Reply With Quote
RG can be annoying as , but suggesting he's Antifa is borderline unhinged.
losing your temper in public is the *definition* of a meltdown
RG can be annoying as , but suggesting he's Antifa is borderline unhinged.
Not according to the Cherokee, who get to write the definition.
Damn, Trump can abuse power and lie his ass off every day of the week, but god forbid a woman should be mistaken about the legal definition of who's a Cherokee.
You'll never let her live it down.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-05-2019 at 12:34 PM.
nope. Pretty dumb.
And it's got nothing to do with being male/female but nice little strawman to throw in there.
I agree with this. No way in RG gets off his ass to put on the mask and actually riot. If there was an app... maybe.
All AOC all the time.
man fap in a napkin already and get it overwith.
Damned with faint praise.
(chuckles)
Antifa is the right's favorite strawman/whataboutism. It is the "go to" for getting out of admitting any fault on the part of some right wing nutter. It is one of the tropes I used to teach my kids the meaning of the word "sophism", because the louder one yammers about it, the more likely they are to be disingenuous.
I agree for the most part. A lot of it is overblown, but I am cautious about predicting that we will not get a LOT better at building artificial consciousness within our life time.
There is just too much money chasing this holy grail, and there are a LOT of very smart people making incremental advancements and talking to each other in some rather synergistic ways for the past to be too similar to the future.
NOTHINGBOOGER!
I don't think so. We don't even know how the brain really works, have no clue how to solve the hard problem of consciousness, and further complicating matters is how the computational theory of mind is pretty much bull . This is what happens when computer scientists try to do neuroscience and neurophilosophy.
https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-do...not-a-computer
Unless you define artificial consciousness in terms of a system simply imitating consciousness. Sure. That already exists in some form with animatronic chatbots like that Sophia gimmick and Alexa, but underneath it all, the system is simply doing statistics. It's not "aware" of anything.
https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2...nal-centipede/Despite all the marketing hype coming out of Mountain View, there really hasn’t been much in the way of conceptual breakthroughs in machine learning since the 1990s. Improvements in neural networks have caused excitement, and the ability of deep learning to work more efficiently on images is an improvement in capabilities. Stuff like gradient boost machines have also been a considerable technical improvement in usable machine learning. They don’t really count as big conceptual breakthroughs; just normal improvements for a field of engineering that has poor theoretical substructure. As for actual “AI” -almost nobody is really working on this.
These days, we have Elon Musk petrified that a near relative of logistic regression is going to achieve sentienceand render him unable to enjoy the usufructs of his toils. Charlatan “thinktanks” dedicated to “friendly AI” (and Harry Potter slashfic) have sprung up. Goofball non-profits designed to make “AI” more “safe” by making it available as open source (think about that for a minute) actually exist. Funded, of course, by the paranoid oligarchs who would be better off reading a book, adjusting their exercise program or having their doctor adjust their meds.
Here's what I think are two insurmountable hurdles to achieving the kind of "conscious" A.I. that has been popularized in numerous films and books over the past 50-60 some years:
"Consciousness" is an emergent property of a biological substrate made up of, well, "mushy stuff," that itself is built on carbon and molecular-chemical substrates, consisting of common elements found in all life: oxygen, hydrogen, nucleic acids, etc. A theoretical silicon based "lifeform" lacks those necessary building blocks. Some believe if you can simply copy the structure of the brain via hardware, you'll have your machine consciousness. Well, we've been making neural nets and neuromorphic chips for over 30 years. None of those systems have "waken up." The philosopher John Searle had a devastating argument here that emulating "consciousness" (I have no idea how we're supposed to emulate something we don't understand) on a computer won't translate into it having consciousness because, as I've said before, there's a vast difference between biological and silicon substrates. His example was that a computer could indeed emulate the photosynthesis process, but at the end of the day, the computer isn't converting light to sugar.
As it stands, no examples in nature exist of non-carbon/non-"stuff" based lifeforms and consciousness.
