|
I literally named a cartoon running through my childhood that equated the future with flying cars (there were many), which sounds like it's the same place he got all his ideas about AI, but, y'know, Owlofcreamcheese.
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
mdemone posted:Blue Brain is already having emergent 40-60 Hz synchronization Pochoclo posted:Plenty of scientific divulgation magazines promised flying cars early in the 1990s. I vividly remember an article about Michael Jackson preordering one, even.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:I literally named a cartoon running through my childhood that equated the future with flying cars (there were many), which sounds like it's the same place he got all his ideas about AI, but, y'know, Owlofcreamcheese. You are basing your ideas about the future on the jetsons? Do you think cavemen also lived with dinosaurs that they used as dish washers because you saw it on the flintstones? Also flying cars exist. Go buy one if you want one so much. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnF2yua4KIw
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:If Michael Jackson preordered one, that means totally legitimate scientists must have made totally serious promises. Are you this willfully dense as a hobby or something? Actual engineers weren't going around "hey guys we totally promise flying cars in 20 years", no, that's not what I was saying. The media, however, pretty much did that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
I'm a bit confused about what the significance of flying car stories from the 80s is right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Are you this willfully dense as a hobby or something? Actual engineers weren't going around "hey guys we totally promise flying cars in 20 years", no, that's not what I was saying. The media, however, pretty much did that. What media? What media in the 80s was promising flying cars?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
A whole lot of movies, cartoons, sci-fi books and comic books did pictured flying cars during the 80s and 90s
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:A whole lot of movies, cartoons, sci-fi books and comic books did pictured flying cars during the 80s and 90s
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:A whole lot of movies, cartoons, sci-fi books and comic books did pictured flying cars during the 80s and 90s Picturing them as signs of a fantastic future isn't really the same as being part of a thoughtful forecast of upcoming technology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Ok what does this mean? That in a way it was really "promised" Inst that what people were arguing about?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
I want to answer this question in the context of \W/estworld, which I just finished the first season of. It unintentionally demonstrates some of the errors people make when thinking about the feasibility of AI. Westworld's notion – and the story is super convoluted and I was pretty baked for most of it, so forgive me if I get this wrong – is that the hosts transition from syntactic function to an understanding of semantic meaning as a consequence of the "reveries" and a sudden capacity for memory retention: their improvisation (self-modifying code) based on memory eventually becomes "consciousness," whatever that means, but we can take it as a capacity to appreciate and operate upon meaning rather than the formal rules outlined by their programmers. The problem is that there is no functional reason why an AI's increasingly powerful capacity to improvise behavior based on preexisting code means they may transcend it and their underlying operation transitions to a semantic "mind". Based on their behavior, you would have pretty good reason to believe that the hosts do begin to understand meaning. They act increasingly as humans do and appear to form meaningful relationships, etc. The error is in believing that an increasingly high-quality emulation of human behavior, complete with a simulated understanding of semantic meaning, is equivalent to actually understanding that meaning internally. The show really wants you to make this unfounded leap by making you feel sorry for these robots who are getting raped and killed in perpetuity and as a result of the reveries begin to resemble real people in their actions and reactions rather than fancy moving dolls. But it's just that, a resemblance. If the show didn't make it clear that the hosts actually do gain conscious minds and semantic understanding, evidently based on magic, emergent qualities that don't make any sense in reality, the guests would be correct in continuing their slaughter and pillage without regard for the feelings of the hosts, because again, a really high quality emulation of human behavior is not equivalent to generating a mind, or anything more substantive than a machine following an ordered set of rules, even if it improvises new rules on its own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What media? What media in the 80s was promising flying cars? Are you reading my posts? First off, it was early 90s, and it was scientific divulgation magazines. Like I said, I remember an article from either Conocer y Saber, Conozca Mas, or Muy Interesante, that described a flying car in detail and said that Michael Jackson preordered one and that the first one would be built by early 2000s or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'm a bit confused about what the significance of flying car stories from the 80s is right now. there is exactly the same basis for the guarantee we will have flying cars any day now as the guarantee we'll have sapient computers any day now, they come from the same place, and the exact same brainless handwaving about "well things were different in 1800 than they are now therefore who knows what the future will bring??? probably robot girlfriends" works for both equally. They're both asinine, OOCC just wants a robot girlfriend enough more than he wants a sweet hovercar to ignore how asinine the first one is. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Dec 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:there is exactly the same basis for the guarantee we will have flying cars any day now as the guarantee we'll have sapient computers any day now, they come from the same place, and the exact same brainless handwaving about "well things were different in 1800 than they are now therefore who knows what the future will bring??? probably robot girlfriends" works for both equally. They're both asinine, OOCC just wants a robot girlfriend enough more than he wants a sweet hovercar to ignore how asinine the first one is. - in the 90s, scientists said there'd be no ice left in the artic and antarctic by 2015 - that's clearly not happened - global warming is a hoax invented by the chinese to destroy US manufacturing See my point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
