A computer farm that occupies an entire building and has its own
nuclear generator.
I knew the mini-skirt would come back -- styles always come back --
but this time around it's old, wrinkled-up women who are the early
adopters.
I thought that we were supposed to be a conservative bunch; old women
were the last to give up pantsuits when they went out of style.
A computer farm that occupies an entire building and has its own
nuclear generator.
I knew the mini-skirt would come back -- styles always come back --
but this time around it's old, wrinkled-up women who are the early
adopters.
Joy Beeson<jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
A computer farm that occupies an entire building and has its ownI've never heard of a computer with its own nuclear generator (not
nuclear generator.
counting space probes powered by RTGs). But there's nothing new about computers filling a building and consuming vast amounts of electricity.
Microsoft wants Three Mile Island to fuel its AI power needs
Am I the only one here who is annoyed by the use of "AI" to mean
anything other than human-level (or better) machine intelligence?
I don't think "human-level machine intelligence" is meaningful,
because computation to carry out tasks and cognition to further the
existence of a living organism aren't commensurable.
A computer farm that occupies an entire building and has its own
nuclear generator.
Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
I don't think "human-level machine intelligence" is meaningful,
because computation to carry out tasks and cognition to further the
existence of a living organism aren't commensurable.
I'm not convinced of that. Nobody has come up with a task that a
person could do but that no computer could ever do. There are tasks
that it's been proven computers can't do, but no person has proven
able to do them either.
So I think it's not at all unlikely that computers, some of them in
humanoid robot bodies, will someday be able to do every task that
a person can do, better and less expensively. At that point the
unemployment rate will increase to 100%. Those who don't own stock
in the AI companies will have financial problems.
Or, of course, the intelligent machines may decide we're a nuisance,
and wipe us out.
A third category is uploaded people, i.e. human consciousnesses copied
into a computer. Simply completely map a human brain and then emulate
it in software. It would of course have the same memories and
personality as the original person. By cranking up the clock
frequency, it could work must faster than us flesh people, get a
full night's sleep in a few seconds, or a lengthy vacation in a few
minutes. And it could work for much less income, since it could
enjoy realistic virtual entertainments. It would be potentially
immortal. Or at least last as long as our civilization.
Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
I don't think "human-level machine intelligence" is meaningful, because
computation to carry out tasks and cognition to further the existence
of a living organism aren't commensurable.
I'm not convinced of that. Nobody has come up with a task that a person could do but that no computer could ever do. There are tasks that it's
been proven computers can't do, but no person has proven able to do them either.
So I think it's not at all unlikely that computers, some of them in
humanoid robot bodies, will someday be able to do every task that a
person can do, better and less expensively. At that point the
unemployment rate will increase to 100%. Those who don't own stock in
the AI companies will have financial problems.
Or, of course, the intelligent machines may decide we're a nuisance, and
wipe us out.
A third category is uploaded people, i.e. human consciousnesses copied
into a computer. Simply completely map a human brain and then emulate
it in software. It would of course have the same memories and
personality as the original person. By cranking up the clock frequency,
it could work must faster than us flesh people, get a full night's sleep
in a few seconds, or a lengthy vacation in a few minutes. And it could
work for much less income, since it could enjoy realistic virtual entertainments. It would be potentially immortal. Or at least last as
long as our civilization.
But present-day computers and programs are nowhere close to human-level intelligence yet.
I understand there is a complete brain map of a fruit fly. I haven't
heard whether they've emulated it in software and gotten fly-like
behavior out of it.
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
I understand there is a complete brain map of a fruit fly. I
haven't heard whether they've emulated it in software and gotten
fly-like behavior out of it.
They have. One of the series of papers published in Nature says
that they presented the model with simulated sugar and got the fly
to stick out its simulated tongue.
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Nobody has come up with a task that a person could do but that no
computer could ever do.
Make a baby?
You left out the part of my post where I said that carrying out
tasks isn't the point. Human (and animal) intelligence is a faculty
for maintaining and enhancing the life of which it is a part.
We might be able to create machines whose prime directive is to
survive, reproduce, and maximize their satisfaction (though I don't
know what that would mean in a machine designed and created by
humans), but it would be a bad idea.
You're overlooking the principle of comparative advantage. People
in such a world wouldn't sit around and wait for the machines to
feed them. They'd do the things at which they're relatively best,
while machines would do the tasks which they're relatively best at.
The key word there is "emulate." They wouldn't be people. At a
minimum, they'd need to have human-equivalent bodies to keep the
same personalities; otherwise they'd have different needs and
different ways of interacting with the world, and so would diverge
from human attitudes.
Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
You left out the part of my post where I said that carrying out
tasks isn't the point. Human (and animal) intelligence is a faculty
for maintaining and enhancing the life of which it is a part.
We might be able to create machines whose prime directive is to
survive, reproduce, and maximize their satisfaction (though I don't
know what that would mean in a machine designed and created by
humans), but it would be a bad idea.
What would it be like to be an AI is a different question from what
would it be like to share the world with AIs.
