Intelligence is clearly natural - we humans possess it. However, taking material that is inert and turning it into something that is intelligent is not a natural process (unless you count everything that humans do as a consequence of natural laws, etc etc). Whether we consciously understand the processes behind an intelligence that we create, or whether that creation is accidental (eg. the internet spawns emergent intelligence), it would still be artificial.
You could be correct if intelligence is an innate property of any matter sufficiently complex enough to encode its environment - ie, all intelligence is natural because matter tends to create intelligence. However, as we have yet to identify any natural intelligences beyond our own, this is speculative at best.
I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle; that intelligence is a spectrum, rather than a binary proposition. A PIC microprocessor encapsulates some modicum of intelligence, and so does an ant and a dog and a chimpanzee. It's only our lofty status at the top of the heap that makes us consider 'intelligence' to be a higher order phenomenon than it could actually be.
The 'artificial' in artificial intelligence implies intelligence that is not natural in origin; ie. fabricated intelligence, in the sense of a construct. This is distinct from 'artificial' in the sense of faux intelligence; artificial intelligence is still genuinely intelligence. When any man-made object exhibits intelligence it is, a priori, artificial intelligence.
Oop, spotted a typo. Must be that stitch in my side acting up and distracting my careful editing. Don't worry about it too much - I'll go have a cup of tea and a lie down.
Which all sounds like a polite way of saying that kids these days have been spoiled. Instant gratification, be it through next-day felivery net-based purchases, simplistic video games or instantly downloaded media, means they have no patience.
Younger people scratch their heads in amazement at the things people of my generation and older have done that required supreme patience, whether learning a complex skill or finely crafting a model. This comes right on the heels of lacking discipline. If you can't see the value or take the time to perfect anything, how will you ever get good at anything except the trivial?
Effectively classism in a classless society. I can easily see something like this being based on lines of code submitted, or number of updates posted. Exactly the sort of thing that discriminates againsty competent people who write terse code that's right the first time.
I did my doctoral thesis on quadrotors - specifically large quadrotors. The issues involved actually extend beyond thrust/weight ratio. For this kind of fixed-pitch rotor, the maximum size is actually dictated by the ability to speed up and slow down the rotor to affect pitch and roll motion, and thus stabilise the aircraft in the air. It's exceptionally hard to build a vehicle much larger than 10 kg with that rotor arrangement.
If you move to collective control, then you can make your rotor arbitrarily large. To reduce the power needs of the helicopter, you simply make the rotor bigger. However, by the time you get around to something you can fly on, the complexity of the rotor heads really makes it much more desirable to simply have a single rotor, rather than four - and voila, you have a helicopter.
Well, it depends on where you live. Rent in Canberra was lousy, but I'm paying more for less space in New Haven, CT. I think the land is there in Oz, it's just that nobody wants to live far enough from the city centre to capitalise on really cheap rents.
I agree to a limit. My philosophy is to code the comments, rather than comment the code.
Comments, for me, serve as a design tool as much as an aid to understanding. You can very quickly understand what my programs are supposed to do by reading the comments; not because my code is hard to understand, but because the comments describe its function as a narrative.
Of course, if you can't understand what the code does without reading the comments, you're doing something wrong. Once coded, the comments exist to extend and clarify what the code is doing, as well as adding meta data about how things like numerical constants were calculated.
Slashdot Mirror
Intelligence is clearly natural - we humans possess it. However, taking material that is inert and turning it into something that is intelligent is not a natural process (unless you count everything that humans do as a consequence of natural laws, etc etc). Whether we consciously understand the processes behind an intelligence that we create, or whether that creation is accidental (eg. the internet spawns emergent intelligence), it would still be artificial.
You could be correct if intelligence is an innate property of any matter sufficiently complex enough to encode its environment - ie, all intelligence is natural because matter tends to create intelligence. However, as we have yet to identify any natural intelligences beyond our own, this is speculative at best.
