The Singularity is near

74 posts in this topic

Basically, everything can be replaced, except the brain, at least for now... Soooo... clean(filtered), oxygenated blood pumped to the brain is all that is required until it can be replaced with synapse "chips" or whatever? Fake limbs and torso could run on electricity powered by any new small cool replensishable source, eyes wont be long, without all that extra flesh to move food as fuel would be not much bother, so kill the throat and mouth, a pump for the blood with o2 infusion for the blood takes out the lungs,,,

 

hell, add a couple limbs and you be general grievous.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Grievous

 

doesn't sound far fetched to me really...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for the machine to be human like it would have to have a biological feedback mechanism that operated on serveral ionic wave freqencys which it would then "read" and then allow it to make choices according to the area of either greatest future potential or to disregard the "current read" as being misinformed or mistranslated and then acting on its physical sensory devices until it is able to methodidize a new avenue or moving forward to an action of greater future potential...IE: to reproduce in an enviorment that would ensure its offspring-even though mechanical would be able to fullfill their prime function which is to protect life and to reproduce again..

the ability to disregard input which is correct is akin to DISREGARDING a DIRECT ORDER from a superior officer or to BREAK A LAW and go rogue...

some humans do this because they SENSE something is not "right" this something being in the IONIC BIOLOGICAL FEEDBACK which all life forms share.

so for machines to have this sort of feed back mechanism it would make them dangerous since they could easily make a quantifiable choice that some life forms threatened the survival or other life forms especially if its highest function was to PROTECT LIFE...then it would be in the classic ASIMOV paradox

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

post-159741-13267600507385.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artificial neural network structure optimizer - Info

Abstract:

 

This invention is a system and iterative non-learning method to determine optimal artificial neural network node and layer count, edge connection structure and transfer function for an artificial neural network. Optimality is indicated by the learning effort for the network being minimum and the generalization of the artificial neural network on provided data being maximum. A control and display subsystem receives a count of input and output external interface nodes and associated node names from a user. Said subsystem also accepts end- conditions for the training of a series of artificial neural networks and establishes, together with a data delivery agent and data mapping agent, a relationship between variables of a data set and input and output network nodes. A network configuration agent and configuration agent controller create a series of artificial neural networks, each network in a series having a different internal nodal structure or transfer function than others in the series. A training agent trains each configured artificial neural network over an epoch of training, for each modified artificial neural network in a series. A data-logger records the training progress. An analyzer computes the improvement or reduction of training efficiency and ability of a particular network structure to generalize on a provided data set, compared to a previous structure. The control and display subsystem, analyzer and configuration and training controller subsequently determine a probable best structure of artificial neural network for a subsequent iteration of network creation and training testing.

 

This is from a patent paper.

 

Does that mean that a machine learns to direct the traffic now as the word speller teaches me to spell properly by telling me I'm wrong?

I wished the word speller shows the right spelling too so I don't have to look it up.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I just couldn't resist:

 

In the year 2525, if man is still alive If woman can survive, they may find

In the year 3535 Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lie Everything you think, do and say Is in the pill you took today

In the year 4545 You ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes You won't find a thing to chew Nobody's gonna look at you

In the year 5555 Your arms hangin' limp at your sides Your legs got nothin' to do Some machine's doin' that for you

In the year 6565 You won't need no husband, won't need no wife You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too From the bottom of a long glass tube

In the year 7510 If God's a-coming, He oughta make it by then Maybe He'll look around Himself and say "Guess it's time for the Judgement Day"

In the year 8510 God is gonna shake His mighty head He'll either say, "I'm pleased where man has been" Or tear it down, and start again

In the year 9595 I'm kinda wonderin' if man is gonna be alive He's taken everything this old earth can give And he ain't put back nothing

 

Now it's been ten thousand years, man has cried a billion tears

For what, he never knew, now man's reign is through

But through eternal night, the twinkling of starlight

So very far away, maybe it's only yesterday

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ah but in the end the sandworm itself is overthrown... although that was its plan all along.

 

Try reading Redemption Ark...

 

"While a great deal of science fiction reflects either very optimistic or dystopian visions of the human future, Reynolds's future worlds are notable in that human societies have not departed to either positive or negative extremes, but instead are similar to those of today in terms of moral ambiguity and a mixture of cruelty and decency, corruption and opportunity, despite their technology being dramatically advanced."

 

I've read it! Wish I had the rest of the series.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well this prediction is unlikely to be right:

 

From Wikipedia article on Raymond Kurweil.

 

CSR is his little moneymaker, so of course some of his predictions are going to be skewed in favour of that. And I'm not saying it won't eventually come true, but not on the timeline he's giving.

 

Kurweil has been wrong about a lot of things. Continuous Speech Recognition is never going to catch on. Being able to talk to your computer might seem cool but it just isn't always very practical. Can you imagine working in an office where people are talking out loud to their computers all day? Or in a flight control tower? Or any other place of work where computers are commonly used?

 

I find many of his predictions, like predicting that the internet will gain widespread use, were totally unoriginal. What computer geek would have not told you this back in the late 80's?

 

Other predictions he claims to have made are only half true. Sure, the Soviet Union did eventually come to an end, but not as a result of the advent of the fax machine or global communications.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can you imagine working in an office where people are talking out loud to their computers all day?

 

If you supplied everyone with earmuffs and the communication were strictly one-way, it might be feasible.. :blink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you supplied everyone with earmuffs and the communication were strictly one-way, it might be feasible..

 

Never going to happen. Like I said, it just isn't practical. I predict technology is going to skip over the voice recognition boom and move straight for advancements towards thought reading interfaces.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Kurweil has been wrong about a lot of things. Continuous Speech Recognition is never going to catch on. Being able to talk to your computer might seem cool but it just isn't always very practical. Can you imagine working in an office where people are talking out loud to their computers all day? Or in a flight control tower? Or any other place of work where computers are commonly used?

Well we'll actually not talk to our computers, for we'll be controlling them with our thoughts.

 

Your argument is invalid.

 

EDIT: Tada! Just read your next post!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vicarious is building a sofwtare which can think and learn like human. No speculations, but tests are getting approved successfully. Vicarious

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Machines are rational; humans, not so much. So what will you will have (me, I'll be out of here) when machines start thinking like humans?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now