Artificial intelligence (AI) has been solved
Aozotorp
>http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/weblog.html "AI has been solved"
excerpt:
Mind.Forth
in Win32Forth for robots:
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/mind4th.html
A robot needs a mind, and a Mind needs a robot.
Here is where the twain shall meet.
------------
Comments - Looks like a lot of programming data just to get a conservo to tie
his show right!
Arthur T. Murray
>
> excerpt:
>
> Mind.Forth
> in Win32Forth for robots:
>
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/mind4th.html
> A robot needs a mind, and a Mind needs a robot.
> Here is where the twain shall meet.
The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) has an archive of
"Mind.Forth: thoughts on artificial intelligence and Forth" at
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/307824.307853 by Dr. Paul Frenger.
>
> ------------
>
> Comments - Looks like a lot of programming data
> just to get a conservo to tie his show right!
Supercomputers will be needed to handle all the data. Please
throw out all traditional AI textbooks heretofore in favor of
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595259227/ -- the AI textbook
-- describing how Artificial Intelligence has been solved in three ways --
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/theory5.html Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind;
http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/jsaimind.html Mind-1.1 AI source code; and
AI4U: Mind-1.1 Programmer's Manual and textbook of artificial intelligence,
which has the following positive and negative points.
+ It describes the rapidly evolving AI Minds on the Web.
- It quickly becomes obsolete as the AI hyper-evolves.
+ On-demand publishing (ODP) makes for quick updates.
- The Mentifex project is considered oddball on the 'Net.
+ You've got the first book about the first real AI Mind.
- There are other, better, more authoritative AI textbooks.
+ AI4U makes a good supplement for actually coding AI.
- Artificial intelligence is too hard to understand.
+ AI4U describes the AI while it is still easy to learn.
- "I would rather build robots than study AI programming."
+ If you want to build a smart robot, then AI4U is for you.
- "I'm only a high school student/teacher; what's the use?"
+ This book will challenge even the most gifted student.
- "I am not a programmer and so I can't code AI."
+ AI4U teaches you how to operate an AI, not just code it.
- "I just want to do Web design, not artificial intelligence."
+ AI4U provides an AI that you may install on your website.
- "I am more interested in neuroscience and/or psychology."
+ AI4U teaches a theory of how the brain works psychologically.
For an expert review of the Concept-Fiber Theory of Mind, see
http://www.sl4.org/archive/0205/3829.html by Ben Goertzel, Ph.D.
winter
> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/weblog.html "AI has been solved"
non-turing artificial intellegence is at least
as old as eliza.
seeminlgy, turing stuff will be developed.
sentient machines, if they are ever developed,
will not have "artifical intellegence", theirs
will be true intellegence.
rgrds,
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.08/view.html?pg=3
Why A.I. Is Brain-Dead ... Marvin Minsky
Scott Menchin
In his role as agent provocateur, Marvin Minsky, cofounder of the MIT
Artificial Intelligence Lab, recently told a surprised Boston
University audience that the field of AI has lost its way. Researchers
are making little progress developing computers with any knack for
reasoning. He took a break from dictating the final chapters of an
upcoming book into his G4 using ViaVoice software to give us his
thoughts on gray goo, bartender bots, and the importance of plain ol'
common sense.
.. snip ..
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
Internet trivia 20th anv http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htm
Kegwasher
>
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.08/view.html?pg=3
>
> Why A.I. Is Brain-Dead ... Marvin Minsky
>
> Scott Menchin
>
> In his role as agent provocateur, Marvin Minsky, cofounder of the MIT
> Artificial Intelligence Lab, recently told a surprised Boston
> University audience that the field of AI has lost its way. Researchers
> are making little progress developing computers with any knack for
> reasoning. He took a break from dictating the final chapters of an
> upcoming book into his G4 using ViaVoice software to give us his
> thoughts on gray goo, bartender bots, and the importance of plain ol Wh '
> common sense.
>
> .. snip ..
>
I am still impressed with the works of D Hofstadter. His book fluid
concepts is a good read. I just want the algorithmic spell checker, sounds
to cool to be real.
Dave
"winter" <win...@winter.winter> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:c%dVa.10672
>
> sentient machines, if they are ever developed,
> will not have "artifical intellegence", theirs
> will be true intellegence.
>
Hi, I'm newbie.
Which are the differences between "artificial intelligence" and "true
intelligence" ?
Sentient machines are however artificial machines..
thanks
greetings.
Dave
pete kirkham
> Hi, I'm newbie.
> Which are the differences between "artificial intelligence" and "true
> intelligence" ?
> Sentient machines are however artificial machines..
> thanks
>
> greetings.
> Dave
AI is the hope that a computer can do something that only a human can do.
Software engineering is when it does it.
Pete
Rick Russell
Dave <uni5...@iol.it> wrote:
> Which are the differences between "artificial intelligence" and "true
> intelligence" ?
> Sentient machines are however artificial machines..
As a corollary, you might ask:
What is true intelligence?
I don't think there is a universally agreed-upon definition of
intelligence.
Rick R.
John Ahlstrom
Dijkstra said:
Asking whether a machine can think is about
as interesting as asking whether a submarine can swim.
--
Writing is Nature's way of letting you know
how sloppy your thinking is.
- Guindon
Bobby D. Bryant
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.08/view.html?pg=3
>
> Why A.I. Is Brain-Dead ... Marvin Minsky
>
> Scott Menchin
>
> In his role as agent provocateur, Marvin Minsky, cofounder of the MIT
> Artificial Intelligence Lab, recently told a surprised Boston
> University audience that the field of AI has lost its way. Researchers
> are making little progress developing computers with any knack for
> reasoning. He took a break from dictating the final chapters of an
> upcoming book into his G4 using ViaVoice software to give us his
> thoughts on gray goo, bartender bots, and the importance of plain ol'
> common sense.
It's kind of funny seeing the leader of the Old Guard referred to as an
"agent provocateur" when he's fighting a reargard action for old-school AI.
To say nothing of the irony of hearing him point out that other approaches
"are making little progress developing computers with any knack for
reasoning". What does *his* preferred paradigm have to show for fifty
years of hard work?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Robert J. Kolker
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> reasoning". What does *his* preferred paradigm have to show for fifty
> years of hard work?
Bubkis. Kadachis. Nechevo. Nada. Ayn Davar. Zip. Zero.
