I don't think it can be as simple as that. Main reason for that is the recent discovery of the parallel role of astrocytes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrocyte in the brain. What I mean is that I don't think we know enough about the brain to claim its valid to think that provided that you can map neurons you can take a "snapshot" of the brain and simulate it.
Well, if all the bug is doing is responding to external stimuli, then it's really not intelligent
Well wait, do you mean that bugs are not really intelligent, or that the examples I chose could not reveal intelligence?
Which brings us to a potentially interesting question, how do we tell that animals are intelligent? By answering this, we can think of AI's to try to make and tests to test them..
Yeah I agree that simulated intelligence is not genuine intelligence. It seems obvious. As I read somewhere, the Turing test doesn't mean alot because theorically a computer could be programmed to have enough "data" in itself to reply to everything it could be told within 30 minutes, then the Turing test is based on a judgement, and if some people are easy to fool and not others, it's still a relative thing and thus doesn't mean anything, and then the intelligences not able to pass this test are still intelligent (babies, animals and foreigners for example).
Personally, I see a first step in AI in a bug that would figure out by itself how to do everything a bug has to do, without being even remotely programmed to do or to learn how to do the tasks it would do. I see trying to make a genuine AI chat pretty much like trying to send a man on some exoplanet, I mean we hardly can make an AI of the level of the simplest intelligent animals, and we would try to make an AI perform a task only performed by such complex being as us, not to mention that it takes us years of learning.
More on the philosophical side of things, I know I can basically "make run" any program by looking at its source code (or even assembly code) and performing by myself what it does. Even if most programs are too complex for such a thing to be done, it's theorically possible. Now, if we got an artificial intelligence generated by a program, and then i try to "run" this program by myself by looking at its code, it would mean I would have a genuine intelligence running "on top" of my brain, well maybe it's not such a valid point, but I hardly can imagine that.
However, I read about 70% of your paper, it was interesting, however it was maybe too focused on refutating Turing's test and well, I guess I would have liked to hear about how to "recognize" a simpler intelligence, such as a bug-type intelligence. I think that's what the strong-AI researcher should focus on researching, instead of directly looking for a chatting intelligence, I think that going straight for that type of intelligence is trying to skip a half-dozen of major and necessary steps to get to any genuine AI, as I said, it's as if we tried to send men on an exoplanet, that sure'd be interesting, but we should first try to send em to Mars.
hahahahahaha. yeah right! I think they're way ahead of me in getting high and takin science-fiction for reality. I heard one of the heads of Google saying that if they numerised all these books it was so a genuine AI program could read them and learn from them.
When I read that I was cracked up and thought to myself that that guy had to be real dumb to believe he can do that.
That kinda shit just ain't gonna happen, period.
What's your reason btw, you work at Google or you don't want anyone to know you believe that kinda bullshit?
I agree with you, it's hard to tell yet. But why talk about such things as the human mind? That's what comes up everytime we talk about AI, but personally, I'm not looking for a human-like intelligence that can be genuinely depressed, but rather something like a bug that can find out by itself how to walk and avoid obstacles, such things.
I think "something with a brain" qualifies as intelligent, I guess.
And that's just as well, as it wouldn't teach us anything more than just physically reconstucting the object atom by atomYeah that's perfectly right, but so far I just saw it as the only way to obtain an artificial intelligence, considered that it's the first goal to reach before making an interesting artificial intelligence
I can sue you all because I have founded in 1337 a company nammed Aback Abacus Abandon Abandoned Abase Abashed Abate... Zodiac Zombie Zone Zonked Zoo Zoological Zoologist Zoology Zoom Zucchini Zulu, Inc., so bow to your new all-words-in-the-dictionnary owning overlord!
If they can simulate something else than a virus (because I don't think viruses are intelligent) could they by this way obtain intelligence by simulating an intelligent animal?
Incredible. A 5-page article dealing with user-created content on the Web, and not a single word about deviantART http://www.deviantart.com/ the #1 art community (Flickr is not an art community).
Nor about SourceForge, which is also a great user-created content website, although it's left to the geeky "elite"
haha, Gassé instead of Ballmer, I would have never dared even thinking about that one. That's an interesting idea tho, but I hardly can see it happening. Although he may be a questionnable manager, I'm pretty sure he'd make the Microsoft products improve. After all, you've seen BeOS, it's "the shit", isn't it?
haha, of course I can run X on it! 133 MHz, that's not a ZX-80. If it can run Windows 98 SE, it can run X, and it can run blackbox.
Personally I wouldn't want to use blackbox on Windows tho, maybe it's cuz I didn't spend much time using it/customizing it but it seems to be quite limited compared to Windows.
I don't understand while this system would have to function any differently from the currently existing one. I thought it was all about how you choose to display/write it.
