Hmmm ... one year the American Breeder Service billboard near here said, "AI has completely changed the cow." Might work that into a bar pick-up line.
Sent from my IBM Pluggable Sequence Relay Calculator On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, Colin Hales wrote: > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 10:25 AM Mike Archbold <jazzbo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I remember when most people didn't know what "AI" meant. > > Now, it's the stuff of bar pickup lines. > > > LOL > > Into the noise of the bar you say "Hi, I'm into AI." ... with red-lined > suavity. > > "Wow! Are you? Do you really know that? How do you know that?" is the > reply. > > "Aaaah ..." you stop. Hmmm. Suavity mode disabled. If you are honest with > yourself, you must admit you do not. How is that? > > Applied to artificial flight, the acronym "AF" would rightly be expected to > elicit, in the audience, a mental reference to actual flight. But instead, > when the acronym "AI" is uttered, it elicits a generationally acculturated, > hyper-memed tribal agreement that, like "AF", the utterance "AI" refers to > an artificial version of a natural thing, with all the implications thereof. > It does not. This is at best an unproved hypothesis (potentially true, > albeit under circumstances not yet described), and at worst a systemic > (community-wide) delusion (if false, again unproved). > > It is a fact of nature that human brain physics exists in the world in the > exact way bird flight physics (or any other physics) exists in the world: > real causality (fields in space) at work, organised naturally by nature. > Brains are 'braining' in just the same way birds are 'flying'. Artificial > versions of both these things involve the essential natural physics until > proved otherwise (i.e. actual comparative empirical work is done). Not > before. That is the way of the science of natural phenomena. > > How can this bar-room car-crash happen? > > It's because unlike "AF", the physical practice of what is termed "AI" does > not refer to an artificial version of the natural original. The natural > physics is gone. It's always been gone. Instead "AI" actually refers to a > simulator (or more accurately - automation) .... a system of computed-models > (abstractions) of the 'computation' performed by the physics of the natural > original (the brain). For that is the state of the science: The causality of > a computer is mistaken (and only in this particular science), without > principle or precedent, for the replication of (an identity with) the > natural 'computation' (brain physics). In that mistake, what is lost? What > is missing? What aspects of brain function go unexplored? The entire > discipline does not know because "to do AI is to use a computer" has become > the industrialized norm. And alas, just like computed models of the physics > of natural flight are zero flight, prima-facie, computer-models of brain > signalling physics cannot be claimed to have non-zero intelligence. At least > that should be the formally recognised position adopted by the science until > properly proved by doing the actual replication. Especially if it is the > only place in science where this literal equivalence (to a computed model) > would apply. > > I have no idea if "Hi, I'm into AF" suavity would have done any great > service to the Wright Bros in a bar setting! ? > > What I know for sure is that at least they would have been telling the truth > and they'd know it! > > cheers! > Colin > ? > <think about it> > > Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / see discussions + participants > + delivery options Permalink > > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T191003acdcbf5ef8-Ma6238ce321d825d4fc48a022 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
