Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeNov 9th 2010 edited
     
    Source Physorg

    Soon a computer will read and right all our threads for us.

    Quantum computers may be much easier to build than previously thought:
  1.  
    They're inventing the self-regenerating machines that can correct information for us. Great. Soon we can all become batteries for them once they hook us up with "some kind of fusion."
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeNov 11th 2010
     
    If they want living batteries it's more logical to use bacteria.
  2.  
    Posted By: TrimIf they want living batteries it's more logical to use bacteria.


    Oh but they are.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeNov 11th 2010 edited
     
    Great! Machines with potentially unfathomable processing power built on a framework "with a large number of faulty or even missing components". What could possibly go wrong?
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeNov 11th 2010
     
    Nothing we can all be augmented before being assimilated. A super win.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeNov 11th 2010 edited
     
    Why is it that when we are discussing AI, whether in sci-fi (which nearly always assumes Searle's Strong AI hypothesis*), or in real science (which nearly always takes Searle's Weak AI hypothesis** for granted, and modifies it somewhat with the Turing test***), that we imagine we can predict with any accuracy the motivation, actions and ambitions of machines many orders of magnitude more intelligent than ourselves?

    It is no less ridiculous than imagining that a house fly could predict with any accuracy our motivation, actions and ambitions!


    Notes: From the "Origin of the term: John Searle's strong AI" section of the wiki on Strong AI

    * The strong AI hypothesis: An artificial intelligence system can think and have a mind.
    ** The weak AI hypothesis: An artificial intelligence system can (only) act like it thinks and has a mind
    *** Current Research area of interest sometimes confusingly referred to as "the strong AI hypothesis": An artificial intelligence system can think (or act like it thinks) as well as or better than people do.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeNov 11th 2010
     
    Posted By: TrimNothing we can all be augmented before being assimilated. A super win.
    I take it you are a fan and follower of Kevin Warwick then?
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeNov 11th 2010
     
    We can always live underwater if not on earth then some of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn.

    http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/4869/post4869230.shtm
    • CommentAuthorenginerd
    • CommentTimeNov 11th 2010
     
    And yet we often question the motives or reasoning of God (or some god, or whatever).

    The old, "There can't be a god because there's no reason he would act that way" argument.

    It is no less ridiculous than imagining that a house fly could predict with any accuracy our motivation, actions and ambitions!

    Some say that a god can't have created the universe 4000 years ago because of things like the fossil record or the fact that, given that scenario, most of the light in the universe would have to have been created en-route to us so that it could arrive here now. This reasoning is specious is you are presuming an all-powerful deity that could easily make all the present and a consistant history. ... But why would HE do such a thing? .... the fly asks.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeNov 11th 2010
     
    @Enginerd: Yes. The argument is the same if you replace "AI" with "God".
  3.  
    Posted By: Duracell

    ** The weak AI hypothesis: An artificial intelligence system can (only) act like it thinks and has a mind


    You mean like government bureaucrats?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeNov 11th 2010
     
    Posted By: enginerdSome say that a god can't have created the universe 4000 years ago because of things like the fossil record or the fact that, given that scenario, most of the light in the universe would have to have been created en-route to us so that it could arrive here now.


    That is essentially just solipsism. And solipsism can be refuted by punching the solipsist in the nose.

    The megalomaniac hypothesis of AI has been ignored: An artificial intelligence system can think it thinks (or act like it thinks it thinks) as well as or better than people do.
  4.  
    Posted By: enginerdAnd yet we often question the motives or reasoning of God (or some god, or whatever).

    The old, "There can't be a god because there's no reason he would act that way" argument.

    It is no less ridiculous than imagining that a house fly could predict with any accuracy our motivation, actions and ambitions!

    Some say that a god can't have created the universe 4000 years ago because of things like the fossil record or the fact that, given that scenario, most of the light in the universe would have to have been created en-route to us so that it could arrive here now. This reasoning is specious is you are presuming an all-powerful deity that could easily make all the present and a consistant history. ... But why would HE do such a thing? .... the fly asks.
    If you are saying it is pointless to question the hearsay actions of an invisible, allegedly real, supposedly all-powerful entity, then I suppose you think we should all just surrender our brains at the door.

    Besides, sometimes this God supposition behaves in ways that contradict its very definition--as when this necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good entity allows natural disasters to cause more suffering than needed. If it knows about the situation, can fix the situation, and is perfectly good, it would logically be unable to allow more evil to occur than was required by necessity. It is impossible to imagine (for example) that one less child could not have drowned to death in the Asian Tsunami than drowned and still allowed the accomplishment of any need for dead children the universe may have had.
    One child suffers more than needed = unnecessary evil = the traditional God can't exist.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeNov 11th 2010
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: enginerdSome say that a god can't have created the universe 4000 years ago because of things like the fossil record or the fact that, given that scenario, most of the light in the universe would have to have been created en-route to us so that it could arrive here now.


    That is essentially just solipsism. And solipsism can be refuted by punching the solipsist in the nose.

    The megalomaniac hypothesis of AI has been ignored: An artificial intelligence system can think it thinks (or act like it thinks it thinks) as well as or better than people do.
    You mean like some people do?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeNov 11th 2010
     
    Posted By: evolvealreadyOne child suffers more than needed = unnecessary evil = the traditional God can't exist.


    A common misconception. On what basis can you say that evil is not good?
  5.  
    Posted By: AngusOn what basis can you say that evil is not good?


    Evil, by definition is the antithesis of good. Otherwise it has no meaning. It is like saying on what basis can you say black is not white.
  6.  
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: evolvealreadyOne child suffers more than needed = unnecessary evil = the traditional God can't exist.


    A common misconception. On what basis can you say that evil is not good?
    I define evil as the opposite of good. I think that is the common definition. If not, replace it with "conditions incompatible with good."
  7.  
    State it "One child suffers more than the number needed to achieve any good = unnecessary conditions incompatible with good = the traditional theistic god can't exist"
  8.  
    Posted By: evolvealreadyState it "One child suffers more than the number needed to achieve any good = unnecessary conditions incompatible with good = the traditional theistic god can't exist"


    This reminds me of the Epicurus postulate:

    “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him God?”