CONGRADULATIONS!
you just made me feel stupid. didn't Mr. Kasparov beat the computer in the second round, or is that just a myth? if technology is art, then why are people shelling out tons of cash for a painting by a monkey??? the way i look at it is, ahhmmm, one persons trash is another persons treasure. there is no sense arguing what art is, because some one out there thinks that the george forman grill is a work of art (especailly them new colored ones that look like an iMac). It is all in the eye of the beholder. peace out jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Taylor [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 11:22 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: 313@hyperreal.org > Subject: Re: [313] technology vs. art > > 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, It's a cultural and historical framework that has > >>>profoundly shaped how we live and think of ourselves, our notions > >>>of>>>right and wrong, what's possible and impossible. It affects us > >>>in ways we can't 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
