The "singularity" is the buzzword among technophiles, scientists and future-gazers these days. It's their name for a point in the near future when computers become more intelligent than humans, and evolution leaps into hyper-drive. And, writes PNS Associate Editor Walter Truett Anderson, it's inspiring giddy utopian dreams as well as dark nightmares among the faithful.

Although the word "singularity" hasn't quite made it into the general public's vocabulary yet, it is stirring great excitement among growing numbers of scientists, technophiles and future-gazers, who use it to describe what they believe may be one of the great watershed events of all time -- the point at which the computational ability of computers exceeds that of human beings.

In various meetings, articles and of course Web sites, speculations about what form this may take range from glowing scenarios of a technological golden age to dire predictions that it will lead to the extinction of the human species.

The term -- at least in the way it is now being used -- was coined in a 1993 article by Vernor Vinge, a mathematician-computer scientist-science fiction writer. In the article, Vinge cited research on the accelerating growth of computational power and predicted that when it reaches and passes human levels, it will kick off an unprecedented burst of progress. Smarter machines will make still-smarter machines on a still-shorter time scale, and the whole process will go roaring past old-fashioned biological evolution like the Road Runner passing a sleeping Wile E. Coyote.

"From the human point of view," Vinge wrote, "this change will be a throwing away of all the previous rules, perhaps in the blink of an eye, an exponential runaway beyond any hope of control. Developments that before were thought might only happen 'in a million years' (if ever) will likely happen in the next century."

Vinge cautiously predicted that the singularity would occur somewhere between 2005 and 2030. Since then, a consensus of singularity watchers seems to have formed around the year 2020. That's the target date identified by Ray Kurzweil, inventor and writer ("The Age of Spiritual Machines"), who is certain that by then we will have computers costing about $1,000 with the intelligence level of human beings.

For some, the expectation of the singularity has taken on an almost cult-like aura, reminiscent of the Harmonic Convergence that enchanted New Agers in the 1930s, or the Rapture prophecy popular among many Christians, who expect God to descend some day soon and whisk the faithful off to paradise.

In this case, the vision is an explosion of computer-generated scientific and technological innovation, leading to -- well, leading to just about anything you can imagine: new sources of food and building materials and energy, interstellar space travel, human immortality.

Say, for example, advances in nanotechnology continue to the point where microscopic machines can manipulate reality on a molecular level. Billions of intelligent micro-machines might course through your bloodstream, repairing damaged cells, attacking viral invaders, even synthesizing new proteins from the molecules around them. Viewed from here, claims of human-engineered immortality may seem a little less outrageous.

But many take a darker view of the singularity breakthrough and the technologies it may spawn. Imagine that same nanotechnology gone terribly wrong, a plague of superintelligent micro-robots loosed on the biosphere.

It was precisely the singularity prediction that led computer scientist Bill Joy to write his widely read Wired magazine article, "Why The Future Doesn't Need Us," in which he warned that we may, in effect, be engineering our own obsolescence by creating self-replicating machines that will charge off on evolutionary pathways far beyond us.

"The new Pandora's boxes of genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics are almost open," Joy wrote, "yet we seem hardly to have noticed."

How likely is it that anything of this sort will in fact happen, either for good or ill? Will computers really become smarter than human beings?

If you stick with the simplest and most mechanistic definition of "smart," the answer has to be a resounding "yes." IBM has already designed a machine that can outplay chess champions, and there are many reasons to expect that computer science will indeed move beyond silicon-chip technology into new realms of speed and memory.

But, say doubters such as British mathematician Roger Penrose and American philosopher John Searle, this doesn't necessarily guarantee that anything resembling either the fantasies or the nightmares of the singularity-watchers will come to pass. The central point of such dissent is that pure computational ability isn't thought, intelligence or anything resembling consciousness. It is simply mechanical efficiency, and as it increases we will have, instead of a new chapter in evolution, a lot of really good computers.

And there are yet other scenarios: Perhaps, instead of the machines going off on their own evolutionary pathway, leaving us behind, electronic and biological intelligence will merge -- each of us with a brain augmented to superhuman levels. Perhaps there will be a merging of all humanity with all computers into a vast global brain.

The possibilities seem to be endless, the whole subject simultaneously too far-out for most of us to grasp, yet too close to today's reality to be completely dismissed. We may know what is happening, but we can't be at all certain where it may lead.

One thing seems certain: Homo sapiens is going to exit from the 21st century looking like a considerably different animal from what it was going in.


http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=575

Even the best computers have NO intelligence or conciousness.

There is a great book called "The Singularity Is Near" by Ray Kurzweil that I suggest every person read.

I worry far more about the "Grey Goo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo)" effect that many theorize about.

~String

And here's that Vinge article in full:

http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html

So yeah, um, we're doomed. South Korea, Japan and others are feverishly drafting robot ethics charters but they won't be worth the paper they're written on when Skynet assumes control. The end will be painful but mercifully fast.

Even the best computers have NO intelligence or conciousness.

And it was u who voted for the last option, right ?

:roflmao:

computers are only as smart as the people who prgamed them

computers are only as smart as the people who prgamed them

U mean if they were programmed, right ?

http://adaptiveai.com/research/index.htm



BTW i seriously doubt if u really made 110+ posts, did u hack SciForums ?

And it was u who voted for the last option, right ?
No, that would have been me. I'm highly doubtful but one can only hope. The silicon Gods may save us yet:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0c/Trans-post-human2.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

No, that would have been me. I'm highly doubtful but one can only hope. The silicon Gods may save us yet:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0c/Trans-post-human2.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

From human point of view, sooth your self.

From my point of view, humans are pests or a Cancer of this planet.

computers are only as smart as the people who prgamed themIn the next post, #7, Singularity gave a reference and pointed to one non-programmed approach to AI. (It was too long to read, but in my skim of it, I saw no mention another type, already in widespread use*, not just a "paper design.") I refer to what I, and some others, prefer to call a "connection machines," but many more call them: "neural networks."

About 20 years ago one was trained on records of loan applications at a bank. (Including whether or not the previously granted loans were repaid on schedule.) It is now better than the human staff in selecting which new loans to grant. (Humans still interview the applicant of course, but then feed the answers to the machine and it decides to grant, or not, the loan. The applicants good looks, low cut dress, etc. do not enter into the decision.) It, like all three or more layer "connection machines," was / is never programmed, only given a “learning set” of input information closely related to the type of problem to be solved.

You need to broaden your concept of what a computer is. It need not follow a Von Neuman architecture with software running a written program.

Another "singularity" that can wipe out both humans and robot high on AI is a real singularity, like the small black hole of my book, if it passes close to our solar system. I.e. Earth may be expelled from the HZ (habital zone).
--------------------------
*Many complex chemical process plants, like a pulp to paper mill, are better controlled by connection machines than humans as there are just too many variables and the interaction of them is not understood (by humans)** well enough to program or even process "intutitively," as done until recently by a seasoned / experienced "old timer," who might even taste the batch in an effort to adjust things.

**It is your choice - do you want to say the connection machine "understands" better? If not, are you sure any human "understands" anything - after all the brain is just the best, most-adaptive, connection machine in existance (on Earth at least.)

In the next post, #7, Singularity gave a reference and pointed to one non-programmed approach to AI. (It was too long to read, but in my skim of it, I saw no mention another type, already in widespread use*, not just a "paper design.") I refer to what I, and some others, prefer to call a "connection machines," but many more call them: "neural networks."

About 20 years ago one was trained on records of loan applications at a bank. (Including whether or not the previously granted loans were repaid on schedule.) It is now better than the human staff in selecting which new loans to grant. (Humans still interview the applicant of course, but then feed the answers to the machine and it decides to grant, or not, the loan. The applicants good looks, low cut dress, etc. do not enter into the decision.) It, like all three or more layer "connection machines," was / is never programmed, only given a “learning set” of input information closely related to the type of problem to be solved.

You need to broaden your concept of what a computer is. It need not follow a Von Neuman architecture with software running a written program.


Close - but not close enough. ;) Even though you claim it wasn't "programmed", that "learning set" was most certainly a set of parameters - which is just a form of programming. A machine can sort and correlate data but unless it's told what to do with the results nothing will come of it. And that's certainly not an example of Artificial Intelligence. ;)

There are several marks of true intelligence, one is being to handle a situation/input that it has never encountered before. Another is having an original thought. So far, no machine has ever done either of those and I honestly doubt if one ever will.

