Hello,
Admirers of the human brain were disappointed when for the first time>>>a
computer beat a human (chess champion Gary Kasparov). But the
>>>large>>>and powerful machine can do nothing else -
well, this is an interesting concept. "Deep Blue" was IBM's chess project
that defeated Kasparov in 1997. The way Deep Blue was set up was to use a
thing called a recursive algorithm which is a fancy term for a set of rules
that considers every potential permutation in a given situation.
Furthermore, it also used an algorithm that considered whether a particular
branch of decisions were worth considering. Even though electrical circuits
sent information at the speed of light, rather than the app. 670mph that our
actual neural impulses travel at, there are still a limited number of clock
cycles that Deep Blue had available at its disposal for each turn.
The interesting issue that this raises is that a human has so much less raw
processing power for a recursive process that it uses pattern recognition
from previous experience to play the game, whereas Deep Blue actually
considered every aspect of the game at that moment in real time. So who was
really thinking? Kasparov using the stored processing cycles of memory
through pattern recognition, or Deep Blue with a recursive algorithm working
the process on the spot?
Furthermore, Why would the admirers of the human brain be disappointed? The
best AI research is based on concepts found in the best processor that
natural evolution could come up with. Deep Blue, and all other AI works on
the principles of the human mind. I think what people find disturbing is
that perhaps we are not the End All-Be All center of the universe, but just
another rung in the evolutionary ladder. Guess what people, Homo Sapiens
only have a century or two left until we become a memory. We have had
creativity and technology locked down for a couple hundred millennia, but
that time will come to an end in less than 2 decades.
it's programmed to >>>examine>>>millions of possible moves methodically and
at great speed,>>>calculating without any 'feeling' for what might be good
or >>>exciting.>>>Even the smartest of today's computers are pretty dumb.
they are based on the same concepts our minds are based on. The difference
is that computers still do not have the raw processing power and memory that
we do. Give the computer another 20 years and we will see how smart humans
really are.
But, as Marvin Minsky said, Deep Blue might have beat Gary Kasparov, but
Deep Blue still wouldn't know that it should come in from the rain.
The machine, the program, explores all the options, all of them
exhaustively, without any insight, and then picks the one that's best
in that investigation, computers have not yet to demonstrate true
artificial intelligence.
what is intelligence? What is insight? What is consciousness?
I think they are emergent properties of the computing system we keep in our
noggins. You consider what Marvin Minsky had to say about the human mind in
Society Of Mind, he basically stated that we are just a large collection of
_Very_ simple processes that synergistically form into what we consider
consciousness. We are just a vast hierarchal arrangement of relatively dumb
neural-nets. The difference is that the section of that hierarchy that we
consider "ourselves"(the conscious mind) really does not have access to the
very bottom end of the hierarchy of our minds.
Think about what it takes to pick up a ball. There is the physical end,
using each finger, using your elbow, your shoulder, your waist... then there
is the perceptual end, looking at the ball, organizing all the information
from the senses into a coherent mental framework that the mind can use to
make evaluations of its situation in the external world. If you think about
it, that is a massively complex project. yes a 2 year old can do this, but
how complex is that toddlers mind?
Every aspect of the process of picking up that ball that I just described
can be sub-divided into a thousand smaller sub processes, which can again be
sub-divided. Do you think the very bottom end of the mental processes that
form "where is my hand" are particularly bright? They are not intelligent in
the way we think of intelligence. It is just that these dumb processes add
up as you climb your way up the hierarchy that constitutes your mind.
I think machine intelligence is already here, it is just that it is too
specialized for us to properly recognize it. I do not think it is a matter
of whether or not machines can think, it is a matter of when will the
computing hardware catch up to the wetware in our heads. Human beings are
not nearly as profound as our creation myths would have us believe.
This experiment will show you have a far superior brain to a
computer.>>>All you need is a bag of coloured sweets (such as M & Ms),
some>>>coloured pens and pencils, and some coloured beads. Spread all
>>>these>>>things out a table so they're mixed into a big pile. Now,
pick out >>>all>>>the green objects, followed by red, blue and so on.