I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle; that intelligence is a spectrum, rather than a binary proposition. A PIC microprocessor encapsulates some modicum of intelligence, and so does an ant and a dog and a chimpanzee. It's only our lofty status at the top of the heap that makes us consider 'intelligence' to be a higher order phenomenon than it could actually be.
Certainly food for thought.
The 'artificial' in artificial intelligence implies intelligence that is not natural in origin; ie. fabricated intelligence, in the sense of a construct. This is distinct from 'artificial' in the sense of faux intelligence; artificial intelligence is still genuinely intelligence. When any man-made object exhibits intelligence it is, a priori, artificial intelligence.
It will give me superpowers, right?
I'm intrigued by your idea and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Can someone please explain how I can leverage this situation to develop superpowers?
That would be 'inappropriate suction'.
Oop, spotted a typo. Must be that stitch in my side acting up and distracting my careful editing. Don't worry about it too much - I'll go have a cup of tea and a lie down.
Which all sounds like a polite way of saying that kids these days have been spoiled. Instant gratification, be it through next-day felivery net-based purchases, simplistic video games or instantly downloaded media, means they have no patience.
Younger people scratch their heads in amazement at the things people of my generation and older have done that required supreme patience, whether learning a complex skill or finely crafting a model. This comes right on the heels of lacking discipline. If you can't see the value or take the time to perfect anything, how will you ever get good at anything except the trivial?
Oh, and get off my lawn.
I too have wood for sheep.
This has got to be the sanest, clearest description of the issue at hand in this whole thread. Well done.
Well played, sir. Well played.
Effectively classism in a classless society. I can easily see something like this being based on lines of code submitted, or number of updates posted. Exactly the sort of thing that discriminates againsty competent people who write terse code that's right the first time.
I thought it was scientology where you had to buy upgrades.
I did my doctoral thesis on quadrotors - specifically large quadrotors. The issues involved actually extend beyond thrust/weight ratio. For this kind of fixed-pitch rotor, the maximum size is actually dictated by the ability to speed up and slow down the rotor to affect pitch and roll motion, and thus stabilise the aircraft in the air. It's exceptionally hard to build a vehicle much larger than 10 kg with that rotor arrangement.
If you move to collective control, then you can make your rotor arbitrarily large. To reduce the power needs of the helicopter, you simply make the rotor bigger. However, by the time you get around to something you can fly on, the complexity of the rotor heads really makes it much more desirable to simply have a single rotor, rather than four - and voila, you have a helicopter.
Well, it depends on where you live. Rent in Canberra was lousy, but I'm paying more for less space in New Haven, CT. I think the land is there in Oz, it's just that nobody wants to live far enough from the city centre to capitalise on really cheap rents.
How about we quit giving away all of our hard won freedoms like a bunch of scared pussies?
Sadly, time and time again, the population has shown itself more than willing to lie down and meow.
Safer, less tentacle-rapey, less schoolgirl panty sniffy, less racist, less xenophobic
That's what I go to Japan for, you insensitive clod!
Absolutely. It's pure hell in Australia - the deserts are jam-packed with people, end to end.
"I apply the formula. If A*B*C is greater than X - we don't do a recall."
"Which company do you work for?"
"A major car company."
I, for one, welcome our new subatomic overlords.
Put a tiger in your... er... cells!
We're doing science and we're still alive.
Surely there is an easier way for computer nerds to get pussy?
I agree to a limit. My philosophy is to code the comments, rather than comment the code.
Comments, for me, serve as a design tool as much as an aid to understanding. You can very quickly understand what my programs are supposed to do by reading the comments; not because my code is hard to understand, but because the comments describe its function as a narrative.
Of course, if you can't understand what the code does without reading the comments, you're doing something wrong. Once coded, the comments exist to extend and clarify what the code is doing, as well as adding meta data about how things like numerical constants were calculated.
And people tend to be attracted to the natural body odors
I think slashdotters would have this market cornered.