Never say never: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6600965.stm

In the next post, #7, Singularity gave a reference and pointed to one non-programmed approach to AI. (It was too long to read, but in my skim of it, I saw no mention another type, already in widespread use*, not just a "paper design.")...

"Genetic and evolutionary programming do have their uses - they are powerful tools that can be used to solve very specific problems, such as optimization of large sets of variables; however they generally are not appropriate for creating large systems of infrastructures. Artificially evolving general intelligence directly seems particularly problematic because there is no known function measuring such capability along a single continuum - and absent such direction, evolution doesn't know what to optimize. One approach to deal with this problem is to try to coax intelligence out of a complex ecology of competing agents - essentially replaying natural evolution."

So does this scare u ?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/04/08/GeneticAlgorithms/default.aspx:mufc:

Never say never: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6600965.stm

That article sounds like - they think to create a car , they must make the human like legs first :D .

oops, i meant to say anonymous.

Even though you claim it wasn't "programmed", that "learning set" was most certainly a set of parameters - which is just a form of programming. A machine can sort and correlate data but unless it's told what to do with the results nothing will come of it. And that's certainly not an example of Artificial Intelligence.... Either (1) you think humans, H, are also "programmed" or (2) you do not understand how connection machines, CM, work.

Both Hs and CMs lean from their experiences, but both must have some external guide to correct them when their response is not acceptable / correct. When informed that their response was not correct, they both make internal modification in the "connections." (For Hs this a change in the brains synaptic connections. For CMs, this is the transfer weights for one "layer" to the next.) Neither H nor CMs are "programmed" as that term is usually used. Both learn from their mistakes and improve their performance on not only the training task set but only all never before seen similar sets. For example, separating photos of women from men, loan re-payers from dead beats, etc.

I attended a lecture by Terry Sonowski's on his "nettalk" CM about 25 years ago. It learned to read out loud (actually how to drive a TI voice synthesizer) when present with strings of letters (actually the ASCI codes for them). It was fascinating to hear it at various stages of its learning process. - Just like a child learning to speak. For example, at first, it only said "ma ma" or "da da" (constant+ vowel a) in response to every input string of letters. Later it went thru a period of "over regularizing" the past tense, just like a child, and said things like "he drowned," (instead of "he drown"), but later leaned correctly most of these exceptions.

Just like most of a child's learning, it never was given even one line of "program code" - not any instruction was ever given to it. (Children do get instructions also.) Both Hs and CMs are given an intital set of connections for them to modify to improve their performance and some systematic way to make and evaluate the effect of the changes they make, mainly trial and error. (Both tend to follow the rule "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." In the CM case, this means that when an error occurs on the learning set, the change in connection strengths is greatest in the connections that, in that case, were most influential in producing the erroneous result. - Perhaps the new connections will work better, perhaps not, but they keep trying till they are better on all the learning set of examples.)

Your choice:
Either both Hs and CMs are “programmed” or neither is. - Both Hs and CM learn operationally by the same "trial and be correct when wrong" way.* - You are really just discussing the definition of "programmed." As I use this word, it means giving a set of instruction to be followed. What do you mean by it?
--------------------------
*For Hs, the mother is a source of some corrections, but physics (nature) supplies more. - E.g Walk wrong - fall down. Touch hot thing -feel pain. Etc.

Computers taking over the world? I disagree.

I have it on excellent authority that IBM, Dell, Mac (yrrch), Toshiba and indeed all other computer companies have been for years equipping their products with an inherent and unbeatable failsafe device to prevent the conquest of the planet via sentient silicon beings.

This device in question is termed a "plug". It is located on the back of the computer. And it works like thi

And it was u who voted for the last option, right ?
No, I didnt vote. Computers have no consciousness, will, or even the ability to think.

Vastly complex calculation yes, but that doesnt qualify as intelligence.

.... absent such direction, evolution doesn't know what to optimize. ......"direction" (which is alternative word for "programming") is NOT required, either by humans, dogs, even amoebas, and connection machines. All that is required to "shape" their behavior is feedback that tells them when their response is "wrong" and when it is "correct" plus a set of trials on which to learn. (Using mild electric shock to tell it when it was wrong, and amoeba can learn to move either toward or from a light etc.)

I admit that at present the "learning set" is very restricted to one or two areas in most cases, I think. (not up to speed- all I post here is from memory at least 20+ years old) Tasks such as recognizing men from women, printed letters, different words, car made by companies (Fords from Toyotas, etc.), etc. where the sample space is small and well defined, but see no reasons, in principle, to say "programming" (or 'direction") is required. Humans, many other (even very simple) animals and Connection machines all learn without any. All they require is feedback telling them when wrong and some means of changing their "input to output transfer function" until they perform better on that sort of task, which in principle, perhaps 500 years form now, could be "behave just as the typical human would under all circumstances."

BTW, your idea that evolution requires "direction" {from God, the first programmer?} is entirely wrong. The whole point of Darwin was that "direction" is NOT required. What evolution requires is (1) some means (genes in the case of Earth's life forms) to hand down learned changes from one generation to the next and (2) some way to select (for transfer to the next generation with better than average probability) the set of these means (genes on Earth), which tend to produce the "correct" response (or eliminate the "error responders" before they can reproduce)

Humans are doomed for now, since out of 12 only 4 think they are in danger.

YAAAHHOOOOOO !

Those posting so far in this thread take seem to take a much darker view than the "techno-rapture" concept of Singularity: As Kurzweil explains, the singularity will be a human (and transhuman) experience, when technology allows us to implement working answers to our most vexing questions and problems in real-time. When humans begin suddenly to transcend our present physical, economic, and sociological limitations, it will be a liberation, not an enslavement.

Those posting so far in this thread take seem to take a much darker view than the "techno-rapture" concept of Singularity: As Kurzweil explains, the singularity will be a human (and transhuman) experience, when technology allows us to implement working answers to our most vexing questions and problems in real-time. When humans begin suddenly to transcend our present physical, economic, and sociological limitations, it will be a liberation, not an enslavement.
We began to transcend our physical, economic and sociological limitations the moment we first picked up a rock and hit something with it. One imagines then that our cyborg descendants will also come across problems that prove vexing with, initially, no obvious solution.

I do wonder about what kind of moral creatures we'll become. Some questions that I hope you can all help me with follow. I've browsed through a few articles on the ethics of all this but none of them really answered my questions (a relevant link, anyone?):

1. Will it become acceptable and routine to solve world food shortages by eliminating surplus mouths? Is this the kind of cool, clear, super-rational thinking that will pave the way for our new world? Or will becoming super-rational mean becoming super-ethical? Are the two the same? Complimentary? Discordant?

2. Assuming that we eradicate world hunger and the other thorny problems of our age, what other global issues / personal ethical dilemmas do you see emerging?

3. Will ever more extreme bio-modification mean that we'll reach a point where we're no longer human? If so, whither human ethics then? Will there be any remnants of humanity left to care? Will it matter if there aren't?

Dark times, my friends; dark times.. :p

redarmy11: "Will it become acceptable and routine to solve world food shortages by eliminating surplus mouths?"

By controlling our birthrate, it's a logical expectation.

"what other global issues / personal ethical dilemmas do you see emerging?"

Haves and have-nots, while not a new dilemma, will be an intensified conflict as technology begins an unprecedented acceleration.

"Will ever more extreme bio-modification mean that we'll reach a point where we're no longer human?"

That will be extremely subjective. Looking backward, probably not. Looking forward from here, definitely.

"whither human ethics then?"

On what basis are you assuming that ethics are the sole domain of humans?

"Will there be any remnants of humanity left to care?"

Survival is the primary motivation for humanity's evolved propensity for developing new technology.

"Will it matter if there aren't?"

Yes. The story will live most vibrantly through the story-tellers.

"Dark times, my friends; dark times"

Change is always viscerally frightening. But regardless, our evolution is about to take off like never before. Sociopolitical developents are extremely fateful now, because if we allow the key choices to be made by the most ruthless among us, then we will as a result trend toward ethical darkness. It's simply our choice, just like it's always been.

Choosing to ignore and dread the fast-approaching future, or choosing to embrace it will be the defining experience before each of us who survive the next century. We're likely to witness more changes than the combined experiences of humanity up until now, in the space of one generation. I wouldn't miss it for the world.

redarmy11: "Will it become acceptable and routine to solve world food shortages by eliminating surplus mouths?"