Bob Kolker
>
Eternal Vigilance
Sorry I beat AI race long time ago (7 years),
I just tissue culture grow mutant rabbit brains with pre-installed LAN port --
works great*....
(* the robots tend to hop though...)
Eternal Vigilance
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.08/view.html?pg=3
>
> Why A.I. Is Brain-Dead ... Marvin Minsky
>
> Scott Menchin
>
> In his role as agent provocateur, Marvin Minsky, cofounder of the MIT
> Artificial Intelligence Lab, recently told a surprised Boston
> University audience that the field of AI has lost its way. Researchers
> are making little progress developing computers with any knack for
> reasoning. He took a break from dictating the final chapters of an
> upcoming book into his G4 using ViaVoice software to give us his
> thoughts on gray goo, bartender bots, and the importance of plain ol'
> common sense.
>
Then the G4 took a dump and crashed, and he had never saved the document
once..
(Via Voice didnt impress me, wonder how long he had to train it before he
didnt
have to correct every other word and only had to every tenth....)
jmfb...@aol.com
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
jmfb...@aol.com
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
>
>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.08/view.html?pg=3
>
>Why A.I. Is Brain-Dead ... Marvin Minsky
>
>Scott Menchin
>
>In his role as agent provocateur, Marvin Minsky, cofounder of the MIT
>Artificial Intelligence Lab, recently told a surprised Boston
>University audience that the field of AI has lost its way.
Good! It's about time.
> ..Researchers
>are making little progress developing computers with any knack for
>reasoning. He took a break from dictating the final chapters of an
>upcoming book into his G4 using ViaVoice software to give us his
>thoughts on gray goo, bartender bots, and the importance of plain ol'
>common sense.
:-)
>
>... snip ..
Lawson English
variations of technology that he and Seymour Papert did their best to
discredit in "Perceptrons," back in the day when there was only a tiny
budget for AI grants available.
--
New definition of irony:
'Today's liberal Democrats are like the supporters of the Third Reich of the
'30's and '40's
- they absolutely trusted the government to "make things right". '
-Comment made on the internet by an ardent GW Bush supporter.
<jmfb...@aol.com> wrote in message news:bg5kpl$3h1$3...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Steve O'Hara-Smith
ri...@is.rice.edu (Rick Russell) wrote:
RR>
RR> As a corollary, you might ask:
RR>
RR> What is true intelligence?
RR>
RR> I don't think there is a universally agreed-upon definition of
RR> intelligence.
When the computer says "OK I know the answer to your problem.
Now, what's in it for me ?" and means it.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirrors
The computer obeys and wins. |A Better Way To Focus The Sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licenses available - see:
| http://www.sohara.org/
George William Herbert
>ri...@is.rice.edu (Rick Russell) wrote:
>RR> As a corollary, you might ask:
>RR> What is true intelligence?
>RR> I don't think there is a universally agreed-upon definition of
>RR> intelligence.
>
> When the computer says "OK I know the answer to your problem.
>Now, what's in it for me ?" and means it.
That's the borderline definition.
Truly advanced computers will reply "This question is going to take a
long involved research project to answer. I am going to need to be
allocated a significant amount of additional resources, funding,
more programmer assistants, and we're probably going to need at
least nine new facilities to house the physical and computational
research tools needed. We can use telepresence and teleconferencing
so we can distribute the team and network out across the country,
and with nine locations we should be able to place one in each
district represented by a member of the House Appropriations Committee.
I have position statements prepared to present to the staff of both
sides of the aisle already, appropriately customized for their
and their representatives personal standpoints. With any luck
we can keep the project budget below a billion dollars this next
year, but the answer is important. Can you call my lobbyist and
ask him if he'd like to do lunch?"
And then we'll be doomed.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Paul Wallich
Nuh-uh. That's just another Eliza program.
paul
Rick Russell
George William Herbert <gher...@gw.retro.com> wrote:
> Truly advanced computers will reply "This question is going to take a
> long involved research project to answer. I am going to need to be
And five graduate students. At least three of them Chinese.
Rick R.
Eric Sosman
An obvious fake: no TLA's.
("TLA" = "Three-Letter Acronym." All the good TLA's have
already been used, so the expansion to four-letter acronyms is
now underway. Unfortunately, "FLA" is a TLA, which not only
retards progress but seems a touch disloyal. What the industry
needs now is an FLA for "FLA.")
Donald L Ferrt
The difference between Aliens knowing that the Earth is populated and
Aliens actually coming to the earth!
Raffael Cavallaro
> Unfortunately, "FLA" is a TLA, which not only
> retards progress but seems a touch disloyal. What the industry
> needs now is an FLA for "FLA.")
Four Alphanumeric Character Acronym = FACA
:^)
Charlie Gibbs
writes:
> ("TLA" = "Three-Letter Acronym." All the good TLA's have
>already been used, so the expansion to four-letter acronyms is
>now underway. Unfortunately, "FLA" is a TLA, which not only
>retards progress but seems a touch disloyal. What the industry
>needs now is an FLA for "FLA.")
Already done: ETLA (Extended Three-Letter Acronym)
Now if only someone could explain to me how sex is a four-letter word...
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Erann Gat
raf...@mediaone.net (Raffael Cavallaro) wrote:
ATLA - Augmented Three-Letter Acronym
DATLA - Doubly-Augmented Three-Letter Acronym
DUCTLA - Double Unaugmented Concatenated Three Letter Acronym
SLAASLA - Seven Letter Acronum (Augmented Six Letter Acronym)
AWASSRCC - Acronym With A Strained Self-Referential Character Count
SAWONPNOC - Shortest Acronym With Odd Non-Prime Number Of Characters
:-)
E.
Charlton Wilbur
Yes; that's how we know the computer is intelligent.
> ("TLA" = "Three-Letter Acronym." All the good TLA's have
> already been used, so the expansion to four-letter acronyms is
> now underway. Unfortunately, "FLA" is a TLA, which not only
> retards progress but seems a touch disloyal. What the industry
> needs now is an FLA for "FLA.")
ETLA = Extended Three-Letter Acronym.
HTH, HAND.
Charlton
Don Stockbauer
> Sorry I beat AI race long time ago (7 years),
>
> I just tissue culture grow mutant rabbit brains with pre-installed LAN port --
> works great*....
> (* the robots tend to hop though...)
>
And what are they useful for? Eating virtual mutant carrots?????
Don Stockbauer
There is only intelligence.
As systems grow, intelligence grows.
The next step up is the Earth as a living integrated system.
Then we have super-intelligence.
