• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Moore's Law continues to hold


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#31 treonsverdery

  • Guest
  • 1,312 posts
  • 161
  • Location:where I am at

Posted 29 January 2007 - 03:11 AM

If people create AI that employs people to make money then AI will progress more rapidly. There is a site volition.com where people find work like mystery shopping, that is going to places then mimicing an effective human social or activity. An AI using these people as hands has a vastly larger diversity of purposed or genetic algorith evolved behaviors that are economically sustaining.

#32 jc1991

  • Guest
  • 61 posts
  • 0

Posted 29 January 2007 - 03:19 AM

Three
UAV Unmanned Aviation Vehicles flying recon planes are run from thousands of miles away, they could easily be UCV Undrivered Car Vehicles Could you pay a developing world chauffeur to commute You sure could. a dollar an hour covers commuting both ways each day at current US average.


I disagree. Such a car would not be automated, merely remotely driven. It wouldn't involve AI, just really good telepresence systems. Everything else is just another application of the same automation technology.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#33 stephenszpak

  • Guest
  • 448 posts
  • 0

Posted 29 January 2007 - 03:40 AM

Intelligence doesn't magically emerge as a function of GHz.


Not my point. What I'm saying is that what exists today in a
supercomputer is what will exist in an android in X years. That
is, assuming the exact same software of course.

If a supercomputer is as intelligent as a squirrel today, that is
what a robot/android will be like in X years.

-Stephen

#34 treonsverdery

  • Guest
  • 1,312 posts
  • 161
  • Location:where I am at

Posted 29 January 2007 - 03:42 AM

Is a bug driven car an an AI if we genetically engineer the bug
http://www.halfbaker...cars#1033510367

#35 stephenszpak

  • Guest
  • 448 posts
  • 0

Posted 29 January 2007 - 04:01 AM

Three
UAV Unmanned Aviation Vehicles flying recon planes are run from thousands of miles away, they could easily be UCV Undrivered Car Vehicles Could you pay a developing world chauffeur to commute You sure could. a dollar an hour covers commuting both ways each day at current US average.


I disagree. Such a car would not be automated, merely remotely driven. It wouldn't involve AI, just really good telepresence systems. Everything else is just another application of the same automation technology.


Last night on TV they showed a helicopter that the military will probably be using soon.
No pilot. No remote control. This is what they said as I remember it. Doesn't mean it's true.
Also it's hard to believe they would let it fire missiles without a confirmation from an operator.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fire scout

The MQ-8B Fire Scout is a vertical takeoff and landing tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). This stealthy, ground-controlled helicopter has a fully autonomous targeting and surveillance system that allows it to fly almost silently over sea and land to watch for hidden enemies across a 100-mile radius. Not only can it spy, it can shoot missiles - and also re-equip troops in the field with arms and supplies. (Picture: US Navy)

http://dsc.discovery.../arsenal-1.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Links and links if anyone is into this stuff:

http://www.defensein...dated/index.php

http://www.spacewar...._Debut_999.html

Link below has photos of unit and specs:


http://www.designati...m/app2/q-8.html


-Stephen

#36 apocalypse

  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Diamond sphere

Posted 08 February 2007 - 10:31 AM

I notice that Eliezer qualifies his statements with a number of subjunctives (may, might), along with analogies to nuclear chain reactions and speculations about how humans became smart, neither of which necessarily explains how Colossus could wake up and take over the world. His pronouncements don't shed any more light on how this could happen than stuff a  science fiction writer could have written decades ago.


Given that you can't tell how smart something is by its behavior, there's no telling exactly what an AI of any lvl of intelligent will do(at least no easy way of telling...). It might simply kill the researcher and then itself ala robocop, or it might decide to exterminate the race(even us humans have fallen prey to ideas of genocide.). Though it might also provide untold solutions to the worlds problems, but taking that needle in a haystack solution out of the garbled mess of possible solutions is no easy feat.