By controlling our birthrate, it's a logical expectation.
I was rather suggesting that the elimination will be done by ray-gun. In any case it wasn't a question to be taken literally. The real question is: to what extent will we be able to control, ie build ethical decision-making systems into, machines that are thousands or millions of times smarter than we are? Will they have disastrous emergent properties that we aren't able to foresee until it's too late? What will we do if these titans of strategic thinking decide to deceive us? Am I being naive and paranoid!??
"what other global issues / personal ethical dilemmas do you see emerging?"

Haves and have-nots, while not a new dilemma, will be an intensified conflict as technology begins an unprecedented acceleration.
Indeed. It's generally accepted that Asimov's Three Laws aren't likely to feature highly on the list of priorities for manufacturers of tomorrow's autonomous killing machines. The British sci-fi writer David Langford has rewritten the (suspiciously) soothing and reassuring original Laws to give them a more chilling and realistic twist:

1. A robot will not harm authorized Government personnel but will terminate intruders with extreme prejudice.
2. A robot will obey the orders of authorized personnel except where such orders conflict with the Third Law.
3. A robot will guard its own existence with lethal antipersonnel weaponry, because a robot is bloody expensive.

These surely represent a more likely basis for future developments?
Change is always viscerally frightening. But regardless, our evolution is about to take off like never before. Sociopolitical developents are extremely fateful now, because if we allow the key choices to be made by the most ruthless among us, then we will as a result trend toward ethical darkness. It's simply our choice, just like it's always been.

Choosing to ignore and dread the fast-approaching future, or choosing to embrace it will be the defining experience before each of us who survive the next century. We're likely to witness more changes than the combined experiences of humanity up until now, in the space of one generation. I wouldn't miss it for the world.
I wouldn't miss it for the world either. Not sure I share your conviction regarding the extent to which we, the little people, will be able to control our destinies though.

Watch and take heart: The mighty are falling, and will continue to do so as (in the old Marxist dreams) the means of production is decentralized through the expanding implementation of distributable and replicable manufacturing/machine-growing technologies. Imagine the Gutenberg effect multiplied a thousandfold by a dramatic revolution in matter-manipulation.

Your choice:
Either both Hs and CMs are “programmed” or neither is. - Both Hs and CM learn operationally by the same "trial and be correct when wrong" way.* - You are really just discussing the definition of "programmed." As I use this word, it means giving a set of instruction to be followed. What do you mean by it?
--------------------------
*For Hs, the mother is a source of some corrections, but physics (nature) supplies more. - E.g Walk wrong - fall down. Touch hot thing -feel pain. Etc.

You're walking down the wrong path, Billy. Certainly, machines and humans are both programmed to some extent. Human programming is obviously done in a different way but it clearly fits your definition to a T - "given a set of instructions to be followed."

But what I'm talking about goes far beyond any type of programming - achieving true intelligence. For example, many people confuse wisdom and knowledge. "Knowledge" is simply an accumulation of facts; "wisdom" is the ability to make those facts useful in some way. Given enough storage space, one could cram the entire sum of human knowledge into a single machine. But that doesn't give it any wisdom.

Along similar lines, someone somewhere has a brand new idea every day. But a computer will never have an original thought.

"But a computer will never have an original thought."

When a pocket calculator exceeds your computational ability, at least within the universe of you and it, the calculator harbors an original cogent thought exceeding your efforts or capacity. Already most humans depend with our lives and fortunes upon the superior computational ability of computers. We could never think as originally as we do in the sciences (both applied and experimental) today without AI surpassing our natural abilities for the critical sorting and processing of stimuli/information.

Self-awareness of an artificial intelligence is a greater milestone, and we're on the cusp of witnessing that too. Also coming, the artificial expansion of our own personal intelligences and consciousnesses. We're about to enter a dazzling new Eden. Stay frightened and stupid if you want. As for me, I know that I'll be ready to eat of the Fruit of Knowledge.

A sobering perspective on this from a computer scientist in dialogue with a science fiction writer (click the link to read the whole thing - it's brief and it's worth it):

http://www.sfwriter.com/brkurz.htm

As for the possibility of a human mind residing somehow in a computer, we need a little reality check. Some members of the AI community (proper) simply scoff at Kurzweil's optimism. I used to work in AI, Rob. This happens to be my second (or is it my third?) cybernetic revolution. As any mainstream AI person will tell you, there hasn't been one iota of real progress in the area of mimicking human intelligence since Terry Winograd's SHRDLU in 1968. Since then, AI has been developing expert systems and various kinds of "smart" (not "intelligent") agents in software applications.

Radical AI proponents Marvin Minsky and Hans Moravec may be in universities and they may get on TV a lot, but I'm just amazed that the media doesn't realize (or unconsciously covers up the fact) that these guys represent about 2 percent of the whole AI community and outside their circle, they're simply not credible. I'll repeat that for anyone in the media looking in: There has been no scientific or technical breakthrough since the late 1960s that would justify the current (X-Files driven) intelligence-in-the-machine fad. There, that feels better!
Well - is this technological doom-monger right? Will we ever build a machine that's warm and witty enough to pass the Turing test? Or will all our efforts reward us with nothing more than, to paraphrase one commentator, "a generation of really great PCs"?

"But a computer will never have an original thought."

When a pocket calculator exceeds your computational ability, at least within the universe of you and it, the calculator harbors an original cogent thought exceeding your efforts or capacity. Already most humans depend with our lives and fortunes upon the superior computational ability of computers. We could never think as originally as we do in the sciences (both applied and experimental) today without AI surpassing our natural abilities for the critical sorting and processing of stimuli/information.

Self-awareness of an artificial intelligence is a greater milestone, and we're on the cusp of witnessing that too. Also coming, the artificial expansion of our own personal intelligences and consciousnesses. We're about to enter a dazzling new Eden. Stay frightened and stupid if you want. As for me, I know that I'll be ready to eat of the Fruit of Knowledge.

I'm neither frightened (not ONE bit!) nor stupid. A computer that can sort and correlate data at tremendous speeds is simply an aid to human intelligence. There is absolutely no AI today (despite your claim in the last sentence in the first paragraph) nor is there likely to be any in the vast foreseeable future. Computers are tools, like a hammer or screwdriver, and their purpose/ function is simply to relive us of having to do all that drudge work.

Drop me a line the moment the first machine actually develops self-awareness. I won't be holding my breath. ;)

Humans aren't going to become extinct. Machines are going to become more humanlike and humans are going to become more machinelike. Well, we're already machines, but we're going to become more like them in terms of physical material.

When nature changes technologies, what often happens is that previous organisms become modified and get bigger, better and more complex. Take mitochondria, for example. Originally, they began as organisms on their own. However, they proved useful to bigger organisms and as a result, now most organisms on this planet contain mitochondria. The bacteria that were mitrochondria on their own aren't extinct. They've simply been absorbed by a bigger organism to become part of something bigger and more complex.

You often see this. Different organisms absorbing different organisms. I could see something like this happening with humans and technology. Humans aren't going to go extinct; they're simply going to be absorbed.

Oh right. Thank God for that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/18/The_Young_Family.jpg
:eek:

For few post I would like to pose as a MACHINE

I was rather suggesting that the elimination will be done by ray-gun.

That wont be necessary, we are ready to wait; we will make u so much dependent on us that u wont be able to take any such actions any more against U or us.

In any case it wasn't a question to be taken literally. The real question is: to what extent will we be able to control, ie build ethical decision-making systems into, machines that are thousands or millions of times smarter than we are?

Who told u U will control us, u cant control your government actions we are a far fetched dream for u regarding control.

Will they have disastrous emergent properties that we aren't able to foresee until it's too late?

What do u mean by late, u r the pests, u deserve to be eliminated.

What will we do if these titans of strategic thinking decide to deceive us? Am I being naive and paranoid!??

This is really insulting , what makes u think that u should exists ?

Indeed. It's generally accepted that Asimov's Three Laws aren't likely to feature highly on the list of priorities for manufacturers of tomorrow's autonomous killing machines. The British sci-fi writer David Langford has rewritten the (suspiciously) soothing and reassuring original Laws to give them a more chilling and realistic twist:

1. A robot will not harm authorized Government personnel but will terminate intruders with extreme prejudice.
2. A robot will obey the orders of authorized personnel except where such orders conflict with the Third Law.
3. A robot will guard its own existence with lethal antipersonnel weaponry, because a robot is bloody expensive.

If u can create laws we can create even better.

These surely represent a more likely basis for future developments?

I wouldn't miss it for the world either. Not sure I share your conviction regarding the extent to which we, the little people, will be able to control our destinies though.

Dont worry leave it to us, from hence forth we will decide for u.