it's almost like the rightness of what "people" or "scientists" or "they" predicted X years ago about the modern day says nothing at all about what's going to happen in the future, and is meaningless noise for idiots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:it's almost like the rightness of what "people" or "scientists" or "they" predicted X years ago about the modern day says nothing at all to inform what's going to happen in the future, and is meaningless noise for idiots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Are you reading my posts? First off, it was early 90s, and it was scientific divulgation magazines. Like I said, I remember an article from either Conocer y Saber, Conozca Mas, or Muy Interesante, that described a flying car in detail and said that Michael Jackson preordered one and that the first one would be built by early 2000s or something like that. Flying cars exist. A celebrity probably would own one. They are just street legal planes. They aren't magic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
The predictions of specific people with a background in the field who can show their work and make a plausible case for why they're predicting what they are are more relevant and promising than goobers burbling about how some guy was probably dismissive about electricity in 1707 therefore they're visionaries ahead of their time instead of fantasists in I loving Love Science T-shirts; which are more barely more relevant than the predictions of the abstract, mostly-mythical strawman 'they' they handwave to. There is basically no overlap between the expectations of the keyboard metaphysicists navel-gazing about what is intelligence, really and speculating that robot people will be the majority vote of 2028, and the expectations of people who actually work with computer technology. The latter guys are the ones expected to actually build the robot people, so I'll tend to weigh what they have to say a bit higher, especially if they can source their case in their work instead of Star Wars. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Dec 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What media? What media in the 80s was promising flying cars? Right off the top of my head, Back to the Future is probably the most popular and well-known example, with Emmett Brown's famous line, "Roads? Where we are going, we don't need roads!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Plenty of scientific divulgation magazines promised flying cars early in the 1990s. I vividly remember an article about Michael Jackson preordering one, even. In the early 2000s or late 1990s I read that the UAE were planning a race championship of flying cars that would fly along elaborate tracks just above the terrain ala Wipeout.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Flying cars exist. A celebrity probably would own one. They are just street legal planes. They aren't magic. Oh yeah, we could absolutely build a flying car right now. It would just be impractical for most purposes due to severe shortcomings in range, speed, handling, safety, cost, reliability, and maintainability. Between that and the fact that it wouldn't be legal to drive either on the roads or in the sky, it's not surprising that no one has bothered. There's a big difference between "it's possible to do X" and "we can do X effectively and cheaply enough to be worth doing".
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:The predictions of specific people with a background in the field who can show their work and make a plausible case for why they're predicting what they are are more relevant and promising than goobers burbling about how some guy was probably dismissive about electricity in 1707 therefore they're visionaries ahead of their time instead of fantasists in I loving Love Science T-shirts; which are more barely more relevant than the predictions of the abstract, mostly-mythical strawman 'they' they handwave to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Oh yeah, we could absolutely build a flying car right now. It would just be impractical for most purposes due to severe shortcomings in range, speed, handling, safety, cost, reliability, and maintainability. Between that and the fact that it wouldn't be legal to drive either on the roads or in the sky, it's not surprising that no one has bothered. There's a big difference between "it's possible to do X" and "we can do X effectively and cheaply enough to be worth doing". You literally can buy one now. Same as you can buy stupid boat cars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You literally can buy one now. Same as you can buy stupid boat cars. Going by your posts, I say we close the thread, it's painfully clear that sentient AI is a reality. It needs some serious work to actually parse human intention though - still a bit too literal I fear. I mean seriously, you can buy an aircraft carrier or a nuclear submarine too, technically. Not quite the same thing as them being available for the average Joe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
As a Singularitarifag, I'll just use my total lack of experience in the field to say "2023."