This brings me to the second huge hurdle. Some think it's simply a software problem. Just have to write the correct code and the system will "wake up." This is nonsense because this approach assumes that consciousness is dualist in nature (i.e. brain hardware/mind software).
https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/...oesnt-understaI presume they understand that if you program a perfect Intel emulator, you don't suddenly get Halo: Reach for free, as an emergent property of the system. You can buy the code and add it to the system, sure, but in this case, we can't run down to GameStop and buy a DVD with the human OS in it and install it on our artificial brain. You're going to have to do the hard work of figuring out how that works and reverse engineering it, as well. And understanding how the processor works is necessary to do that, but not sufficient.
But again, if you define artificial consciousness in the sense of a system acting conscious (i.e. the sensation of pain is something that is a result of conscious experience, but you could easily (in theory) program a robot to express pain in that when its arm is hit, pressure sensors are activated, which the CPU determines is in the range of PSI that would cause pain in human being, and then "tells" the robot's voice module to say "ouch." But again, the system is just doing statistics.
I'm actually against "beings" like this being created, because the illusion will no doubt be strong enough that you'll have people perhaps preferring these things to real people, since you can program them to act how you want. "On-demand" companionship with none of the work required that it takes to maintain real friendships and relationships.
Many researchers think progress is stalling and another A.I. winter is on the way.
Chollet is another who cuts through the hype. That said, yeah, according to the pop-sci/pop-tech rags, "Skynet" is just around the corner. And as Locklin said in his blog, creating hype like this is necessary to keep the VC and grant money flowing in. Read his scathing Nanotech (another bull tech) essay he wrote ten years ago. Scientists and researchers in the field plain knew they weren't doing "nanotech" as portrayed in movies and videogames. Just doing regular old chemistry, but they had to spin it as if they were working on magical microscopic robots in order to get the VCs excited.
https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2...f-charlatanry/I used to work next to the center for nanotechnology. The first indication I had that there was something wrong with the discipline of “nanotechnology” is I noticed that the people who worked there were the same people who used to do chemistry and material science. It appeared to be a more fashionable label for these subjects. Really “material science” was a sort of fancy label for the chemistry of things we use to build other things. OK, new name for “chemist.” Hopefully it ups the funding. Good for you guys.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 03-05-2019 at 10:22 PM.
Humpin' chumps, dude.
she was not mistaken
She knew she was not
She is a bad girl
Ducks with another inspiring poem
I'm as Native America assuredly as you're a 1 trick pony who toned down the tired long ramblings filled with school yard swears in favor of projecting sexual fantasies onto people.
Bad girls need to be paddled
With the board of education
And get their butts nice and pink
LOLies and now trying to write a narrative. Whitey mad Injun doesnt think like him. Whitey hates everyone who doesnt think like him.
How does making fun of you equate to cosigning white supremacy?
You're just asking for someone to mention your peeing in front of children with comments like this, mallard man.
LOL Spurs homer rhetoric. Just stop. You're a narrow minded twit making narratives because Injun doesnt identify with dip cultists like you.
Surprise you didnt spell out another one of your sexual fantasies, derp jr.
Blake would be proud of this effort.
she was not mistaken
She knew she was not
She is a bad girl
Poem or a crappy haiku...Ducks with another inspiring poem
Regarding emergent properties, you might find this interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA5qnZUXcqo
The thing I was alluding to is that people who study cognition itself are working with the people trying to create AI brains.
https://medium.com/womeninai/human-c...e-21a2388f6e7ehe different streams of cognitive sciences, like neuro sciences or linguistics, influence AI research massively, as AI (strong or weak AI likewise) wants to mimic these processes, from speech recognition to the ability to engage in complex conversations. Hence, it is logical, to engage in research about these processes to develop technologies, that execute these rules and response patterns. Here, IBM has performed powerful pioneer work and has heralded a new era of cognitive computing: information processing in form of machine learning though deep learning, a form of AI.
The two fields of study are really starting to talk to each other.
Sure most of it is imitative at this point, such as the stillwell brain experiment above.
Given that additive feature of our ability to learn and study this, and the number of people working on it, suggest we will get there. I get what you are saying. It won't be easy by any stretch.
I don't by into the Skynet type hype. People breathlessly predicting this stuff for clicks are doing a disservice to what is actually being done.
At some point though, and I would guess within my lifespan, we will have a conscious program/machine. I think we need to start thinking well in advance of this, what the ethical implications are. Do we let it vote? If a machine truly is aware and testibly conscious, could we turn it off? What rights would such a being have? Should such a being have?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
