• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Super Artificial Intelligence, a naive approach

theprestige said:
The article is a lay blurb that indicates almost nothing. It links to another lay article that I can't read because the website requires me to disable my adblocker first (which I will not do).
Click to expand...
Get the Greasemonkey add-on (if you're using Firefox, if not then whatever the equivalent is on the browser you use) and install the "Anti-Adblock Killer" script.

That should bypass the scripts on the site which prevent you from viewing the page if you have your Adblocker on.
 
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that's all.”

Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There by Lewis Carroll.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Get the Greasemonkey add-on (if you're using Firefox, if not then whatever the equivalent is on the browser you use) and install the "Anti-Adblock Killer" script.

That should bypass the scripts on the site which prevent you from viewing the page if you have your Adblocker on.
Click to expand...
Anti ad blockers are like facial tattoos, or tramp stamps, or protective markings on poisonous insects. Why would I want to ignore them?
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
You highlighted 10^14 and 10^18 before adding the pertinent comment.

Why did you highlight those figures?

What did you mean by "one thousandth of the number"? (a comment you made under the figures)

So, what errors do you find in the figures you highlighted and criticized in reply #8?
Click to expand...

Ten thousandth, I said.

You do realise that 10^14 is one ten thousandth of 10^18, surely? I'm not having to explain maths that a 10 year old should know, am I?
 
theprestige said:
Anti ad blockers are like facial tattoos, or tramp stamps, or protective markings on poisonous insects. Why would I want to ignore them?
Click to expand...

Because perhaps you're interested in the contents of whatever site uses them.

It's entirely up to you, but now at least you know that you don't have to be restricted if you don't want to be.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Oh come on, it's very easy to understand. It wasn't about an error in your figures.

You claim that by 2020 humans can build a human-level AI, which you say runs at 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second.
As evidence you point out that models that run at 10^14 already exist.

10^14 is one ten-thousandth of 10^18, the top of your human range.

MikeG wasn't questioning your numbers, he was expressing his doubts in your assertion that our AI's will become ten thousand times as complex within the space of three years.
Click to expand...


(1)
That didn't appear to be the case.

He made no reference to the 2020 sequence/sentence, merely highlighting the numbers in his criticism of said numbers.

....for he responded that I was misusing the word "pertinent", in my question to his numbers criticism.




(2)
So, where:
(a) he had edited in the "pertinent" comment, after his numbers criticism, (in the same reply)
and
(b) the misuse of the word pertinent doesn't appear to relate to his numbers criticism, although he responded as such...


I still don't grasp what he was attempting express, and so I continue to ask.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
Ten thousandth, I said.

You do realise that 10^14 is one ten thousandth of 10^18, surely? I'm not having to explain maths that a 10 year old should know, am I?
Click to expand...

(1)
The one ten thousandth|one thousandth distinction appears to be irrelevant, in the above scenario.

....for you responded that I was misusing the word "pertinent", in my question to your numbers criticism.




(2)
So, where:
(a) you had edited in the "pertinent" comment, after your numbers criticism, (in the same reply)
and
(b) the misuse of the word pertinent doesn't appear to relate to your numbers criticism, although you responded as such...


I still don't grasp what you were attempting express, and so I continue to ask.
 
Last edited:
baron said:
A genuine question: Was this written by AI code? The reason I ask is that several years ago I created a module that generated prose very similar to what we see here. Of course, it was all nonsense, but it was grammatically correct and thus appeared impressive to the casual viewer.
Click to expand...

You wrote the Post-modernism generator?

That's way cool.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I wrote the paper.

Some related code, however crude exists in relation to paper.

The topics discussed are probably primarily common for undergrad machine learning students.
Click to expand...

But are clearly not for students learning whose primary language is a known Earth tongue.

Much that is betwixed is likewise amidst boundriless hombrage.
 
Last edited:
fagin said:
ps could you translate the OP into actual meaningful words and stuff.
Click to expand...

