Re:Intelligent computers are inevitable and essent
on
Son of HAL For Sale
·
· Score: 1
Nonsense! OK a bit of a sweeping statement, as has been pointed out in other posts we as humans don't understand intelligence, let alone being able to program intelligence.
Many people may cite IBMs 'Big Blue' as an intelligent machine, after all it beat Kasparov at chess didn't it? Well no it's not itelligent, it had to be programmed to calculate chess moves, Big Blue can crunch through, something like, millions of moves a second (sorry I don't have the figure to hand) and Kasparov can do a couple a second. Number crunching is not interlligence as you imply with your 'Moores Law' statement.
You also mention intelligent machine will come to pass before 'Warp Drive', again, if anything the complete opposite will happen. To facilitate space exploration of distant planets instead of sending one 'intelligent' robot, it is more likely many smaller unintelligent robots will be sent. These many robots will act independantly of each other towards some goal. The point here is that it better to send many small robots for redundancy than it is to send one thing that will probably fail anyway!
The integration of man and machine is an interesting point and may happen, but on a personal level I don't like this idea. Not because I'm against machines, they're great they help us achieve thing we would otherwise not be able to, BUT I don't want one to be part of me or me to part of it - I am a Human. I know that this is personal opinion but I would guess many poeple would feel the same way.
As for my computer having a conversation with me... no thanks, I'd hate to think what would happen if it caught a virus, it'd just sit around feeling sorry for its self!:)
Anyway that's my to pennies worth, feel free to disagree, or maybe even agree who knows.
As far as I can see the original source of the problem (according to the reports I've read anyway) is that an MS employee read an e-mail with an attached Trojan Horse. Ultimatly it doesn't matter what OS you use running an executable sent from anywhere that you don't trust (indeed even ones you do trust) is never a sensible option. Personally, if someone suggests a program, I always go to the source and download it 'Fresh' from there, if I can't do that I usually don't run it.
Granted you can argue that if you are not root on a Unix/Linux box there is little you can do, but the point I am trying to make is that you should never ever ever ever run an executable you don't trust. This should be company policy (which I guess it probably is) and the employee is as much at fault as any weak security used to protect the source code.
Oh and before anyone flames me to death for being a Microsoft supporter - I'm not. I hate the method(s) Microsoft use as well. I'm just making the point that it may have been the 'offending' employee should have known better.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense! OK a bit of a sweeping statement, as has been pointed out in other posts we as humans don't understand intelligence, let alone being able to program intelligence.
:)
Many people may cite IBMs 'Big Blue' as an intelligent machine, after all it beat Kasparov at chess didn't it? Well no it's not itelligent, it had to be programmed to calculate chess moves, Big Blue can crunch through, something like, millions of moves a second (sorry I don't have the figure to hand) and Kasparov can do a couple a second. Number crunching is not interlligence as you imply with your 'Moores Law' statement.
You also mention intelligent machine will come to pass before 'Warp Drive', again, if anything the complete opposite will happen. To facilitate space exploration of distant planets instead of sending one 'intelligent' robot, it is more likely many smaller unintelligent robots will be sent. These many robots will act independantly of each other towards some goal. The point here is that it better to send many small robots for redundancy than it is to send one thing that will probably fail anyway!
The integration of man and machine is an interesting point and may happen, but on a personal level I don't like this idea. Not because I'm against machines, they're great they help us achieve thing we would otherwise not be able to, BUT I don't want one to be part of me or me to part of it - I am a Human. I know that this is personal opinion but I would guess many poeple would feel the same way.
As for my computer having a conversation with me... no thanks, I'd hate to think what would happen if it caught a virus, it'd just sit around feeling sorry for its self!
Anyway that's my to pennies worth, feel free to disagree, or maybe even agree who knows.
As far as I can see the original source of the problem (according to the reports I've read anyway) is that an MS employee read an e-mail with an attached Trojan Horse. Ultimatly it doesn't matter what OS you use running an executable sent from anywhere that you don't trust (indeed even ones you do trust) is never a sensible option. Personally, if someone suggests a program, I always go to the source and download it 'Fresh' from there, if I can't do that I usually don't run it.
Granted you can argue that if you are not root on a Unix/Linux box there is little you can do, but the point I am trying to make is that you should never ever ever ever run an executable you don't trust. This should be company policy (which I guess it probably is) and the employee is as much at fault as any weak security used to protect the source code.
Oh and before anyone flames me to death for being a Microsoft supporter - I'm not. I hate the method(s) Microsoft use as well. I'm just making the point that it may have been the 'offending' employee should have known better.
Bond: "Do you expect me to talk Mr Gates?"
Gates: "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!"
Err ok, I'll get my coat.