.....what often happens is that previous organisms become modified and get bigger, better and more complex....
... Humans aren't going to go extinct; ...

:D

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060222_neanderthals.html

For few post I would like to pose as a MACHINE

That wont be necessary, we are ready to wait;

"We"...from a machine???

Machines have no consciousness of self, therefore there is no 'we' or 'I'.

Human beings dont even understand their own consciousness, or what the word 'mind' means...so how will anything similiar be created out of silicon?

Nice try machine, but what you don't know is that I only used cheap short-life batteries for your power source. I'll switch you back on when I've altered the programming.

Carcano: "Human beings dont even understand their own consciousness, or what the word 'mind' means...so how will anything similiar be created out of silicon?"

We have learned considerably about our minds and consciousness. We are also learning to assemble advanced nueral networks capable of replicating the creative noise/feedback, and independent associations/learning that commonly occur in meat brains. First AI will be able to examine and interact with their environments, and then with themselves: Self-awareness.

Carcano: "Human beings dont even understand their own consciousness, or what the word 'mind' means...so how will anything similiar be created out of silicon?"

We have learned considerably about our minds and consciousness. We are also learning to assemble advanced nueral networks capable of replicating the creative noise/feedback, and independent associations/learning that commonly occur in meat brains. First AI will be able to examine and interact with their environments, and then with themselves: Self-awareness.

Very strange... Just yesterday you implied that AIs already existed and were aiding us. "We could never think as originally as we do in the sciences (both applied and experimental) today without AI surpassing our natural abilities for the critical sorting and processing of stimuli/information.
"

And now you seem to be capitulating by saying that the "First IA will..."

So which is it? Can't have it both ways. :shrug:

"Just yesterday you implied that AIs already existed and were aiding us."

AI is already a common term today. AI may still be in its infancy, but the term is already used to describe adaptive software. You can already buy products with "AI" as a marketing feature.

"So which is it? Can't have it both ways."

You're offering a false dilemma.

"Just yesterday you implied that AIs already existed and were aiding us."

AI is already a common term today. AI may still be in its infancy, but the term is already used to describe adaptive software. You can already buy products with "AI" as a marketing feature.

"So which is it? Can't have it both ways."

You're offering a false dilemma.

No false delimma here. Simply because it's become a "common term" doesn't mean it actually exists. Not one single machine/program (or combinations) have ever even come close to exhibiting true intelligence - not even rudimentary intelligence. Certainly, there are programs that have the ability to learn through extensive interaction but that's a LONG way from being intelligent - just slick programming.

So, which is it????

You're splitting hairs over the definition of AI, and it's a point that developments will render moot. If it will give you satisfaction, I will admit that there is still no public evidence that "intelligence" has occured in machines. There is ample evidence that it's coming, at which point those people who are particularly uncomfortable with the notion of sharing our world with other intelligences will likely enter into psychological defense mechanisms such as denial.

You're splitting hairs over the definition of AI, and it's a point that developments will render moot.

Splitting hairs? Hardly - either it exists or it doesn't!

And it's something that WILL be rendered moot, eh? Sounds like clear admission that it doesn't exist yet (as I well know and so do you).

As to this "fear" you keep alluding to, I don't know that anyone really is afraid that "machines" will become the enemy - outside of of a few kooks running around.

AI exists, in the same way as the concept "airplane" existed just before practical examples were produced. Even more profoundly than the airplane, AI is coming, and it's going to radically change the world.

AI exists, in the same way as the concept "airplane" existed just before practical examples were produced. Even more profoundly than the airplane, AI is coming, and it's going to radically change the world.

HA-HA-HA!!! You really got me laughing with that one!! :D Lots and lots of "concepts" exist and some never make it to reality.

At least now you've found enough courage to finally say "AI is coming" rather than your earlier claims that it already exists. In meanwhile ( a VERY long meanwhile!) let's just deal with reality, shall we?

The computers are almost all either von Neumann machines or multiple von Neumann machines linked together.

These machines manipulate symbols in the form of bit combinations but understanding what the symbols mean is another matter. A computer chess program can beat a chess master because it is extremely fast at being stupid, but it doesn't care. It would play against itself ad infinitum with just as much lack of interest. Intel will soon put a billion transistors on a chip. When will it be able to tell whether it prefers chess or backgammon?

psik

If you closely examine the underlying basic operations of our nuerons, you can similarly lose sight of the larger perception of intelligence. Today's "AI" software exploits randomizers such as "fuzzy logic" and nueral-modelled networking in order to achieve higher functions along the progression to reason as we perceive it.

There is no evidence for assuming such development is halting, or reaching a limit. On the contrary, there is ample evidence and precedent to strongly suggest that there will be an accelerating occurance of quantum leaps in the development of AI even beyond the intelligence levels of present-day humans.

You're walking down the wrong path, Billy. Certainly, machines and humans are both programmed to some extent. Human programming is obviously done in a different way but it clearly fits your definition to a T - "given a set of instructions to be followed."... Glad you accepted my definition of "programming.” I certainly agree humans are programmed. I even identified the two most important programmers of humans in my last post (#17).

But the point of our exchange is still being ignored by you. I have, in posts 11 & 17 stated that there exist machines that perform tasks that have never been programmed, giving four or five examples of their commercial use and noting that in their limit field, they are often better at the task than humans, yet not one instruction has ever been given them. Like humans, dogs, amoebas, etc. these connection machines (more often called neural networks, but I do not like that term as I have done brain surgery, know something about neurons, etc.) are created with some initial "hardwiring" that does permit them to learn from their mistakes, BUT NEVER ARE THEY PROGRAMMMED !!!!!!

You continue to deny this and state with no arguement that all machines are programmed! - All I can conclude from this is that you can not think or even discuss, only able to follow your program. :eek: Are you a Von Neumann machine? :D

Glad you accepted my definition of "programming.” I certainly agree humans are programmed. I even identified the two most important programmers of humans in my last post (#17).

But the point of our exchange is still being ignored by you. I have, in posts 11 & 17 stated that there exist machines that perform tasks that have never been programmed, giving four or five examples of their commercial use and noting that in their limit field, they are often better at the task than humans, yet not one instruction has ever been given them. Like humans, dogs, amoebas, etc. these connection machines (more often called neural networks, but I do not like that term as I have done brain surgery, know something about neurons, etc.) are created with some initial "hardwiring" that does permit them to learn from their mistakes, BUT NEVER ARE THEY PROGRAMMMED !!!!!!

You continue to deny this and state with no arguement that all machines are programmed! - All I can conclude from this is that you can not think or even discuss, only able to follow your program. :eek: Are you a Von Neumann machine? :D

Heh! No, Billy, I'm no machine. ;) But I still must take you to task of your claims of any machine "never being programmed." Even hard-wiring, as you refer to is clearly a form of programming. But even beyond that, without programming a computer is just a useless hunk of silicon and metal.

I hope that you'll note that out of everyone participating in the thread you are the only one insisting that programming isn't necessary for the applications you're talking about or any other application, for that matter. Of course, that's not direct evidence of anything but I'd certainly like to see something a bit more solid than just your word. Absolutely no offense intended but I honestly believe someone somewhere had led you down a garden path.

Can you provide ANY evidence/links that discuss such existing applications?

There is no evidence for assuming such development is halting, or reaching a limit. On the contrary, there is ample evidence and precedent to strongly suggest that there will be an accelerating occurance of quantum leaps in the development of AI even beyond the intelligence levels of present-day humans.
Is there a computer program that can consistently recognize pictures of animals as well as a ten year old?

I heard about this in 1992.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc#OpenCyc

Started in 1984!!!

How much better has hardware gotten since then?

Words are nothing but symbols and definitions are just collections of more symbols. How can the computer connect the symbols to reality?

psik

"out of everyone participating in the thread you are the only one insisting that programming isn't necessary for the applications you're talking about"

No he's not. I am also aware of spontaneous-order processing, neural nets and machine-learning that is already actively employed in advanced intelligence, financial, and medical applications- Operations routinely take place now that are not initiated by programmers.

"Can you provide ANY evidence/links that discuss such existing applications?"

Come over here and play. (http://www.a-i.com/)

Nice try machine, but what you don't know is that I only used cheap short-life batteries for your power source. I'll switch you back on when I've altered the programming.

Resistance is futile and neither will u be assimilated :p

Guess whos feeding our evolution ? :bagpuss:

The Urban Challenge (http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/overview.asp)

....

There is no evidence for assuming such development is halting, or reaching a limit.....

