|
http://www.openworm.org/ OpenWorm is an open source project dedicated to creating the first virtual organism in a computer. We've started from a cellular approach so we are building behavior of individual cells and we are trying to get the cells to perform those behaviors. We are starting with simple crawling. The main point is that we want the worm's overall behavior to emerge from the behavior of each of its cells put together.
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:cool tricks aside i just don't see how we're going to program a general ai that learns, and learns how to learn, given our rudimentary understanding of how we do those things at the level of the brain. intelligence isn't just going to emerge because we stuff in more transistors, and it feels to me like we're pretty far away from the level of knowledge to bootstrap the system. what even is intelligence, surely it's more than just being a really good classifier? i'm not an ai researcher but we've seen this hype before and i'm not convinced it's any different this time yeah, we still need some more fundamental insights into the nature of knowing before "true" progress can be made, but the systems we create don't have to resemble our own to be effective at the tasks they're set to perform. idk, still a bunch of valuable research being done aside from hype and bullshit marketing
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:what materials would the computer use? Transistors. Like every computer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Transistors. Like every computer. ya, a nerve is made of neurons, a neuron fires or it doesn't fire, kinda sounds like a transistor to me
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
start here
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Why is the computation performed in a physical neural network ontologically privileged over computation performed on transistors?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Why is the computation performed in a physical neural network ontologically privileged over computation performed on transistors? because it's an entirely different structure
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:because it's an entirely different structure so what? the chip in my stebebook pro has a vastly different structure than the one in a snes, yet the former can faithfully emulate the latter
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:because it's an entirely different structure Not at all. they are clearly isomorphic
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
it would take an impossible amount of computing power, AI is straight up like time travel
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:it would take an impossible amount of computing power, AI is straight up like time travel where and why are you drawing a boundary around computation power?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:it would take an impossible amount of computing power, AI is straight up like time travel there are nearly 7 billion computers already on planet earth that can do it, they're just made of meat instead of silicon, and they're made by nature instead of intel
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:where and why are you drawing a boundary around computation power? you're being incredibly naive
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
you're saying it's impossible but you can't explain why, you just pick a detail and say that's impossible
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:you're being incredibly naive Okay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:you're saying it's impossible but you can't explain why, you just pick a detail and say that's impossible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACmydtFDTGs
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
a youtube video clip of an hbo comedy show is not an explanation or even an argument. if you believe what you say so strongly, you should be able to articulate why
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
stop arguing with smoka
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:stop arguing with smoka yeah cause I'm right
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
am i loving up here? is arguing with smoka like quoting stymie? i knew he posted endlessly but didn't realize the posts were so content-free
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
smoka does have arguments behind his point so I'll let another sci fi author make them for him: " when you modeled a hurricane, nobody got wet. When you modeled a fusion power plant, no energy was produced. When you modeled digestion and metabolism, no nutrients were consumed – no real digestion took place. So, when you modeled the human brain, why should you expect real thought to occur?" it all comes down to the notion that there is an ontological heirarchy and we are inescapably trapped on one "level" of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:yeah cause I'm right you're not even presenting an argument and you're clearly wrong on even a trivial level
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:am i loving up here? is arguing with smoka like quoting stymie? i knew he posted endlessly but didn't realize the posts were so content-free no he's just being boring and bad in this thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:smoka does have arguments behind his point so I'll let another sci fi author make them for him: i don't know that i'd do him the favor of assuming he's thinking in metaphysical terms
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
two reasons i don't put much stock in the ontological heirarchy argument: 1) it's clear that non-sentient intelligence IS possible and I think the significance between non-sentient and sentient is far less significant than we intuitively believe 2) I've never heard a convincing argument, let alone any kind of experimental evidence that the hierarchy exists anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
despite the air of formality, i've always thought of ontology as how we organize the universe, not necessarily how the universe itself is organized
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:i don't know that i'd do him the favor of assuming he's thinking in metaphysical terms why are you giving ontological priority to the physically existing non-arguing smokadustbowl when i've presented a perfectly good platonic ideal smokadustbowl who is making perfectly valid arguments, huh?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
it's dark in this cave and i can't see
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
nvidia is releasing specialized hardware just for running deep belief networks. consumer models coming soon. https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/dgx-server/
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:a perfectly good platonic ideal smokadustbowl who is making perfectly valid arguments as the smokadustbowl currently reading that I have to say this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ld-JEDEx1Q
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
I myself own one of the most advanced neutral networks in the entire universe and it's installed in my very own skull.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
I hope that ten thousand years from now when they recreate my consciousness from my digital presence, the alien scientists have to watch that fart video
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
believe in the smokadustbowl that believes in you
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
you really are a poo poo poster
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
JewKiller 3000 posted:you really are a poo poo poster 16 years baby
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
SmokaDustbowl posted:16 years baby my friend, begone of this thread. or perish
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
smoka is by no means the only one to make the ontological-privilege argument against AI roger penrose thinks there's some quantum element to both intelligence and consciousness that means you're not going to get either of those from a Turing machine personally I don't buy it: even if there are quantum elements involved, simulation of a biological system would just get more difficult, not be impossible, though depending on just how difficult that could be a distinction without a difference
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 09:29
|
|
|
what disappoints me is that there isn't anywhere near the same focus on symbolic reasoning that there used to be symbolic reasoning systems like Cyc are actually rather good now and do actually do the "learn how to learn new things" bit however they don't result in billions of dollars of sales of specialized vector hardware, and can be hard to parallelize and use at a large scale too, so they haven't had the same level of investment that neural nets have been getting in this latest resurgence in interest in AI
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
Doug Hofstadter makes some pretty compelling arguments for the possibility of AI and the underlying recursive systems but he doesn't call it AI he calls it cognitive research. If the first functioning AI isn't named Doug he will have been done a great disservice. Also he's yopos AF.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:58 |
|
|
i honestly dont get your argument smoka here's a big difference between ai and time travel or ftl. we don't have any examples of machines that can travel in time or faster than light. we do have examples of machines that think: people. it's clearly possible to have a thing that thinks. there is no reason to think that this should only be achievable by evolution or god or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 17:11
|
|
