This is a ridiculous statement. We have the technology to go to the moon, technology has advanced since the '70s. It's just a matter of whether we want to do it or not.
You seem to be unaware of how this works: If you do not continuously use them, technological capabilities deteriorate and go away. Many things needed to go to the moon have not been used for a long time and hence are not available anymore. They need to be re-discovered and that takes time. Also, just go there, walk around and come back will not cut it. That this is mostly a meaningless stunt is far more obvious today than it was back then.
I am saying it is _unsolved_ and there are pretty strong hints that we are nowhere close to even a rough solution. On the other hand, we do have a pretty strong theory of computing and that one gives us severe theoretical and practical limits as to what can be done with computing. Implementing consciousness is not possible with computers, and that is just a hard fact. All you could ever do is fake it. Of you think that is enough, then you have not understood what a p-zombie is and why it cannot be all that exists. AGI may well turn out to be impossible as well, but there is still some hope.
Why is it that people always try to twist the words of others when they hear something they do not like?
Nope. There are just some (few) people that get how utterly limited and primitive modern computer tech actually is, and many, many more that ascribe magical powers to it and think it can do anything. The second class has a problem with reality perception that, I think, cannot be fixed. It seems to apply here.
You actually do not see anything here. You just have an unjustified faith in technology and are unaware of the history of coding and what has already been tried. Not my job to educate you and when this fails you probably will not even remember you thought it was a good idea.
Exactly. The only reasonable way for "automated" coding we have ever found is to abstract things into libraries. Nothing else has ever worked. This is probably just people that either want to get rich quick or that never have heard of the 5th Generation Language project and its abysmal failure to deliver anything useful.
Well, "learn to code" as in "do some very basic data-processing", maybe. But that is not a really useful skill. It is basically on the level of being able to read and write. Actual useful coding skills are more on the level of at least writing reasonable short-stories.
I do disagree on the complexity of Python. Sure, if you ignore 90% of the language, it is simple. But so is C. I also disagree on the OS. You _can_ write an OS in Python and in some situations it may even make sense to do so partially. Look to the tech Eve Online is using, for example, with stackless Python.
You have no clue what you are talking about. I do get that it is "modern" to expect great things for the near future, but that does not make it any less demented and stupid.
The technology is not there. We have a somewhat reliable capability to put people into low earth orbit. We do not have the capability to get people to the Moon at this time and we never had it except for a very brief visit, followed by running home. When we have had a stable, self-sufficient Moon-base for 30 years or so, Mars will slowly become a possibility, but that Moon-base is wayyyy off in the future, if it happens at all.
Well, yes. However if you need personal experience for a risk that is well understood and documented, then you have failed as an intellectual being. Not that this is not the normal mode most people live their lives in...
Written, time-delayed communication is as old as human civilization. The typewriter, end hence the keyboard is just a final improvement. Same for real-time voice communication, where the final improvement was to be able to do it over large distances. Seriously, it does take zero "vision" for such a prediction, just seeing what is is quite enough. And we will stay with these interface types, because they are what works.
There are a lot of highly educated morons around. Some of them even have high intelligence. Does not matter. The problem is one of wisdom, in the sense of what to apply education and intelligence to. A lot of humans will just prefer their misconceptions even when they are educated end intelligent enough to easily verify what is actually true and what is not. The human tragedy at work: They could know better, but they _chose_ to not find out what is true.
What we are learning is that some things can be faked or actually done without intelligence. Chess and Go are current examples. These machines are not intelligent, they just managed to scale to a level where somewhat refined brute-force can beat a not-too-well prepared human expert player
So you're of the "if it can be done by a machine, it's not intelligence" crowd? I'm pretty sure that we'll eventually discover that there's no such thing as intelligence in the first place one day this way.
Nope. Just what _these_ machines (or any other today) do is not intelligence. There is no element of insight. That may eventually change, but so far nobody has a clue how that could be achieved. If you think the element of insight is not needed for intelligence, then you are lacking in same.
Nobody defeated humans at Go. There was a rigged stunt (the machine had many, many games the human played to prepare, the human had none and even after only seeing the machine play 3 times thought he could come up with a strategy to beat it), and there is a very good reason we did not see more games. The machine would probably not have stood any chance after a while.