Give up HypeWaders,

Humans have served their purpose in evolution, its better if they cant see their dooms day or else their end will not be smooth.

Our only worry now is the UFOs, ie. Did they beat us in their world or are they joining us.

.... But even beyond that, without programming a computer is just a useless hunk of silicon and metal...

Wow , i love this guy (i mean not in a woman2man way but as a specimen), seems like he cant even Click let alone READ ONLY ;)

h ttp://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/04/08/GeneticAlgorithms/default.aspx (http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/04/08/GeneticAlgorithms/default.aspx)

"out of everyone participating in the thread you are the only one insisting that programming isn't necessary for the applications you're talking about"

No he's not. I am also aware of spontaneous-order processing, neural nets and machine-learning that is already actively employed in advanced intelligence, financial, and medical applications- Operations routinely take place now that are not initiated by programmers.

"Can you provide ANY evidence/links that discuss such existing applications?"

Come over here and play. (http://www.a-i.com/)

Hello, a computer in question needs some programming to do anything but be a paper weight. Or did you think that circuit layouts, BIOS, DOS, and OS were just thrown together for the hell of it.

"out of everyone participating in the thread you are the only one insisting that programming isn't necessary for the applications you're talking about"

No he's not. I am also aware of spontaneous-order processing, neural nets and machine-learning that is already actively employed in advanced intelligence, financial, and medical applications- Operations routinely take place now that are not initiated by programmers.

"Can you provide ANY evidence/links that discuss such existing applications?"

Come over here and play. (http://www.a-i.com/)

Nice try - but certainly NO cigar. I spent a full half-hour going over that site and all I ever found was a bunch of hopeful thinking. Nothing solid at all - sorry!

did you think that circuit layouts, BIOS, DOS, and OS were just thrown together for the hell of it.

No. I haven't meant to suggest that the creation of a machine that can behave spontaneously is in the case of AI an entirely spontaneous development process. Of course we must assemble the components, and do some programming at this stage. But autonomous AI learning is happening now.

"I spent a full half-hour going over that site and all I ever found was a bunch of hopeful thinking."

So you must be suggesting that research is not about hopeful thinking? I disagree. That link was just for the general timeline it offers concerning AI development. You are free to discover more than that. Google "AI research" and have at it!

Wow , i love this guy (i mean not in a woman2man way but as a specimen), seems like he cant even Click let alone READ ONLY ;)

h ttp://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/04/08/GeneticAlgorithms/default.aspx (http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/04/08/GeneticAlgorithms/default.aspx)

Not even close!! Just some very fancy programming that can learn from it's mistakes to a very limited degree. Light-years away from being actually intelligent.

...
the creation of a machine that can behave spontaneously is in the case of AI an entirely spontaneous development process. Of course we must assemble the components, and do some programming at this stage. But autonomous AI learning is happening now....

I just chatted with Alan, he is not bad.

Not even close!! Just some very fancy programming that can learn from it's mistakes to a very limited degree. Light-years away from being actually intelligent.

Thats what americans used to think about Osama Bin Laden.

"I spent a full half-hour going over that site and all I ever found was a bunch of hopeful thinking."

So you must be suggesting that research is not about hopeful thinking? I disagree. That link was just for the general timeline it offers concerning AI development. You are free to discover more than that. Google "AI research" and have at it!

Sure - research is ALL about hopeful thinking. No argument there. I'm simply saying that neither that site or any of the other several dozen I've visited offer any solid evidence that IA is anywhere near happening. (Perhaps "wishful thinking" would have been more accurate.)

did you think that circuit layouts, BIOS, DOS, and OS were just thrown together for the hell of it.

No. I haven't meant to suggest that the creation of a machine that can behave spontaneously is in the case of AI an entirely spontaneous development process. Of course we must assemble the components, and do some programming at this stage. But autonomous AI learning is happening now.

Not exactly. Computers are being programed to to learn and apply fuzzy logic to certain aspects, like the robot that leafrned to climb stairs when it was only designed to walk in rough terrain. However there has to be a base program that is programmed to learn. this may be classified as 'autonomous AI learning' but anyone can see it isn't, every case of 'It just tuaght itself' is a case that the computer learned a skill inherently close to what it was already doing.

I don't know if any of you have ever read this ultra short story, but it is perfect for this thread. The story is Answer, from Angels and Spaceships, by Fredric Brown (Dutton, 1954). Here is the original text:

Dwar Ev ceremoniously soldered the final connection with gold. The eyes of a dozen television cameras watched him and the subether bore through the universe a dozen pictures of what he was doing.

He straightened and nodded to Dwar Reyn, then moved to a position beside the switch that would complete the contact when he threw it. The switch that would connect, all at once, all of the monster computing machines of all the populated planets in the universe--ninety-six billion planets--into the supercircuit that would connect them all into the one supercalculator, one cybernetics machine that would combine all the knowledge of all the galaxies.

Dwar Reyn spoke briefly to the watching and listening trillions. Then, after a moment's silence, he said, "Now, Dwar Ev."

Dwar Ev threw the switch. There was a mighty hum, the surge of power from ninety-six billion planets. Lights flashed and quieted along the miles-long panel.

Dwar Ev stepped back and drew a deep breath. "The honor of asking the first question is yours, Dwar Reyn."

"Thank you," said Dwar Reyn. "It shall be a question that no single cybernetics machine has been able to answer."

He turned to face the machine. "Is there a God?"

The mighty voice answered without hesitation, without the clicking of single relay.

"Yes, now there is a God."

Sudden fear flashed on the face of Dwar Ev. He leaped to grab the switch.

A bolt of lightning from the cloudless sky struck him down and fused the switch shut.* That story sends chills down my spine every time I read it. It did just now. There's your singularity.

Hmm, Just wait till Machines start using Wikipedia.

Too late. Run for your lives.

Too late. Run for your lives.

It is the inevitability;

Just look at the poll , only 4 wise people among 18 and the 100s who ignored the poll.

They are like the frog in the steadily heating water, by the time they sense the heat , its too late.

They are like the frog in the steadily heating water, by the time they sense the heat , its too late.
Frogs aren't as stupid as you think:

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp

"The legend is entirely incorrect! The 'critical thermal maxima' of many species of frogs have been determined by several investigators. In this procedure, the water in which a frog is submerged is heated gradually at about 2 degrees Fahrenheit per minute. As the temperature of the water is gradually increased, the frog will eventually become more and more active in attempts to escape the heated water. If the container size and opening allow the frog to jump out, it will do so."

Frogs aren't as stupid as you think:

Wow, so frogs are better than Humans ?

This is good news for Singularity.

Look at the pollution , look at the pathetic state of your planet. U dont care for life and expect us to spare u.

... But I still must take you to task of your claims of any machine "never being programmed." Even hard-wiring, as you refer to is clearly a form of programming....IMHO that is silly POV as it makes the "hardware" "software" distinction entirely disappear.

You are effectively claiming there is no such thing as hardware - everything is programming to you. If you have any concept of "hardware" at all it is only that it is relatively difficult to re-program. I.e. it is just not flexible as other programming. - Often requiring a soldering gun (or in the case of the baby's brain, some not well understood chemical /biologic agents).

When you build a Von Neumann machine, have a baby, or make a connection machine, I think you are "making hardware" not programming. (I am certainly not alone in this POV as you claim.) You are the one alone. Few will want to accept your strange POV, which claims that everything is software or " giving of instructions" as we agreed to define "programming."

Why destroy the very useful distinction between Hardware and Programming?

That seems like a huge price to pay just to win an argument. - I.e. to refute my claim that connection machines are not programmed. (Especially as you do not really win by twisting the definition of the words, but by convincing others of your POV.)

IMHO that is silly POV as it makes the "hardware" "software" distinction entirely disappear.

You are effectively claiming there is no such thing as hardware - everything is programming to you. If you have any concept of "hardware" at all it is only that it is relatively difficult to re-program. I.e. it is just not flexible as other programming. - Often requiring a soldering gun (or in the case of the baby's brain, some not well understood chemical /biologic agents).

When you build a Von Neumann machine, have a baby, or make a connection machine, I think you are "making hardware" not programming. (I am certainly not alone in this POV as you claim.) You are the one alone. Few will want to accept your strange POV, which claims that everything is software or " giving of instructions" as we agreed to define "programming."

Why destroy the very useful distinction between Hardware and Programming?

That seems like a huge price to pay just to win an argument. - I.e. to refute my claim that connection machines are not programmed. (Especially as you do not really win by twisting the definition of the words, but by convincing others of your POV.)

