Re: Kurzweil - (Definitely off topic)

[Guest guest]

>

> Except for portable memory applications designers are probably

shifting

> their focus somewhat from density to other areas like reduced

leakage to

> save power and/or alternate architectures. In a relatively brief

time

> period we have seen computers go from novelties, to necessities, to

> ubiquitous. We don't need another hole in the bottom of our energy

boat.

>

> I am not trying to defend Kurzweil (boy inventor). I don't have

much

> interest in his recently acquired expertise and theories since he

> discovered he was eating himself to death and that type II diabetes

> could be managed by diet (good for him BTW).

>

> Some would say that making a computer smarter than a human has

already

> been done (for some humans), but to spank the chess grand masters

may

> require a leap in software design (perhaps a variant on

evolutionary

> machine programming) but I'm not so sure I want to see that

unleashed in

> a large way.

Hello,

The best chess grandmasters have already been spanked by computers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue

Aequalsz

[Guest guest]

>

> Except for portable memory applications designers are probably

shifting

> their focus somewhat from density to other areas like reduced

leakage to

> save power and/or alternate architectures. In a relatively brief

time

> period we have seen computers go from novelties, to necessities, to

> ubiquitous. We don't need another hole in the bottom of our energy

boat.

>

> I am not trying to defend Kurzweil (boy inventor). I don't have

much

> interest in his recently acquired expertise and theories since he

> discovered he was eating himself to death and that type II diabetes

> could be managed by diet (good for him BTW).

>

> Some would say that making a computer smarter than a human has

already

> been done (for some humans), but to spank the chess grand masters

may

> require a leap in software design (perhaps a variant on

evolutionary

> machine programming) but I'm not so sure I want to see that

unleashed in

> a large way.

Hello,

The best chess grandmasters have already been spanked by computers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue

Aequalsz

[Guest guest]

aequalsz wrote:

>

>

>

> Hello,

>

> The best chess grandmasters have already been spanked by computers.

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue

>

> Aequalsz

>

>

>

>

> I stand corrected. I consider Deep Blue and later incarnations as

testament to the remarkable power of human cognition rather than

suggesting machine mastery over it. It is the nature of human chess

players to learn from past mistakes and return smarter and stronger.

Machines can very accurately recall past outcomes but their ability to

" learn " from that information is mechanistic and linear. Perhaps humans

could again adapt and learn how to beat the latest chess computer like

they have before but the forward march of raw computer power is

formidable and I understand any reluctance to pursue future competitions.

I am still apprehensive about any machine with a true cognition. There

is plenty of benefit to be derived from their perfect recall in expert

systems to save and regurgitate things we already know.

JR

[Guest guest]

aequalsz wrote:

>

>

>

> Hello,

>

> The best chess grandmasters have already been spanked by computers.

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue

>

> Aequalsz

>

>

>

>

> I stand corrected. I consider Deep Blue and later incarnations as

testament to the remarkable power of human cognition rather than

suggesting machine mastery over it. It is the nature of human chess

players to learn from past mistakes and return smarter and stronger.

Machines can very accurately recall past outcomes but their ability to

" learn " from that information is mechanistic and linear. Perhaps humans

could again adapt and learn how to beat the latest chess computer like

they have before but the forward march of raw computer power is

formidable and I understand any reluctance to pursue future competitions.

I am still apprehensive about any machine with a true cognition. There

is plenty of benefit to be derived from their perfect recall in expert

systems to save and regurgitate things we already know.

JR

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Well surely, at least for now, computers are purely electrical.

In contrast, the brain not only is electrical, it is also

chemical/hormonal in a way that is intimately linked up with the

electrical.

So, however 'clever' computers may become; however able they may

eventually be at learning and changing their 'behaviour' in response

to adverse outcomes by modifying their own internal software, will

they ever amount to more than very capable and clever hand

calculators, until we find a way to link them up so as to generate

chemical/hormonal responses?

Achieving such a link seems to me to be a very much more challenging

technological task than the advances we are making right now. That

is we are simply progressively reducing in size - and thereby

increasing speed/capacity - what we first learnt how to do sixty

years ago.

I believe that if we ever get to organize super-capable computers

with electrical/chemical links, it will be done by growing brain

cells in vitro and, by way of future biological discoveries, finding

out how to get them to multiply in ways that their ability is

progressively enhanced.

I very much doubt it can ever be done by linking some inorganic

electrical machine of the general type currently available with some

external set of chemical reactions.

Mind you, 'ever' is a long time.

Rodney.

> >

> >

> >

> > Hello,

> >

> > The best chess grandmasters have already been spanked by

computers.

> >

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue

> >

> > Aequalsz

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > I stand corrected. I consider Deep Blue and later incarnations as

> testament to the remarkable power of human cognition rather than

> suggesting machine mastery over it. It is the nature of human chess

> players to learn from past mistakes and return smarter and

stronger.

> Machines can very accurately recall past outcomes but their ability

to

> " learn " from that information is mechanistic and linear. Perhaps

humans

> could again adapt and learn how to beat the latest chess computer

like

> they have before but the forward march of raw computer power is

> formidable and I understand any reluctance to pursue future

competitions.

>

> I am still apprehensive about any machine with a true cognition.

There

> is plenty of benefit to be derived from their perfect recall in

expert

> systems to save and regurgitate things we already know.

>

> JR

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Well surely, at least for now, computers are purely electrical.

In contrast, the brain not only is electrical, it is also

chemical/hormonal in a way that is intimately linked up with the

electrical.

So, however 'clever' computers may become; however able they may

eventually be at learning and changing their 'behaviour' in response

to adverse outcomes by modifying their own internal software, will

they ever amount to more than very capable and clever hand

calculators, until we find a way to link them up so as to generate

chemical/hormonal responses?

Achieving such a link seems to me to be a very much more challenging

technological task than the advances we are making right now. That

is we are simply progressively reducing in size - and thereby

increasing speed/capacity - what we first learnt how to do sixty

years ago.

I believe that if we ever get to organize super-capable computers

with electrical/chemical links, it will be done by growing brain

cells in vitro and, by way of future biological discoveries, finding

out how to get them to multiply in ways that their ability is

progressively enhanced.

I very much doubt it can ever be done by linking some inorganic

electrical machine of the general type currently available with some

external set of chemical reactions.

Mind you, 'ever' is a long time.

Rodney.

> >

> >

> >

> > Hello,

> >

> > The best chess grandmasters have already been spanked by

computers.

> >

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue

> >

> > Aequalsz

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > I stand corrected. I consider Deep Blue and later incarnations as

> testament to the remarkable power of human cognition rather than

> suggesting machine mastery over it. It is the nature of human chess

> players to learn from past mistakes and return smarter and

stronger.

> Machines can very accurately recall past outcomes but their ability

to

> " learn " from that information is mechanistic and linear. Perhaps

humans

> could again adapt and learn how to beat the latest chess computer

like

> they have before but the forward march of raw computer power is

> formidable and I understand any reluctance to pursue future

competitions.

>

> I am still apprehensive about any machine with a true cognition.

There

> is plenty of benefit to be derived from their perfect recall in

expert

> systems to save and regurgitate things we already know.

>

> JR