13-11-2019, 07:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 13-11-2019, 07:26 PM by Mike Watterson.)
Some things/ideas are not needing technology but different laws to the universe.
Actually a few people did see what wired & wireless transmission would bring. Sound broadcasting predated commercial radio by many years. Entertainment was provided by the telephone network in Hungary before radio broadcast.
Wireless electronic versions of cinema was envisaged as early as cinema!
Text based Telegraph networks had replaced morse telegraphy nearly 100 years ago, with wireless versions (text and image based) before WWII.
Ada Lovelace.
Very much of what we have grew from Victorian era vision and experiment, even semiconductors, which had a 35 year lull due to the success of valves.
A working starship is at present more plausible than AI, because we have no idea at all how to sensibly do interstellar travel. We do know what the inherent limitations of computers are. If A.I. is possible, then it will be more likely some sort of dubiously ethical biological development, as envisaged by Cordwainer Smith (Paul Linebarger), not something based on computers. I remember in late 1980s some people that knew little about computers claiming we just needed more storage and processing power. Other people more expert (some who were selling Expert Systems, a thing now marketed as AI, though the "training" is rather different now) agreed that if AI was possible we could have built a slow one in the 1970s.
There is a fundamental gap between how biological systems work and how computers work. "Neural Networks" is a marketing term. Nothing to do with how biological systems work.
We might some day define intelligence sensibly, at the minute we don't actually have rigorous definitions of intelligence, sentience, self awareness. The mirror test is flawed for complicated reasons. It may give false positives and false negatives.
However we do know EXACTLY how computers work and their limitations. Turing formalised and did a good general proof after WWII. But others from Chinese, Greek & Arab automata designers, to Ada Lovelace to Konrad Zuse (working computer before WWII) increasing saw the truth. Everything had to be designed in by the human in advance. The systems, even with feedback, are unbelievably "fragile".
Rooks are lazy. You will not easily see any intelligent behaviour by them in the wild, except perhaps avoiding people carrying a shotgun. Despite spending a lot of time wandering car parks or roads, they don't get hit by cars as often as some other creatures. They seem to understand traffic lights. Put them in a lab and they are astounding. Yet their rook parents didn't teach them how to make "fishing hooks" or fill a jar with pebbles so the water rises and they can drink, or open padlocks with a key.
All computers are simply very fast adding machines, with tests and branches. Preprogrammed by humans. Programs and so called "Machine Learning" are so fragile you'd not believe it.
Also exactly how useful would real AI be? What could you use it for in a trustworthy way?
Many current not actually AI systems called AI are appalling. The performance is often a marketing lie. Exactly how would facial recognition, self serve checkouts, cancer diagnosis, self driving cars be safer, more accurate and more trustworthy with real AI?
Who would train the systems and verify them? Who would be responsible.
We can't trust the big US companies currently marketing the dumb stupid AI, which is basically 1980s Expert Systems on Steroids. None of it is AI in the sense ANYONE from 1940 to 1990 defined A.I.
That computers can do A.I. is one of the most pernicious and dangerous modern myths and it's being shamelessly exploited mainly by be USA Corporations that think they are above the law. The USA doesn't believe in proper regulation anyway.
Actually a few people did see what wired & wireless transmission would bring. Sound broadcasting predated commercial radio by many years. Entertainment was provided by the telephone network in Hungary before radio broadcast.
Wireless electronic versions of cinema was envisaged as early as cinema!
Text based Telegraph networks had replaced morse telegraphy nearly 100 years ago, with wireless versions (text and image based) before WWII.
Ada Lovelace.
Very much of what we have grew from Victorian era vision and experiment, even semiconductors, which had a 35 year lull due to the success of valves.
A working starship is at present more plausible than AI, because we have no idea at all how to sensibly do interstellar travel. We do know what the inherent limitations of computers are. If A.I. is possible, then it will be more likely some sort of dubiously ethical biological development, as envisaged by Cordwainer Smith (Paul Linebarger), not something based on computers. I remember in late 1980s some people that knew little about computers claiming we just needed more storage and processing power. Other people more expert (some who were selling Expert Systems, a thing now marketed as AI, though the "training" is rather different now) agreed that if AI was possible we could have built a slow one in the 1970s.
There is a fundamental gap between how biological systems work and how computers work. "Neural Networks" is a marketing term. Nothing to do with how biological systems work.
We might some day define intelligence sensibly, at the minute we don't actually have rigorous definitions of intelligence, sentience, self awareness. The mirror test is flawed for complicated reasons. It may give false positives and false negatives.
However we do know EXACTLY how computers work and their limitations. Turing formalised and did a good general proof after WWII. But others from Chinese, Greek & Arab automata designers, to Ada Lovelace to Konrad Zuse (working computer before WWII) increasing saw the truth. Everything had to be designed in by the human in advance. The systems, even with feedback, are unbelievably "fragile".
Rooks are lazy. You will not easily see any intelligent behaviour by them in the wild, except perhaps avoiding people carrying a shotgun. Despite spending a lot of time wandering car parks or roads, they don't get hit by cars as often as some other creatures. They seem to understand traffic lights. Put them in a lab and they are astounding. Yet their rook parents didn't teach them how to make "fishing hooks" or fill a jar with pebbles so the water rises and they can drink, or open padlocks with a key.
All computers are simply very fast adding machines, with tests and branches. Preprogrammed by humans. Programs and so called "Machine Learning" are so fragile you'd not believe it.
Also exactly how useful would real AI be? What could you use it for in a trustworthy way?
Many current not actually AI systems called AI are appalling. The performance is often a marketing lie. Exactly how would facial recognition, self serve checkouts, cancer diagnosis, self driving cars be safer, more accurate and more trustworthy with real AI?
Who would train the systems and verify them? Who would be responsible.
We can't trust the big US companies currently marketing the dumb stupid AI, which is basically 1980s Expert Systems on Steroids. None of it is AI in the sense ANYONE from 1940 to 1990 defined A.I.
That computers can do A.I. is one of the most pernicious and dangerous modern myths and it's being shamelessly exploited mainly by be USA Corporations that think they are above the law. The USA doesn't believe in proper regulation anyway.