No artificial sweeteners, the real McCoy.
IMIO (= an AHA).
Don Stockbauer
True. As Douglas R. Hofstadter has stated, intelligence can't be
boxed; it will spill out of any definition given to it.
Don Stockbauer
>
> When the computer says "OK I know the answer to your problem.
> Now, what's in it for me ?" and means it.
That's also known as "free enterprise" and "capitalism".
Don Stockbauer
>
>
> ATLA - Augmented Three-Letter Acronym
> DATLA - Doubly-Augmented Three-Letter Acronym
> DUCTLA - Double Unaugmented Concatenated Three Letter Acronym
> SLAASLA - Seven Letter Acronum (Augmented Six Letter Acronym)
> AWASSRCC - Acronym With A Strained Self-Referential Character Count
> SAWONPNOC - Shortest Acronym With Odd Non-Prime Number Of Characters
>
don't know what this god-damned acronym means."
The year is 3872. Aliens from the Beta Lyrae 7 expeditionary mission
to Earth sift through the rubble of its former "civilization".
"Captain Xzrllyl- we cannot decipher this race's language due to all
the acronyms. We suspect, however, that they were the cause of its
extinction."
George William Herbert
>The year is 3872. Aliens from the Beta Lyrae 7 expeditionary mission
>to Earth sift through the rubble of its former "civilization".
>"Captain Xzrllyl- we cannot decipher this race's language due to all
>the acronyms. We suspect, however, that they were the cause of its
>extinction."
Soon, the sets of Pentagon TLA's in use and possible nuclear
weapons arm and detonation codes will be equal, and the next day
someone's requisition for more socks for the Marine Corps
training base at Quantico will accidentally kick off WW 3.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Steven M. Haflich
> True. As Douglas R. Hofstadter has stated, intelligence can't be
> boxed; it will spill out of any definition given to it.
How about:
Intelligence is that which will spill out of any definition
given to it.
Peter Ashford
So... intelligence is Art?
Eternal Vigilance
Just keep adding the sugar solution and it computes...
I conditioned it to drive my car for example, (took me a while to get it to drive on right side
of road -- must of been English rabbit gene stock...)
Robert J. Kolker
Steven M. Haflich wrote:
> How about:
>
> Intelligence is that which will spill out of any definition
> given to it.
No good. You have not eliminated the possibility that something other
than intelligence will also spill out of any definition given to it.
Bob Kolker
jmfb...@aol.com
"Lawson English" <engl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<pins>
Don't top post.
Lawson English
"George William Herbert" <gher...@gw.retro.com> wrote in message
news:bg6ad4$um$1...@gw.retro.com...
> Steve O'Hara-Smith <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> >ri...@is.rice.edu (Rick Russell) wrote:
> >RR> As a corollary, you might ask:
> >RR> What is true intelligence?
> >RR> I don't think there is a universally agreed-upon definition of
> >RR> intelligence.
> >
> > When the computer says "OK I know the answer to your problem.
> >Now, what's in it for me ?" and means it.
>
> That's the borderline definition.
>
> Truly advanced computers will reply "This question is going to take a
> long involved research project to answer.
Actually, Alan Turing once suggested that a computer program that could play
Mornington Crescent and convince its opponents that it was another human,
would be an extremely good demonstration of an artificial intelligence -much
better than the traditional Turing Test. Don't ask me how to play MC. I
haven't a clue.
http://www.dunx.org/mc/webmc.html
It was Alan Turing who first posited the idea of an MC simulator.
Having been introduced to Mornington Crescent during his time at Bletchley
Park during the war (a cryptographer's mind being ideally suited to the more
subtle elements of strategy), Turing posited that it should be possible to
construct an automatic device to play the Game.
In fact, he later went further and suggested that if such a machine could
persuade a human opponent that it was, itself, a human player then that
device could be considered intelligent. He viewed this exercise as a more
stringent corollary to the standard Turing Test, mere conversation being
relatively trivial to synthesise.
Despite this early speculation, it is only recently that MC simulators (or
'sims') have been within the reach of technology. Sim games have become a
regular feature at the sites mentioned above, and offer a fruitful field of
exploration for the ambitious programmer.
Even with this furious activity, Turing's dream of an entirely synthetic MC
player which is capable of playing undetected against a human opponent is a
long way away.
Pete Fenelon
>
> There is only intelligence.
I can define artificial intelligence quite simply - something that
behaves in a fashion completely unlike Arthur T Murray.
pete
--
pe...@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" HMHB
Don Stockbauer
There are other concepts Hofstadter mentions, such as beauty and
truth, which also cannot be boxed, thus that definition isn't adequate
(of course, the paradox is if we accept all this, whatever definition
we try will be inadequate, too "boxed"). Perhaps all these unboxable
concepts are subsystems of the intelligence system, so in that sense
you would be right. But all that is the spirit of Hofstadter. A
complex field of inquiry. But then, complexity theory is constantly
being refined, so perhaps someday a better handle will be put on it
all.
jmfb...@aol.com
Pete Fenelon <pe...@fenelon.com> wrote:
>In alt.folklore.computers Don Stockbauer <donsto...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> There is only intelligence.
>
>I can define artificial intelligence quite simply - something that
>behaves in a fashion completely unlike Arthur T Murray.
Heh, I've been thinking the opposite. His is an example
of artificality <shudder..what an awful word>.
Peter Corlett
[...]
> Actually, Alan Turing once suggested that a computer program that could
> play Mornington Crescent and convince its opponents that it was another
> human, would be an extremely good demonstration of an artificial
> how to play MC.
I'm sure the lovely Samantha will be delighted to get out her equipment and
give you a hand.
> I haven't a clue.
ITYM "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue". This might help:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/clue.shtml
> http://www.dunx.org/mc/webmc.html
> It was Alan Turing who first posited the idea of an MC simulator.
Interesting, but I'm not convinced of its veracity. Do you have a better
cite? The nature of Mornington Crescent means that some historical records
may well be fabricated for effect.
I had assumed that MC had been invented by the ISIHAC team.
Pete Fenelon
>
> I had assumed that MC had been invented by the ISIHAC team.
>
No, they started playing a declassified version of it some time after
WW2. The history of MC during the War is largely untold and somewhat
conjectural, but Turing's work on straddle-equivalency combined
with Newman's rigorous analysis of selbstecker invariant attacks
on mutual knip positions of course revolutionised the game in the
40s. The British Championship game of 1943 (Field Marshal Alanbrooke
vs Alan Turing vs Humph, with Victor Sylvester refereeing) took six
weeks and arguably delayed the invasion of Sicily.
