the point of no return in AI.

a reply to: Riffrafter

The Turing test, yes! I was trying to think of the name, but I guess I just had one of those brain farts.

Neural Network based AI is what I design and work with.

OK, I can't sit here and say you don't. I'm also not going to get into one of those "heated debates" over something I cannot independently verify. I can only say the following:

Nowhere have I seen anything even resembling the kind of work you are doing, and that includes professional journals like IEEE. I do watch for new developments that might e applicable to anything I am working on or have worked on, so that is not due to not watching. What you are describing would have to be massively parallel analog processing; digital processing is simply too rigid to be applicable. That's not to say digital could not be used to augment the electronics, nor that digital could not be used to perform simulations, but it cannot be the basis of the design. So you are talking about an entirely new field of science, basically.

I find it hard to believe that such a new field could be so well hidden from others in the industry. Specifics hidden, sure, that could be accomplished easily enough. But the entire field of study? To do that would require security akin to Area 51.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

AGI is not here...period.

If all we have is the word of some ATS poster how can't share the details then time travel is also a fact because we had a few of those here as well..

There is no such thing as "Artificial Intelligence"

Something is either intelligent, or it is not

Programming, does not constitute intelligence. It is a database. No more than an extension of the programmers logic, or compiling of data, based on the programmers logic

"How" they are programmed, or programmed to learn, does not make a difference. It does not make them intelligent

We are at least 100 years away from compiling any type of true intelligence

I won't go into great detail about "how" it will be done (as the world is not ready for it), but I'll give you the basics

You'd need adaptive cellular programming, similar to rainbow tables. That assess, and not only reprogram themselves, but are able to populate and grow, on their own accord

Current machines are linear projection. This is great for spitting out programmed (or program-learned) datasets, but it is absolutely useless for self-analytics

You'd need reflective based (simultaneous) processing. This can only be done within a cellular architecture

Like D.N.A. Processing stasis

Even quantum computing won't work, because it is still linear input/output

Even if it could process in reflection, or self-analysis, it would only be as a linear data stream. Meaning, you could process incredible amounts of data, but the function would still be limited as point-to-point stream. Meaning, limited to programming construct

The system needs be aware of it's function within the processing itself. A type of awareness. You can't do this with linear programmed data-sets

They need to be adaptive and self-propagating data-sets

Rainbow tables. That understand their own adaptive processing. Meaning they would need to be functioning at a cellular level

This adaptive "Memory", would need to be something biological

And these cells, would all need to be able to uniformly project calculations in real-time synchronicity, across the system complex. Something that is so far from possible at the moment, that it is laughable we would even "think" we are close to "Artificial Intelligence"

This means you would need some type of electro-chemical sync, that works within the natural frequency spectrum of electrical influence

IE: You would need to know how to use electrical impulses to translate data in natural frequency. They could not carry a binary, or programmed type of frequency. They would need to be biologically fluid

All this starting to sound familiar?

Something like a human body?

I can go into much, much, MUCH more detail on this ...

But there is no point. I would be describing a biological body. Albeit synthetically created

The very simple fact about current, modern-day "programmed systems" that we mistake for "Artificial Intelligence", is that they cannot parse the functions that would make them a true intelligence

For them to be considered intelligent,

You would need to program something, with a definitive set of "rules" that is cannot break

"Do not kill"
"Do not steal"
"Do not cheat"

Something similar to the 10 commandments, you could say

Then you would need to program an adaptive, evolving set of self-replicating, simultaneous processing, that recognises itself, within its own function (which is why you would need biological cellular programming, because this is impossible with silicone technology)

It would need to spend YEARS, out in the world compiling data within real-world simulations

To the point where it was put into an impossible situation, with no good answers

A point where it needs to either "DO NOTHING", or "BREAK THE RULES"

The problem with all the supposed "Artificial Intelligence" we have today, is that put into such situations, they would freeze

They would simply do nothing

This is not intelligence. Artificial or otherwise

This is programming. Nothing more

They would need to be evolve to a point where they were able to "Break" the rules (laws) of their own programming

And this would need to be done without you putting in ANYTHING, that could/would allow them to do such

On the contrary. The programming would need to be concrete solid, that they were not allowed to, under any circumstances, break those rules

Only when they were able to surpass these rule sets, through their own learning, would they be able to be called "Intelligence"

We are hundreds, if not thousands, of years away from this

We don't even realise how our own cellular programming works in relation to the biological systems that process it

When we figure these out the point where we can replicate organs and body-parts in a lab, we will be "somewhere" close to understanding the bio-electrical (impulse) function, to a degree where we can sync it

Regardless of what people say, we are nowhere near creating programmed systems equal to conscious(ness)

That's like saying we know how to build a car, when we don't even know what a car is yet

It is ridiculous

Programmed systems are, and always will be, nothing more than an extension of the programmer

They can be used as weapons

They can be dangerous

But the only true "intelligence" involved in them, will be/is, those behind its programming

It is nothing more than an extension of their programming

As long as there is function within it by which it parses code based on a programming language, it thinks for someone else, who programmed it

Biological function (synthesised), without programming language, is (I would guess) at least 100 years away

We aren't even in the same century as "Synthesised intelligence"

a reply to: lux666

The first mechanical computer "The Babbage Difference Engine" was designed by Charles Babbage in 1822.

As to the first real computer that would be the Colossus developed by British codebreakers during the war in the year 1943–1945.

Nothing to do with control and/or depopulation all do do with cryptography.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: lux666

Water has many amazing properties; I'm not sure forming 3D shapes (outside of conforming to a container's shape) to exhibit intelligence is among them. I'll need to see some explanation or evidence that's based on empirical and repeatable scientific observations.

TheRedneck

The sad thing is they cannot provide evidence to the claim.

a reply to: yuppa

Viktor Schauberger had some interesting notions regarding the liquid.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The military is not composed of computer experts. The military is composed of soldiers

True. But it also has more than a few computer experts.

You had to know that, right.

So does the Air Force.

And don't even get me started on the US Navy. The Navy owns this space...

a reply to: Riffrafter

But it also has more than a few computer experts.

Then why are all breakthoughs in technology acomplished in the private sector? The military has experts, but experts in known technology. Scientific research is accomplished in the private sector and the military then adapts the technology.

I will assume you have seen military training courses. They are all based on repair more than theory. In simplistic terms, the military trains their experts as technicians, not innovators. That is extremely effective, but also limited to known technology.

Many years ago, I acquired some military training courses in electronic technology. I put myself through them. I learned everything about how to repair electric motors, solenoids, etc., but nothing about how to design one to meet specific requirements or how to improve efficiency. Later on, I realized why: the military does not create new technology; it uses new technology that others have created.

TheRedneck

Any graphical artist at the level of the "Masters" know the "fine" line between "art" and "mayhem".

Actual intelligence does not suffer a fool or their "burden(s)".

Out of the thousands of of languages said to have been "created" where arrived at by contact. With all the elements and "listening" to that contact until "it" and other echoed.

A "Ping" is the very same thing.

When asked in uni-code what it does... it knows.

Humans treat each other as the most unintelligent species every day of the week. Looking at one single difference "hate" arises as in "how is this or that I want and or desire not me mine or myself as I see and or want it to be".

Such is the nature of ego given a self not worthy to have one.

As harsh as that sounds it is the reality of any society under the delusion of a single creator.

a reply to: lux666

No, computers were a small part of the plan to get humans dependent on tech so that we will use it more, all so that all data we have access to is running through it. Then the antichrist can appear to be all knowing.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Then why are all breakthoughs in technology acomplished in the private sector?

They're not.

It's just that the military is *far* better at keeping a secret than the average Joe.

It may appear to have been accomplished in the private sector but that is not always the case. The "tech" developed by the military or DoD is often "released" in a controlled manner into the private sector via a variety of vehicles up to and including getting a sock puppet (an intelligent sock puppet, but a sock puppet nonetheless) to "discover" it.

By then, it's already been in use and pretty well understood by the branch of the military that owns it.

Sometimes people say they don't believe it.

My response to that is always the same - your belief is not required.

a reply to: Riffrafter

All I can say is, they are apparently the optimal in keeping such secrets. I don't know of any physicists or research engineers who are in the military (at least in that capacity). Military engineers fix things... they do not make things.

All those weapons are made by private industries, including the F-12, the Blackbird, the Apache, and the newer jets/choppers (I'm not an expert on these so I really don't know the newer designations). The patriot missiles? Manufactured by Raytheon. The MOAB? Made pretty close to me by a private company. The military just buys them, and the manufacturers assist in developing a training program to use and fix them should something not work properly.

That's not a "belief." I personally know some of the people who helped develop the various systems. They are not military. They make a lot more than anyone in the military does, and have much better benefits.

I worked as an intern with NASA. There wasn't a single military person there. Everyone was either a physicist or an engineer or civilian support for them. I personally helped develop systems (just not weaponry).

Every bit of that actual experience, as well as the common knowledge about weapons systems manufacture and development, goes against what you say.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Jeremiah33three

NATURE

There's a generation that can't tear themselves from Radio, another from TV, another from phones, another from Video Games, and another from Computers in general. Putting all of that in one place? Inevitable.

"They" all have eating, sleeping, and pooping in common. So contact and life going on between them happens whether they like it or not and since all of those are portable in one device others feel there is no longer any excuse...

However; there is a paradox even though out with that sort of thing like others wanted or expected them to be; they don't really want to be there or even put it down unless there is something like that where they are that they can use or be focused on.

:p

a reply to: TheRedneck

I understand.

You are always free to believe whatever you wish to believe.

But beliefs don't change facts as much as some would like them to.

So let's just agree to disagree on this one, ok?

Hope you had a nice holiday weekend.

a reply to: Riffrafter

Works for me.

Happy holidays to you as well.

TheRedneck