Google Analytics recently had a big upgrade and it's unbelievably better than the old version. Count on the new Gmail to be a real upgrade and better in every way than the old, and also to allow you to use the old version if you want, like Analytics does.
Google is definitely investing in mail service as a web application because that's where they show their ads. They wouldn't give everyone the options of POP3 and forwarding if they didn't expect to make a web mail interface that's light years better than even a local mail app. It's safe to expect a huge leap ahead for their webmail app, like the first gmail was when it came out.
I totally agree. The oldest laptops that run 10.4 are 6 years old. A lot of those are still around so that proves my point. Applecare is a good idea for any mac.
My ol' g3 Powermac is about 7 years and going strong. Better check yer fact buddy! just cause the oldest one is five years old doesn't mean they won't last longer!
A different counter-argument that I could choose is that there are professors in Machine Learning who really feel the field, in the sense that they study it, is a beefed up version of statistics, rather than a branch of AI.
I'm not sure that I understand your counter argument, but it makes a good point that it is easy to confuse language.
I understand your only point. You say artificial intelligence is the name of the field and that's correct. The original point is also correct: the kind of intelligence that you and I have is also artificial, in that it is something that emerges through human art - the definition of artificial. On the other hand, our intelligence is genuine, and so is the machine's, in that intelligence is simply the system that provides a correct response to a query. Therefore a fishing bobber is an intelligent system, in that it provides an accurate response to the question, is there a hook on my line. Again, to define the distinction between mechanical intelligences, and 'non-mechanical' ones that happen in your brain, the word has come to be artificial. This is valid semantics, but it is misleading. When you say, artificial intelligence is the name of the field, but a bobber is not 'intelligent', you are missing the point. The field of AI deals with systems that are exactly the same as a milliion or a billion bobbers. If you can imagine a fisherman trying to gain accurate intelligence from a million bobbers, then you can see why AI is a field with many polished experts.
The problem I have with your statement, and also with Kurzweil and this whole topic is that "Intelligence" is not "Consciousness".
You describe the strength and weakness of the engineer's point of view. The complexity of the system that the engineer works with is impressive. And he tends to know that his machine is not conscious. Since he is not a philosopher, he confuses intelligence with conscious and thinks that his machine is not intelligent because it is not conscious like he is.
The set of equasions in his hands is not intelligence, but the set of equasions implemented is. The book you site is right. However, a mechanical engineer would probably say it is not intelligent because he would be comparing it to himself, and he is both an intelligent system and a consciousness. Both human and machine are intelligent systems. Your engineer is confusing intelligence and consciouness, as is Ray K. and most people in this post. They are very different things, from both a philosophical and an engineering point of view. My only point is that they should not be confused, especially when talking about 'the singularity'. The singularity is an emergent consciousness, not an emergent intelligence. I would like people to understand the difference.
What Estanislaw said is right. All intelligence comes from artifice. Intelligence is the right, appropriate answer to a question. Nothing more nothing less. By your argument you could say that because your mom and pop made you, that you are artificial while they are genuine, but you would disagree. Intelligence is the same. The correct answer is the only requisite for an entity to be intelligent. There is no intelligence that is more artificial, or more genuine. What you are thinking of is consciousness. That is what separates machine and human.
I think you are confusing the idea of intelligence with something else. You are mistaking human intelligence for human consciousness. Intelligence is always artificial, never genuine, in that it is defined in the answer to a query. If your neural net steers your car correctly, then it is intelligent. See? it is a philosophical problem and easily confused.
when you realize that the singulariy is a mistake. The singularity isn'at artificial intelligence, it's artificial consciousness. The intertnet is already more intelligent that you or I. But it isn't the singularity because it isn't conscious. It has no unified self, no motivation, and no perception of itself in relation to the world, and no reason to develop these things. We would have to actively build the singularity. It will never just appear. Never, ever, ever. All these futurists are having your goat for lunch.
The sigularity is appealing to techies for the same reason that God is so believable to mom and pop: they want it to be true, it would be cool if it was true, so it must be true. Tech folk are even more suseptable to the idea of an accidental singularity because they are so enamoured with hi tech gadgetry.