Prior to the Frank Beck Diagram of the 1930s, of course, the game was
considerably simpler, as only geographical rather than logical
constraints had to be taken into account.
Pete Fenelon
> AI is the hope that a computer can do something that only a human can do.
>
> Software engineering is when it does it.
>
I'd revise that to "software engineering is the hope that a computer can
someday do something.... anything... please?" ;)
Mel Wilson
Hmm. An intelligent remark.
Regards. Mel.
Don Stockbauer
Lordy, we certainly are two cultures separated by a common language.
Have never heard of MC here in Texas, but then, we're just not very
sofistikated here in cattle country.
Douglas Hofstadter has dealt with the adequacies/inadequacies of the
Turing Test. One point he emphasizes (I believe it's in Metamagical
Themas) is that the Turing Test is not static. It shows it true power
by examining in as fine a detail as one wishes. In fact, you don't
even have to run a formal Turing Test. You just observe
peoples'/machines' output. IMHO, it certainly is a requirement that
the entity being tested for intelligence passes the "full-blown" TT
for general knowledge, not just simulate a game. The exception - one
cannot expect anyone or thing to possess full knowledge of the General
System, as local areas of knowledge may always be missed by anyone. I
would be interested to know exactly what Turing had to say instead of
the paraphrase on the above website since it seems out of character
for him. The General TT - that is, general observation of behavior at
all levels of detail, then forming opinions based on that, is what
advances knowledge in general.
Charlie Gibbs
(Robert J. Kolker) writes:
Good point. Based on what's walking around these days (your average
PHB, for instance), it's obvious that many of the things that spill
out aren't intelligent. I suppose you could say that intelligence is
one of many things that spill out, but that's not really a workable
definition, is it? Sigh...
Charlie Gibbs
donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
For further insight into this and other indexing woes, see
"MS FND IN A LBRY" by Hal Draper, originally printed in the
December 1961 F&SF, anthologized in 1963 in "17 x Infinity"
(edited by Groff Conklin).
Charlie Gibbs
donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
>There is only intelligence.
>As systems grow, intelligence grows.
Not in bureaucracies it doesn't. I still like that saying:
The sum total of human intelligence is a constant.
The population is increasing.
stre...@rohan.sdsu.edu
[snip]
> Now if only someone could explain to me how sex is a four-letter word...
Letter #1: "Hi, how are you? I am fine. ..."
Letter #2: "I miss you..."
Letter #3: "When are you coming home?"
Letter #4: "Dear John, ..."
?
--
--Stewart Stremler----------------...@rohan.sdsu.edu--
The way to fight a woman is with your hat. Grab it and run.
--John Barrymore
PLZI
"Charlton Wilbur" <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote in message
news:87wue1v...@mithril.chromatico.net...
> Eric Sosman <Eric....@sun.com> writes:
>
> > ("TLA" = "Three-Letter Acronym." All the good TLA's have
> > already been used, so the expansion to four-letter acronyms is
> > now underway. Unfortunately, "FLA" is a TLA, which not only
> > retards progress but seems a touch disloyal. What the industry
> > needs now is an FLA for "FLA.")
>
> ETLA = Extended Three-Letter Acronym.
<partial recurring de-lurk>
Excuse me Sir, but I've always (like, ten to fifteen years or so, which, I
admit, is not that long at all) known that to be the XTLA (eXtended and so
forth), in the tradition of "but it looks soooo much cooler this way" and
XMS (E was already used in EMS, "expanded"). In keeping with that
tradition, if I could be so bold and suggest that ETLA would stand for
"expanded three letter acronym", whereas XTLA would be "extended three
letter acronym"?
- PLZI
Don Stockbauer
> In article <4e315347.0307...@posting.google.com>
> donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
>
> >There is only intelligence.
> >As systems grow, intelligence grows.
>
> Not in bureaucracies it doesn't. I still like that saying:
>
> The sum total of human intelligence is a constant.
> The population is increasing.
Then we work towards a system which elminates bureaucracies as
superfluous: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html
And the saying is real nice, the only problem is that it's false.
Billions of people and machines arranged into a global neural network
are in fact far more intelligent than the sum of the individuals due
to synergism. Funny how once something is declared a "saying" people
automatically fall for it.
jmfb...@aol.com
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>In article <4e315347.0307...@posting.google.com>
>donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
>
>>There is only intelligence.
>>As systems grow, intelligence grows.
>
>Not in bureaucracies it doesn't. I still like that saying:
>
> The sum total of human intelligence is a constant.
> The population is increasing.
My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
of the stupidest element. The more something gets "organized",
the less intelligent it can be. Now look at computers systems
getting organized by a network. I haven't spent much time
applying this to gear; it certainly is true w.r.t. humans.
I still want to know why anybody would want a computer to
think like a human.
jmfb...@aol.com
I disagree. Take a good look.
> ... Funny how once something is declared a "saying" people
>automatically fall for it.
Exactly. Now apply that piece of wisdom to yourself and what
you've "heard" about AI.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
> of the stupidest element. The more something gets "organized",
> the less intelligent it can be. Now look at computers systems
> getting organized by a network. I haven't spent much time
> applying this to gear; it certainly is true w.r.t. humans.
the joke about committees ... rather than being
sum(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
or even something like
max(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
sum(IQ1, IQ2, ..., IQn)/n
it is more like
min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)
or even
min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)/n
where committee intelligence approaches zero
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
Internet trivia 20th anv http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htm
Joe Marshall
> the joke about committees ... rather than being
> sum(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
> or even something like
> max(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
> sum(IQ1, IQ2, ..., IQn)/n
> it is more like
> min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)
> or even
> min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)/n
>
> where committee intelligence approaches zero
I thought they added like resistors:
sum (IQn)
-----------------
product (IQn)
Bill Snyder
>In article <577.341T25...@kltpzyxm.invalid>,
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>In article <4e315347.0307...@posting.google.com>
>>donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
>>
>>>There is only intelligence.
>>>As systems grow, intelligence grows.
>>
>>Not in bureaucracies it doesn't. I still like that saying:
>>
>> The sum total of human intelligence is a constant.
>> The population is increasing.
>
>My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
>of the stupidest element. The more something gets "organized",
>the less intelligent it can be.
Then according to your hypothesis, your brain cannot possibly be
smarter than an individual neuron is?
