Re:I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
What the experiment actually shows is that complexity can evolve from simplicity. Thus, it is one more nail in the coffin of intelligent design since "the difference in complexity between what merely exists and those things that grow" could be merely a consequence of evolution.
Scientists have just discovered that the missing 99% of the universe's mass is composed of missing socks accumulating since their invention, oh-so-many years ago. Also, thought to contribute are missing keys, gloves and wallets, though their existence is highly speculative at this moment.
If societies acted as a group, probably very few stupid decisions would be made.
Perhaps. But this would NEVER happen and I am extremely skeptical that we as a species should take this route even if it were possible to organize society in this way (the old centralization vs decentralization debate).
Regardless, the reality is that self-interest is the dominant factor in every person's decisions, and economics is thus the way to predict trends and avoid disasters.
Jupiter's natural radiation could heat Europa's innards enough for life to thrive.
I do not think it has anything to do with radiation from Jupiter (since any radiation would simply be reflection from the Sun), but instead the heat is caused by the intense gravitational tidal forces from Jupiter (similar to the tidal effect of the moon on Earth). Gravity is constantly compressing and altering the shape of Europa and this friction causes it to heat up to the point where liquid water can exist (under the surface at least). The same effect between the Earth, the Sun and the moon contributes to the high core temperatures of the Earth (I believe).
On the new Death Star, Vader says a bunch of things to Luke that don't support this hypothesis, so please ignore them.
You could say that after 20+ years of acting evil, Vader got into the habit of being evil and perhaps even believed he was. Over the years, the emperor could have worn him down, and this would explain his comments about "the power of the darkside" and "I must obey my master". The appearance of Luke reminded him of his original goals.
The GPL is currently overly-restrictive because of copyright laws. In Stallman's perfect world, I don't imagine there would be a great need for the GPL. In our world there is.
Privacy and activity requiring "automated identification" (e.g., on-line, electronic banking, voting, commerce, etc.) are mutually exclusive.
Absolutely not.
The only way you can be positively identified is if a trusted third party has sufficient knowledge of you that they can verify that you really are who you say you are (good-bye privacy) or you have some sort of unique identification that cannot be forged and that absolutely identifies you (hello government IDs).
No, all that is required is a proper security model and protocol. Third party verification is one possibility. The other poster that responded to you outlined another such possibility. Exchanging cryptographic keys with your bank is a one-time up-front investment in time and effort, but provides automatic authentication thereafter. Cryptographic keys are (currently) unforgeable if done correctly, so there is no question as to your identity.
What truly scares me, is the possibility of only the rich being able to afford genetic "enhancements".
Imagine a world where if you want your child to benefit from genetics, you have to spend a proportional amount of money for said engineering to be done.
The social divisions between the rich and the rest of us, will only widen.
(flash back a few thousand years) Imagine a world where only the rich have access to weaponry. (flash back a few hundred years) Imagine a world where only the rich will be have access to advanced health care. (flash back one hundred years) Imagine a world where only the rich will have access to cars. Imagine a world where only the rich have access to flight.
etc., etc., etc.
Initial offerings are always expensive. Economies of scale and competition always end up bringing the price down to levels affordable by everyone.
Perhaps genetic enhancements should be regulated as a public benefit or utility, where all have somewhat equal opportunity to get them.
Government control/regulation and "public interest" are anti-thetical. Government always has its own agenda, and you can never entrust it to act in the "public good"; there are infinitely many varying opinions on what constitutes "good", and inevitably, you, and many others, will disagree with what the government decides. Why not let everyone make their own decisions? That's what the free market permits.
Let us assume that we exist. Let us further assume that we (as in us, ie. you and I) do live in a multiverse where all possible realities that can exist do exist. Then there must be a reality, different from ours, where a multiverse cannot exist (since this is a possible reality). Thus, this universe, different from ours contradicts the premise that we can exist since that reality is the only one in existence. Consequently, there are four possible resolutions to this dilemma:
we do not really exist
we do not live in a multiverse
the multiverse is not infinite in the sense that all possible realities that can exist, do exist (but merely that many many realities exist)
logic has absolutely no basis in reality and contradictions are a way of life
Low-fat food is just as nutitrious as high-fat food, but more healthy because it contains less fat.
That has yet to be confirmed. Fat is not necessarily bad.
You eat the same amount of it because your body needs a certain volume to feel full, not because you have to reach a certain fat-content before you can stop eating.
The parent post was implying that your body eats to obtain a certain amount of *calories* before it feels satisfied (not volume). Since fat packs more calories per pound than any other digestible ingredient, you can eat much less fatty food than low-fat food, and yet be just as sated. Furthermore, most fats have a certain chemical component which when broken down in your stomach makes you feel fuller than you really are.
But take all claims with a grain of salt (especially what the government says about healthy eating - they know less than anyone in the field and even the people in the field aren't sure what the answers are).
In short, a lot of anti-AI arguments seem to start from the premise that humans are not essentially biological computers
I think this is rather simple to demonstrate (in the strictest meaning of your words, ie. that humans have the inherent limitations of computers as we currently know them) using Goedel's incompleteness theorem: "Within any formal system of sufficient complexity, one can form statements which are neither provable nor disprovable using the axioms of that system."
Computers are perfectly logical, and can acertain truth using only logic. Goedel's theorem tells us that truth is sometimes actually above the scope of logic; that logic cannot demonstrate truth or untruth within a given system of axioms. Humans, on the other hand, can see the truth of a statement even though it is completely unknowable to the logical system in which the statement was formulated [1].
Humans are also capable of easily altering the system of axioms and rules in which we operate. This is completely beyond the capability of modern computers (though perhaps not future incarnations). We may be biological computers for some elevated definition of "computer", but we are certainly above the capabilities of modern computing machines.
[1] one way to discern the truth of unprovable statements in a formal system is to simply add the unprovable true statements to the list of axioms. This adds more incompleteness to the formal system (which can never be eliminated), but (I believe) the unprovable statements become increasingly convoluted. One could thus argue that humans simply have a very long axiomatic list of unprovable truth statements which makes us appear to be above the bounds of traditional logic, but we are still simple logic machines. There would thus be logical statements that would completely dumbfound us forever if they were ever found. I am dubious however.
I think the atomic bomb would have brought the U.S. victory. I know the bomb was dropped after the war was essentially won, but hypothetically speaking, if the U.S. and Germany alone were going at it, the U.S. would have won simply because they created the atomic weapon first.
the western people enslaved (I hate to use this word) Japanese people under the hierarchical structure of capitalism.
Oh please. Are you at all familiar with Japanese history and culture in previous centuries? The Shoguns ruling over the entire coountry? The priviledged Samurai classes with subordinate warriors and even lower peasants? Japan has lived under a hierarchal system for centuries (perhaps millenia). If anything, capitalism flattens that hierarchy somewhat and provides for mobility within the hierarchy; not something one could say about the previous ruling "governments" of Japan.
Forgiving weaknesses and accomodating weaknesses are different things. It's perfectly doable to not hold someone's mistake against them, while at the same time requiring them to correct it (or showing them how to correct it).
If it's a repeated mistake you most certainly should hold it against them. And of course you should accomodate weaknesses; anyone who does not design policy with humans as the weakest link is deluding him/herself.
Tell me, when your kids grow up, do you let them be more responsible or less? There isn't much to growing up if you become even more immature. We should thus be LESS forgiving of people's weaknesses because in wanting to be respected as a mature human being they must understand that they have a responsibility to themselves and others. Accomodating weaknesses is what got us all messed up in the first place.
Secondly, privacy should be choice. Don't force me to divulge information I may not want to give you. What right do you have to extract information from me?
Isn't there also a cost in context switching saving all those registers?
Yes indeed. Fortunately, the register save advantage is offset by other factors in the x86 architecture which still leave it worse off than RISC. Let me give you some numbers to put this in perspective.
User to supervisor mode transition times: Pentium: 40-60 cycles Pentium III: a few hundred cycles Pentium IV: 2000 cycles
PowerPC: 5-20 cycles (depending on chip) MIPS: 4 cycles (IIRC)
2000 cycles just to switch processor modes! The highest cost in context switching for the x86 is user-supervisor transitions which are far more numerous than actual context switches. Furthermore, x86 does not implement a tagged TLB which means the TLB must be fully flushed on every context switch (an incredibly expensive operation). The simpler instruction set of RISC chips frees more silicon to implement performance enhancing features like tagged TLBs.
Slashdot Mirror
Here it is, Professor Hatcher's Proof Of The Logical Existence of God (or at least my transcript of it). Followups outline his assumptions and possible flaws. But overall, the most convincing argument yet.
