticulousness?The pursuit of goals is not intelligent?
For an autonomous system, which a tool is not, yes to both: sleep, fuzzyness.
It was not "pursuit of goals" but "follow instructions". Anyhow, with the "toolfocus", this is irrelevant. Given proper sharing of context, instructions in natural language can be unambiguous
For practical purposes, yes. IMHO, theoretically, no (Gödel).
Disclaimer: I am only expressing my opinions here, which are based on what is left from working in the field in the 80ies and loosely following (more or less meager) development since then.
Conflicts with prioritizing if you have provisions for priority zero (forgetting, irrelevant if the link goes away or the information is erased). could converse about its knowledge and thought processes
Telling more than we can know (Nisbett &Wilson, 1977, Psychological Review, 84, 231–259), protocol analysis, expert interviews: evidence that this is at least not always possible. My hypothesis is that too much metaprocessing would lead to a deadlock. conversational feedback would have immediate application without lengthy retraining
Would imply that the system immediately trusts. Would probably be rather self destructive, thus not intelligent. tirelessly and meticulously follow instructions given in natural language
The antithesis of intelligent behaviour?
So now I say that I see a recursive combinatorial explosion happening during conflict resolution.
CC.
Mammalian brains tire, need sleep, do not have perfect recall, run things out of time order and convinces itself otherwise, take a long time to train, and has strong emotional needs. Who has ruled out that these are preconditions?
I'd love to have a system with perfect recall, could converse about its knowledge and thought processes such that conversational feedback would have immediate application without lengthy retraining, and could tirelessly and meticulously follow instructions given in natural language.
Millions of autonomous flying cars? That's such a pie-eyed fantasy as to be laughable.
How did the passenger pigeon manage navigation and collision avoidance?
Quote from Wikipedia: "One flock in 1866 in southern Ontario was described as being 1 mi (1.5 km) wide and 300 mi (500 km) long, took 14 hours to pass, and held in excess of 3.5 billion birds.".
we'd have to be dumb enough to allow discrimination based on genetics
Indeed, now that we have overcome discrimination based on skin colour or nationality for centuries.
nature vs nurture On a side note, history shows that fascists lean to the "nature" side. Given the lack of states that develop fascist attitudes, we are definitely on the safe side here.
But given the patriot act and other current events, I'd say we can create a dystopian future for ourselves even if we stopped all scientific progress. That is a problem of values and control, not science.
a billion times more likely to save your life...
A strong hypothesis, well.
Have trust everything will fall into place as it should. Stop rejecting it, *seek that* instead.
Admittedly, I have a hard time with that one right now (found my wife dead in the flat when I returned from a 5hr trip on Jan 2 and I am still shaken).
We need time to retreat into wisdom, I cannot agree more.
Slashdot Mirror
It was a common phenomenon to be observed ever since a complex methodology existed that researchers, especially the most successfully extraverted, did not understand what they were doing, analysis-wise. But it is a relief, I suppose, for machine-learning metholodists, that they for sure find the find-what-I-want switch easily. Amen ...
No. Concluding on the basis of experience is just one counterexample.
CC.
http://www.largo.com/egov/documents/122089377228.htm
CC.
Yes, I bet the friends and especially the families of CEOs (Cook's base salary $1.4 million, cash bonus $2.8 million in 2012) suffer a lot, more than those of the remaining citizens. Not to forget the grief that especially Cook has with all the criticism that Apple does almost pay no taxes.
More on topic: I can well imagine how life prolongement via Google would look like sensors and actors controlled by Google (get your life stream optimized on our servers).
CC.
Kills the motivation to read on immediately.
CC.
CC.
Quote from WikiPedia "... On the ground, Engineers drive at breakneck speed on crowded roads without fear of collision, and upon reaching destination, will dismantle their cars so they won’t take too much parking space.".
Also, one can find hints regarding driving habits: "Korean drivers don’t rely on (or follow) rules, just what they can see (i.e. anyone may do anything at any time, so a driver must be vigilant)." ( http://koreanalyst.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/driving-in-korea-vs-america/ ).
Well
CC.
CC.
Rethink that after informing yourself: http://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/YourDrivingCosts2013.pdf
CC.
Dependency and control.
CC.
TFS probably was done by a sleep deprived individuum.
The point is the alarmingly high percentage of children affected in some countries, especially the US, combined with reasons and large scale effects.
CC.