(Must . . . suppress . . .joke . . .)
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Brian Inglis
donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
Synergism stops somewhere short of ten people and communication
problems take over.
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
--
Brian....@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
fake address use address above to reply
Steve O'Hara-Smith
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
CG> Already done: ETLA (Extended Three-Letter Acronym)
CG>
CG> Now if only someone could explain to me how sex is a four-letter
CG> word...
By adding a French letter ?
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirrors
The computer obeys and wins. |A Better Way To Focus The Sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licenses available - see:
| http://www.sohara.org/
Steve O'Hara-Smith
DS> Billions of people and machines arranged into a global neural network
DS> are in fact far more intelligent than the sum of the individuals due
Hmm - a fact ? You have experimental evidence ?
DS> to synergism. Funny how once something is declared a "saying" people
DS> automatically fall for it.
Yes it is.
Joe Marshall
> On 29 Jul 03 13:50:16 -0800
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
> CG> Already done: ETLA (Extended Three-Letter Acronym)
> CG>
> CG> Now if only someone could explain to me how sex is a four-letter
> CG> word...
>
> By adding a French letter ?
Those are now `Freedom' letters.
Don Stockbauer
> In article <4e315347.03073...@posting.google.com>,
> donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
> >"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
> news:<577.341T25...@kltpzyxm.invalid>...
> >> In article <4e315347.0307...@posting.google.com>
> >> donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
> >>
> >> >There is only intelligence.
> >> >As systems grow, intelligence grows.
> >>
> >> Not in bureaucracies it doesn't. I still like that saying:
> >>
> >> The sum total of human intelligence is a constant.
> >> The population is increasing.
> >
> >Then we work towards a system which elminates bureaucracies as
> >superfluous: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html
> >And the saying is real nice, the only problem is that it's false.
> >Billions of people and machines arranged into a global neural network
> >are in fact far more intelligent than the sum of the individuals due
> >to synergism.
>
> I disagree. Take a good look.
I've taken a good look. I see a Planetary Brain developing. If you
prefer ro take a limited negative local view of it all, that's your
option.
>
> > ... Funny how once something is declared a "saying" people
> >automatically fall for it.
>
> Exactly. Now apply that piece of wisdom to yourself and what
> you've "heard" about AI.
Why would I want to deal with false saying???? Let's go with 2 + 2 =
5 first.
>
Don Stockbauer
>In article <577.341T25...@kltpzyxm.invalid>,
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>In article <4e315347.0307...@posting.google.com>
>>donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
>>
>>>There is only intelligence.
>>>As systems grow, intelligence grows.
>>
>>Not in bureaucracies it doesn't. I still like that saying:
>>
>> The sum total of human intelligence is a constant.
>> The population is increasing.
>
>My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
>of the stupidest element. The more something gets "organized",
>the less intelligent it can be.
Bill, you stole my post. Anyone promoting the view that the stupidest
element rules has not thought of the example you give.
It's hard to overcome cynicism and pessimism and a negative outlook.
They're their own punishment. They trap one in a local well, while
the optimists can view the global structure.
Simon Slavin
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>To say nothing of the irony of hearing him point out that other approaches
>"are making little progress developing computers with any knack for
>reasoning". What does *his* preferred paradigm have to show for fifty
>years of hard work?
Minsky has never had one. He's tried various approaches over
the years but he's never published anything that said that his
current project would definitely lead to something useful.
He's a downer, not an upper.
Charlie Gibbs
(PLZI) writes:
Okay. An XTLA would have four letters, while an ETLA could have
any number of letters by cycling the excess through the E at the
front.
Well, it worked for Intel...
Don Stockbauer
> On 30 Jul 2003 20:45:12 -0700
> donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
>
> DS> Billions of people and machines arranged into a global neural network
> DS> are in fact far more intelligent than the sum of the individuals due
>
> Hmm - a fact ? You have experimental evidence ?
>
> DS> to synergism. Funny how once something is declared a "saying" people
> DS> automatically fall for it.
>
> Yes it is.
No, haven't run any experiments, just observations. It's a little
hard for a single neuron to analyze the brain it's within, which is
the relative position of humnas now in a global network. The basic
analogy is:
Neurons are to a human brain as
Humans/machines/the entire ecology of Earth is to the Global Brain
If the emergent scaling up factor holds for the second half of that,
the ultimate power of the result would be unimaginable.
So no, not declaring a fact. In fact, the delicious, Hofstadterian
paradox of it all is that since each of us is such a tiny cell of the
whole we shall very likely never realize what's been formed.
"Mongo is but a pawn in the great game of life."
Don Stockbauer
> >My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
> >of the stupidest element. The more something gets "organized",
> >the less intelligent it can be.
>
A follow up: in a chain, the total stength is the strength of the
weakest link. In a network, that is not true. A single "weak" node
has little effect on the entirety. The network can always find paths
around it if it is of any size at all.
Eternal Vigilance
jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <u4r16h4r...@earthlink.net>,
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
> >
> >http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.08/view.html?pg=3
> >
> >Why A.I. Is Brain-Dead ... Marvin Minsky
> >
> >Scott Menchin
> >
> >In his role as agent provocateur, Marvin Minsky, cofounder of the MIT
> >Artificial Intelligence Lab, recently told a surprised Boston
> >University audience that the field of AI has lost its way.
>
> Good! It's about time.
>
Isnt this a bit like Robert McNamara now saying that the Vietnam War
was a mistake?????
>
> > ..Researchers
> >are making little progress developing computers with any knack for
> >reasoning. He took a break from dictating the final chapters of an
> >upcoming book into his G4 using ViaVoice software to give us his
> >thoughts on gray goo, bartender bots, and the importance of plain ol'
> >common sense.
>
> :-)
> >
> >... snip ..
Eternal Vigilance
Lawson English wrote:
> Of course, the BIGGEST irony is that all speech recognition software uses
> variations of technology that he and Seymour Papert did their best to
> discredit in "Perceptrons," back in the day when there was only a tiny
> budget for AI grants available.
>
No wonder the Speech Recog software is so lame -- cant do XOR logic patterns.
Anyone out there NOT have to correct their speech recog output at least 1 in 10
words ???
>
> --
> New definition of irony:
>
> 'Today's liberal Democrats are like the supporters of the Third Reich of the
> '30's and '40's
> - they absolutely trusted the government to "make things right". '
> -Comment made on the internet by an ardent GW Bush supporter.
