Re:Maybe the problem is Minsky himself?
on
AI Going Nowhere?
·
· Score: 1
That's hardly the case. Everything that AI research has come up with to date has been way below expectations. And its not because the expectations keep increasing.
That's rather misleading and points more to the inefficiencies of language. If you presented the person with a color wheel and asked them to identify the color, I'm sure that you would find out that the memory of the color is not quite so quantized.
If you knew nothing about a digital computer and tried to understand it by analyzing it, you'd find all kinds of odd behaviour. There's voltage rise times, settling times, wait states, even stray frequencies being emitted, etc... all kinds of analog behaviour. The point is that if you do not know how the machine works then you cannot differentiate between artifacts of the implementation and the goal of the implementation. You do not know what is relevant and what is irrelavant. Take oxygen for example, we know it is part of "the machine" but its really just a fuel, it doesn't seem critical to intelligence does it? A lot of the chemicals that get gooshed around the brain are also fairly similar in many ways with pulsing a '1' bit from one chip to another, but since the machine is chemically based the implementation appears rather odd.
Null pointers and a ptr with value zero are equivalent. In some situations it is valid to use a pointer with value zero, but usually not. This is not because of some kind of fundamental problem with it, but solely because of the ease of making a programming error.
Memory location zero is only mapped to zero on some architectures and then only when there is no virtual memory. With VM, every process can have memory addresses that appear the same but correspond to different physical pages of memory, i.e. the address is meaningless outside of the process.
What I don't understand is why moz can't run plugins as separate processess, in their own memory space with IPC to shuffle data. Slow? Maybe, but one shouldn't prematurely optimize. And this method would also allow easier plugin development and testing by users.
Do I have to spell it out for you? F R A N C E. Happy?
Regardless of who or why the war occured, if the museum was such a monumental treasure any country could have supplied some troops to baby sit the museum 24x7 just to be sure.
You know, if certain countries weren't on some kinda of anti-American crusade they could have supplied their own troops to guard important buildings. Instead, they argue that doing anything regarding the war would legitamize it. Some of these countries don't even want to send food aid. The french, et al sent human shields, they could have just as easily sent museum shields.
So whose fault is it that the museum was looted? The world if you ask me.
Well you did say continent but... the native Hawaiians lived on volcanic islands that had no metals or rocks like marble etc... All that severly constrained what they could do. No pots, no stone ovens, just porus lava rocks and coral. If left alone, they would probably have never advanced.
Yeah no shit. But they are not thought of as animals like squirrels or monkeys.
If you only have the mental stamina to read the first couple of sentences then don't bother replying to me. I notice that you did not comment on whether the species lines are as crystal clear as they are for elements. (Don't bother, I already know the answer.)
Look at the red wolf, it is listed as an endangered species, yet the article talks about how they interbreed with coyotes. This is the typical use of the word species and it obviously shows that the ability to breed is not a constraint. And why do I bring this up? Because the main observable difference is the color of the fur.
Also note I could really give a fuck that you think that the last post is the winner. Intelligent people will read the posts because it is substance that matters, not first nor last post.
There are many more traits of the woodpecker that had to develop simultaneously for it to be able to eat insects in the tree. I guess if you are willing to believe that life can be created from nothing, then you are willing to believe all the traits could be developed in one generation.
This is one of the biggest misunderstanding of evolution. There is no way that all these traits could develop in one generation. That would be quite ridiculous, and has never been observed. Evolution is about thousands and thousands of generations, we're talking millions of years.
A woodpecker can start out like any other bird. Many birds grab onto the sides of trees, it is quite common. Many birds also peck at things, that's practically the nature of birds. But really, it would be pointless to explain this, there are many reasonable explanations, and lots and lots of time for it to happen.
Next you're going to tell me that Rams can't possibly bang their heads together without killing themselves. Well I have news for you, sometimes they do kill themselves.
Why aren't we klingons? Well that has actually been answered, the reason is society. Society makes it possible to do many things which would be impossible if we were constantly trying to kill each other. I'm not talking about building bridges, I'm talking about things that increase your odds of surviving the winter.
You can claim sarcasm all you like, but by stating that evolutionary traits like what a woodpecker has would need to all develop simultaneously in one generation clearly show that you have absolutely zero understanding of what the theory of evolution is.
It's funny that you use the big crunch as an example, that is after all a theory with even less evidence than evolution.
No I was trying to point out that classifications of some of the difficult cases is subjective. It is not as cut and dried as the elemental chart.
Did I say that the general idea is bogus? Why don't you look up the rather weak technique of rewording another persons argument to make it seem like they said something they did not.
And what is with you people, the post is a reply to another post, thus it is long because it was answering the points in the parent post which is, suprise, long. Do you people have such simple minds that any post that is longer than three sentences is rambling?
