51–57 of 57 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are a very good foundation for a workable system for machine ethics.
Only if you agree with Kant's philosophy and not with the many other interesting ones out there.
But I would love to have some links to the "other interesting ones out there." Would you please elaborate a little more? Any links?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if you agree with Kant's philosophy and not with the many other interesting ones out there.
Ooh... it is this type of topics that make me still come to HN. I am somewhat familiar with Kant and Asimov's Laws seem like a good basis for AI. But I would love to have some links to the "other interesting ones out there." Would you please elaborate a little more? Any links?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if we have brutally powerful machines, that can do a human scale brain - how to we "start" it - is it going to have to learn itself, as we do, or is there tech to "read" our minds into it? (creepy sci fi style).
Ray Kurzweil notes that brain scan resolution and scan duration are both following Moore's law. So, within 50 years, it may be possible to take a full-resolution, real-time snapshot of a brain. Ray Kurzweil doesn't explore the possibility of snapshots being taken without consent.
Perhaps we should stop saying tin-foil hat and say "ferrous material hat" ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The central argument from the book The Singularity Is Near by Ray Kurzweil is on his website ( http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1 ). It was almost completely ignored when it was posted to this forum a few days ago ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=126183 ).
I think the reason most people are ignoring Kurzweil is that he sounds like a crackpot. I happen to be a guy who owns an autographed copy of Kurzweil's latest book, but I acknowledge that the idea of the technological singularity sounds too good to be true. There have been thousands of cults proclaiming that the end is near; it would be a coincidence of historical proportions if this one happened to be right. Kurzwei…
Why am I the only person who's terrified rather than excited by every new incremental progression of AI? Do you guys actually look forward to the day when humans are made obsolete? PS: This scientist seems to be exponentiating incorrectly. In ten years he'll have 32-ish times as much processing power; he needs 10 million times as much to get to the level of the entire brain.
Apprehension about progress in artificial intelligence is entirely natural. In fact, I think apprehension and denial will lead people to continually redefine their notion of intelligent behavior so that current computers are always excluded. Not so long ago many people said a computer could not beat a grandmaster at chess without being intelligent. Enter Big Blue. Others have stated computers will never compose music…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apprehension about progress in artificial intelligence is entirely natural. In fact, I think apprehension and denial will lead people to continually redefine their notion of intelligent behavior so that current computers are always excluded. Not so long ago many people said a computer could not beat a grandmaster at chess without being intelligent. Enter Big Blue. Others have stated computers will never compose music…
Can you link to a single good composition program? I have heard Wolfram's and I thought it was crap, and the only decent one I have heard was one which could only emulate old composers.
See http://arts.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/mp3page.htm for audio and http://arts.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/experiments.htm for a description of the project.
I wonder how many megawatts Blue Brain will need to do something simple simulating only 1e5 cells.
According to wikipedia,
- the average power consumption of a human cell is around 1e-12 watts.
- 50 years ago ENIAC needed 150 kW to do what you could probably do today in a few µW.
Based on those numbers, I think Markram is way too optimistic about simulating the brain on a signle machine in 10 years. If things continue as they have, it's more likely to take closer to 50 years.
I'll pay more attention to Kurzweil's singularity when the difference in power consumption between a tiny fraction of a simulated brain and a real one drops below ten orders of magnitude.