Re: (JOVEMAS) What If There's An Al Cylon Attack Tomorrow?
A Troll
W6uvzGAvYnZ2...@comcast.com:
>
> "RT" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> news:459168CF...@hotmMOVEail.com...
>>
>> Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas
boiling.
>>
>> Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...
>>
>> The dead rising from the grave.
>>
>> Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - MASS HYSTERIA!!!!
>
> And a giant Stay-Puft marshmallow-dude.
>
>
>
So many people today pretend that there have been no real advances in
science since the heyday of pulp sci-fi, and that technologies like AI
are mere fantasy... or at the very least are centuries away from
manifesting.
Talk to your average Joe today about AI, life extension, mediated
reality, nanotechnology or terraforming and they'll look at you like
you're insane... but it's your ilk who are out of touch, Joe. Don't take
my word for it; check the DARPA website or read through IBM's press
releases. The world has left you far behind.
AI may already be here, for all you know. There are many compelling
reasons to keep such a development secret, not least of which is the
Damoclean sword of artificial superintelligence. IMHO, your "humorous"
denials are exactly what the mainstream culture doesn't need. There could
be a precarious balance, and you could be tipping it.
This is very serious business. What if there _is_ an AI attack next
Christmas? You can't assess the likelihood because you lack information.
As the Bhagavad Gita teaches us, confidence borne from ignorance is the
keystone to the pyramid of catastrophe. Take heed.
--
The above post was written by A Troll.
Bob Kolker
>
> So many people today pretend that there have been no real advances in
> science since the heyday of pulp sci-fi, and that technologies like AI
> are mere fantasy... or at the very least are centuries away from
> manifesting.
So called AI is just rules based programming. There are no truly
intelligent machines which are not organic.
In the 18-th century craftsmen would create very clever automata, spring
driven and made to look like people. But no one in his right mind would
confuse one of those wind-up toys with a real person. Likewise AI is a
programming style which has some uses, but it is no way like the real
thing RI --- Real Intelligence.
No would would confuse Big Blue with a human chess player. Yes, Big Blue
beat Kasparov, but what else can Big Blue do? It can't write a book
about its victory.
Bob Kolker
A Troll
@mid.individual.net:
Deep Blue? Be serious. That geezer is ten years old. Ten years in
computing terms is an era.
Here's what IBM is up to these days:
http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2005/06/2005_06_06.html
Yes, that's right. Supercomputer-fueled computer simulations of the human
brain with detail to the molecular level.
Be afraid, Bob. Your days at the top of the food chain are numbered.
Bob Kolker
>
> Yes, that's right. Supercomputer-fueled computer simulations of the human
> brain with detail to the molecular level.
And all it can do is play chess.
Real Intelligence is general, not specific.
Bob Kolker
norrin
Bob Kolker wrote:
> So called AI is just rules based programming. There are no truly
> intelligent machines which are not organic.
English syntax is just rules based programming. What is it about
intellegence that limits it to wet beings?
> In the 18-th century craftsmen would create very clever automata, spring
> driven and made to look like people. But no one in his right mind would
> confuse one of those wind-up toys with a real person. Likewise AI is a
> programming style which has some uses, but it is no way like the real
> thing RI --- Real Intelligence.
Natural intellegence, or whatever organics use, is often complex.
Therefore it shouldn't be limited to real numbers for its description.
> No would would confuse Big Blue with a human chess player. Yes, Big Blue
> beat Kasparov, but what else can Big Blue do? It can't write a book
> about its victory.
>
> Bob Kolker
The ability to pass a Turing test is not the same as, and does not
encompass, the ability to create a manuscript alone. Some people,
like William Shatner, can do the first and not the second.
CatPanDaddy
"norrin" <adwe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167506846....@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The vital thing, is we can always make sure we build our machines so that we can
turn them off without dismantling them or breaking their necks.
A Troll
>> http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2005/06/2005_06_06.html
> And all it can do is play chess.
It has nothing to do with chess, Bob. You're deluding yourself in an effort
to cope with the unsettling knowledge that our flabby race is about to be
made obsolete.
Molecular-level simulations of thought, perception and memory... and these
are just the public projects.
The end of the age of Man is nigh. Tremble, mortals, and despair.
CatPanDaddy
"A Troll" <anobvio...@nothiding.it> wrote in message
news:Xns98A975D1D...@217.160.217.58...
Even in the spirit of knowing you identify yourself as a Troll, one question.
How do you cope? Are you despairing?
Dubh Ghall
>So called AI is just rules based programming. There are no truly
>intelligent machines which are not organic.
So far.
Victor Velazquez
Didn't they say the same thing about the steam engine?
John Henry excepted.
Bob Kolker
Write us and tell us when it happens, won't you?
I have heard these predictions for nearly fifty years, so excuse me for
being skeptical. It is like controlled nuclear fusion. A type of energy
production that is just 25 years down the road where it has been since
1955.
