Ado you actually have an idea what 'strong AI' means? In the context of self driving cars strong AI is most certainly not needed. That a self driving car probably might have troubles finding a lane in 2 yard deep snow, I agree. But so would a human, and in so deep snow you can not drive an ordinary car anyway. Regardless if it has a steering wheel or is self driving.
Thesises are automatically published. I don't remember if I mentioned it, but to finish the degree I would have needed to make 2 or 3 more writen exams/tests. As I just had founded a 'Software Reengineering' company, and was mainly bussy with crafting CASE tools and doing Y2K reeningeering, I focused on work. I probably had finished the degree if some things went different. On the other hand, a degree is not that important, at least not for me. After I did my diploma thesis my Prof. offered me a dissertation. So I guess it was not that bad:)
As I pointed out in different threats: we already have self driving cars. Basically every majour German and Japanese car manufactor has them. And they don't need AI... they have actually very good vision, far superior to a human anyway.
They're more like the robot my kids have that follows a line drawn on paper. This is actually true:) And hence you see: there is no AI needed in a self driving car. Actually it is relatively simple: Know the rules/laws Avoid collisions Detect the lane Detect the signs, especially 'construction' obstacles and signs
I believe the self driving car software I was involved in has exactly 16 paralell running algorithms. (And those cars have meanwhile 3million km automatic driving in real roads. Of course supervised by humans. Their weakness are simply parking lots of super markets:) )
I don't remember how the system is called. It is a work at an american university. I guess if you soent and hour googeling you find it. It can converse with a human and understands newspapers etc.
Automatic translation of human language is solved long ago. (And again, this has nothing to do with AI, perhaps in the remotest sense only) E.g. when Bill Gates announced at the university of Karlsruhe (http://www.kit.edu) that his next big goal is providing automatic translatiors for human speech, the audience laughed. For some reason Mr. Gates was not aware that his speech was translated in real time by Prof. Waibels teams english to german translator. Prof. Waibel is working at the CMU and KIT http://isl.anthropomatik.kit.e...
They use japanese as base language, and they have translators for plenty of languages from and to japanese.
Why no one is willing to buy that technology but insists to either develop their own mediocre versions of speech recognition and/or automatic translation is beyond me.
Needless to say that M$ and Gates never really started an automatic translating project.
No it means that e.g. the writing system, e.g. jap. Kanji etc. greatly influences the test. Obvisously also basic language comprehension. If you are bad in the language you might even have trouble to comprehend what the mass tests and pattern recognition is abou.
What I basically want to say is: a 150 in a german IQ test is not an 150 in an american or chinese one.
Why? Neither self driving cars nor Go palying needs an AI... And none of both utilizes much of AI:)
AlphaGo, as I understand it, is a neural net. (That is not even weak AI) Self driving cars are handled by about 20 algorithms, only the picture recognition used for lane control, sign recognition and pedestrian recognition could be considered weak AI, (30 years ago, in our days no one calls such simple stuff AI, the correct term for the algorithms used in self driving car is btw: 'cognitiv systems' - no AI involved at all).
Actually I'm right:) And I'm not mixing up the two difficult to write words. However none of both would set a broken bone, so what is your point? Well, they probably would both do right in an emergency situation.
Again: both types of practice are a subclass of Orthopadie. You can disagree as long and as hard as you want. And both are tought in medical schools or university. And both are respected ways of treatment in Europe and both are fully covered by healthinsurance,
So: don't transplant your wacko health system and the ideas comming from it on the rest of the world.
Growing plants are a sink. That is a no brainer. No need to post links. Rotting plants emmit the exact same amount of CO2 they ate before. That is a no brainer, too. So, what you wanted to say is beyond me.
Do you have any links for that? I never saw anyone predicting 'the end of the world' in such a short time frame. We are talking about 50-100 years.
That we will have a few more meters high sea levels in 100 years, is for sure. The only questionis: will it be already in 50 years, and how many meters will it be...
Did you ever read some of the sequels Frank Herbers son wrote? It is claimed they are based on his fathers notes, and one or two books thematize the Butlerian Jihad. Well, I did not, just wondering if one has an opinn about the books.