The reality is that a singularity would require the invention of artificial consciousness, not just artificial intelligence, and that is a very different thing. Intelligence is no more than the correct storage of information. The famous test for intelligence says that if you can't tell whether you are talking to a machine, or whether you are talking to a human, than it is intelligent.
However refined the information storage system becomes, there is no reason to believe that it will ever become 'the singularity', any more than there is reason to believe that the local Joe's Self Storage will become intelligent. A storage warehouse will not become intelligent, even if we hollowed out Titan and turned it into one.
Consciousness is a very different beast. Many theories exist about how consciousness works, but even the most advanced research hasn't figured out how it happens yet, and we certainly can't replicate it. It is very complex to even theorize about given that you are using it to describe itself. It is very probable that consciousness will be very difficult to cause to come about(barring the usual method) and that it would not only be difficuly, it may be unethical and/or dangerous.
So if anyone is losing sleep over the idea that the singularity might accidentally occur sometime in the night, rest easy. It's not too likely. The last time it happened accidentally, it took 3.9 billion years for it to get as smart as us. And even if we could make one, what would be the point?
Anyway....more ontopic: my guess is the singularity will be quite a ways away, because whilst it is true we're getting more and more new tech, and developing tech-trees faster and faster, there's a mayor hurdles. Cross-pollination. Linking the different tech's to produce even more powerfull tech. 'Search' is just part of the problem (and a huge one even at that); it's very7 very hard just to know what is known!
The first part about the singularity being far away, that makes sense, the rest of it sounds like my plumber when he tries to attack the problem of racial disunity from the wrong side.
The sigularity is so appealing for the same reason that God is so believable: people want it to be true, it would be cool if it was true, so it must be true. Tech folk are even more suseptable to the idea of an accidental singularity because they are so enamoured of the machines that they work with.
The reality is that a singularity would require the invention of artificial consciousness, and that is very different from artificial intelligence. Intelligence is no more than the correct storage of information. The famous test for intelligence says that if you can't tell whether you are talking to a machine, or whether you are talking to a human, than it is intelligent.
However refined the information storage system becomes, there is no reason to believe that it will ever become 'the singularity', any more than there is reason to believe that the local Joe's Self Storage will become intelligent. A storage warehouse will not become intelligent, even if it is the size of the sun.
Consciousness is a very different beast. Many theories exist about how consciousness works, but even the most advanced research hasn't figured out how it happens yet, and we certainly can't replicate it. It is very complex to even theorize about given that you are using it to describe itself. It is very probable that consciousness will be very difficult to cause to come about(barring the usual method) and that it would not only be difficuly, it may be unethical and/or dangerous.
So if anyone is losing sleep over the idea that the singularity might accidentally occur, rest easy. It's not all that likely. The last time it happened accidentally, it took 3.9 billion years for it to get as smart as us.
Yeah, he's right.
And anyone who says that "I don't care if the NSA spy on me" is living with their head in the sand and has no idea what totalitarian means. Read 1984, or One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich or any literature dealing with totalitarianism and you see that the trouble with domestic spying is not what you are guilty of but what they decide you are guilty of and how it surves their arbitrary purposes. Totalitarian power leads total corruption. That's why people who think that what this administration is up to is OK are lambs to the slaughter.
Frank Zappa described the attitude best: It can't happen here. America is full of people who think that they are exempt from politics. And then when something bad happens as result they cry and stomp feet and call no fair.
This Administration that leads the poor around by the nose with their religious BS, meanwhile making the richest richer, bankrupting the working/middle class, and turning its nose up at science and technology, all while rapidly expanding Executive power. And in their spare time they may just have fostered WW3. Why are there still people resting on their laurels for voting for a 'strong decisive leader' last election?
That would be fun, but I doubt they will let flaws like that through. I don't know about the human bullies because you have to assume that nuking a planet is expensive. A player has to choose enemies wisely or else be beaten. Also, it looks like if you blow up a planet, you have to rebuild it from scratch if you ever want to colonize it. Bullies won't last long as strategists.
Why the hell do they have to come up with stupid ideas like this. This is the kind of thing that really gets my goat. What the hell? If someone could please explain to me the worth of this invention I would be utterly fascinated. What's the matter with the state of coffee as it stands? Not hot enough for you? Or is it the act of pouring that your delicate wrists find too strenuous? Why not invent something useful like a cup that you don't have to throw into the dump that was our planet. Oh wait, they did that already. Too Stupid!