Gnome is maybe not the best example. I'd rather talk about lightweight window managers like blackbox fluxbox and openbox. I tried using Gnome 2.10 on FreeBSD 6.0 on a 133 MHz Pentium I laptop, it's as slow as a zombie turtle, as blackbox runs fast.
No doubt some "gangster" could easily try to prove how tough he is by threatening you with a gun.
If you think this is really likely, have yourself a gun. It might seem a bit extreme, but if you think you're likely to get into a situation that might end up in you being threatened by something that you can't defend yourself against with just your fist, you better bring a gun.
Maybe you lose, but at least you get the self-respect from not being a pussy* and maybe you win and get some external respect too, which keeps people off your ass
Exactly, a few years ago, some 6'4" tall guy was keeping acting gay with me, touchin my butt and shit, i'm very skinny so alot of people think they can pick on me, so I called him a son of a bitch and punched him in the face, he had no trouble making my hit the floor, but he never acted gay with me again.
It seems that people just don't wanna risk being punched in the face, even if you can't lift more than 60 lbs and that you're easy to defeat.
Being known as the "crazy" kid in school to the hoodlums is a good thing
I agree, my parents, a couple of jesus-freaks, stereotipically cowardly french, always told me not to fight because jesus blah blah...
The result was aweful, by the time I was in 6th grade, everybody was pickin on me. Things only got better for me when I found out that throwing my fist into people's face when I was pissed off was a much better solution than the "you have to talk with the person you got beef with"'s that everybody from parents to teachers to friends gives you.
When I was in university, I noticed that there were two types of students who did well: those who were very smart, and those who were not so bright, but worked very hard. While I often envied the first group, I always respected the second group more. When it comes to life outside the university, I'm willing to bet that, as a whole, the hard workers will end up doing better than the naturally gifted ones.
I totally agree with you, while I'm not a genius, I was doing very good at school up to the 9th grade without doing anything, but later on, I couldn't go on to all the scientifical studies I wanted, just because, not being used to work hard, I couldn't follow. I also gave up after the first year of college.
No need to say that the hard working people who were doing more averagily than me while when were ten didn't fail where I fail.
Or better, have a F@H type utility running other people's computations, thus earning "credit" and then spend your credit on your own computations when you need.
In other words it would mean saving your own CPU time to use it later. I used to dream about this back when I had a 75 MHz PowerPC and was doing 3D in raytracing on it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it can be as simple as that. Main reason for that is the recent discovery of the parallel role of astrocytes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrocyte in the brain. What I mean is that I don't think we know enough about the brain to claim its valid to think that provided that you can map neurons you can take a "snapshot" of the brain and simulate it.
ight, but I think you're underestimating it. The brain remains quite mysterious.
Well wait, do you mean that bugs are not really intelligent, or that the examples I chose could not reveal intelligence?
Which brings us to a potentially interesting question, how do we tell that animals are intelligent? By answering this, we can think of AI's to try to make and tests to test them..
Personally, I see a first step in AI in a bug that would figure out by itself how to do everything a bug has to do, without being even remotely programmed to do or to learn how to do the tasks it would do. I see trying to make a genuine AI chat pretty much like trying to send a man on some exoplanet, I mean we hardly can make an AI of the level of the simplest intelligent animals, and we would try to make an AI perform a task only performed by such complex being as us, not to mention that it takes us years of learning.
More on the philosophical side of things, I know I can basically "make run" any program by looking at its source code (or even assembly code) and performing by myself what it does. Even if most programs are too complex for such a thing to be done, it's theorically possible. Now, if we got an artificial intelligence generated by a program, and then i try to "run" this program by myself by looking at its code, it would mean I would have a genuine intelligence running "on top" of my brain, well maybe it's not such a valid point, but I hardly can imagine that.
However, I read about 70% of your paper, it was interesting, however it was maybe too focused on refutating Turing's test and well, I guess I would have liked to hear about how to "recognize" a simpler intelligence, such as a bug-type intelligence. I think that's what the strong-AI researcher should focus on researching, instead of directly looking for a chatting intelligence, I think that going straight for that type of intelligence is trying to skip a half-dozen of major and necessary steps to get to any genuine AI, as I said, it's as if we tried to send men on an exoplanet, that sure'd be interesting, but we should first try to send em to Mars.
hahahahahaha. yeah right! I think they're way ahead of me in getting high and takin science-fiction for reality. I heard one of the heads of Google saying that if they numerised all these books it was so a genuine AI program could read them and learn from them.
When I read that I was cracked up and thought to myself that that guy had to be real dumb to believe he can do that.
That kinda shit just ain't gonna happen, period.
What's your reason btw, you work at Google or you don't want anyone to know you believe that kinda bullshit?
I agree with you, it's hard to tell yet. But why talk about such things as the human mind? That's what comes up everytime we talk about AI, but personally, I'm not looking for a human-like intelligence that can be genuinely depressed, but rather something like a bug that can find out by itself how to walk and avoid obstacles, such things.