What the experiment actually shows is that complexity can evolve from simplicity. Thus, it is one more nail in the coffin of intelligent design since "the difference in complexity between what merely exists and those things that grow" could be merely a consequence of evolution.
Yeah, THAT lends credibility to your post...
Interesting that a holographic model of the Death Star appeared in Episode II.
Scientists have just discovered that the missing 99% of the universe's mass is composed of missing socks accumulating since their invention, oh-so-many years ago. Also, thought to contribute are missing keys, gloves and wallets, though their existence is highly speculative at this moment.
Oh, you mean this?
If societies acted as a group, probably very few stupid decisions would be made.
Perhaps. But this would NEVER happen and I am extremely skeptical that we as a species should take this route even if it were possible to organize society in this way (the old centralization vs decentralization debate).
Regardless, the reality is that self-interest is the dominant factor in every person's decisions, and economics is thus the way to predict trends and avoid disasters.
Jupiter's natural radiation could heat Europa's innards enough for life to thrive.
I do not think it has anything to do with radiation from Jupiter (since any radiation would simply be reflection from the Sun), but instead the heat is caused by the intense gravitational tidal forces from Jupiter (similar to the tidal effect of the moon on Earth). Gravity is constantly compressing and altering the shape of Europa and this friction causes it to heat up to the point where liquid water can exist (under the surface at least). The same effect between the Earth, the Sun and the moon contributes to the high core temperatures of the Earth (I believe).
On the new Death Star, Vader says a bunch of things to Luke that don't support this hypothesis, so please ignore them.
You could say that after 20+ years of acting evil, Vader got into the habit of being evil and perhaps even believed he was. Over the years, the emperor could have worn him down, and this would explain his comments about "the power of the darkside" and "I must obey my master". The appearance of Luke reminded him of his original goals.
The GPL is currently overly-restrictive because of copyright laws. In Stallman's perfect world, I don't imagine there would be a great need for the GPL. In our world there is.
Privacy and activity requiring "automated identification" (e.g., on-line, electronic banking, voting, commerce, etc.) are mutually exclusive.
Absolutely not.
The only way you can be positively identified is if a trusted third party has sufficient knowledge of you that they can verify that you really are who you say you are (good-bye privacy) or you have some sort of unique identification that cannot be forged and that absolutely identifies you (hello government IDs).
No, all that is required is a proper security model and protocol. Third party verification is one possibility. The other poster that responded to you outlined another such possibility. Exchanging cryptographic keys with your bank is a one-time up-front investment in time and effort, but provides automatic authentication thereafter. Cryptographic keys are (currently) unforgeable if done correctly, so there is no question as to your identity.
What truly scares me, is the possibility of only the rich being able to afford genetic "enhancements".
Imagine a world where if you want your child to benefit from genetics, you have to spend a proportional amount of money for said engineering to be done.
The social divisions between the rich and the rest of us, will only widen.
(flash back a few thousand years)
Imagine a world where only the rich have access to weaponry.
(flash back a few hundred years)
Imagine a world where only the rich will be have access to advanced health care.
(flash back one hundred years)
Imagine a world where only the rich will have access to cars.
Imagine a world where only the rich have access to flight.
etc., etc., etc.
Initial offerings are always expensive. Economies of scale and competition always end up bringing the price down to levels affordable by everyone.
Perhaps genetic enhancements should be regulated as a public benefit or utility, where all have somewhat equal opportunity to get them.
Government control/regulation and "public interest" are anti-thetical. Government always has its own agenda, and you can never entrust it to act in the "public good"; there are infinitely many varying opinions on what constitutes "good", and inevitably, you, and many others, will disagree with what the government decides. Why not let everyone make their own decisions? That's what the free market permits.
See my response to the same argument.
My bet is 2 or 3.
So, what you're really saying is that somewhere out there my double is having sex with a gorgeous supermodel right now?
*sigh* My evil twin gets to have all the fun.
Low-fat food is just as nutitrious as high-fat food, but more healthy because it contains less fat.
That has yet to be confirmed. Fat is not necessarily bad.
You eat the same amount of it because your body needs a certain volume to feel full, not because you have to reach a certain fat-content before you can stop eating.