Slashdot Mirror
Google Analytics recently had a big upgrade and it's unbelievably better than the old version. Count on the new Gmail to be a real upgrade and better in every way than the old, and also to allow you to use the old version if you want, like Analytics does.
Google is definitely investing in mail service as a web application because that's where they show their ads. They wouldn't give everyone the options of POP3 and forwarding if they didn't expect to make a web mail interface that's light years better than even a local mail app. It's safe to expect a huge leap ahead for their webmail app, like the first gmail was when it came out.
the Internet is a huge flying mechanical bird. Call me paranoid if you want.
I totally agree. The oldest laptops that run 10.4 are 6 years old. A lot of those are still around so that proves my point. Applecare is a good idea for any mac.
5 year?
My ol' g3 Powermac is about 7 years and going strong. Better check yer fact buddy! just cause the oldest one is five years old doesn't mean they won't last longer!
I'm not sure that I understand your counter argument, but it makes a good point that it is easy to confuse language.
I understand your only point. You say artificial intelligence is the name of the field and that's correct. The original point is also correct: the kind of intelligence that you and I have is also artificial, in that it is something that emerges through human art - the definition of artificial. On the other hand, our intelligence is genuine, and so is the machine's, in that intelligence is simply the system that provides a correct response to a query. Therefore a fishing bobber is an intelligent system, in that it provides an accurate response to the question, is there a hook on my line. Again, to define the distinction between mechanical intelligences, and 'non-mechanical' ones that happen in your brain, the word has come to be artificial. This is valid semantics, but it is misleading. When you say, artificial intelligence is the name of the field, but a bobber is not 'intelligent', you are missing the point. The field of AI deals with systems that are exactly the same as a milliion or a billion bobbers. If you can imagine a fisherman trying to gain accurate intelligence from a million bobbers, then you can see why AI is a field with many polished experts.
The problem I have with your statement, and also with Kurzweil and this whole topic is that "Intelligence" is not "Consciousness".
You describe the strength and weakness of the engineer's point of view. The complexity of the system that the engineer works with is impressive. And he tends to know that his machine is not conscious. Since he is not a philosopher, he confuses intelligence with conscious and thinks that his machine is not intelligent because it is not conscious like he is.
The set of equasions in his hands is not intelligence, but the set of equasions implemented is. The book you site is right. However, a mechanical engineer would probably say it is not intelligent because he would be comparing it to himself, and he is both an intelligent system and a consciousness. Both human and machine are intelligent systems. Your engineer is confusing intelligence and consciouness, as is Ray K. and most people in this post. They are very different things, from both a philosophical and an engineering point of view. My only point is that they should not be confused, especially when talking about 'the singularity'. The singularity is an emergent consciousness, not an emergent intelligence. I would like people to understand the difference.
What Estanislaw said is right. All intelligence comes from artifice. Intelligence is the right, appropriate answer to a question. Nothing more nothing less. By your argument you could say that because your mom and pop made you, that you are artificial while they are genuine, but you would disagree. Intelligence is the same. The correct answer is the only requisite for an entity to be intelligent. There is no intelligence that is more artificial, or more genuine. What you are thinking of is consciousness. That is what separates machine and human.
I think you are confusing the idea of intelligence with something else. You are mistaking human intelligence for human consciousness. Intelligence is always artificial, never genuine, in that it is defined in the answer to a query. If your neural net steers your car correctly, then it is intelligent. See? it is a philosophical problem and easily confused.
when you realize that the singulariy is a mistake. The singularity isn'at artificial intelligence, it's artificial consciousness. The intertnet is already more intelligent that you or I. But it isn't the singularity because it isn't conscious. It has no unified self, no motivation, and no perception of itself in relation to the world, and no reason to develop these things. We would have to actively build the singularity. It will never just appear. Never, ever, ever. All these futurists are having your goat for lunch.
The sigularity is appealing to techies for the same reason that God is so believable to mom and pop: they want it to be true, it would be cool if it was true, so it must be true. Tech folk are even more suseptable to the idea of an accidental singularity because they are so enamoured with hi tech gadgetry.