Unlikely as it would require putting the cites he made into readable and concise statements as opposed to us wasting time looking through them. I.e. we would be being asked to do his job as he is asking us to accept his ideas. Not our job. His plan/idea/whatever and not anything useful in it for our purposes as it stands and to the extent it's importance is thoroughly presented!!!
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
(1)
The one ten thousandth|one thousandth distinction appears to be irrelevant, in the above scenario.

....for you responded that I was misusing the word "pertinent", in my question to your numbers criticism.




(2)
So, where:
(a) you had edited in the "pertinent" comment, after your numbers criticism, (in the same reply)
and
(b) the misuse of the word pertinent doesn't appear to relate to your numbers criticism, although you responded as such...


I still don't grasp what you were attempting express, and so I continue to ask.
Click to expand...

You are confused. You are conflating two different issues.

First of all, I pointed out that your claim for how wonderful AI was showed that humans haven't created anything with one ten thousandth the computing power of a human brain...............using your own figures. That was issue one.

Issue two was I pointed out that yet again you had made up a meaning for a word (pertinent). This was nothing whatever to do with issue 1.

You then wrote an incomprehensible question, and I answered about issue 1, when you were possibly asking about issue 2. This is the sort of problem you will generate if you mangle the language, changing the meaning of words at a whim.
 
MikeG said:
You are confused. You are conflating two different issues.

First of all, I pointed out that your claim for how wonderful AI was showed that humans haven't created anything with one ten thousandth the computing power of a human brain...............using your own figures. That was issue one.

Issue two was I pointed out that yet again you had made up a meaning for a word (pertinent). This was nothing whatever to do with issue 1.

You then wrote an incomprehensible question, and I answered about issue 1, when you were possibly asking about issue 2. This is the sort of problem you will generate if you mangle the language, changing the meaning of words at a whim.
Click to expand...

(A)
That does not appear to be the case.

(1) I asked you (in reply #11) why you criticized the numbers.

(2) You responded (in reply #12) regarding my misuse of the word "pertinent".

How did your response in reply #12, sensibly answer my query in reply #11?



(B)
There was no claim of mine, about "technology being wonderful".

My statement was that models have already achieved 10^14 artificial synaptic operations per second:
SOURCE: http://www.modha.org/blog/SC12/RJ10...926914893946751&cm_mc_sid_50200000=1489394675

That 10^14 figure was not a claim.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
(A)
That does not appear to be the case.

(1) I asked you (in reply #11) why you criticized the numbers.

(2) You responded (in reply #12) regarding my misuse of the word "pertinent".

How does your response in reply #12, sensibly answer my query in reply #11?
Click to expand...

MikeG said:
.......
You then wrote an incomprehensible question, and I answered about issue 1, when you were possibly asking about issue 2. This is the sort of problem you will generate if you mangle the language, changing the meaning of words at a whim.
Click to expand...

Do you understand now that I have already answered the above?

-

There was no claim of mine, about "technology being wonderful"........
Click to expand...

Did I say there was? I was being sarcastic.

My statement was that models have already achieved 10^14 synaptic operations per second. .......
Click to expand...

I simply pointed out how puny this achievement was in comparison with the human brain.

-

You clearly have nothing of substance to say, and to hide your lack of content you will bang on about your supposed confusions with my post until I have explained it 10 different ways. We've all seen this sort of thing done countless times before.
 
Last edited:
Simple, your assumption was wrong. Your query is therefore not applicable.

This appears to be your MO: always assume that anything you believe is correct, deny it is a belief, and demand that others subject themselves to your narrow views.
If you are unable to even entertain the idea that you interpreted something incorrectly, this thread is going to go like your other ones, round and round in circles, with you referring back to your hypothesis as if it were proof.
 
MikeG said:
Do you understand now that I have already answered the above?

-



I simply pointed out how puny this achievement was in comparison with the human brain.

-

You clearly have nothing of substance to say, and to hide your lack of content you will bang on about your supposed confusions with my post until I have explained it 10 different ways. We've all seen this sort of thing done countless times before.
Click to expand...

The right answer is that your response in reply 12, was nonsensical, and irrelevant to my query in response 11.

As for your "puny" argument, here is a hint, why such an argument is probably a poor, uneducated one:

T7lFraI.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom