4 ms·

always be able to find a job [...] do you think this is more or less true? Ted didn't. http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt

always be able to find a job [...] do you think this is more or less true? Ted didn't. http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. [...] As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decision for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better result than man-made ones. [...] because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. The only employment available to an increasing - as technology evolves - portion of the population, will be workfare.

ars 18y ago
Ted is assuming - without evidence - that machines will be able to make decisions. Today that is not true, and for the foreseeable future it's not true as well. Someone needs to program all those machines to crunch the data needed to help humans make good decisions. ...and machines become more and more intelligent... They have never done so in the past, so why do you think they'll start now? Machines became faster, but not more intelligent. Take chess as an excellent example: humans do not evaluate every possible more - somehow they just think of what the best move is. Machines can not do that, and probably will never be able to. So far they can only do what was pre-programmed for them.
- gravitycop 18y ago
  So far [machines] can only do what was pre-programmed for them. Then how do they learn, and recognize, faces? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_vision#Related_fields http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_vision#Related_fields A significant part of artificial intelligence deals with autonomous planning or deliberation for systems which can perform mechanical actions such as moving a robot through some environment. This type of processing typically needs input data provided by a computer vision system, acting as a vision sensor and providing high-level information about the environment and the robot. Other parts which sometimes are described as belonging to artificial intelligence and which are used in relation to computer vision is pattern recognition and learning techniques. As a consequence, computer vision is sometimes seen as a part of the artificial intelligence field or the computer science field in general.
  - ars 18y ago
    If you program it to recognize faces, it will not, on it's own, learn to recognize cows. That's my point - it all has to be programed in advance. And if you program something that can recognize anything - just tell it if it was right or not, that program will not then learn to draw. It's the capacity to self program if you like - a human can learn anything, just tell him about the subject. A program can not.
    - gravitycop 18y ago
      If you program it to recognize faces, it will not, on it's own, learn to recognize cows. So, if you walked into a VC's office to pitch a startup, you might say with a straight face that you believe the market for cow recognition exceeds the market for human facial recognition? Do you realize that to serve the cow recognition market, we simply clip RFID tags to their ears? http://images.google.com/images?q=cow+ear+rfid+tag http://images.google.com/images?q=cow+ear+rfid+tag The artificial-machine face-recognition market is fueling the development of special intelligence in that area. There is relatively quick-return money in that area, so that is an area where intelligence is being developed first. Smell-recognition is another area where development of special intelligence can pay off relatively quickly, and therefore is providing impetus for development. So far, there are at least these relatively-fast-payoff markets for which special intelligences are being developed: 1. face recognition 2. smell recognition 3. iris recognition 4. retina recognition 5. fingerprint recognition 6. speech recognition Are you aware that the human brain contains a special sub-processor for learning and recognizing not cows, but human faces? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218122150.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218122150.ht... The imaging studies revealed significant face-selective activity in brain regions known to make up the distributed cortical face-processing network in humans. Further study showed distinct patches of activity in a region known as the fusiform gyrus - the primary site of face-selective activity in humans - when chimps observed faces. Do you deny that the modern human brain probably resulted from evolution by natural-selection, rather than from Intelligent Design?
      - deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]
- gravitycop 18y ago
  Machines became faster, but not more intelligent. Is a human brain not a machine? http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/whatisai/node1.html http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/whatisai/node1.html Q. Are computers the right kind of machine to be made intelligent? A. Computers can be programmed to simulate any kind of machine. Q. Are computers fast enough to be intelligent? A. Some people think much faster computers are required as well as new ideas. My own opinion is that the computers of 30 years ago were fast enough if only we knew how to program them. Of course, quite apart from the ambitions of AI researchers, computers will keep getting faster. Q. What about parallel machines? A. Machines with many processors are much faster than single processors can be. Parallelism itself presents no advantages, and parallel machines are somewhat awkward to program. When extreme speed is required, it is necessary to face this awkwardness.
  - ars 18y ago
    Is a human brain not a machine? No, I don't think it is. But it'll be a very long time before anyone can prove it either way. ....if only we knew how to program them.... Which is part of the point - we don't, and I don't think we ever will.
    - gravitycop 18y ago
      I don't think [a brain is a machine] Are you meaning to imply you think there is a spiritual base to human intelligence?
- gravitycop 18y ago
  Take chess as an excellent example Why not take speech- and facial- recognition as examples? http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/whatisai/node1.html http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/whatisai/node1.html Q. What about chess? A. Alexander Kronrod, a Russian AI researcher, said ``Chess is the Drosophila of AI.'' He was making an analogy with geneticists' use of that fruit fly to study inheritance. Playing chess requires certain intellectual mechanisms and not others. Chess programs now play at grandmaster level, but they do it with limited intellectual mechanisms compared to those used by a human chess player, substituting large amounts of computation for understanding. Once we understand these mechanisms better, we can build human-level chess programs that do far less computation than do present programs. Unfortunately, the competitive and commercial aspects of making computers play chess have taken precedence over using chess as a scientific domain. It is as if the geneticists after 1910 had organized fruit fly races and concentrated their efforts on breeding fruit flies that could win these races.
  - ars 18y ago
    He makes an excellent point! But he neglects the reason for it: it's because no one was able to take that step of "Once we understand these mechanisms better, we can build human-level chess programs that do far less computation than do present programs.". No one could do it, so they did other things.