The reality is that a singularity would require the invention of artificial consciousness, not just artificial intelligence, and that is a very different thing. Intelligence is no more than the correct storage of information. The famous test for intelligence says that if you can't tell whether you are talking to a machine, or whether you are talking to a human, than it is intelligent.
However refined the information storage system becomes, there is no reason to believe that it will ever become 'the singularity', any more than there is reason to believe that the local Joe's Self Storage will become intelligent. A storage warehouse will not become intelligent, even if we hollowed out Titan and turned it into one.
Consciousness is a very different beast. Many theories exist about how consciousness works, but even the most advanced research hasn't figured out how it happens yet, and we certainly can't replicate it. It is very complex to even theorize about given that you are using it to describe itself. It is very probable that consciousness will be very difficult to cause to come about(barring the usual method) and that it would not only be difficuly, it may be unethical and/or dangerous.
So if anyone is losing sleep over the idea that the singularity might accidentally occur sometime in the night, rest easy. It's not too likely. The last time it happened accidentally, it took 3.9 billion years for it to get as smart as us. And even if we could make one, what would be the point?
The first part about the singularity being far away, that makes sense, the rest of it sounds like my plumber when he tries to attack the problem of racial disunity from the wrong side.
The sigularity is so appealing for the same reason that God is so believable: people want it to be true, it would be cool if it was true, so it must be true. Tech folk are even more suseptable to the idea of an accidental singularity because they are so enamoured of the machines that they work with.
The reality is that a singularity would require the invention of artificial consciousness, and that is very different from artificial intelligence. Intelligence is no more than the correct storage of information. The famous test for intelligence says that if you can't tell whether you are talking to a machine, or whether you are talking to a human, than it is intelligent.
However refined the information storage system becomes, there is no reason to believe that it will ever become 'the singularity', any more than there is reason to believe that the local Joe's Self Storage will become intelligent. A storage warehouse will not become intelligent, even if it is the size of the sun.
Consciousness is a very different beast. Many theories exist about how consciousness works, but even the most advanced research hasn't figured out how it happens yet, and we certainly can't replicate it. It is very complex to even theorize about given that you are using it to describe itself. It is very probable that consciousness will be very difficult to cause to come about(barring the usual method) and that it would not only be difficuly, it may be unethical and/or dangerous.
So if anyone is losing sleep over the idea that the singularity might accidentally occur, rest easy. It's not all that likely. The last time it happened accidentally, it took 3.9 billion years for it to get as smart as us.
Yeah, he's right. And anyone who says that "I don't care if the NSA spy on me" is living with their head in the sand and has no idea what totalitarian means. Read 1984, or One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich or any literature dealing with totalitarianism and you see that the trouble with domestic spying is not what you are guilty of but what they decide you are guilty of and how it surves their arbitrary purposes. Totalitarian power leads total corruption. That's why people who think that what this administration is up to is OK are lambs to the slaughter. Frank Zappa described the attitude best: It can't happen here. America is full of people who think that they are exempt from politics. And then when something bad happens as result they cry and stomp feet and call no fair. This Administration that leads the poor around by the nose with their religious BS, meanwhile making the richest richer, bankrupting the working/middle class, and turning its nose up at science and technology, all while rapidly expanding Executive power. And in their spare time they may just have fostered WW3. Why are there still people resting on their laurels for voting for a 'strong decisive leader' last election?
That would be fun, but I doubt they will let flaws like that through. I don't know about the human bullies because you have to assume that nuking a planet is expensive. A player has to choose enemies wisely or else be beaten. Also, it looks like if you blow up a planet, you have to rebuild it from scratch if you ever want to colonize it. Bullies won't last long as strategists.
Why the hell do they have to come up with stupid ideas like this. This is the kind of thing that really gets my goat. What the hell? If someone could please explain to me the worth of this invention I would be utterly fascinated. What's the matter with the state of coffee as it stands? Not hot enough for you? Or is it the act of pouring that your delicate wrists find too strenuous? Why not invent something useful like a cup that you don't have to throw into the dump that was our planet. Oh wait, they did that already. Too Stupid!