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:I mean seriously, you can buy an aircraft carrier or a nuclear submarine too, technically. Not quite the same thing as them being available for the average Joe. Except for the Moller Skycar, which is fake bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:On the other hand, Hubert Dreyfus, a philosopher with no training in technology whatsoever who probably has trouble setting up a projector for a class session, said that all the "guys who build the robot people" promising strong AI in the near term were full of poo poo back in the 70s and turned out to be right. So if anything it's more prudent to take things AI researchers say with a heaping mound of salt given their utter inability to deliver on any of the huge promises they have been making for decades. And what is today's AI like? Well, it's not Good Old Fashioned AI. It's neural nets. So the Dreyfus Argument can be used in both ways actually. Pochoclo posted:Going by your posts, I say we close the thread, it's painfully clear that sentient AI is a reality KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Or useful. I mean, that's the main thing with flying cars - based on movies people expect a regular car that can take off and hover thanks to some magic inertialess drive. The "flying cars" we have now are more like planes with folding wings that can be driven up to 60mph on little taxiing wheels or w/e.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:And on the other other hand, the Hubert Dreyfus was mostly skeptical about GOFAI, and was much more optimistic about neural networks (writing a book about how learning works with his brother, who then later made important contributions to neural nets). Cingulate posted:Future AI will be to what we imagine AI to be right now as Tesla and Uber are to flying cars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:OK, but neural nets are not a good enough reason to be any less skeptical about AI given its past KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:without any basis in anything other than masturbatory sci-fi dreams.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don't get what people's confusion about sentience is in this context, but more importantly - what? I was implying, in a joking manner, that the quoted poster was behaving like a goddamn robot. To sum up the entirety of my view on AI as a software developer: we're definitely gonna get better and better stuff to help us - I can imagine better wearable hardware too, which will equate to just contextually googling and wikipedia-ing everything in our lives, some kind of Siri on steroids, and more automation. Nothing close to the sci-fi dreams in my lifetime, definitely. Pochoclo fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Dec 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:But you do understand this is just the opposite of Dreyfus' (the guy you brought up) point from the 70s? I am genuinely interested in whether Dreyfus supports neural nets as potential strong AI but google turned up nothing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
When am I gonna be able to run a digital clock with a squishy wetware computer grown from rat neurons in a Petridish?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
we cannot engineer the human soul you fuckwits
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
i have a 4d printer and it's called my pink anus (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Oh yeah, we could absolutely build a flying car right now. It would just be impractical for most purposes due to severe shortcomings in range, speed, handling, safety, cost, reliability, and maintainability. Between that and the fact that it wouldn't be legal to drive either on the roads or in the sky, it's not surprising that no one has bothered. There's a big difference between "it's possible to do X" and "we can do X effectively and cheaply enough to be worth doing". What kills flying cars is what makes air travel safe: Regulation of the airways. Roads are simple and easy to navigate. Airways are extremely complicated and require constant communication and attention to detail to remain safe. Avshalom posted:we cannot engineer the human soul you fuckwits Somehow you exist without one. Gives us hope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
my friend, my soul is one of resonant warmth and spice
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:my friend, my soul is one of resonant warmth and spice Is that the same soul wherein resides your 4D feces printer?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
yes, it's a pungent spice - and yet alluring
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 10:12
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Souls aren't real.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:Because you are the sum of your experiences and cognition of those experiences, either consciously or unconsciously. An AI is not. Everything you do has meaning, even if it's not readily apparent even to yourself. The same cannot be said about an AI. Humans are able to interpret meaning in what an AI does, but that doesn't mean that there is any meaning to actually be had.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 10:24
|
|