Re: MGA revisited paper

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 04:18:17PM +1200, LizR wrote: > On 25 August 2014 14:16, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > > You have to include all the people who will live in the future, as > > well as all those who have lived in the past. > > > Of course, which is why I added "assuming a population cr

Re: MGA revisited paper

On 25 August 2014 14:16, Russell Standish wrote: > > You have to include all the people who will live in the future, as > well as all those who have lived in the past. Of course, which is why I added "assuming a population crash, as per..." > With exponential growth > rates (business-as-usual

RE: Seeing without seeing...

That is spooky action! Interesting how the direction of the interference resulted in either a picture of the cat being formed or the negative image getting imprinted on the yellow light carrier beam. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Beha

Seeing without seeing...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140827-quantum-imaging-cats-undetected-photon-science -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everythi

Re: MGA redux (again!)

scientist -> scientistic or scientifist 2014-08-27 11:24 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona : > Well there are some interesting things in this list. It is specially > interesting for the study of the scientist mindset, but not only that. > > The projections of your own wishes and phobias on me is not

Re: Artificial Intelligence article

Oops I should have read your comments rather than stopping to rattle of my reply. But I think we agree. On 28 August 2014 11:27, LizR wrote: > I disagree that > > * Artificial intelligence > is the simulation of > intelligence in machines.*

Re: Artificial Intelligence article

I disagree that * Artificial intelligence is the simulation of intelligence in machines.* That is, I don't think it can be called a simulation (obviously ELIZA simulated having a lot more intelligence than it actually had). If a machine is in

Re: AI Dooms Us

Legitimacy of proof and evidence (e.g. for a set of cool algorithms concerning AI, more computing power, big data etc), is an empty question to ask, outside a specified theory. It's like some alien questioning whether the rules of soccer on earth are "valid in absolute sense". Are we after freedom

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:49 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 8/27/2014 4:53 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: > > You're talking about an AI that arrives at novel solutions, which >>> requires the ability to invent/simulate/act on new models in new domains >>> (AGI). >>> >> >> Evolutionary computation alr

Artificial Intelligence article

Wiki identifies the (non-artificial) base: *For other uses, see Intelligence (disambiguation) .* *Intelligence has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of one's capacity for logic , abst

Re: AI Dooms Us

On 8/27/2014 4:53 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: You're talking about an AI that arrives at novel solutions, which requires the ability to invent/simulate/act on new models in new domains (AGI). Evolutionary computation already achieves novelty and invention, to a degree. I

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > >> >> The space of possibilities quickly scales beyond the wildest imaginings >> of computing power. Chess AIs are already better than humans, because they >> more or less impleme

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Terren Suydam >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Telmo, >>> >>> I think if it were as simple as you make it seem, relative to what we >>> have today, we

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > >> Hi Telmo, >> >> I think if it were as simple as you make it seem, relative to what we >> have today, we'd have engineered systems like that already. >> > > It wasn't my intent

Re: AI Dooms Us

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: > Hi Telmo, > > I think if it were as simple as you make it seem, relative to what we have > today, we'd have engineered systems like that already. > It wasn't my intention to make it look simple. What I claim is that we already have a treasu

Re: MGA redux (again!)

Well there are some interesting things in this list. It is specially interesting for the study of the scientist mindset, but not only that. The projections of your own wishes and phobias on me is not worth considering. 2014-08-26 12:37 GMT+02:00 Kim Jones : > > > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 6:48 pm,