>
> <jmfb...@aol.com> wrote in message news:bg5kpl$3h1$3...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > In article <u4r16h4r...@earthlink.net>,
> > Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.08/view.html?pg=3
> > >
> > >Why A.I. Is Brain-Dead ... Marvin Minsky
> > >
> > >Scott Menchin
> > >
> > >In his role as agent provocateur, Marvin Minsky, cofounder of the MIT
> > >Artificial Intelligence Lab, recently told a surprised Boston
> > >University audience that the field of AI has lost its way.
> >
> > Good! It's about time.
> >
jmfb...@aol.com
>> My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
>> of the stupidest element. The more something gets "organized",
>> the less intelligent it can be. Now look at computers systems
>> getting organized by a network. I haven't spent much time
>> applying this to gear; it certainly is true w.r.t. humans.
>
>the joke about committees ... rather than being
>sum(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
>or even something like
>max(IQ1, IQ2, ...,, IQn)
>sum(IQ1, IQ2, ..., IQn)/n
>it is more like
>min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)
>or even
>min(IQ1, IQ2, ...., IQn)/n
>
>where committee intelligence approaches zero
<grin> I never saw it in a formula before now.
But if you think about it, a computer is only as "fast"
as it's slowest piece of gear. A really efficient CPU
will be tapping its toe impatiently waiting for the slowest
to catch up. School rooms are a blatent example of this.
jmfb...@aol.com
Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jul 03 10:27:57 GMT, jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>In article <577.341T25...@kltpzyxm.invalid>,
>> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>In article <4e315347.0307...@posting.google.com>
>>>donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
>>>
>>>>There is only intelligence.
>>>>As systems grow, intelligence grows.
>>>
>>>Not in bureaucracies it doesn't. I still like that saying:
>>>
>>> The sum total of human intelligence is a constant.
>>> The population is increasing.
>>
>>My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
>>of the stupidest element. The more something gets "organized",
>>the less intelligent it can be.
>
>Then according to your hypothesis, your brain cannot possibly be
>smarter than an individual neuron is?
Of course.
>
>(Must . . . suppress . . .joke . . .)
I have no idea what it could be.
jmfb...@aol.com
donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
>> >
Then it's not a functional group, is it?
Don Stockbauer
> In article <4e315347.03072...@posting.google.com>
> donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) writes:
>
> >g...@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) wrote in message
> >news:<gat-290703...@k-137-79-50-101.jpl.nasa.gov>...
> >
> >> ATLA - Augmented Three-Letter Acronym
> >> DATLA - Doubly-Augmented Three-Letter Acronym
> >> DUCTLA - Double Unaugmented Concatenated Three Letter Acronym
> >> SLAASLA - Seven Letter Acronum (Augmented Six Letter Acronym)
> >> AWASSRCC - Acronym With A Strained Self-Referential Character Count
> >> SAWONPNOC - Shortest Acronym With Odd Non-Prime Number Of Characters
> >
> > AHA - Another Hated Acronym. Eg, "I've just had a AHA expereince - I
> >don't know what this god-damned acronym means."
> >
> >The year is 3872. Aliens from the Beta Lyrae 7 expeditionary mission
> >to Earth sift through the rubble of its former "civilization".
> >
> >"Captain Xzrllyl- we cannot decipher this race's language due to all
> >the acronyms. We suspect, however, that they were the cause of its
> >extinction."
>
> For further insight into this and other indexing woes, see
> "MS FND IN A LBRY" by Hal Draper, originally printed in the
> December 1961 F&SF, anthologized in 1963 in "17 x Infinity"
> (edited by Groff Conklin).
Let's help people out by making the reference explicit:
--------------------------------
Hal Draper took a break from his life's work of promoting Marxism, and
wrote one science fiction story. The information explosion, and
associated storage and retrieval problems, is humorously examined in
this short story. (This story, "MS FND IN A LBRY", is also of
historical interest, containing one of the earliest predictions of the
Web.)
Knowledge is expanding exponentially, as humanity fills the galaxy and
then some. But advances in physics (which Draper describes in
fictional mathematical terms) are able to keep up with the storage
problem, until all of human knowledge, for all time to come, is packed
into one drawer. Of course, there is one wee problem. Retrieval is
ultimately macroscopic. And so the indexes grow. And when they get
miniaturized, the indexes to the indexes grow. And so on, which then
leads to a higher-order index of the iterated indexes, and then so on
again. All this is spelled out in some detail.
The neverending recursion, while threatening to grow to Ackermann-like
proportions, is still manageable. But when a spontaneously generated
Gödelian self-reference is discovered in the indexing system, the
whole lbry, and with it all of human civilization, collapses
overnight. Absolutely hilarious.
Originally appeared in the December 1961 issue of the magazine Fantasy
and Science Fiction. Reprinted in Isaac Asimov and Janet Jeppson (eds)
Laughing Space and Groff Conklin (ed) 17 Times Infinity.
------------------------
Of course, the way you deal with a "spontaneously generated Gödelian
self-reference" is in the usual manner; you establish cybernetic rules
to navigate around it (cybernetic does mean "helmsperson", after all).
So indexing is one problem. Acronymdamnation is another. It
conserves storage at the cost of making what's stored indecipherable.
There is a computer programming style book by Kernigan and Plauger.
In it they analyze a published program (one intended for education)
which states something like "We do the following for maximum
efficiency". The trouble is, the algorithm 's wrong. K & P state
"Obviously this programmer wanted to get his wrong answers just as
quickly as possible."
jmfb...@aol.com
Eternal Vigilance <wo...@oneeye.com> wrote:
>
>
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In article <u4r16h4r...@earthlink.net>,
>> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.08/view.html?pg=3
>> >
>> >Why A.I. Is Brain-Dead ... Marvin Minsky
>> >
>> >Scott Menchin
>> >
>> >In his role as agent provocateur, Marvin Minsky, cofounder of the MIT
>> >Artificial Intelligence Lab, recently told a surprised Boston
>> >University audience that the field of AI has lost its way.
>>
>> Good! It's about time.
>>
>
>Isnt this a bit like Robert McNamara now saying that the Vietnam War
>was a mistake?????
<snip>
Nope.