I thought it used to mean the field that tries to build systems that perform such tasks that if they were done by a human, we'd take it as a sign of his intelligence, but that's just me (and Minsky).
Well, Minsky was perhaps the most clueless idiot or alternatively the most dishonest ass with regards to what he said about AI. I am really glad that has finally stopped. It was an utter disgrace to the profession and is one of the sources of completely unrealistic expectations in non-experts.
What we are learning is that some things can be faked or actually done without intelligence. Chess and Go are current examples. These machines are not intelligent, they just managed to scale to a level where somewhat refined brute-force can beat a not-too-well prepared human expert player. (The machines had hundreds of games of their human opponents, the humans had none of the machine. That is called a "stunt" and has no scientific value at all.) Also, things like driving clearly do not require intelligence, even though many humans like to think otherwise. Bad translations also seem to not require intelligence, as long as you stick to a predefined set of topics (which is impressively large these days, granted). And, of course, the average human is not very smart and rarely acts insight-driven. That does not change the fact that machines are completely incapable of insight and that there is not even a credible theory these days how they could gain that. This means typically > 50 years or impossible. And no, IT is not faster developing than other tech. Look at the current mess with all that insecure crap and then compare that to the steam-engine: About 50 years to general adoption, but unsafe as hell and in no way a mature technology.That is where we are with computers today. The thing is that technology maturation is driven by humans and humans are generally slow and dumb.
If you think you can implement insight in computers today, then you are utterly without insight. Also, that there is absolutely no indication that AGI is possible is just the current scientific state-of-the-art. You seem to confuse SF literature with Science.
And for a phone with removable battery it is even easier to check. I very much doubt anybody would risk putting in such an obvious thing. Some people have seen too many bad spy movies.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a ridiculous statement. We have the technology to go to the moon, technology has advanced since the '70s. It's just a matter of whether we want to do it or not.
You seem to be unaware of how this works: If you do not continuously use them, technological capabilities deteriorate and go away. Many things needed to go to the moon have not been used for a long time and hence are not available anymore. They need to be re-discovered and that takes time. Also, just go there, walk around and come back will not cut it. That this is mostly a meaningless stunt is far more obvious today than it was back then.
I am saying it is _unsolved_ and there are pretty strong hints that we are nowhere close to even a rough solution. On the other hand, we do have a pretty strong theory of computing and that one gives us severe theoretical and practical limits as to what can be done with computing. Implementing consciousness is not possible with computers, and that is just a hard fact. All you could ever do is fake it. Of you think that is enough, then you have not understood what a p-zombie is and why it cannot be all that exists. AGI may well turn out to be impossible as well, but there is still some hope.
Why is it that people always try to twist the words of others when they hear something they do not like?
Nope. There are just some (few) people that get how utterly limited and primitive modern computer tech actually is, and many, many more that ascribe magical powers to it and think it can do anything. The second class has a problem with reality perception that, I think, cannot be fixed. It seems to apply here.
I see nothing wrong with that.
You actually do not see anything here. You just have an unjustified faith in technology and are unaware of the history of coding and what has already been tried. Not my job to educate you and when this fails you probably will not even remember you thought it was a good idea.
Probably. Will be a complete failure nonetheless. I mean this has failed multiple times before and for pretty fundamental reasons.
Exactly. The only reasonable way for "automated" coding we have ever found is to abstract things into libraries. Nothing else has ever worked. This is probably just people that either want to get rich quick or that never have heard of the 5th Generation Language project and its abysmal failure to deliver anything useful.
Well, "learn to code" as in "do some very basic data-processing", maybe. But that is not a really useful skill. It is basically on the level of being able to read and write. Actual useful coding skills are more on the level of at least writing reasonable short-stories.
I do disagree on the complexity of Python. Sure, if you ignore 90% of the language, it is simple. But so is C. I also disagree on the OS. You _can_ write an OS in Python and in some situations it may even make sense to do so partially. Look to the tech Eve Online is using, for example, with stackless Python.
You have no clue what you are talking about. I do get that it is "modern" to expect great things for the near future, but that does not make it any less demented and stupid.