Thanks, I was trying to explain this but did not succeed. Typically what happens is that group A and group C get separated for some reason and eventually diverge from each other to the point that they can still mate with group B but not each other. If group B is wipped out, A and C are suddenly different species. Pretty silly definition.
It is clearly artifical when compared to other scientific categorizations like the elemental chart which has very clear rules. It's obnoxious that some people just like to jump on/. and say people are morons while adding little.
There have been rare situations where a goat and a sheep have interbreed. The resultant offspring may or may not be able to breed. Horses and donkeys can breed, maybe one day a genetic mutatant will be fertile. Shit happens. And if you are going to argue that my statement that some scientist agreed where to draw the line, you should use words like "generally" nor say "there are some complicating factors that do add some subjectivity" which is bascially equivalent to what I said.
Also the definition of species that many people use, especially creationist, has little to do with scientific definitions. Hence the disregard for a strict and formal scientific definition.
If you had bothered to read, and I mean really read, you would realize that I used Africans and Swiss specifically because it is ludicrous. Every comment involving nationalites does not imply racism.
Thank you for your complete lack of contribution to the discussion.
If it stayed in the church then I'm sure no one would have a problem with it. The problem originates when they try to get it taught in science classes. If they ever try to teach politics in science class then I'll bitch about that too.
Alumni are by definition a source of future income. To maximize your profitability you want only people who will graduate and then become very rich, and thus feel generous when they give back to their alma mater.
First the word "species" is artificial, somewhere some scientist decided that these two groups of animals were different enough to be categorized differntly. If humans were animals I'm sure that Africans and the Swiss would be classified as two different species. Every animal is different from every other animal, the only question is by how much.
Banging on a tree is a good method to get the insect inhabitants out. It works marvelously for termites and ants. Don't believe me? Try it sometime on a bees nest.
I'm sure you've seen videos of monkeys hanging out, they are nearly always doing one thing in particular, picking fleas/ticks off of each other. Humans don't have the same difficulty becuase fleas have a hard time hanging onto hairless beasts.
Why does a giraffe have a long neck? Because thats where the leaves are. There are many reasons for walking upright, most notably it frees your hands up. I've seen videos of monkeys walking around holding something in one hand. It's rather awkward looking. Carry any more and you have to walk upright.
I am not listing this as proof of anything, the fact is that there are many possible reasons for your questions. It doesn't seem like you've looked very hard for answers.
When you say that no one can describe how the evolution of any creature has occured (which is false), I'm sure you really meant to say that no one can describe how even the simplest microbe was created from non-living material. That is a much more difficult question and the theory of evolution does not hinge on this question.
Evolution is not equivalent to random motion. I've also heard this as "tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747". Evolution has a selection process and you do not start from scratch, you always build on what came before you. If evolution was only random, then it would be like browinian motion, it would never make any progress in any particular direction.
Also the burden of proof probably would not matter to you. If I told you which book to read that would prove evolution to you, would you read it? Have you ever read anything about evolution that was not written by a religous person?
I think it does affect your ability to study or understand because you do not look for "why" since you assume the answer to "why" is because god made it that way. Have you ever honestly tried to research why a woodpecker would begin banging its head on things? You have already assumed that certain aspects of this world are beyond your grasp as a non-god being. That type of attitude clearly shows that you will never have the level of understanding of other people who are going to try, even if it takes them their whole lives to understand the world around them.
See, it used to be that biologists, physicists, mathematicians, and all scientists, were all exploring the beauty, simplicity, and intelligence of this beautiful world built by God himself. It used to be that mathematicians would delve deep into the mind of God, seeking to pierce the veil of His great understanding. It used to be that physicists would study each intricacy of nature, trying to discover the rules that God uses to govern the entire universe. It used to be that biologists were reverse-engineering the most marvelous feats of engineering in existence.
This is still the case, except you have to remove the references to God. People are still exploring the beauty of the world with all its intricacies.
We used to be miniature gods, no, Gods in training, seeking to become like the great God himself by mastering our minds and understanding our univserse. We used to believe that we were literally offspring of God. Now we are lost souls, studying science to erase those panging doubts that creep into our minds, that tell us nothing is worth anything, and all is in vain. We believe that we are nothing, never were anything, and never can become anything more than we are.
Speak for yourself, I do not think I am nothing, I will continue to try to create something that will last forever. If the only people who are affected by what I have done in this world are my future children, then that will have been enough to make it all worthwhile
I do not doubt you in the least. These types of stories do indeed happen.
It is a big world and the definition of random is that sometimes somewhere something like this will eventually happen. It doesn't indicate that there was any kind of direct cause and effect. What saved your son was probably you and the mother, somewhere you gave him the just the right genes in the right places. Sadly, for every story like yours there are probably many where people prayed and the outcome was still not as desired. This is often referred to as "gods will", or working in mysterious ways. It is human nature to perpetuate only the good stories.