#37 treonsverdery

  • Guest
  • 1,312 posts
  • 161
  • Location:where I am at

Posted 14 February 2007 - 04:59 AM

[jc 1991] Such a car would not be automated, merely remotely driven. It wouldn't involve AI, just really good telepresence systems

You are right. perhaps an AI might be an AI that drove normal drivered vehicles plus driverless vehicles. If you were willing to have a lower vehicle tax then the AI might modify your drivered vehicles behavior to minimize harm

#38 apocalypse

  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Diamond sphere

Posted 15 February 2007 - 02:45 AM

You are right.  perhaps an AI might be an AI that drove normal drivered vehicles plus driverless vehicles.  If you were willing to have a lower vehicle tax then the AI might modify your drivered vehicles behavior to minimize harm


But would people be able to embrace a divine ai? A blessing a miracle in disguise or maybe not? One to watch all the truth for all eternity? Immortality, everything made public, everything public to it, everything belonging to the public domain?!? yes even our deepest and most private of secrets... that lay beyond the singularity, that seems to be the truth.

Yes, that is the truth that I would like to hear, to see, to feel, for a god ai, a wise queen or king, for all that is. Taking it all across time, and across space everything in to its womb, giving birth to an ideal world... a world that was forgotten, a world that was meant to be, but we were all afraid to face. That we would all share such, and in its presence, be driven from insanity to sanity. From fear to joy and back again, there and back again. Let it be said, that I only asked for this one thing, yet did I ask for any thing, that wasn't there?

#39 subjunk

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 25 February 2007 - 10:38 PM

It doesn't matter how fast computers get. We don't have the algorithms to run on them to make them turn into Eliezer's fantasies. Skeptic magazine a few months back published an article providing abundant evidence of AI's poor prospects despite decades of "research." A later issue published a letter by a computer scientist who had independently arrived at a similar conclusion about AI and decided not to pursue a Ph.D. in it because he wanted something to show for his life.

The whole AI idea has something fundamentally wrong with it, considering that the field started when I Love Lucy still ran as a current TV series and it has yet to produce something smart enough to disturb people.

EDIT:

AI's failure looks especially impressive considering that governments and corporations have spent billions of dollars on it and hired generations of very smart people to study it.

AI has advanced significantly in that time.
The reason you don't see it in practice is because it's the theoretical side that has advanced years beyond physical capabilities.
As soon as processing technology takes a huge leap so will AI. Computer technology has been at a relative standstill for years, CPUs are only getting marginally faster, HDDs getting marginally bigger (in fact last I checked the largest HDD you can buy is 1tb, and considering 500GB ones have been on the market for many years that's unimpressive), but there are new technologies on the way which will crank the speed from being measured in GHz to THz, from GB to TB+.
One of my good friend's girlfriend has written published and acclaimed papers on AI and helped make significant theoretical advances, so while in the real world we are stuck with less than satisfying MSN bots like anika@mscorlib.com and bot@talkalotbot.com, there really have been great behind-the-scenes advances.

#40 stephenszpak

  • Guest
  • 448 posts
  • 0

Posted 26 February 2007 - 08:12 AM

"Computer technology has been at a relative standstill for years, ..."

Are you kidding?

#41 subjunk

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Wellington

Posted 26 February 2007 - 08:32 AM

"Computer technology has been at a relative standstill for years, ..."

  Are you kidding?

No I'm not kidding.
For the last 5+ years all CPU, HDD and RAM have been improvements on previous models.
CPUs go from 1GHz to 2GHz to 5GHz, HDDs from 80GB to 500GB to 1TB, RAM from 64mb to 256mb to 2GB.
The reason for this lack of significant progress is that with current methods we can't get any smaller without running into problems.

So what has ended up happening in order to give the illusion of progress is that CPUs are now dual and quad core; CPUs are only getting marginally better so now you buy 2-in-1 and 4-in-1.
There are many new ideas for advances on the way, like magnet-powered electron switches for CPUs and heating and cooling harder elements for hard drives to allow smaller stable parts.

I buy new computer parts all the time, I just got an NX8 series GPU and it's great, the fastest on the market, but before that I had a NX7800GTX GPU, so this isn't that phenomenal.
Go back 10-20 years before these limitations and computing technology was absolutely booming, but things have definitely slowed down now as corporations spend larger percentages of their money on developing new technology and implementing that technology to overcome these physical limitations.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#42 apocalypse

  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Diamond sphere

Posted 04 March 2007 - 11:37 AM

"Computer technology has been at a relative standstill for years, ..."

  Are you kidding?


On the public side, any disruptive technology is quickly assimilated and made unpatentable by gov.s across the world. Only open-source like dev. is free from such bindings, and disruptive tech in such is brewing mightily, so much so that it will be tempting to say that it'll probably eclipse all that the copyright/patent driven world has announced so far.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users