3 ms·

I think there's an important distinction here in word choice. Sundar said more profound, not a bigger deal. You could imagine that it's more profound in the s

by dmoy 9y ago

I think there's an important distinction here in word choice. Sundar said more profound, not a bigger deal. You could imagine that it's more profound in the sort of "what if we make machines that can think / feel / have souls" sort of way, which certainly can't happen with fire or electricity. That doesn't mean it's more important than electricity. (As a bozo test - how does your AI work without electricity?) Disclaimer: work at google, in a role completely unrelated to AI.

Swizec 9y ago
> (As a bozo test - how does your AI work without electricity?) You design a system that can take in a store of energy of some sort and converts it into energy through some kind of process. You might call the energy source, say, food and the process of converting into energy could be called nutrition. That's how you'd do it if you lost electricity I guess. Create a generator that takes not-electricity and turns it into electricity. If you really have to go without electricity, you could make it run on glucose. We have systems like that running around, just not artificial. And since we know neurons and brains work using electric pulses, you could say that turning glucose into electricity is also a solved problem. Of course you could also say that without electricity (as in doesn't exist as a thing) you can't have brains so you'd never be able to come up with AI in the first place. Altho I wonder if a brain would evolve that runs on something other than electricity if electricity didn't exist as a physical phenomena. That would be interesting.
- ericjang 9y ago
  I wish we knew how to imbue robots with chemical actuation mechanisms that actually worked (as opposed to some proof of concept demo of a simple electrolysis reaction in a bulky 3D printed silicone balloon). If real muscle cells / limbs serve as a sort of reference, they would be vastly more space-efficient, compliant, and have higher power-weight ratio than any electromagnetically actuated servo we have today. It makes me wonder if the "modern" androids in Westworld used electricity at all.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, it is an important distinction.

by dmoy 9y ago

Swizec 9y ago

> (As a bozo test - how does your AI work without electricity?) You design a system that can take in a store of energy of some sort and converts it into energy through some kind of process. You might call the energy source, say, food and the process of converting into energy could be called nutrition. That's how you'd do it if you lost electricity I guess. Create a generator that takes not-electricity and turns it into electricity. If you really have to go without electricity, you could make it run on glucose. We have systems like that running around, just not artificial. And since we know neurons and brains work using electric pulses, you could say that turning glucose into electricity is also a solved problem. Of course you could also say that without electricity (as in doesn't exist as a thing) you can't have brains so you'd never be able to come up with AI in the first place. Altho I wonder if a brain would evolve that runs on something other than electricity if electricity didn't exist as a physical phenomena. That would be interesting.

ericjang 9y ago
I wish we knew how to imbue robots with chemical actuation mechanisms that actually worked (as opposed to some proof of concept demo of a simple electrolysis reaction in a bulky 3D printed silicone balloon). If real muscle cells / limbs serve as a sort of reference, they would be vastly more space-efficient, compliant, and have higher power-weight ratio than any electromagnetically actuated servo we have today. It makes me wonder if the "modern" androids in Westworld used electricity at all.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, it is an important distinction.