I remember when people disclaimed the notion that a computer could even beat a grandmaster at all. Now it has happened, so people say, "Well, it is not really the computer doing it. It is the people programming it."
You are right that the computer is just running algorithms, but what if computer scientists write a bunch of algorithms for cooking? This spice combines with that spice in a pleasant way. This amount of meat requires this many minutes at this temperature, and so on. Now suppose that someone programs a computer to invest wisely in the stock market. This has been done already with success. Not grandmaster success, perhaps, but you see where it goes.
A computer can be extended with greater ease than a human. More memory, more CPUs, more disk, and faster of each is always nice. Even with the power that our computers currently have, we can certainly build algorithms for a great variety of things--all our effort, yes--but then we can load all of those algorithms into the memory space of a single computer and add an algorithm to recognize, "I want to play chess." as the time to apply chess algorithms, and "What would be a good recipe with fish and red peppers?" as the time to apply cooking algorithms.
And so it goes. At some point, with such a wealth of algorithms at the computers disposal and the ability to recognize when to apply which ones, you are getting very close to at least "apparent" sentience, at least in the limited sense that many of us understand it. This is not so unreasonable; it does not require much more than what we can do now. More developer time invested in algorithm development across a broader range of topics, and possibly memory/CPU power, though already, computers are rapidly approaching the best case estimates of our brains capacity (from a biological standpoint of number of neurons, rate of synaptic firing, degree of connectivity, etc.). This is not so different from raising a child. Years of teaching algorithms to interact with the environment and society in a beneficial way. We can even program computers to modify their own algorithms based on external simulus (as our children do).
I do not suggest that there are not obstacles. Certainly there are. But as you pointed out, the single biggest obstacle to making a silicon based sentient is likely not the materials*. It is our currently limited, but rapidly increasing understanding of our own sentient processes, that is the real limitation. In other words, the computer is not the limited one. We are.
The next 50 years should be tremendously interesting.
* And if materials were the issue, we could switch to other materials (already happening), or as our understanding of genetic engineering increases, we can switch to a biological substrate.
"...a small survey of companies...seem [to indicate] that the public at large [snip] is not actually demanding any such stripped down version."
There would seem to be something wrong with this argument. "small set of companies" != "public at large".
Water is blue because it is under the sky.
Land is under the sky.
Land is blue.
Mmm, hmm...
When you have a question that the documentation does not answer, find the answer and then document it. If each member of the team does this, the documentation will evolve to a useful and current state. If some do not do this, the documentation will not be as good, but unless you are the person creating and enforcing policies, you simply have to accept it.
I do not think there is a set "answer" to the question, "What documentation is good?" Like a Slasdot post review, many people have a hand in "documenting"; each person offers their perspective. If you have enough participation, the documentation will be good.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right that the computer is just running algorithms, but what if computer scientists write a bunch of algorithms for cooking? This spice combines with that spice in a pleasant way. This amount of meat requires this many minutes at this temperature, and so on. Now suppose that someone programs a computer to invest wisely in the stock market. This has been done already with success. Not grandmaster success, perhaps, but you see where it goes.
A computer can be extended with greater ease than a human. More memory, more CPUs, more disk, and faster of each is always nice. Even with the power that our computers currently have, we can certainly build algorithms for a great variety of things--all our effort, yes--but then we can load all of those algorithms into the memory space of a single computer and add an algorithm to recognize, "I want to play chess." as the time to apply chess algorithms, and "What would be a good recipe with fish and red peppers?" as the time to apply cooking algorithms.
And so it goes. At some point, with such a wealth of algorithms at the computers disposal and the ability to recognize when to apply which ones, you are getting very close to at least "apparent" sentience, at least in the limited sense that many of us understand it. This is not so unreasonable; it does not require much more than what we can do now. More developer time invested in algorithm development across a broader range of topics, and possibly memory/CPU power, though already, computers are rapidly approaching the best case estimates of our brains capacity (from a biological standpoint of number of neurons, rate of synaptic firing, degree of connectivity, etc.). This is not so different from raising a child. Years of teaching algorithms to interact with the environment and society in a beneficial way. We can even program computers to modify their own algorithms based on external simulus (as our children do).
I do not suggest that there are not obstacles. Certainly there are. But as you pointed out, the single biggest obstacle to making a silicon based sentient is likely not the materials*. It is our currently limited, but rapidly increasing understanding of our own sentient processes, that is the real limitation. In other words, the computer is not the limited one. We are.
The next 50 years should be tremendously interesting.
* And if materials were the issue, we could switch to other materials (already happening), or as our understanding of genetic engineering increases, we can switch to a biological substrate.
There is really no need to worry about this ruling at all, because the Martians are going to seize the entire planet in 5d2hr40min and 46...45...44s.
"...a small survey of companies...seem [to indicate] that the public at large [snip] is not actually demanding any such stripped down version." There would seem to be something wrong with this argument. "small set of companies" != "public at large". Water is blue because it is under the sky. Land is under the sky. Land is blue. Mmm, hmm...
I refuse to learn another language. I would not want to get confused when I return from France.
Once they invent a Fab Lab Fabricator, we're done.
The people that are the most obnoxious their point of view are the ones that are the least secure with their point of view.
When you have a question that the documentation does not answer, find the answer and then document it. If each member of the team does this, the documentation will evolve to a useful and current state. If some do not do this, the documentation will not be as good, but unless you are the person creating and enforcing policies, you simply have to accept it. I do not think there is a set "answer" to the question, "What documentation is good?" Like a Slasdot post review, many people have a hand in "documenting"; each person offers their perspective. If you have enough participation, the documentation will be good.