ars 18y ago

Ted is assuming - without evidence - that machines will be able to make decisions. Today that is not true, and for the foreseeable future it's not true as well. Someone needs to program all those machines to crunch the data needed to help humans make good decisions. ...and machines become more and more intelligent... They have never done so in the past, so why do you think they'll start now? Machines became faster, but not more intelligent. Take chess as an excellent example: humans do not evaluate every possible more - somehow they just think of what the best move is. Machines can not do that, and probably will never be able to. So far they can only do what was pre-programmed for them.

gravitycop 18y ago
So far [machines] can only do what was pre-programmed for them. Then how do they learn, and recognize, faces? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_vision#Related_fields http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_vision#Related_fields A significant part of artificial intelligence deals with autonomous planning or deliberation for systems which can perform mechanical actions such as moving a robot through some environment. This type of processing typically needs input data provided by a computer vision system, acting as a vision sensor and providing high-level information about the environment and the robot. Other parts which sometimes are described as belonging to artificial intelligence and which are used in relation to computer vision is pattern recognition and learning techniques. As a consequence, computer vision is sometimes seen as a part of the artificial intelligence field or the computer science field in general.
- ars 18y ago
  If you program it to recognize faces, it will not, on it's own, learn to recognize cows. That's my point - it all has to be programed in advance. And if you program something that can recognize anything - just tell it if it was right or not, that program will not then learn to draw. It's the capacity to self program if you like - a human can learn anything, just tell him about the subject. A program can not.
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    If you program it to recognize faces, it will not, on it's own, learn to recognize cows. So, if you walked into a VC's office to pitch a startup, you might say with a straight face that you believe the market for cow recognition exceeds the market for human facial recognition? Do you realize that to serve the cow recognition market, we simply clip RFID tags to their ears? http://images.google.com/images?q=cow+ear+rfid+tag http://images.google.com/images?q=cow+ear+rfid+tag The artificial-machine face-recognition market is fueling the development of special intelligence in that area. There is relatively quick-return money in that area, so that is an area where intelligence is being developed first. Smell-recognition is another area where development of special intelligence can pay off relatively quickly, and therefore is providing impetus for development. So far, there are at least these relatively-fast-payoff markets for which special intelligences are being developed: 1. face recognition 2. smell recognition 3. iris recognition 4. retina recognition 5. fingerprint recognition 6. speech recognition Are you aware that the human brain contains a special sub-processor for learning and recognizing not cows, but human faces? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218122150.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218122150.ht... The imaging studies revealed significant face-selective activity in brain regions known to make up the distributed cortical face-processing network in humans. Further study showed distinct patches of activity in a region known as the fusiform gyrus - the primary site of face-selective activity in humans - when chimps observed faces. Do you deny that the modern human brain probably resulted from evolution by natural-selection, rather than from Intelligent Design?
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
gravitycop 18y ago
Machines became faster, but not more intelligent. Is a human brain not a machine? http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/whatisai/node1.html http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/whatisai/node1.html Q. Are computers the right kind of machine to be made intelligent? A. Computers can be programmed to simulate any kind of machine. Q. Are computers fast enough to be intelligent? A. Some people think much faster computers are required as well as new ideas. My own opinion is that the computers of 30 years ago were fast enough if only we knew how to program them. Of course, quite apart from the ambitions of AI researchers, computers will keep getting faster. Q. What about parallel machines? A. Machines with many processors are much faster than single processors can be. Parallelism itself presents no advantages, and parallel machines are somewhat awkward to program. When extreme speed is required, it is necessary to face this awkwardness.
- ars 18y ago
  Is a human brain not a machine? No, I don't think it is. But it'll be a very long time before anyone can prove it either way. ....if only we knew how to program them.... Which is part of the point - we don't, and I don't think we ever will.
  - gravitycop 18y ago
    I don't think [a brain is a machine] Are you meaning to imply you think there is a spiritual base to human intelligence?
gravitycop 18y ago
Take chess as an excellent example Why not take speech- and facial- recognition as examples? http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/whatisai/node1.html http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/whatisai/node1.html Q. What about chess? A. Alexander Kronrod, a Russian AI researcher, said ``Chess is the Drosophila of AI.'' He was making an analogy with geneticists' use of that fruit fly to study inheritance. Playing chess requires certain intellectual mechanisms and not others. Chess programs now play at grandmaster level, but they do it with limited intellectual mechanisms compared to those used by a human chess player, substituting large amounts of computation for understanding. Once we understand these mechanisms better, we can build human-level chess programs that do far less computation than do present programs. Unfortunately, the competitive and commercial aspects of making computers play chess have taken precedence over using chess as a scientific domain. It is as if the geneticists after 1910 had organized fruit fly races and concentrated their efforts on breeding fruit flies that could win these races.
- ars 18y ago
  He makes an excellent point! But he neglects the reason for it: it's because no one was able to take that step of "Once we understand these mechanisms better, we can build human-level chess programs that do far less computation than do present programs.". No one could do it, so they did other things.