However, let me add a few thoughts.
perceptions
To me, that sounds a lot like conceptual learning isolated from perception. YMMV
Though, I do not know whether "intelligent" behaviour may emerge without the challenges that a body full of sensors as well as (parallel) means to cope with these that is interfaced to a brain that (my view) on a high level (call it consciously, think focus of attention) is concentrating on controlling one task, namely generating "intention" or "goals".
Forgetting could be an actively decided optimization parameter, as opposed to a byproduct of capacity.
Which may occur in the "real world" as well, though presumably focussed in the realm of "emotions" (BTW, this raises the question how emotions interact with more or less cognitive processes).
not a constantly active information stream
Crucial, and I am fine with the whole paragraph, especially as you somehow emphasize the "tool" aspect, which gives you a lot more degrees of freedom compared to efforts to engineer some "reality".
Also, being self-destructive indicates "not intelligent"?
This is taken out of context, namely "immediate trust". My remark was triggered by an (admittedly dim) recall of a classification that Stegmüller made (K1, K2, K3 systems) with regard to teleological systems. IIRC, one can extend the scheme to a continuum from acting immediately in response to an input to tailoring the action to the outcome of building a "complete" model/simulation of the context (warning: recursion ahead).
I agree that suicide might be an "intelligent choice". Ethics and moral add yet another layer.
Besides, an artificial intelligence
You are probably better of if you call your envisioned system along the lines of "cognitive augmentation". This lowers expectations while still complex enough, shifts the focus from "basic" to "applied" (funding? I speculate "applied" has more appeal) and makes the goal scalable (creating backdoors when confronted with too many nontrivial problems) by redefinition of the target group.
Intelligence requires weariness? Intelligence negates meticulousness?The pursuit of goals is not intelligent?
For an autonomous system, which a tool is not, yes to both: sleep, fuzzyness.
It was not "pursuit of goals" but "follow instructions". Anyhow, with the "toolfocus", this is irrelevant.
Given proper sharing of context, instructions in natural language can be unambiguous
For practical purposes, yes. IMHO, theoretically, no (Gödel).
Disclaimer: I am only expressing my opinions here, which are based on what is left from working in the field in the 80ies and loosely following (more or less meager) development since then.
CC.
perfect recall
Conflicts with prioritizing if you have provisions for priority zero (forgetting, irrelevant if the link goes away or the information is erased).
could converse about its knowledge and thought processes
Telling more than we can know (Nisbett &Wilson, 1977, Psychological Review, 84, 231–259), protocol analysis, expert interviews: evidence that this is at least not always possible. My hypothesis is that too much metaprocessing would lead to a deadlock.
conversational feedback would have immediate application without lengthy retraining
Would imply that the system immediately trusts. Would probably be rather self destructive, thus not intelligent.
tirelessly and meticulously follow instructions given in natural language
The antithesis of intelligent behaviour?
So now I say that I see a recursive combinatorial explosion happening during conflict resolution.
CC.
At least, sometimes, the hype spirals in a promising direction :)
CC.
Who has ruled out that these are preconditions?
CC.
I see a combinatorial explosion at the horizon.
CC.
CC.
Thank you.
CC.
CC.
How did the passenger pigeon manage navigation and collision avoidance?
Quote from Wikipedia: "One flock in 1866 in southern Ontario was described as being 1 mi (1.5 km) wide and 300 mi (500 km) long, took 14 hours to pass, and held in excess of 3.5 billion birds.".
CC.
Well.
CC.
Image detail for -popular mechanics magazine cover july 1957
http://media-cache-ak1.pinimg.com/550x/b9/c3/5d/b9c35dd72fc746aedfd262d9f4fbc1d1.jpg
CC.
Indeed, now that we have overcome discrimination based on skin colour or nationality for centuries. ...
nature vs nurture
On a side note, history shows that fascists lean to the "nature" side. Given the lack of states that develop fascist attitudes, we are definitely on the safe side here.
But given the patriot act and other current events, I'd say we can create a dystopian future for ourselves even if we stopped all scientific progress.
That is a problem of values and control, not science.
a billion times more likely to save your life
A strong hypothesis, well.
CC.
Admittedly, I have a hard time with that one right now (found my wife dead in the flat when I returned from a 5hr trip on Jan 2 and I am still shaken).
We need time to retreat into wisdom,
I cannot agree more.
Thank you for your helpful reply.
CC.
No need to: just increase the fee.
CC.