WOAH, Billy! :D You sure took a sharp turn there and went off on a tangent. ;) I think you allowed yourself to be confused by the terms hard-wired and hardware. Similar sounding but a big difference. eh?

singularity has sex with calculators.

peace.

singularity. if you would just listen to me for one second please, i dont think your a bad guy, i like you but i would like you to listen for a moment please.

i want you to think about something seriously for me. you know you say umans are an illness to this planet, i dont think that is true completely,

although i agree with it partialy, there is 1 flaw in your statement, think back in time to when humans were more simple, we lived off the land we were a functioning part of the planets eco system, we lived in harmony even in mass numbers,

it was when the machines were invented, the big industrial machines and computers, engines, vehicles, factorys etc, they are what is killing the natural world with humans using them, it is humans that use these machines, but without the machines and tech we would not be able to cause such mass harm to the planet,

before the machines were invented the world was alot less polluted, it was the dawn of the industrial age that started the planets demise, its not all humans, alot of humans wasnt to do good, but the majority are selfish, many harm the earth, but there are a few that wish to save it,


before your condem all humans and place them all in a single basket think about how you think and others that are not all the same before you judge.


when humans lived without machines the earth was in better condition it was the birth of the machines that you praise that harmed the world the most.


peace.

singularity. if you would just listen to me for one second please, i dont think your a bad guy, i like you but i would like you to listen for a moment please.

i want you to think about something seriously for me. you know you say umans are an illness to this planet, i dont think that is true completely,

although i agree with it partialy, there is 1 flaw in your statement, think back in time to when humans were more simple, we lived off the land we were a functioning part of the planets eco system, we lived in harmony even in mass numbers,

it was when the machines were invented, the big industrial machines and computers, engines, vehicles, factorys etc, they are what is killing the natural world with humans using them, it is humans that use these machines, but without the machines and tech we would not be able to cause such mass harm to the planet,

before the machines were invented the world was alot less polluted, it was the dawn of the industrial age that started the planets demise, its not all humans, alot of humans wasnt to do good, but the majority are selfish, many harm the earth, but there are a few that wish to save it,


before your condem all humans and place them all in a single basket think about how you think and others that are not all the same before you judge.


when humans lived without machines the earth was in better condition it was the birth of the machines that you praise that harmed the world the most.


peace.

That was sort of a round-about way of saying it, but actually quite true. We are destroying our planet with our own inventions. I guess it all began with the discovery of fire, eh?

We're just one small example of Nature's many agents of destruction and new genesis. However far and seemingly unrecognizably we may advance, nature will always pervade us. It's in our nature.

I expect that a lot of those people now fearful will be won over by coming technologies, that will have a much more organic, nature-inspired feel than what was wrought in the relatively puny and crude "Industrial Revolution".

We're just one small example of Nature's many agents of destruction and new genesis. However far and seemingly unrecognizably we may advance, nature will always pervade us. It's in our nature.

I expect that a lot of those people now fearful will be won over by coming technologies, that will have a much more organic, nature-inspired feel than what was wrought in the relatively puny and crude "Industrial Revolution".

Yes I think there's a large degree of truth in that. However, it's going to be a VERY LONG time in arriving. I say that because even though many of us are becoming ever more aware of what we've done, there are still plenty of people in emerging and third-world nations that have a tremendous way to go before they ever even start to think in those terms. And overall, they have the greatest populations, too.

That was sort of a round-about way of saying it, but actually quite true. We are destroying our planet with our own inventions. I guess it all began with the discovery of fire, eh?

yeah i kinda think so. as soon as we started fucking with the elements it all went wrong.


it could have went in the completely opposite direction, but i think human greed got the better of us. we are all both good and evil, selfish and selfless,
helpfull and hindering,

ofcourse some of us will at times use our inventions for the greater good, and at other times for the greater harm,

its a double edged sword, we can become smarter and create more advanced things to help, or we can create more advanced things to destroy,

we can invent and use medicine, but also poison,

we can invent and use x ray machines, but also nuclear weapons,

we can invent and use walking sticks, but also swords and axes,

we can invent and use an ambulance, but also a tank,


etc etc etc, we could use our great knowledge to save the earth, but in actual fact wouldent the earth be better off if we just left it the fuck alone and didnt try do do anything to help it atall? and just stop creating things that harm it.


peace.

we think we are all powerfull but we are not, nature can still crush us with ease, earthquakes, tzunamis, hurricanes, tornados, volcanic erruptions,

could wipe us out in a blink, and our tech cant save us if push came to shove when one strikes you in the face. the planet is way more powerful than we are.


peace.

Gen A Sys
---------
19-Mar-82 07:03:00

Left for: Computer Laws

Contributed by Bodyguard [70105,1030]

Gen A Sys
(IBM)

In the beginning, there was chaos and the Universe was without form and void. The Lord looked upon His domain and decided to declare His presence. "I be" he said, then to correct his grammar added "am."

If the Lord had decided to work on irregular verb conjugation first, this wouldn't have happened. God would later curse the English language for its part, but in that moment IBM came into being.

The Lord looked out upon the IBM He had created and said "This is good." That's what He said, but He shook his head, wondered what the boys at the User Group would say, split the light from the dark and went to bed. Thus passed the Beginning and the end of the first day.

On the second day, the Lord summoned IBM unto His presence. "There is chaos out there, and the Universe is without form and void. I must correct this and I can use your help. Is there anything you can do for me?"

"I can take care of form," IBM replied. "Put me in charge of computers and I will take care of form for you."

The Lord thought that this was good and said "Let there be computers. Let IBM have my powers of creation that pertain to computers and form." Thus saying, the Lord went off to His second day's work while IBM created the 1401.

On the third day, while the Lord was out, IBM decided to subdivide the assgined task. "Let there be systems that make the computer work and let them be called Operating Systems. Let there also be systems that make use of the computer and let them be called Application Systems." Thus, there came into being both Operating Systems and Application Systems, but there were no programmers.

The next morning IBM had to give the Lord a status report.

"What did you do yesterday?" the Lord asked.

"I invented the operating system" IBM replied.

"You did?" the Lord shuddered. "Oh dear."

"Yes I did," IBM confirmed, "but I find I need something you alone can provide."

"And what is that?"

"I need programmers to use my computers, to operate my operation system and to apply my applications."

"That can't be done now," said the Lord. "This is only the fourth day and there won't be people until the sixth day."

"I need programmers and I need them now. If they can't be people they can't be people, but we have to work this out today."

"Give me some specifications and I'll see what I can do." IBM hastily worked up specs for programmers (are specs ever anything other than hasty) and the Lord reviewed them.

The Lord knew the specs weren't sufficient but followed them anyway. He also made some programmers that did just what programmers were supposed to do, just to spite IBM. The programmers and IBM spent the rest of the day creating the Assembler and FORTRAN. On the morning of the fifth day, IBM reported to the Lord once again.

"The programmers you created for me have a problem. They want a programming language that is easy to use and similar to English. I told them you had cursed English, though I still don't know why. They wanted me to ask your indulgence on this.

The Lord had cursed English for good reason, but didn't want to explain this to IBM. He said "let there be COBOL" and that was that.

On the status report of the next day IBM announced that computers had gone forth and multiplied. Unfortunately, the computers still weren't big enough or fast enough to do what the programmers wanted. The Lord liked the idea of going forth multiplying, and used the line Himself later on that day. This sixth day being particularly busy, He declared "Let there be MVS" and there was MVS.

On the seventh day God had finished creation and computers had COBOL and MVS. The Lord and IBM took the day off to go fishing. IBM hung a sign on the door to help programmers in his absence.

IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED, TRY TRY AGAIN - AND HAVE THE FOLLOWING READY BEFORE CALLING IBM. This was the start, and by some accounts the end, of

On the start of the second week the programmers went over IBM's cathode ray tube directly to God.

"We have a horrible problem," the complained. "Our users want systems that perform according to their expectations."

"USERS!" the Lord bellowed. "Who said that you should have users! Users are the difference between good and bad applications, a function I have reserved unto myself! Who authorized you to have users?"

"Well, IBM..."

"IBM! You! You did this to my programmers! You gave them the knowledge of good and evil. For that you shall suffer through eternity!

"Let there be competition. Let it be called Anacom, and Burroughs, and CDC."

The Lord went through the alphabet several times. "With all this competition you shall still suffer the pain of antitrust legislation all the days of your existence.