Then sort the>>>piles into different objects. Pretty easy, wasn't it?
it would not be very hard for 1000 1.4 ghz athlons working simultaneously
with a years worth of training neural-nets through an evolutionary
development algorithm either. It took about 4 billion years for the hominids
to show up through natural evolution. It has been less than 2 centuries
since Babbage started developing the Analytical Engine. Computer processing
power doubles every 18 months, we have been standing still for about 200,000
years. We might still have the edge, but only for another 20 years or so.
If you've
got a
very young brother or sister who's only three years old, they'd
probably be able to do it, too. But the most sophisticated computers
have trouble completing this task. There are so many requirements that
need to be explained for visual recognition to work with artificial
intelligence.
Technology affects the way we think about everything from the
environment and nuclear weapons to ethnicity, working conditions
and>>>immigration, Its a cultural and historical framework that has
profoundly shaped how we live and think of ourselves, our notions
of>>>right and wrong, whats possible and impossible. It affects us
in ways we cant even begin to articulate.
I think that when computers manage to make social interaction with
humans, they would be like a super pet. That would be one thing
that>>>would be very exciting.
give them time, they will pass the Turing Test. They will be a hell of a lot
more interesting than that Sony Robot Dog... :)
who really counts more nowadays THE MAN or THE MACHINE????????????
what is the difference? Anybody who owns a pair of reading glasses is a
Cyborg by the true definition of the word. I think this whole man-machine
thing is a total false dialectic. We are our technology, and our technology
is us. We are only going to become more interconnected with technology, and
who could blame us?
Do you want to die of a heart attack when you can have a replacement grown,
or have a mechanical one installed? Do you want to be deaf when you can have
cochlear implants(which are on the market today)? Do you want to be
wheelchair bound when you can have mechanical legs?
It might see weird to us in the same way TV and the Telephone seemed weird
to our great-grandparents. But in 50 years it will be as normal as a
heart-bypass operation or anti-biotics. Our machines will be thinking, that
is one thing you can count on.
To answer that unless a machine thinks: THE MAN, or rather HUMAN.
And no, we have no technology in my country but we still make some
gorgeous ART, that people still envies us 'till today.
And yes, there will be machine art. In a couple decades it will be
indistinguishable from human art.
The central driving force in the universe will always be soul(will). Our
machines will have soul one day, one day our machines will be
indistinguishable from ourselves.
the bottom line is: Technology is Art.
Take care,
mt
From: "laura gavoor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: Re: [313] technology vs. art
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:19:13
In the very same mindset....
-Jimi Hendrix re-wired and re-thought how to record his music so he
could
get his guitar to sound like the music that was in his head.
-Similarly the Detroit boyz took traditional gear and
re-wired/re-thought it
to develop the early tech soundz that kick-started (more or less) a
musical
revolution.
Let's pose this as a question cuz I'm interested in peeps thoughts:
A. Will ever-elevating recording technology equally elevate
imagination or
have the opposite effect...or both??
B. If both....how then does one gage or distinguish true
musicianship and
talent from creativity/imagination/uniqueness in composition??
I know this is a chicken / egg paradoxical type question, but as an
older
soul I'm finding less imagination in the place of technological
brilliance....who really counts more nowadays THE MAN or THE
MACHINE????????????
I imagine that facile people will always make relatively facile music
and
conversely us weirdo complicated folks will forever push the envelope to
express human ponderings and intricacies in ways that have heretofore
never
been expressed.........
What do you all tink???
From: "Rusty Blasco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 313@hyperreal.org
Subject: [313] technology vs. art
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 08:32:36 -0500
Regarding technology (no matter the level of intricacy), here's what my
trumpet professor told me about musicianship. After listening to me
labor
painfully through a difficult passage in a piece of music, he would
stop me
(probably for the sake of his sensitive ears) and make me aware of the
trumpet. While holding it up, turning it, and knocking on the bell,
the
man
explained to me that the trumpet is merely a thing of brass,
incapable of
producing music without assistance (in this case, the air of a human's
pursed and buzzing lips). The music is in your head, he stated,
pointing
to
his noggin. If you can't hear it, and performed flawlessly, in your
own
mind, than you can't expect it to come out of the instrument.
Maybe this will offer some much needed elucidation.
Rusty
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Téléchargez MSN Explorer gratuitement à l'adresse
http://explorer.msn.fr/intl.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