That reminds me about a story one of my proffessors kept telling: "Two scientists discuss about AI. One says: AI will never be possible there are so many things a human always will be better than a computer. The other says: for every example you give me, where a human is better than a computer NOW, I shall build you a computer that beats all humans in that example."
At that stafe we are now, Watson and AphaGo basically can be trained on many problems. But that will only be single instances that solve a single problem, not universal AIs.
Indeed! And one of the myricals in this is: if an object is about to hit your eyes or comes close by, the reflext to close the eyes and raise your hands etc. is triggered _before_ that information has even reached the brain/visual cortex. The signal processing in the eye can bypass the visual cortex to trigger protective actions.
We use a single number, but we construct that number from five or six different fields: a) math, or better: pattern matching e.g. what is the next number in this sequence b) language, which words are related/which word does not fit etc. c) optical/geometrical problems: which of the following figures does not fit into the picture (usully one is mirrored)
My reasoning about this, especially if you had older tests were only 4 fields were tested is: in the middle range, 90 - 110 points, the people are not really compareable. On can be mediocre in one or two areas and be really excellent in two others and just barely hits 110 points. To hit a relatively hight point around 150 you obvioulsly need to be very good in all areas, or the area you are bad in would drag you down (there are people that break that ordinary scale, I think the smartest is rated around 185, that can not even be tested 'with standard tests') .
See, climate scientists discovered the link between fossil fuel burning and increasing temps back in the 1980s. You mean around 1880, I think. Not 1980.
Slashdot Mirror
Ado you actually have an idea what 'strong AI' means?
In the context of self driving cars strong AI is most certainly not needed.
That a self driving car probably might have troubles finding a lane in 2 yard deep snow, I agree.
But so would a human, and in so deep snow you can not drive an ordinary car anyway. Regardless if it has a steering wheel or is self driving.
Mo idea why you are ranting over Steam and Valve.
However I like to point out that DRM and the internet are concepts that have nothing to do with each other.
Thesises are automatically published. :)
I don't remember if I mentioned it, but to finish the degree I would have needed to make 2 or 3 more writen exams/tests.
As I just had founded a 'Software Reengineering' company, and was mainly bussy with crafting CASE tools and doing Y2K reeningeering, I focused on work.
I probably had finished the degree if some things went different. On the other hand, a degree is not that important, at least not for me.
After I did my diploma thesis my Prof. offered me a dissertation. So I guess it was not that bad
As I pointed out in different threats: we already have self driving cars. ... they have actually very good vision, far superior to a human anyway.
Basically every majour German and Japanese car manufactor has them.
And they don't need AI
They're more like the robot my kids have that follows a line drawn on paper. :) And hence you see: there is no AI needed in a self driving car.
This is actually true
Actually it is relatively simple:
Know the rules/laws
Avoid collisions
Detect the lane
Detect the signs, especially 'construction' obstacles and signs
I believe the self driving car software I was involved in has exactly 16 paralell running algorithms. (And those cars have meanwhile 3million km automatic driving in real roads. Of course supervised by humans. Their weakness are simply parking lots of super markets :) )
I don't remember how the system is called.
It is a work at an american university.
I guess if you soent and hour googeling you find it.
It can converse with a human and understands newspapers etc.
Automatic translation of human language is solved long ago. (And again, this has nothing to do with AI, perhaps in the remotest sense only)
E.g. when Bill Gates announced at the university of Karlsruhe (http://www.kit.edu) that his next big goal is providing automatic translatiors for human speech, the audience laughed.
For some reason Mr. Gates was not aware that his speech was translated in real time by Prof. Waibels teams english to german translator. Prof. Waibel is working at the CMU and KIT http://isl.anthropomatik.kit.e...
They use japanese as base language, and they have translators for plenty of languages from and to japanese.
Why no one is willing to buy that technology but insists to either develop their own mediocre versions of speech recognition and/or automatic translation is beyond me.
Needless to say that M$ and Gates never really started an automatic translating project.
Thank you for your reply.
Now I'm tempted to try them.
No it means that e.g. the writing system, e.g. jap. Kanji etc. greatly influences the test.
Obvisously also basic language comprehension. If you are bad in the language you might even have trouble to comprehend what the mass tests and pattern recognition is abou.