The most densely packed silicon or germanium switching devices cannot
reproduce the behaviour of an ant or a bee. I am exceedingly
underwhelmed by the claims for AI.
Oh, by the way. I used to be in the AI business. Which is why I have my
doubts.
Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
Write us when it happens, won't you?
Bob Kolker
William December Starr
"CatPanDaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> said:
> The vital thing, is we can always make sure we build our machines
> so that we can turn them off without dismantling them or breaking
> their necks.
And the _real_ neat thing about us is that we can also cut corners
on those aspects to save money!
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
CatPanDaddy
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:en97dg$hf4$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> In article <HZmdnS7oDLm8IgvY...@comcast.com>,
> "CatPanDaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> said:
>
>> The vital thing, is we can always make sure we build our machines
>> so that we can turn them off without dismantling them or breaking
>> their necks.
>
> And the _real_ neat thing about us is that we can also cut corners
> on those aspects to save money!
>
I'll buy that for a dollar!!
/ - \
$1
\ - /
Okay, my Ascii art sucks. Even the pictures of dollar bills with cut corners
--
OSbandito
> >> The vital thing, is we can always make sure we build our machines
> >> so that we can turn them off without dismantling them or breaking
> >> their necks.
> >
> > And the _real_ neat thing about us is that we can also cut corners
> > on those aspects to save money!
Big CatDaddy beat the bank with:
> I'll buy that for a dollar!!
Why not go with deer nuts? They're under a buck.
norrin
Bob Kolker wrote:
> A Troll wrote:
>
> > Bob Kolker <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in
> > news:4vnrarF1...@mid.individual.net:
> >
> >>>http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2005/06/2005_06_06.html
> >>
> >>And all it can do is play chess.
> >
> >
> > It has nothing to do with chess, Bob. You're deluding yourself in an effort
> > to cope with the unsettling knowledge that our flabby race is about to be
> > made obsolete.
> >
> > Molecular-level simulations of thought, perception and memory... and these
> > are just the public projects.
> >
> > The end of the age of Man is nigh. Tremble, mortals, and despair.
>
> Write us and tell us when it happens, won't you?
Do you think asphalt is an environment suitable to humans? Do you
think humans thrive in a world of smog, floods, plastic, and lead?
Do you think machines are designed to benefit humans or to
benefit other machines?
> I have heard these predictions for nearly fifty years, so excuse me for
> being skeptical. It is like controlled nuclear fusion. A type of energy
> production that is just 25 years down the road where it has been since
> 1955.
Fusion is controlled if you want to cause explosions. The robots will
not want to research Hydrogen power generation since fission power
sources are common.
> The most densely packed silicon or germanium switching devices cannot
> reproduce the behaviour of an ant or a bee. I am exceedingly
> underwhelmed by the claims for AI.
Ants and bees are eusocial animals designed to exist in a community
of hundreds or thousands.
> Oh, by the way. I used to be in the AI business. Which is why I have my
> doubts.
>
> Bob Kolker
Academic research allows for the creation of business startups. Some
startups dissolve, all of them are changed within a few years.
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
>The ability to pass a Turing test is not the same as, and does not
>encompass, the ability to create a manuscript alone. Some people,
>like William Shatner, can do the first and not the second.
The problem with William Shatner and Turing tests is the tendency of
AIs to go into self-destruct mode after talking to him.
RT
Not as long as we control the electricity.
RT
> "CatPanDaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote in news:q9udnT-
> W6uvzGAvYnZ2...@comcast.com:
> > "RT" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> >>
> boiling.
> >>
> >> Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...
> >>
> >> The dead rising from the grave.
> >>
> >> Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - MASS HYSTERIA!!!!
> >
> > And a giant Stay-Puft marshmallow-dude.
>
> So many people today pretend that there have been no real advances in
> science since the heyday of pulp sci-fi, and that technologies like AI
> are mere fantasy... or at the very least are centuries away from
> manifesting.
>
> Talk to your average Joe today about AI, life extension, mediated
> reality, nanotechnology or terraforming and they'll look at you like
> you're insane... but it's your ilk who are out of touch, Joe. Don't take
> my word for it; check the DARPA website or read through IBM's press
> releases. The world has left you far behind.
>
> AI may already be here, for all you know. There are many compelling
> reasons to keep such a development secret, not least of which is the
> Damoclean sword of artificial superintelligence. IMHO, your "humorous"
> denials are exactly what the mainstream culture doesn't need. There could
> be a precarious balance, and you could be tipping it.
>
> This is very serious business. What if there _is_ an AI attack next
> Christmas? You can't assess the likelihood because you lack information.
> As the Bhagavad Gita teaches us, confidence borne from ignorance is the
> keystone to the pyramid of catastrophe. Take heed.
How To Survive a Robot Uprising: Tips on Defending Yourself Against
the Coming Rebellion by Daniel H. Wilson
David E. Powell
Nice!