Did you go to it? How was it?
Funny.... look at say the movie 2001
we still do not have the video phone the moon bases or the HAL computers.
back when the book and movie were done folks thought that by now we would have them all.
IMHO we are more like 300 years to any really good AI that can have anything remotely like an indipendant "thought"
we still can't even duplicate what the brain of a roach does at a size and energy cost that works.
IE: we can simulate one with a large computer using lot's of power but we can't make a small bug-like device that runs on it's own and "survives" - feeds, hides etc...
What's interesting is most AI researchers in that survey think it's easier to make an intelligence can produce nobel-prize quality work then pass the Turing test.
tfraser said:Bass said:*snip*
Re eliminating all human labour, this idea can only work sustainably if every person in the whole world has a "machine double" that they can send to (or leave at) the office/farm/factory. This way everyone is still employed by proxy and can therefore still "earn" a wage.
If businesses/farms were to start using their own machines in place of human employees (or their "machine doubles") en masse then your idea wouldn't work. Unless outlawed, this seems highly likely because it essentially means free labour. You would have a situation where the unemployment rate would approach 100% and no one except the very powerful business owners could earn a living, which we know would lead to societal collapse. And realistically, even the business/machine owners would be doomed in the long term because it's impossible to sell your goods or services if no one can afford to buy them.
The kind of human labour replacement that is happening now is generally a good thing I think; the resulting unemployment is a small price to pay for helping to keep us away from Malthusian equilibrium (and most of the jobs replaced would drive a human insane anyway). But I do think it is possible to reach a point where net human welfare starts to decrease when the suffering brought about by job losses exceeds the productivity gains that machines can provide.
Another question I will forward is "Do you think this a bad thing, if human labor is decreased or eliminated by machines?" My answer to this question would be "hell no". It would mean humanity would never be forced to work for a living ever again, and I find that to be a Very Good Thing.
You must either hate your job or be very lazy.
If unemployment goes up, so does the demand for socialism. Capitalism works well when it provides food and shelter for the vast majority of a population, people act very different when their hierarchy of needs is threatened.
CreamFilling512 said:Bass said:*snip*
So you want AI in charge of EVERYTHING? Manufacturing, engineering, research, law, government, military, etc, etc. You're effectively giving power and the ability to control our destiny to either, the people who design/control/produce the machines, or if the machines are autonomous/self-aware, you're making the human race subservient to a machine species.
I think it's a bit of the reverse, that machines are subservient to the human species. They are, and will continue to be our undead slave species. Let's just hope they never learn to rebel.
I see this as gradual. Of course many aspects of industrial production are already handled by machines, with humans at best filling a supervisory or QA role. It goes past that, when you visit the Automated Teller Machine or have your Washing Machine wash your clothing for you. It's all around us, and the world will (hopefully, IMO) only get more computerized, more automated, up to a point where humans only fill the most intellectual and rigorous of careers, and perhaps at some point, that too - will be computerized.
I think the more interesting question is will AI/ML (if you consider them different) become advanced enough such that human labor is largely obsolete? If not, what human labor do you think a machine can not suitably do and why?
Well my answer to this question would be "Yes", in that I do think think machines can replace all forms of human labor. How about you?
Another question I will forward is "Do you think this a bad thing, if human labor is decreased or eliminated by machines?"
My answer to this question would be "hell no". It would mean humanity would never be forced to work for a living ever again, and I find that to be a Very Good Thing.
rhm said:Bass said:*snip*
That quote refers to another section of the book where Penrose argues that a digital computer cannot simulate a biological entity like the brain accurately (which is obvious, you can't simulate anything physical perfectly accurately using a computer) and that that restriction means they will never simulate conciousness.
I don't think anyone (even experts in the field) are ever going to agree on things like this.
rhm said:Bass said:*snip*
The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose covers it in detail. As Andor anticipates, it is related to the halting problem - you can generate whatever you like, but your program cannot determine, even to the extent a human can, whether the generated program is correct.
I didn't read the book (it'll have to go on my "todo" list), but I am pretty very sure: "Penrose states that his ideas on the nature of consciousness are speculative."
I don't think this book really disproves Ray Kurzweil's et al. notion that general AI which can improve itself is not only possible but inevidable.
TommyCarlier said:Bass said:*snip*
You forgot to mention the new concurrent collection classes. And I think you're underestimating the entirety of the TPL. Sure, for simple scenario's it's not really difficult, to just use a Parallel.ForEach or Parallel.For, but to grasp the architecture of the TPL and all its possibilities is not “very simple stuff”.
I'm sure a lot of people find some TPL really difficult to grasp, but then again I've personally found that some people have difficulty grasping what the "if" statement does in C. I personally have difficulty understanding the advanced concepts of Topology, while there others who take to it like a fish in the water. Simple is subjective.
Andor said:rhm said:*snip*
A program can produce a program more complex than itself. It is trivial to write a program that brute force outputs every combination of assembly instruction, which will given infinite time, result in every single program that you can possibly write/run on that computer.
Now validating which of those programs is correct and does what you want, results in the halting problem.
And how do you quantify the complexity of a program? If the brute force assembly program can produce every other program possible, it must be the most complex program?
I don't think it's worth making mathematical assumptions on what AI is. It's very hard to define intelligence or sentience in the first place, let alone formalize and quantify it.
Notice that the statement I said doesn't even go there, the question was I think is more interesting is "can machines replace human labor", we know already for something things, this is definitely "YES!". But "can machines replace all human labor?", and if they can't, what careers of human labor can they not replace, and why?
Right now, my plan is to read the MSDN section on the new parallel libraries.
The task parallel library basically just takes LINQ and makes it parallel, adds parallel map function called Parallel.ForEach, as well as Parallel.For, and a thread pool / blocks implementation a la Grand Central Dispatch. It's very simple stuff.