The technology is not there. We have a somewhat reliable capability to put people into low earth orbit. We do not have the capability to get people to the Moon at this time and we never had it except for a very brief visit, followed by running home. When we have had a stable, self-sufficient Moon-base for 30 years or so, Mars will slowly become a possibility, but that Moon-base is wayyyy off in the future, if it happens at all.
Dear fuckup, I know you are not APK, but you seem to be too dumb to realize not everybody is on your level of mental deficiency.
Well, yes. However if you need personal experience for a risk that is well understood and documented, then you have failed as an intellectual being. Not that this is not the normal mode most people live their lives in...
Written, time-delayed communication is as old as human civilization. The typewriter, end hence the keyboard is just a final improvement. Same for real-time voice communication, where the final improvement was to be able to do it over large distances. Seriously, it does take zero "vision" for such a prediction, just seeing what is is quite enough. And we will stay with these interface types, because they are what works.
There are a lot of highly educated morons around. Some of them even have high intelligence. Does not matter. The problem is one of wisdom, in the sense of what to apply education and intelligence to. A lot of humans will just prefer their misconceptions even when they are educated end intelligent enough to easily verify what is actually true and what is not. The human tragedy at work: They could know better, but they _chose_ to not find out what is true.
Nobody is going to Mars this century. Deal with it.
And that is just it. Whoever needs such help should stay away from coding in the first place.
Pretty much what is going on, yes. Most of the human race does not get it and probably never will.
This seems like s very, very bad idea, for multiple reasons.
Well, the problem here is on your side. And it does not look like it can be fixed. Sorry.
What we are learning is that some things can be faked or actually done without intelligence. Chess and Go are current examples. These machines are not intelligent, they just managed to scale to a level where somewhat refined brute-force can beat a not-too-well prepared human expert player
So you're of the "if it can be done by a machine, it's not intelligence" crowd? I'm pretty sure that we'll eventually discover that there's no such thing as intelligence in the first place one day this way.
Nope. Just what _these_ machines (or any other today) do is not intelligence. There is no element of insight. That may eventually change, but so far nobody has a clue how that could be achieved. If you think the element of insight is not needed for intelligence, then you are lacking in same.
Nobody defeated humans at Go. There was a rigged stunt (the machine had many, many games the human played to prepare, the human had none and even after only seeing the machine play 3 times thought he could come up with a strategy to beat it), and there is a very good reason we did not see more games. The machine would probably not have stood any chance after a while.
I thought it used to mean the field that tries to build systems that perform such tasks that if they were done by a human, we'd take it as a sign of his intelligence, but that's just me (and Minsky).
Well, Minsky was perhaps the most clueless idiot or alternatively the most dishonest ass with regards to what he said about AI. I am really glad that has finally stopped. It was an utter disgrace to the profession and is one of the sources of completely unrealistic expectations in non-experts.
What we are learning is that some things can be faked or actually done without intelligence. Chess and Go are current examples. These machines are not intelligent, they just managed to scale to a level where somewhat refined brute-force can beat a not-too-well prepared human expert player. (The machines had hundreds of games of their human opponents, the humans had none of the machine. That is called a "stunt" and has no scientific value at all.) Also, things like driving clearly do not require intelligence, even though many humans like to think otherwise. Bad translations also seem to not require intelligence, as long as you stick to a predefined set of topics (which is impressively large these days, granted). And, of course, the average human is not very smart and rarely acts insight-driven. That does not change the fact that machines are completely incapable of insight and that there is not even a credible theory these days how they could gain that. This means typically > 50 years or impossible. And no, IT is not faster developing than other tech. Look at the current mess with all that insecure crap and then compare that to the steam-engine: About 50 years to general adoption, but unsafe as hell and in no way a mature technology.That is where we are with computers today. The thing is that technology maturation is driven by humans and humans are generally slow and dumb.
If you think you can implement insight in computers today, then you are utterly without insight. Also, that there is absolutely no indication that AGI is possible is just the current scientific state-of-the-art. You seem to confuse SF literature with Science.
And for a phone with removable battery it is even easier to check. I very much doubt anybody would risk putting in such an obvious thing. Some people have seen too many bad spy movies.
There is no "other battery". There is no space for one.
We're still a far cry from answering the all important question: What does "AI" mean anyway?
That one is solved: "AI" = marketing hype term meaning "automation".