I wish there was a direct effect from praying, it would give many people all over the world the ability to control the world around them, even when all seems hopeless.
No, I'm labeling it quackery because that's what it is. Not because I don't like it or don't agree with it. Creationism was barred from school because of its obviously religious bent. Thus they come up with intelligent design, which is basically the same thing minus the obviously religious aspects. Science is not the art of rewording things until people can't ban you for obvious non-science reasons.
Uh, creationists and intelligent design are one and the same piece of quackery. As for you attempt at using irreducible complexity, all such claims are bunk. There are quite valid steps for blood clotting, the bombadier beetle, the eye, etc.
And btw, there are many many instances where evolution results in something that is not only not useful but quite deadly, think dwarfism, progeria, etc... and other genetic mutations. It is not relevant whether or not any particular biological construct is immediately useful or detrimental, only whether the organism as a whole manages to survive. Evolution is not a neat, quick, or orderly process.
Prayer, like placebos, are all in the mind so your study is irrelevant to the discussion if it does not detail the type of people which these prayers are helpful for. Never mind the fact that you cannot do a proper scientific experiment without a control group. What are you going to do, tell the religious people in the control group that they cannot pray for themselves?
Slashdot Mirror
That's hardly the case. Everything that AI research has come up with to date has been way below expectations. And its not because the expectations keep increasing.
That's rather misleading and points more to the inefficiencies of language. If you presented the person with a color wheel and asked them to identify the color, I'm sure that you would find out that the memory of the color is not quite so quantized.
If you knew nothing about a digital computer and tried to understand it by analyzing it, you'd find all kinds of odd behaviour. There's voltage rise times, settling times, wait states, even stray frequencies being emitted, etc... all kinds of analog behaviour. The point is that if you do not know how the machine works then you cannot differentiate between artifacts of the implementation and the goal of the implementation. You do not know what is relevant and what is irrelavant. Take oxygen for example, we know it is part of "the machine" but its really just a fuel, it doesn't seem critical to intelligence does it? A lot of the chemicals that get gooshed around the brain are also fairly similar in many ways with pulsing a '1' bit from one chip to another, but since the machine is chemically based the implementation appears rather odd.
Well, like most things in this world it is the results that matter, everything else is vapor PR.
Null pointers and a ptr with value zero are equivalent. In some situations it is valid to use a pointer with value zero, but usually not. This is not because of some kind of fundamental problem with it, but solely because of the ease of making a programming error.
Memory location zero is only mapped to zero on some architectures and then only when there is no virtual memory. With VM, every process can have memory addresses that appear the same but correspond to different physical pages of memory, i.e. the address is meaningless outside of the process.
What I don't understand is why moz can't run plugins as separate processess, in their own memory space with IPC to shuffle data. Slow? Maybe, but one shouldn't prematurely optimize. And this method would also allow easier plugin development and testing by users.
Does anyone know if IBM has any special rights like MS had with that cell phone company they bankrupted, and subsequently got the assets cheap.
If you're going to criticize (at least thats what I think it was), try to make it coherent.
Regardless of who or why the war occured, if the museum was such a monumental treasure any country could have supplied some troops to baby sit the museum 24x7 just to be sure.
So whose fault is it that the museum was looted? The world if you ask me.
Well you did say continent but... the native Hawaiians lived on volcanic islands that had no metals or rocks like marble etc... All that severly constrained what they could do. No pots, no stone ovens, just porus lava rocks and coral. If left alone, they would probably have never advanced.
If you only have the mental stamina to read the first couple of sentences then don't bother replying to me. I notice that you did not comment on whether the species lines are as crystal clear as they are for elements. (Don't bother, I already know the answer.)
Look at the red wolf, it is listed as an endangered species, yet the article talks about how they interbreed with coyotes. This is the typical use of the word species and it obviously shows that the ability to breed is not a constraint. And why do I bring this up? Because the main observable difference is the color of the fur.
Also note I could really give a fuck that you think that the last post is the winner. Intelligent people will read the posts because it is substance that matters, not first nor last post.
A woodpecker can start out like any other bird. Many birds grab onto the sides of trees, it is quite common. Many birds also peck at things, that's practically the nature of birds. But really, it would be pointless to explain this, there are many reasonable explanations, and lots and lots of time for it to happen.
Next you're going to tell me that Rams can't possibly bang their heads together without killing themselves. Well I have news for you, sometimes they do kill themselves.
Why aren't we klingons? Well that has actually been answered, the reason is society. Society makes it possible to do many things which would be impossible if we were constantly trying to kill each other. I'm not talking about building bridges, I'm talking about things that increase your odds of surviving the winter.
You can claim sarcasm all you like, but by stating that evolutionary traits like what a woodpecker has would need to all develop simultaneously in one generation clearly show that you have absolutely zero understanding of what the theory of evolution is.