What I basically want to say is: a 150 in a german IQ test is not an 150 in an american or chinese one.
Why? ... :)
Neither self driving cars nor Go palying needs an AI
And none of both utilizes much of AI
AlphaGo, as I understand it, is a neural net. (That is not even weak AI)
Self driving cars are handled by about 20 algorithms, only the picture recognition used for lane control, sign recognition and pedestrian recognition could be considered weak AI, (30 years ago, in our days no one calls such simple stuff AI, the correct term for the algorithms used in self driving car is btw: 'cognitiv systems' - no AI involved at all).
Actually I'm right :)
And I'm not mixing up the two difficult to write words.
However none of both would set a broken bone, so what is your point?
Well, they probably would both do right in an emergency situation.
Again: both types of practice are a subclass of Orthopadie. You can disagree as long and as hard as you want. And both are tought in medical schools or university. And both are respected ways of treatment in Europe and both are fully covered by healthinsurance,
So: don't transplant your wacko health system and the ideas comming from it on the rest of the world.
Being a scientiest is what the course of the study is called.
So if the univeristy calls it 'computer sciense' I'm obviously a computer scientist.
My papers and thesises are published at http://www.kit.edu/ and http://www.fzi.de/
Growing plants are a sink.
That is a no brainer.
No need to post links.
Rotting plants emmit the exact same amount of CO2 they ate before. That is a no brainer, too.
So, what you wanted to say is beyond me.
Do you have any links for that?
I never saw anyone predicting 'the end of the world' in such a short time frame.
We are talking about 50-100 years.
That we will have a few more meters high sea levels in 100 years, is for sure. The only questionis: will it be already in 50 years, and how many meters will it be ...
Thank you for your opinion. ... but I guess I will try one at least :)
I feared that
Perhaps it would be an idea to simply publish the notes.
Very true.
And tests are not realy compareable between countries/cultures etc. (except for math and spartial perception perhaps)
It is not called hard and soft AI.
It is called weak and strong, and yes we have strong AI, since more than a decade.
Did you ever read some of the sequels Frank Herbers son wrote? It is claimed they are based on his fathers notes, and one or two books thematize the Butlerian Jihad. Well, I did not, just wondering if one has an opinn about the books.
That reminds me about a story one of my proffessors kept telling:
"Two scientists discuss about AI.
One says: AI will never be possible there are so many things a human always will be better than a computer.
The other says: for every example you give me, where a human is better than a computer NOW, I shall build you a computer that beats all humans in that example."
At that stafe we are now, Watson and AphaGo basically can be trained on many problems. But that will only be single instances that solve a single problem, not universal AIs.
Indeed!
And one of the myricals in this is: if an object is about to hit your eyes or comes close by, the reflext to close the eyes and raise your hands etc. is triggered _before_ that information has even reached the brain/visual cortex.
The signal processing in the eye can bypass the visual cortex to trigger protective actions.
I guess you made a few mistakes then.
And are off by several orders of magnitute.
We use a single number, but we construct that number from five or six different fields:
a) math, or better: pattern matching e.g. what is the next number in this sequence
b) language, which words are related/which word does not fit etc.
c) optical/geometrical problems: which of the following figures does not fit into the picture (usully one is mirrored)
Well, some tests work with more areas some with less. Here they even use 7: http://www.iqtestexperts.com/i...
My reasoning about this, especially if you had older tests were only 4 fields were tested is: in the middle range, 90 - 110 points, the people are not really compareable. On can be mediocre in one or two areas and be really excellent in two others and just barely hits 110 points. To hit a relatively hight point around 150 you obvioulsly need to be very good in all areas, or the area you are bad in would drag you down (there are people that break that ordinary scale, I think the smartest is rated around 185, that can not even be tested 'with standard tests') .
Plants are a zero sum game.
They release the same amount of CO2 when they rot as they consumed when they grew.
In the same way as for you.
Depending on your age you are probably dead when the worst parts of the change hit mankind.
See, climate scientists discovered the link between fossil fuel burning and increasing temps back in the 1980s.
You mean around 1880, I think. Not 1980.
Actually the numbers match quite nicely. ...
The only sink is the ocean