On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:32 AM, Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unsupervised learning? This could be really good for looking for strange > things in blood samples. Now, I routinely order a "manual differential white > count" that requires someone to manually look over the blood cells with a > microscope. These typically cost ~US$25. Note that the routine counting of > cell types in blood samples is already done by camera-driven AI programs in > most labs.
I hadn't thought of blood samples, but that's an excellent example, thanks. > Something like AutoCAD's mechanical simulations? Yes, except better. An engineer wrote an excellent post on what would be useful here: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.nanotech/browse_thread/thread/ada3a83d1a284969/b713922d343e5371?lnk=st&q=#b713922d343e5371 > Present systems already highlight any changes. Yep. Now let's extend that to highlighting suspicious changes while ignoring a cat chasing a mouse. > Similar to the program-by-example programming that is used with present > automobile welding robots? Yes, except able to work in more complex environments than an assembly line. > This stuff all sounds pretty puny compared to the awe-inspiring hype of the > Singularity people Well, I'm a _former_ Singularitarian :) But... > None of these things would seem to be worth devoting anyone's life > toward. Am I missing something here? Oh, you asked for specific examples, I thought you meant something a little nearer term than ultimate visions. My ultimate vision? I would break the bounds that currently trammel our species, stem the global loss of fifty million lives a year and open the path to space colonization. I would make Earth-descended sentient life immortal. Imagine smart CAD programs helping design cell repair nanomachines. Imagine an O'Neill habitat being built by a swarm of robots with their human supervisors in pressurized environments. None of this is beyond the conceptual limits of the human mind, but it is beyond what humans can _reasonably_ do with present-day technology, because it takes too much time. Unlike many posters here, I don't believe human-equivalent AGI is feasible in any meaningful timescale. Nor do I believe it's necessary. Humans can continue to make the high-level decisions. What we need, to accomplish great things, is machines that can handle the details. That, I hope you'll agree, is worth devoting one's life toward? > I believe that a complete revolution in man's dealing with his problems is > right here to be had. Dr. Eliza certainly illustrates that there is probably > enough low hanging fruit to be worth immediately redesigning the Internet to > collect it and promptly extend the lives of most of the people on Earth. That sounds interesting, can you be more specific on what you would do and how? ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