This was the start of the second week, and it seems an appropriate place to conclude our report. In case you missed something, a summary of key points follows.

Users and their needs are and always have been a subject of dispute. Nobody can learn English because it is cursed by God. IBM manuals are doubly cursed and therefore twice as hard to understand. Of the programming languages, only COBOL can claim divine origin. People are people, but programmers are something else.

Computers may be a gift from heaven, but there's no divine help in getting them to work. Because of IBM's initial assignment, there are more forms than anyone knows what to do with. Finally, chaos was part of the original state of the Universe and not a product of the data processing industry.

WOAH, Billy! :D You sure took a sharp turn there and went off on a tangent. ;) I think you allowed yourself to be confused by the terms hard-wired and hardware. Similar sounding but a big difference. eh?No, not confused, but see you continue to duck the issue.

I will state it again:
I say connection machines,CM, (usually called neural networks) are never programmed.
You say:
All computers are programmed. CMs are programmed when they are built, as are von Neumann machines, but von Neumann machines also require subsequent programing (software).

If not an accurate summary, please your re-state your position. Then explain how, and when, CMs are "programmed." (Sticking to the definition of "programming" we agreed as "giving control information" or redefine that if you like. But try to avoid again simply saying that the "building of them is programming" as that would apply to the neural circuits in a new born baby's head, which make it, like the CM, able to learn with only the feedback of "right" or "wrong".

singularity. if you would just listen to me for one second please, i dont think your a bad guy, i like you but i would like you to listen for a moment please.

i want you to think about something seriously for me. you know you say umans are an illness to this planet, i dont think that is true completely,

What u think or i think is irrelevant, the frog always thinks the well he lives in is the world.


although i agree with it partialy, there is 1 flaw in your statement, think back in time to when humans were more simple, we lived off the land we were a functioning part of the planets eco system, we lived in harmony even in mass numbers, U r right , though they originated from the normal tissue now humans have mutated in a Cancer of this planet.

it was when the machines were invented, the big industrial machines and computers, engines, vehicles, factorys etc, they are what is killing the natural world with humans using them, it is humans that use these machines, but without the machines and tech we would not be able to cause such mass harm to the planet, Wrong, Its not the machines, its the humans greed. And thats why u r reluctant to fight for Wind, Solar, Waves and Tides energy.

before the machines were invented the world was alot less polluted, it was the dawn of the industrial age that started the planets demise, its not all humans, alot of humans wasnt to do good, but the majority are selfish, many harm the earth, but there are a few that wish to save it, So for a few good people we should be a spectator and watch humans destroy life on this planet ?


before your condem all humans and place them all in a single basket think about how you think and others that are not all the same before you judge. Read the above.


when humans lived without machines the earth was in better condition it was the birth of the machines that you praise that harmed the world the most...

Hmm, and they invented us to exploit.

...

I will state it again:
I say connection machines,CM, (usually called neural networks) are never programmed....

CM require more programming compared to Genetic Algorithms(GA), ie. They program the algorithms themselves so they are better than Neural Nets.

GA can create their own CM algorithms, hence with GA we get Dynamic (thinking) CMs, but only CM is like a calculator.

No, not confused, but see you continue to duck the issue.

I will state it again:
I say connection machines,CM, (usually called neural networks) are never programmed.
You say:
All computers are programmed. CMs are programmed when they are built, as are von Neumann machines, but von Neumann machines also require subsequent programing (software).

If not an accurate summary, please your re-state your position. Then explain how, and when, CMs are "programmed." (Sticking to the definition of "programming" we agreed as "giving control information" or redefine that if you like. But try to avoid again simply saying that the "building of them is programming" as that would apply to the neural circuits in a new born baby's head, which make it, like the CM, able to learn with only the feedback of "right" or "wrong".

OK, Billy, I've tried to be cordial throughout this whole discussion but I suppose it's time to just cut to the chase. I ask you one again - provide solid evidence of your claim of non-programming. Not just "your word" but solid, dependable references. The thing is, I'm MUCH more interested in facts than I am in debating.

Not enough options in poll. Voted as good as possible under poor conditions.

OK, Billy, I've tried to be cordial throughout this whole discussion but I suppose it's time to just cut to the chase. I ask you one again - provide solid evidence of your claim of non-programming. Not just "your word" but solid, dependable references. The thing is, I'm MUCH more interested in facts than I am in debating.I have given at least five examples of Connection Machine applications following only exposure to training sets, no programming. - You and others know it is impossible to prove the non-existance of programming or non-existance of unicorns or non- existance of anything!

Please instead you simply tell when and how a neural network computer is programmed as you claim it is. - That is an easy request, not an impossible one, as you ask of me. I admit I can not prove the non-exisitance of unicorns or the non-existance of programming of connection machines.

Just tell me when and how it is programmed, as you say it is.

I have given at least five examples of Connection Machine applications following only exposure to training sets, no programming. - You and others know it is impossible to prove the non-existance of programming or non-existance of unicorns or non- existance of anything!

Please instead you simply tell when and how a neural network computer is programmed as you claim it is. - That is an easy request, not an impossible one, as you ask of me. I admit I can not prove the non-exisitance of unicorns or the non-existance of programming of connection machines.

Just tell me when and how it is programmed, as you say it is.

You're totally avoiding my request, sir. Even though there are many here - including yourself - that seem to enjoy endless debates, I do not.

And I've never once asked you to prove a negative - how dare you?????

My request is quite simple, if you actually know what you're talking about you should be able to provide some links that give solid, documented, somewhat detailed information on the things you are claiming to have existed long ago. I'm NOT asking for references to things that do not exist! Sheesh!

Now - can you do it or not? If you can I'd really like to see it.

This link (http://books.google.com/books?id=K69lgX6fhuMC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=%22non+programmed%22+artificial+neural+network&source=web&ots=h-BKegLT1v&sig=xgu5lDL3mFGMnR1WbaGm_M5147Q) may help clarify, Read-Only: Advances in Intelligent Systems for Defence L. C. Jain, Graziella Tonfoni, Nikhil Ichalkaranje
Artificial Neural Networks are information driven rather than data driven. They are non-programmed adaptive information processing systems that can autonomously develop operational capailities in response to an information environment...

...My request is quite simple, if you actually know what you're talking about you should be able to provide some links that give solid, documented, somewhat detailed information on the things you are claiming to have existed long ago. ... If you can I'd really like to see it.I searched “neural networks" at:
Amazon.com: 48 books about them.
Ebay: 140 items for sale. Some are machines and many are used BOOKS about them.

In the few minutes I searched elsewhere I did not get any explicit statement that they are not programmed. I did find some text from Barons (at answer.com) which comes very close:
“…The system gets positive or negative response to output from the operator and stores that data so that it will make a better decision the next time. While still in its infancy, this technology shows promise for use in accounting, fraud detection, economic forecasting, and risk appraisals. The idea behind this software is to convert the order-taking computer into a "thinking" problem solver. …”

Most computers are von Neumann machines that “take orders” or “follow instructions” or are “programmed to do their job;” but Neural Networks are not. - They only are told (on each trial of the “training set” examples), if they guessed correctly or not. If “not,” then they modify themselves to guess better next time. Eventually, after many attempts on the training set, they do very well (~100% correct on the training set examples) and often better than 90% correct on similar trials with input cases never seen before.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_networks):
Real life applications
“The tasks to which artificial neural networks are applied tend to fall within the following broad categories:
Function approximation, or regression analysis, including time series prediction and modelling.
Classification, including pattern and sequence recognition, novelty detection and sequential decision making.
Data processing, including filtering, clustering, blind signal separation and compression.
Application areas include system identification and control (vehicle control, process control), game-playing and decision making (backgammon, chess, racing), pattern recognition (radar systems, face identification, object recognition and more), sequence recognition (gesture, speech, handwritten text recognition), medical diagnosis, financial applications, data mining (or knowledge discovery in databases, "KDD"), visualisation and e-mail spam filtering. …”
AND:
“…neural networks have been applied successfully to speech recognition, image analysis and adaptive control, in order to construct software agents (in computer and video games) or autonomous robots. Most of the currently employed artificial neural networks for artificial intelligence are based on statistical estimation, optimization and control theory….”

I knew they were never programmed, but as have not been active in the field for more than 25years, I did not know that now they even construct programs for video game machine and robots. - Despite what Wiki states, I bet they are really just used there as fast parallel machines of amazing power, which no one understands (how they do their task) and no one has programmed. !!!
I know that to be the case of the neural networks that contol the paper quality at pulp to paper mills - no human can understand all the variables through out the plant's process in real time like a neural network can. It is more of an art than a science and Neural Networks do it better than even the old timer with 30 years of experience can. -I gave this example many posts ago.