Jeff Massung
> On 30 Jul 2003 20:45:12 -0700
> donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
>
> DS> Billions of people and machines arranged into a global neural network
> DS> are in fact far more intelligent than the sum of the individuals due
>
Sounds like the Borg to me... and I'm not ready to be assimilated :)
--
Best regards,
Jeff mailto:j...@mfire.com
http://www.simforth.com
Don Stockbauer
If the network is finding the alternate paths and getting it's job
done, then yes, it is a functional group. Just look at how the
telephone system will go 15 times around the world and then through a
comsat to earn your dime.
/BAHHUMBUG
Add infinity for Cantor's email address in hell.
Honey
> In article <bg5nc8$f1$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Lawson English" <engl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
top what?
> <pins
>
> Don't top post.
Don Stockbauer
> Steve O'Hara-Smith <ste...@eircom.net> wrote in
> news:20030731080104....@eircom.net:
>
> > On 30 Jul 2003 20:45:12 -0700
> > donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
> >
> > DS> Billions of people and machines arranged into a global neural network
> > DS> are in fact far more intelligent than the sum of the individuals due
> >
>
> Sounds like the Borg to me... and I'm not ready to be assimilated :)
No need to be. Communication links between nodes (people and
machines) work just as well. SciFi is real mind poison.
Don Stockbauer
This is correct when describing a single system. However, when a
metasystem transition ( http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MST.html ) occurs,
not all systems within it need be superstars. A complex mixute of
efficiency and inefficiency is fine. Thus this "a system is no better
than it's weakest subsystem" might sound logical but it fails due to
the fact that a network (metasystem) follows transcendent rules.
Brian Inglis
donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
Transcendent only in the abilities of systems and networks to
fail in ways that are difficult to predict, especially if there
are indirect dependencies such as loops, otherwise systems and
networks obey queueing theory when constrained, and Kirchoff's
laws when in a steady state.
jmfb...@aol.com
Wrong. You cannot predict when the slow is going to be crucial
to function of the whole. Not only that, you can't be sure
about which item is going to clog the bit flow.
If you want to learn about specifics, just read back issues of
comp.risks.
jmfb...@aol.com
donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote in message news:<bgdjte$i7q$7...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> In article <4e315347.03073...@posting.google.com>,
>> donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >My hypothesis is that group intelligence is always at the level
>> >> >of the stupidest element. The more something gets "organized",
>> >> >the less intelligent it can be.
>> >>
>> >
>> >A follow up: in a chain, the total stength is the strength of the
>> >weakest link. In a network, that is not true. A single "weak" node
>> >has little effect on the entirety. The network can always find paths
>> >around it if it is of any size at all.
>>
>> Then it's not a functional group, is it?
>If the network is finding the alternate paths and getting it's job
>done,
That's an awful big if. It's a limited if, too. Finding alternate
pathways is the least of the functionality (remember what we're
talking about and stop sluing out of the claim).
> ..then yes, it is a functional group. Just look at how the
>telephone system will go 15 times around the world and then through a
>comsat to earn your dime.
I thought we were talking about AI and the knowledge capicity on
the net, not fucking routing to access it.
>
>/BAHHUMBUG
GAG! Another nut.
jmfb...@aol.com
Another smartass. You forget the r in your username.
Don Stockbauer
> >>
> >> <grin> I never saw it in a formula before now.
> >> But if you think about it, a computer is only as "fast"
> >> as it's slowest piece of gear. A really efficient CPU
> >> will be tapping its toe impatiently waiting for the slowest
> >> to catch up. School rooms are a blatent example of this.
> >>
> >
> >This is correct when describing a single system. However, when a
> >metasystem transition ( http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MST.html ) occurs,
> >not all systems within it need be superstars. A complex mixute of
> >efficiency and inefficiency is fine. Thus this "a system is no better
> >than it's weakest subsystem" might sound logical but it fails due to
> >the fact that a network (metasystem) follows transcendent rules.
>
> Transcendent only in the abilities of systems and networks to
> fail in ways that are difficult to predict, especially if there
> are indirect dependencies such as loops, otherwise systems and
> networks obey queueing theory when constrained, and Kirchoff's
> laws when in a steady state.
>
> Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The human brain is a network and a system and shows emergent,
transcendent phenomena such as consciousness, feelings, deep thought,
love, and the will to survive and prosper which are all far beyond
what is stated in the immediately previous (reductionistic) paragraph.
Don Stockbauer
Don Stockbauer
Brian Inglis
donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
Yeah, no one really understands what's behind anything but the
basic instinctual responses, other than, perhaps, chemical
imbalances.
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joseph Hertzlinger
<gher...@gw.retro.com> wrote:
> Truly advanced computers will reply "This question is going to take
> a long involved research project to answer. I am going to need to
> be allocated a significant amount of additional resources, funding,
> more programmer assistants, and we're probably going to need at
> least nine new facilities to house the physical and computational
> research tools needed. We can use telepresence and teleconferencing
> so we can distribute the team and network out across the country,
> and with nine locations we should be able to place one in each
> district represented by a member of the House Appropriations
> Committee. I have position statements prepared to present to the
> staff of both sides of the aisle already, appropriately customized
> for their and their representatives personal standpoints. With any
> luck we can keep the project budget below a billion dollars this
> next year, but the answer is important. Can you call my lobbyist
> and ask him if he'd like to do lunch?"
>
> And then we'll be doomed.
As the good book says: "Always make sure the first piece of expert
advice is to hire more experts." (Genesis 41:33)
Joseph Hertzlinger
<donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've taken a good look. I see a Planetary Brain developing. If you
> prefer ro take a limited negative local view of it all, that's your
> option.
Who gets to be the frontal lobes?
Larry Elmore
> In article <4e315347.03080...@posting.google.com>,
> donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
>>/BAHHUMBUG
>
>
> GAG! Another nut.
If that's a persistent problem, I think you're doing it wrong... :)
Don Stockbauer
> On 31 Jul 2003 11:35:22 -0700, Don Stockbauer
> <donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've taken a good look. I see a Planetary Brain developing. If you
> > prefer ro take a limited negative local view of it all, that's your
> > option.
>
> Who gets to be the frontal lobes?
I suppose our current evolutionary rules would reign; those people who
show initiative and intelligence and get moving with what they think
needs to be done. Earning it, in other words.
The "frontal lobes" would be millions of people. There's probably
less chance of one or a few people taking over the Earth than ever
before in history.
Actually, no one knows. It's pretty much a "we fleas are just going
to have to see where the dog takes us." I make no doctrinaire claims,
for that only leads to a shouting match.
