Didn't he know that the sum of the first n integers is n*(n+1)/2 ? --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Sun, Jun 22, 2025, 10:36 AM Prof David West <[email protected]> wrote: > So even though a robot might never replicate the full sensory richness or > biochemical subtlety of the human body, it may not need to....Think of > calculators: they’re completely clueless about context, but they’ll beat > any of us in a mental arithmetic race, every time. > > even a well-handled abacus or slip-stick can do this of course, but yes > > Special case contra-examples. When I was consulting in India, several of > the software developers were proponents of "Vedic Math" procedures derived > from Vedic Scripture. Demonstrated ability to add columns of 10+digit > numbers spoken to them. Correct results much faster than if you had to > manually enter them into a calculator. > > And Gauss "added the numbers from 1-100) in far less time than it would > have required to enter them into calculator and press the + key. > > davew > > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2025, at 4:17 PM, steve smith wrote: > > Pieter wrote: > > Just one thought to toss into the mix: humans didn’t evolve to do > astrophysics, drive Ferraris, or detect sarcasm on Twitter.... > > The human *genome* did not evolve *specifically* to do all these things, > however at some point, our facility for symbolic language and abstraction > *did* evolve to support and enhance those more fundamental needs. It is > on top of that symbolic abstraction where *culture* began to evolve and > this is where our ability to do astrophysics/ferraris/sarcasm emerges. > And it might be apt to notice that AI is much closer to driving ferraris, > doing astrophysics and detecting (or generating) sarcasm that it is at > being an effective hunter-gatherer on the > tundra/savanna/jungle/boreal-forest. > > Now, if we set out to design a robot to function in today’s environments — > say, hospitals, homes, or corporate boardrooms — we’re working with a very > different set of goals. ... > > If our goal is to replace *one more* set of skills or abilities, then it > is correct that we don't "need all that". It does seem that a hallmark of > modern human activity (neolithic forward?) has been to replace ourselves, > one feature at a time. Lithics to replace (enhance) our teeth/claws, > cooking to replace (enhance) our digestive abilities, animal husbandry to > replace/enhance our brute-labor and translate low-grade photosynthesis to > human-digestables (turning grass and leaves into milk, meat, eggs, > blood). Wheels and levers and sails and hulls and millstones and kilns > and forges and hammers and anvils and looms and ... and rocket-ships and a > dyson-sphere-of-computronium all represent a scaffolding of escalating > replacements for the things we did with our own biochemistry (from hair and > nails to lymphocytes and neurons)... > > So even though a robot might never replicate the full sensory richness or > biochemical subtlety of the human body, it may not need to....Think of > calculators: they’re completely clueless about context, but they’ll beat > any of us in a mental arithmetic race, every time. > > even a well-handled abacus or slip-stick can do this of course, but yes > > I wouldn’t bet on a human-equivalent robot appearing next year — but ten > years? Maybe. Especially if we stop trying to replicate every biological > quirk and instead design for function. And when I say “function,” I mean > not just doing what a human can do, but doing what the job needs — which is > often a very different thing. > > The point, I would claim is that we aspire (with AI, starting with Golems > and Frankenstein's monster and enlightenment age humanoid mechanicals) to > replace our "generalist" abilities. Many domestic animals have been > adopted/bred/trained to be "generalists" around a large portion of our > needs, whether it be converting simple carbs into high grade fats/proteins > for us, or hauling burdens, or even (think elephants) delicately > manipulating things way to heavy for us. Some even have diverged from > direct, immediate response to our needs to more abstract needs we have > (e.g. show animals whose functional abilities might never be exercised > outside of the training/show-rooms). > > Take Demis Hassabis’ current project: trying to simulate a single > biological cell to improve drug discovery. Sounds simple — it’s just one > cell — but it’s turning out to be a mammoth challenge. Meanwhile, a useful > robot doesn’t need even one biological cell. It just needs actuators, > sensors, and some reasonably clever code. This illustrates a broader point: > biological systems are complex because evolution took the long road. > Engineering can often take a shortcut. > > And while I am very much a fan of engineering, I do believe Evolution to > be more than "less efficient Engineering". AI/ML has been an effort in > *reverse-engineering* our greatest cognitive abilities, up until the recent > generations of "model-less modeling" that in fact seems to be to try to > reverse-engineer evolution (exemplified by genetic algorithms and neural > nets and ???) > > > So yes, the human body is a marvel — a product of billions of years of > trial and error. But that doesn’t mean it’s the most efficient solution for > every task. It’s just the one that happened to work well enough to keep our > ancestors from being eaten. > > After all, birds fly beautifully. But when we wanted to fly, we didn’t > grow feathers. We built jets. > > In a certain sense yes, but not particularly in virtually every other > sense? I have had lucid dreams about flying since I was very young, > spanning many forms from sailing/soaring to flapping, to pumping my arms as > with a hydraulic jack to telekineticing, swinging from vines or > spider-man-shot webs, and more recently to following stellar/planetary > geodesics with my intention, spreading my electromagnetic pinfeathers in > the solar/wind/magnetic fields of the > sun/planets/moons/belts/rings/clouds. But no jets... or any mechanical > contrivance really... even icarus/daedelus wings-o-wax... > > <aviation tangent> > > While I have flown a (vintage) light plane, even through minor aerobatics, > and ridden hundreds? of thousands of miles in commercial jets, none of it > really matches the experiences I *aspire*/*imaginate* to have in those > dreams... I can't (until DaveW or maybe Glen turns me on to the right > entheogen) project my spirit into the Ravens frolicing on the canyon edge > or the bats echolocating their way through a flux of airborne foodstuffs. > > But yes, Jets, hypersonics, space rockets, interplanetary bussard ramjets, > ultra-lights, gyrocopters, etc. They are marvels and each in their own > way more "capable" than any given bird/species and there are probably > unpiloted winged vehicles which will rival the Wandering Albatross reputed > to spend 95% of their time in the air and expending order 2x their basal > metabolic rate. See Gossamer Condor/Albatross/Penguin and note that > Aerodynamic Engineer on the first two projects, Peter LIssaman hung at SFx > with us for a while? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human-powered_aircraft > > How soon will we have a Lissaman/MacReady equivalent AI (throw in > pedal-pusher Bryan Allen for good measure)? Or leonardo DaV or Archimedes, > or... ? Can they exist/arise/emerge without the larger culture that > spawned them? Maybe we can identify to an AI their achievements and > reverse engineer their solutions, but can we frame the context that lead > them to pursue those challenges. > > I *suspect* that if given the opportunity/motivation that suites of AI/ML > agents might well develop minimalist human-scaled prosthetics so that I (my > grandchildren) can literally have those experiences direct. Some > proprioception/motion-platform/haptics added to visual/auditory synthetic > sensoria and even I might be soaring virtually over the surface of mars or > through the braided rings of Saturn as-in-my dreams? > > </tangent> > > And in the immortal *Tears in Rain* words of Roy Batty: > > > > *"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off > the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the > Tannhäuser Gate.* > > *All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.* > > *Time to die."* > > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > *Attachments:* > > - OpenPGP_0xD5BAF94F88AFFA63.asc > - OpenPGP_signature.asc > > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