Also, not everyone chooses to use their intelligence to maintain or
enhance their life.
You're overlooking the principle of comparative advantage. People
in such a world wouldn't sit around and wait for the machines to
feed them. They'd do the things at which they're relatively best,
while machines would do the tasks which they're relatively best at.
Comparative advantage means it makes sense for a doctor to hire a receptionist even if he'd be better receptionist than the person he
hires. But that's only because his high income suffices to pay for
the receptionist.
Today, nobody wonders whether it would pay better to compete with a hydroelectric dam by turning a hand-cranked generator or to compete
with a computer by doing arithmetic by hand. Obviously neither one
would give anything close to a living wage.
I'm suggesting that, given true AI, people would be hopelessly
outcompeted by AIs in literally *every* field. Ten years after that
doctor saves money by replacing his human receptionist with a robot receptionist, his patients save money by replacing him with a robot
doctor.
The key word there is "emulate." They wouldn't be people. At a
minimum, they'd need to have human-equivalent bodies to keep the
same personalities; otherwise they'd have different needs and
different ways of interacting with the world, and so would diverge
from human attitudes.
To a degree, that has already happened. The personality of a person
with a car differs from that of a person without one. The personality
of a person with a cell phone differs from that of a person without
one. The personality of a person with a disability differs from that
of a person without one. But they're still people.
There are already people with artificial hearts and artificial
kidneys. To the extent that those work as well as the original, their
life should be unchanged. If those work better than the original,
their life should be improved. The same should be true of artificial
bodies or artificial brains.
Am I the only one here who is annoyed by the use of "AI" to mean
anything other than human-level (or better) machine intelligence?
In article <vea9el$hvu$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Am I the only one here who is annoyed by the use of "AI" to mean
anything other than human-level (or better) machine intelligence?
(raises hand)
I'd settle for 70-ish IQ intelligence.
What the marketroids are pleased to call "Artificial
Intelligence" is not intelligence of any kind, just pattern
matching. (With amusing results where it breaks down
and includes nonexistent scientific references or legal
citations.) I've been lobbying for everyone to call it
"Simulated Intelligence", but not gotten much traction.
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
I'm suggesting that, given true AI, people would be hopelessly
outcompeted by AIs in literally *every* field. Ten years after
that doctor saves money by replacing his human receptionist with a
robot receptionist, his patients save money by replacing him with a
robot doctor.
What money? People have to earn it somehow. Comparative advantage
still applies, or else people simply wouldn't be part of the economy
and hence couldn't pay for the services of machines.
Unless, perhaps, the humans became the pets of the machines,
maintained because the machines are programmed to.
An artificial brain, if we're talking about replacing rather than supplementing the original, is different in kind from an artificial
heart. Consciousness resides in the brain.
I've never heard of a computer with its own nuclear generator
On 10/11/24 7:48 AM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
I don't think "human-level machine intelligence" is meaningful,
because computation to carry out tasks and cognition to further the
existence of a living organism aren't commensurable.
I'm not convinced of that. Nobody has come up with a task that a
person could do but that no computer could ever do. There are tasks
that it's been proven computers can't do, but no person has proven
able to do them either.
Make a baby?
On 10/11/2024 11:11 AM, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
On 10/11/24 7:48 AM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
I don't think "human-level machine intelligence" is meaningful,
because computation to carry out tasks and cognition to further the
existence of a living organism aren't commensurable.
I'm not convinced of that. Nobody has come up with a task that a
person could do but that no computer could ever do. There are tasks
that it's been proven computers can't do, but no person has proven
able to do them either.
Make a baby?
A robot computer manufacturing plant? Or even just computer chip plant?
Evelyn C. Leeper <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Nobody has come up with a task that a person could do but that no
computer could ever do.
Make a baby?
I'm not convinced that computers couldn't do that.
To reach other solar systems may require trips of tens of thousands of
years. Robot space probes could be programmed to grow human colonists
if and when they get to a habitable planet.
And even if computers couldn't do that, my point is that it's not
something someone is typically willing to pay someone to do.
It's claimed that the US unemployment rate is very low, but I suspect
the government simply defines most unemployed people as not being part
of the labor force. There seem to be more and more homeless people
every year. The Washington Post keeps asking why so many people
believe the economy is in bad shape when the government informs us
that it's in great shape. My conjecture is that the government is
lying to us.
Some of the other respondents seemed to think you meant making baby
humans, I interpreted it as making baby computers.
It's claimed that the US unemployment rate is very low, but I suspect
the government simply defines most unemployed people as not being part
of the labor force.
I hate to tell you this but a lot of the homeless people in the DC
area actually have jobs.... just not jobs that pay enough for them
to live off the streets. If anything, that is more damning.
Microsoft wants Three Mile Island to fuel its AI power needs
Is anyone reseaching how to make computers more energy-efficient?
I recall Feynman writing on that topic.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 399 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 70:30:21 |
| Calls: | 8,356 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,159 |
| Messages: | 5,895,048 |