It's funny that you use the big crunch as an example, that is after all a theory with even less evidence than evolution.
Did I say that the general idea is bogus? Why don't you look up the rather weak technique of rewording another persons argument to make it seem like they said something they did not.
And what is with you people, the post is a reply to another post, thus it is long because it was answering the points in the parent post which is, suprise, long. Do you people have such simple minds that any post that is longer than three sentences is rambling?
It is clearly artifical when compared to other scientific categorizations like the elemental chart which has very clear rules. It's obnoxious that some people just like to jump on /. and say people are morons while adding little.
Also the definition of species that many people use, especially creationist, has little to do with scientific definitions. Hence the disregard for a strict and formal scientific definition.
If you had bothered to read, and I mean really read, you would realize that I used Africans and Swiss specifically because it is ludicrous. Every comment involving nationalites does not imply racism.
Thank you for your complete lack of contribution to the discussion.
If it stayed in the church then I'm sure no one would have a problem with it. The problem originates when they try to get it taught in science classes. If they ever try to teach politics in science class then I'll bitch about that too.
Alumni are by definition a source of future income. To maximize your profitability you want only people who will graduate and then become very rich, and thus feel generous when they give back to their alma mater.
Banging on a tree is a good method to get the insect inhabitants out. It works marvelously for termites and ants. Don't believe me? Try it sometime on a bees nest.
I'm sure you've seen videos of monkeys hanging out, they are nearly always doing one thing in particular, picking fleas/ticks off of each other. Humans don't have the same difficulty becuase fleas have a hard time hanging onto hairless beasts.
Why does a giraffe have a long neck? Because thats where the leaves are. There are many reasons for walking upright, most notably it frees your hands up. I've seen videos of monkeys walking around holding something in one hand. It's rather awkward looking. Carry any more and you have to walk upright.
I am not listing this as proof of anything, the fact is that there are many possible reasons for your questions. It doesn't seem like you've looked very hard for answers.
When you say that no one can describe how the evolution of any creature has occured (which is false), I'm sure you really meant to say that no one can describe how even the simplest microbe was created from non-living material. That is a much more difficult question and the theory of evolution does not hinge on this question.
Evolution is not equivalent to random motion. I've also heard this as "tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747". Evolution has a selection process and you do not start from scratch, you always build on what came before you. If evolution was only random, then it would be like browinian motion, it would never make any progress in any particular direction.
Also the burden of proof probably would not matter to you. If I told you which book to read that would prove evolution to you, would you read it? Have you ever read anything about evolution that was not written by a religous person?
I think it does affect your ability to study or understand because you do not look for "why" since you assume the answer to "why" is because god made it that way. Have you ever honestly tried to research why a woodpecker would begin banging its head on things? You have already assumed that certain aspects of this world are beyond your grasp as a non-god being. That type of attitude clearly shows that you will never have the level of understanding of other people who are going to try, even if it takes them their whole lives to understand the world around them.
This is still the case, except you have to remove the references to God. People are still exploring the beauty of the world with all its intricacies. Speak for yourself, I do not think I am nothing, I will continue to try to create something that will last forever. If the only people who are affected by what I have done in this world are my future children, then that will have been enough to make it all worthwhileIt is a big world and the definition of random is that sometimes somewhere something like this will eventually happen. It doesn't indicate that there was any kind of direct cause and effect. What saved your son was probably you and the mother, somewhere you gave him the just the right genes in the right places. Sadly, for every story like yours there are probably many where people prayed and the outcome was still not as desired. This is often referred to as "gods will", or working in mysterious ways. It is human nature to perpetuate only the good stories.
I wish there was a direct effect from praying, it would give many people all over the world the ability to control the world around them, even when all seems hopeless.
No, I'm labeling it quackery because that's what it is. Not because I don't like it or don't agree with it. Creationism was barred from school because of its obviously religious bent. Thus they come up with intelligent design, which is basically the same thing minus the obviously religious aspects. Science is not the art of rewording things until people can't ban you for obvious non-science reasons.
Different creatures? Where did that come from? Dwarfs can result from many different genetic screwups.
I take it that the only way "you folk" can win any kind of argument is by labeling posts flamebait?
And btw, there are many many instances where evolution results in something that is not only not useful but quite deadly, think dwarfism, progeria, etc... and other genetic mutations. It is not relevant whether or not any particular biological construct is immediately useful or detrimental, only whether the organism as a whole manages to survive. Evolution is not a neat, quick, or orderly process.
Prayer, like placebos, are all in the mind so your study is irrelevant to the discussion if it does not detail the type of people which these prayers are helpful for. Never mind the fact that you cannot do a proper scientific experiment without a control group. What are you going to do, tell the religious people in the control group that they cannot pray for themselves?
Your ignorance of evolutionist is truly astounding.