I think "something with a brain" qualifies as intelligent, I guess.
And that's just as well, as it wouldn't teach us anything more than just physically reconstucting the object atom by atomYeah that's perfectly right, but so far I just saw it as the only way to obtain an artificial intelligence, considered that it's the first goal to reach before making an interesting artificial intelligence
Sure, but who talked about a human brain?
Personally I'll content myself with a virtual genuinely intelligent simulated bug.
I can sue you all because I have founded in 1337 a company nammed Aback Abacus Abandon Abandoned Abase Abashed Abate ... Zodiac Zombie Zone Zonked Zoo Zoological Zoologist Zoology Zoom Zucchini Zulu, Inc., so bow to your new all-words-in-the-dictionnary owning overlord!
If they can simulate something else than a virus (because I don't think viruses are intelligent) could they by this way obtain intelligence by simulating an intelligent animal?
Nor about SourceForge, which is also a great user-created content website, although it's left to the geeky "elite"
Btw, what's up with him nowadays? Is he retired?
Personally I wouldn't want to use blackbox on Windows tho, maybe it's cuz I didn't spend much time using it/customizing it but it seems to be quite limited compared to Windows.
I don't understand while this system would have to function any differently from the currently existing one. I thought it was all about how you choose to display/write it.
Gnome is maybe not the best example. I'd rather talk about lightweight window managers like blackbox fluxbox and openbox. I tried using Gnome 2.10 on FreeBSD 6.0 on a 133 MHz Pentium I laptop, it's as slow as a zombie turtle, as blackbox runs fast.
ok, maybe broad to narrow makes sence, but it makes URLs look like Usenet addresses
If you think this is really likely, have yourself a gun. It might seem a bit extreme, but if you think you're likely to get into a situation that might end up in you being threatened by something that you can't defend yourself against with just your fist, you better bring a gun.
Exactly, a few years ago, some 6'4" tall guy was keeping acting gay with me, touchin my butt and shit, i'm very skinny so alot of people think they can pick on me, so I called him a son of a bitch and punched him in the face, he had no trouble making my hit the floor, but he never acted gay with me again.
It seems that people just don't wanna risk being punched in the face, even if you can't lift more than 60 lbs and that you're easy to defeat.
If someone could mod that flamebait that'd be awesome :-D
I agree, my parents, a couple of jesus-freaks, stereotipically cowardly french, always told me not to fight because jesus blah blah...
The result was aweful, by the time I was in 6th grade, everybody was pickin on me. Things only got better for me when I found out that throwing my fist into people's face when I was pissed off was a much better solution than the "you have to talk with the person you got beef with"'s that everybody from parents to teachers to friends gives you.
53 61 76 65 20 79 6F 75 72 73 65 6C 66 20 74 68 65 20 74 72 6F 75 62 6C 65 20 6F 66 20 64 6F 77 6E 6C 6F 61 64 69 6E 67 20 61 6E 20 61 70 70 20 61 6E 64 20 72 61 74 68 65 72 20 75 73 65 20 74 68 61 74 20 68 74 74 70 3A 2F 2F 77 77 77 2E 76 6F 72 74 65 78 2E 70 72 6F 64 69 67 79 6E 65 74 2E 63 6F 2E 75 6B 2F 6D 69 73 63 2F 61 73 63 69 69 5F 63 6F 6E 76 2E 68 74 6D 6C 20 49 20 6A 75 73 74 20 66 6F 75 6E 64 20 69 74 20 6F 75 74 20 61 6E 64 20 69 74 20 72 30 78
4D 65 20 74 6F 6F 2C 20 62 75 74 20 74 68 65 20 77 6F 72 73 65 20 69 73 20 74 68 61 74 20 69 74 20 64 69 64 6E 27 74 20 65 76 65 6E 20 77 6F 72 6B 20 72 69 67 68 74 2C 20 62 75 74 20 49 20 66 6F 75 6E 64 20 61 20 63 6F 6F 6C 20 73 69 74 65 20 74 6F 20 64 6F 20 69 74 20 68 74 74 70 3A 2F 2F 77 77 77 2E 76 6F 72 74 65 78 2E 70 72 6F 64 69 67 79 6E 65 74 2E 63 6F 2E 75 6B 2F 6D 69 73 63 2F 61 73 63 69 69 5F 63 6F 6E 76 2E 68 74 6D 6C
haha I love your signature. Very true.
I totally agree with you, while I'm not a genius, I was doing very good at school up to the 9th grade without doing anything, but later on, I couldn't go on to all the scientifical studies I wanted, just because, not being used to work hard, I couldn't follow. I also gave up after the first year of college.
No need to say that the hard working people who were doing more averagily than me while when were ten didn't fail where I fail.
In other words it would mean saving your own CPU time to use it later. I used to dream about this back when I had a 75 MHz PowerPC and was doing 3D in raytracing on it.