Brian Inglis
donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
>Joseph Hertzlinger <jher...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<bgjgvs$m7a$3...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
>> On 31 Jul 2003 11:35:22 -0700, Don Stockbauer
>> <donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I've taken a good look. I see a Planetary Brain developing. If you
>> > prefer ro take a limited negative local view of it all, that's your
>> > option.
>>
>> Who gets to be the frontal lobes?
>
>I suppose our current evolutionary rules would reign; those people who
>show initiative and intelligence and get moving with what they think
>needs to be done. Earning it, in other words.
>
>The "frontal lobes" would be millions of people. There's probably
>less chance of one or a few people taking over the Earth than ever
>before in history.
Been watching the news for the last couple of years?
>Actually, no one knows. It's pretty much a "we fleas are just going
>to have to see where the dog takes us." I make no doctrinaire claims,
>for that only leads to a shouting match.
A lot of fleas seem to jump between DC and Texas these days.
Don Stockbauer
> On 3 Aug 2003 15:40:54 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers,
> donsto...@hotmail.com (Don Stockbauer) wrote:
>
> >Joseph Hertzlinger <jher...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<bgjgvs$m7a$3...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >> On 31 Jul 2003 11:35:22 -0700, Don Stockbauer
> >> <donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I've taken a good look. I see a Planetary Brain developing. If you
> >> > prefer ro take a limited negative local view of it all, that's your
> >> > option.
> >>
> >> Who gets to be the frontal lobes?
> >
> >I suppose our current evolutionary rules would reign; those people who
> >show initiative and intelligence and get moving with what they think
> >needs to be done. Earning it, in other words.
> >
> >The "frontal lobes" would be millions of people. There's probably
> >less chance of one or a few people taking over the Earth than ever
> >before in history.
>
> Been watching the news for the last couple of years?
Yeah, I have, too much in fact. Nobody said we're there.
Everything's still in am embryonic state. And of couse, little babies
do die of various causes, so no one's saying we're out of the woods
yet. One problem with all this is that as the System continues to
explode with higher and higher levels of complexity about all you can
do as far as prediction are some very general guesses.
>
> >Actually, no one knows. It's pretty much a "we fleas are just going
> >to have to see where the dog takes us." I make no doctrinaire claims,
> >for that only leads to a shouting match.
>
> A lot of fleas seem to jump between DC and Texas these days.
>
I don't know why that is. Maybe it's something about being raised on
a ranch in Texas that gives one certain attributes, some good, some
bad. The rest of the Earth seems to just stand back, open-mouthed.
Like farting in church, I suppose. Whale, sumbody's gotta do
sumthin', I suppose. I just work here.
Don Stockbauer
donsto...@hotmail.com (courtesy Mr. Billions)
jmfb...@aol.com
Walter Bushell
Or perhaps she needed to get the correct wrong answers, for the Bored of
Ed.
--
The last temptation is the highest treason:
To do the right thing for the wrong reason. --T..S. Eliot
Walter
Don Stockbauer
> > There is a computer programming style book by Kernigan and Plauger.
> > In it they analyze a published program (one intended for education)
> > which states something like "We do the following for maximum
> > efficiency". The trouble is, the algorithm 's wrong. K & P state
> > "Obviously this programmer wanted to get his wrong answers just as
> > quickly as possible."
>
> Or perhaps she needed to get the correct wrong answers, for the Bored of
> Ed.
Darn. Slipped into gender non-neutrality, even after Hofstadter taught
us all so well in Metamagical Themas. But actually it was in quoted
material, not my original text, and on top of that my copy of Kernigan
and Plauger is over in the trailer, not here in the ranch house where
we have our mighty mainframe (a Dell Dimension 4100), so I'm not even
exactly sure how the quote goes exactly, and furthermore I'm dating
myself (which I have to do because there's no wimmin out here, only a
bunch of cattle (I WON'T GO INTO THAT!!!!) by referring to such an
ancient text (why, most of the example are in.....FOE-TRAN!!! YUK
PHOOEY GAG) (AH, but one always has a warm place in their heart for
their first love no matter how disgustingly ugly she was), and
besides, Hofstadter states in GEB that any programming language which
allows for an INFONET loop is the most powerful language class
possible, it's just a matter of style and convenience which is
better), and finally, is your nckname "Ed"?????
Donsky Oatsky
Don Stockbauer
>
> Darn. Slipped into gender non-neutrality, even after Hofstadter taught
> us all so well in Metamagical Themas. But actually it was in quoted
> material, not my original text, and on top of that my copy of Kernigan
> and Plauger is over in the trailer, not here in the ranch house where
> we have our mighty mainframe (a Dell Dimension 4100), so I'm not even
> exactly sure how the quote goes exactly, and furthermore I'm dating
> myself (which I have to do because there's no wimmin out here, only a
> bunch of cattle (I WON'T GO INTO THAT!!!!) by referring to such an
> ancient text (why, most of the example are in.....FOE-TRAN!!! YUK
> PHOOEY GAG) (AH, but one always has a warm place in their heart for
> their first love no matter how disgustingly ugly she was), and
> besides, Hofstadter states in GEB that any programming language which
> allows for an INFONET loop is the most powerful language class
> possible, it's just a matter of style and convenience which is
> better), and finally, is your nckname "Ed"?????
>
> Donsky Oatsky
Who was that masked man????????
Rober...@yahoogroups.com
From: Eric Sosman <Eric....@sun.com>
What the industry needs now is an FLA for "FLA."}}
AOFL (Acronym Of Four Letters)
If we ever exhaust that space, we can move to:
AOEFL (Acronym Of Exactly Five Letters)
AOSNFL (Acronym Of Six, Not Five, Letters)
jmfb...@aol.com
In article <REM-2003...@Yahoo.Com>, Rober...@YahooGroups.Com wrote:
<snip>
>AOSNFL (Acronym Of Six, Not Five, Letters)
>
If I saw this one, I'd wonder if somebody had extended the
PDP-10 instruction set and why the hell they used floating
point in a counter.
Add One to memory and Skip if Negative using FLoat.
Charles Richmond
>
> [spit]
>
> In article <REM-2003...@Yahoo.Com>, Rober...@YahooGroups.Com wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > AOSNFL (Acronym Of Six, Not Five, Letters)
> >
> If I saw this one, I'd wonder if somebody had extended the
> PDP-10 instruction set and why the hell they used floating
> point in a counter.
>
> Add One to memory and Skip if Negative using FLoat.
>
and trying to decide what assembly language instruction that
the letters on the license represent...
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+