The parent post was implying that your body eats to obtain a certain amount of *calories* before it feels satisfied (not volume). Since fat packs more calories per pound than any other digestible ingredient, you can eat much less fatty food than low-fat food, and yet be just as sated. Furthermore, most fats have a certain chemical component which when broken down in your stomach makes you feel fuller than you really are.
But take all claims with a grain of salt (especially what the government says about healthy eating - they know less than anyone in the field and even the people in the field aren't sure what the answers are).
See:
Thread on food
Comprehensive NY Times article discussing fat in diet
In short, a lot of anti-AI arguments seem to start from the premise that humans are not essentially biological computers
I think this is rather simple to demonstrate (in the strictest meaning of your words, ie. that humans have the inherent limitations of computers as we currently know them) using Goedel's incompleteness theorem: "Within any formal system of sufficient complexity, one can form statements which are neither provable nor disprovable using the axioms of that system."
Computers are perfectly logical, and can acertain truth using only logic. Goedel's theorem tells us that truth is sometimes actually above the scope of logic; that logic cannot demonstrate truth or untruth within a given system of axioms. Humans, on the other hand, can see the truth of a statement even though it is completely unknowable to the logical system in which the statement was formulated [1].
Humans are also capable of easily altering the system of axioms and rules in which we operate. This is completely beyond the capability of modern computers (though perhaps not future incarnations). We may be biological computers for some elevated definition of "computer", but we are certainly above the capabilities of modern computing machines.
[1] one way to discern the truth of unprovable statements in a formal system is to simply add the unprovable true statements to the list of axioms. This adds more incompleteness to the formal system (which can never be eliminated), but (I believe) the unprovable statements become increasingly convoluted. One could thus argue that humans simply have a very long axiomatic list of unprovable truth statements which makes us appear to be above the bounds of traditional logic, but we are still simple logic machines. There would thus be logical statements that would completely dumbfound us forever if they were ever found. I am dubious however.
This is most likely what will fuel starships, when intelligent life here has the resources to build them.
Intelligent life? Here? No way!
I think the atomic bomb would have brought the U.S. victory. I know the bomb was dropped after the war was essentially won, but hypothetically speaking, if the U.S. and Germany alone were going at it, the U.S. would have won simply because they created the atomic weapon first.
I'm pretty sure having to choose between perfect property rights and individual liberty would give Ayn Rand pause
Private property as the instrument to achieve individual liberty. See "The Machinery of Freedom", David Friedman.
the western people enslaved (I hate to use this word) Japanese people under the hierarchical structure of capitalism.
Oh please. Are you at all familiar with Japanese history and culture in previous centuries? The Shoguns ruling over the entire coountry? The priviledged Samurai classes with subordinate warriors and even lower peasants? Japan has lived under a hierarchal system for centuries (perhaps millenia). If anything, capitalism flattens that hierarchy somewhat and provides for mobility within the hierarchy; not something one could say about the previous ruling "governments" of Japan.
Forgiving weaknesses and accomodating weaknesses are different things. It's perfectly doable to not hold someone's mistake against them, while at the same time requiring them to correct it (or showing them how to correct it).
If it's a repeated mistake you most certainly should hold it against them. And of course you should accomodate weaknesses; anyone who does not design policy with humans as the weakest link is deluding him/herself.
Tell me, when your kids grow up, do you let them be more responsible or less? There isn't much to growing up if you become even more immature. We should thus be LESS forgiving of people's weaknesses because in wanting to be respected as a mature human being they must understand that they have a responsibility to themselves and others. Accomodating weaknesses is what got us all messed up in the first place.
Secondly, privacy should be choice. Don't force me to divulge information I may not want to give you. What right do you have to extract information from me?
Isn't there also a cost in context switching saving all those registers?
Yes indeed. Fortunately, the register save advantage is offset by other factors in the x86 architecture which still leave it worse off than RISC. Let me give you some numbers to put this in perspective.
User to supervisor mode transition times:
Pentium: 40-60 cycles
Pentium III: a few hundred cycles
Pentium IV: 2000 cycles
PowerPC: 5-20 cycles (depending on chip)
MIPS: 4 cycles (IIRC)
2000 cycles just to switch processor modes! The highest cost in context switching for the x86 is user-supervisor transitions which are far more numerous than actual context switches. Furthermore, x86 does not implement a tagged TLB which means the TLB must be fully flushed on every context switch (an incredibly expensive operation). The simpler instruction set of RISC chips frees more silicon to implement performance enhancing features like tagged TLBs.