3 ms·

Game of Life is completely deterministic and is the opposite of real life in pretty much every way My computer also can compute 5 + 5 and that is the opposite

by seiji 12y ago

Game of Life is completely deterministic and is the opposite of real life in pretty much every way My computer also can compute 5 + 5 and that is the opposite of real life in pretty much every way too. Not every algorithm results in life [and it requires algorithm + data + continual input, which the GoL doesn't integrate]. is a rejection of the idea that quantum computing allows any new problems to be solved Because the idea quantum computing solves new problems has no basis in research or reality? "Quantum" != magic A tiny, currently impractical, factorization algorithm isn't a new problem current computers can't solve. They just take the long way 'round.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
The fact that a previously-intractable problem can be solved in a tractable amount of time on a quantum computer is important. It doesn't mean the problem didn't exist before, but rather that the problem can now be solved. For all we know, making an intractable problem tractable is the necessary step to make AI a reality. In fact, it's hard to argue that it isn't, so quantum computing becomes very interesting.
- seiji 12y ago
  For all we know, making an intractable problem tractable is the necessary step to make AI a reality. But, we know that's not a necessary step. We have computer vision systems working essentially the same way our brains perceive images (and since the new systems are on computers, we can speed them up millions of times to recognize millions of images quickly instead of relying on our dumb 10Hz to 100Hz brain clock). so quantum computing becomes very interesting. But quantum computing doesn't magically reduce difficult things to non-difficult things: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=206 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=206 Also, required reading on why no quantum juju is required: http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    I didn't say quantum computing magically reduced anything. You've set up a strawman and proceeded to beat it with a hammer. I said that quantum computers can solve previously-intractable problems. We don't know what steps are necessary to reach AI, so we don't know what is or isn't a necessary step. Vision is a tiny part of cognition, as evidenced by the fact that there are fish which have no vision (or at least no human-like vision) since they live in absence of light. Yet they are alive: they reproduce, they seek food, they think, they do all of the things a living creature does, except see light.
    - WhitneyLand 12y ago
      You're confusing computing performance intractability with conceptual intractability. Shor doesn't do anything new for AI, it just speeds things up.
      - sillysaurus3 12y ago
        Never would I have guessed that saying "Quantum computing may open up new avenues of exploration" would be so controversial. I said quantum computing makes previously-intractable problems tractable, and that it's therefore interesting for AI. I used Shor's algorithm as an example of a problem which could not be solved on a classical computer, but could be solved on a quantum computer, not as an example of a new AI problem.

by seiji 12y ago

sillysaurus3 12y ago

The fact that a previously-intractable problem can be solved in a tractable amount of time on a quantum computer is important. It doesn't mean the problem didn't exist before, but rather that the problem can now be solved. For all we know, making an intractable problem tractable is the necessary step to make AI a reality. In fact, it's hard to argue that it isn't, so quantum computing becomes very interesting.

seiji 12y ago
For all we know, making an intractable problem tractable is the necessary step to make AI a reality. But, we know that's not a necessary step. We have computer vision systems working essentially the same way our brains perceive images (and since the new systems are on computers, we can speed them up millions of times to recognize millions of images quickly instead of relying on our dumb 10Hz to 100Hz brain clock). so quantum computing becomes very interesting. But quantum computing doesn't magically reduce difficult things to non-difficult things: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=206 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=206 Also, required reading on why no quantum juju is required: http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  I didn't say quantum computing magically reduced anything. You've set up a strawman and proceeded to beat it with a hammer. I said that quantum computers can solve previously-intractable problems. We don't know what steps are necessary to reach AI, so we don't know what is or isn't a necessary step. Vision is a tiny part of cognition, as evidenced by the fact that there are fish which have no vision (or at least no human-like vision) since they live in absence of light. Yet they are alive: they reproduce, they seek food, they think, they do all of the things a living creature does, except see light.
  - WhitneyLand 12y ago
    You're confusing computing performance intractability with conceptual intractability. Shor doesn't do anything new for AI, it just speeds things up.
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      Never would I have guessed that saying "Quantum computing may open up new avenues of exploration" would be so controversial. I said quantum computing makes previously-intractable problems tractable, and that it's therefore interesting for AI. I used Shor's algorithm as an example of a problem which could not be solved on a classical computer, but could be solved on a quantum computer, not as an example of a new AI problem.