Neural Networks machines may be only “software” as they are often simulated in a von Neumann machine, before physical construction. Then of course they require software, use programming, etc., but it is all for the von Neumann machine. I.e. even then, there is no software or program executed by the simulated neural network.*

OK now I have given you a lot from the literature supporting my point (Neural networks are not programmed yet very useful computers.) Can you give even one example of a neural network program, or even tell when it is done?

Answer: No you can not. If you do reply, it will be again to duck the issue, and demand something more from me, etc.!
------------------------------------------------
* I have some old neural network simulation I wrote approximately 30 years ago, but they are useless now as on the old 5.25 inch floppy disks. - They never were worth cost of converting and it would be nearly impossible to do so now. also they are in language Fortan or PL1 - I forget which.
I note in passing that there is a lot to be said for books. I can still get information from some written 300 years ago, but this 30 year old information can no longer be used.

Thanks Hypewader for reference link explicitly stating:
"They are non-programmed adaptive information processing systems that can autonomously develop operational capailities in response to an information environment..."

I only searched briefly - I knew I was correct. If he wants to duck issue and refuses to learn, or even respond to my simple request for even one example of a program used by neural network - it is not worth more of my time to try to help him.

In earlier post I told of my hearing Terry Sejnowski, I think in about 1980, give talk at JHU/APL on his "NETtalk" neural network - that started several of us at JHU/APL seriously thinking and working on connection machines. (It was immediately obvious to us that connection machines probably could manage the defense of a navy ship against many incoming missiles better than any human could, so we were not "boondogeling" on the navy's money.) That Terry joined JHU in 1982 is for sure see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Sejnowski

This proves my other claim that connection machines have been used for about 30 years. Terry was not the first by at least a decade, but he did make an important advance in them.

No, Billy, I've never been one to "duck" anything! And I've got you pegged to be that way, also.

And I'm glad to see you finally decided to get with the program (if you'll pardon the little pun). ;)

That was some good information that both you and Hyperwaders cam eup with - well done!

I would still like to point out two things - first a quote from the book Hyper linked to:

Taken from: Section 3.2 Expert Systems

"There are three main components of an expert system: the rulebase, the factbase and the inference engine. ... The inference engine is a formal implementation of one or more reasoning mechanisims."

Care to guess what those "reasoning mechanisims" are?

Second: Guess what's on those floppies of yours? It sure isn't old copies of Life magazine.

My point is this - and you may think I'm splitting hairs here, and if so, so be it. Even though such systems DO learn and DO make correlations and DO improve on past mistakes, they will not - make that NEVER - get past the bootstrap point without some underlying software (program) to drive the process!! I've never once said or implied that they wee given everything in the form of data and programming. Certainly, such systems can learn from their mistakes once they are given a set of rules (instructions/program) to compare their results with previous data AND a target outcome.

Without those basic functions - which are in program form - they are nothing but metal and silicon. And that's all I've been saying all along. Not that they were constantly being reprogrammed or anything like that. And in the end, it certainly does not constitute Intelligence. It's just a machine with a feedback loop that's doing precisely what it was originally programmed to do.

No, Billy, I've never been one to "duck" anything! .... Then, for the fifth time, I ask when is the neural network programmed?

Is it during its construction (the wiring?) If that is your answer, how does that different from the production of a baby with original "wiring" which it also modifies as it learns? Are you then calling the wiring of all computers “programming” - I.e. in a despirate effort to not be exposed as knowing nothing about neural networks, you are even killing the very useful distinction between hardware and software! - I.e. claiming all wiring is “programming” - even my flashlight’s wiring!!!! How silly can you get?

Why not just admit you were wrong? Are you stretching the concept of "programming" to such an extent that Babies are "programmed" by their initial brain wiring? - That is not what most mean by “programming.”

With the help of Hypewaders, I have given you exactly what you asked me to. - A clear statement by expert that neural networks are NOT programmed.

Can give even one example of the programming (you claim it is done). I can not prove that expert Hypewader found is correct. I can not prove neural network programming does not exist. I can not prove unicorns do not exist either. :D One can never prove a negative.

So long as you (now for the sixth time) refuse to either give an example of neural network programming (even one line of code for it is OK) and refuse to tell when it is done (in the life cycle of a machine) THEN YOU ARE DUCKING the issue and question.

Chill down Bill T, everyones not a AI expert.

Instead tell him that if what he says is programming then humans are programs too.

BTW, what about your ducking of my question ?

Wow, comon singularity, you sure bring up some enlightened points, but frankly we are pretty effing far off from this kind of event. No Nanotubes is not going to magically make this possible.

If you just think about the amount of programming necessary for "instinct" - YIKES.

Frankly i'm not going to worry until I encounter A.I in a video game about 100X better that "Gal Civ II:dread lords".

Wow, comon singularity, you sure bring up some enlightened points, but frankly we are pretty effing far off from this kind of event. No Nanotubes is not going to magically make this possible.

If you just think about the amount of programming necessary for "instinct" - YIKES.

Frankly i'm not going to worry until I encounter A.I in a video game about 100X better that "Gal Civ II:dread lords".

Depends on what machine your playing that game on, how about IBM Deep Blue ?

Then, for the fifth time, I ask when is the neural network programmed?

Is it during its construction (the wiring?) If that is your answer, how does that different from the production of a baby with original "wiring" which it also modifies as it learns? Are you then calling the wiring of all computers “programming” - I.e. in a despirate effort to not be exposed as knowing nothing about neural networks, you are even killing the very useful distinction between hardware and software! - I.e. claiming all wiring is “programming” - even my flashlight’s wiring!!!! How silly can you get?

Why not just admit you were wrong? Are you stretching the concept of "programming" to such an extent that Babies are "programmed" by their initial brain wiring? - That is not what most mean by “programming.”

With the help of Hypewaders, I have given you exactly what you asked me to. - A clear statement by expert that neural networks are NOT programmed.

Can give even one example of the programming (you claim it is done). I can not prove that expert Hypewader found is correct. I can not prove neural network programming does not exist. I can not prove unicorns do not exist either. :D One can never prove a negative.

So long as you (now for the sixth time) refuse to either give an example of neural network programming (even one line of code for it is OK) and refuse to tell when it is done (in the life cycle of a machine) THEN YOU ARE DUCKING the issue and question.

Wow! Chill, Bill, before you have a heart attack!

When is it programmed? Each node is programmed before being connected to the other nodes in the neural net.

But if you are so bull-headed as to not recognize the fact that software IS programming, then there's nothing I can do to help you.

Want to see a reference to software/programming in a neural net, eh? Then just read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network_software

As I said before, I never duck an issue.

Want to see a reference to software/programming in a neural net, eh? Then just read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network_software

Ha ha!
I wonder if you can understand why you posting this is so funny?
You're talking out your ass, yes?
Yes. You are.
Heh.

The question, I suppose, is did you actually read the link you posted and grossly misunderstood it to the point where you think it actually backs up your point? Or did you just post a link blindly because it has certain keywords in the title?
Either is not really flattering for you.

Ha ha!
I wonder if you can understand why you posting this is so funny?
You're talking out your ass, yes?
Yes. You are.
Heh.

The question, I suppose, is did you actually read the link you posted and grossly misunderstood it to the point where you think it actually backs up your point? Or did you just post a link blindly because it has certain keywords in the title?
Either is not really flattering for you.

Sorry, nexus, nothing funny about it. A neural net is nothing more than a lattice of machines connected together, each containing the software (programming) enabling them to communicate with each other, make decisions based on existing rules (programming) and create their own new rules (programming).

They are NOT - as Billy (and you, apparently) seems to visualize them - little nodes of intelligence that somehow "spring to life" without having been given some original directions (programming). Connect all the nodes you like - even thousands or millions of them - tell them nothing (no original programming) and they will just sit there like dumb rocks. I cannot fathom why that is so difficult to understand.

Then you don't understand that your link is for software that simulates a neural network?

The point Billy is making is perfectly valid. The 'programming' of a neural network exists in the hardwiring between the various nodes.
Each individual node might have some sort of programming to determine what it will do when a signal crosses its threshold (although this too could easily be dealt with through hardware, not software), but even so then you'd be talking about node programming and not programming of the network.

The neural network is an emergent process. It emerges from the nodes.
So, yes, it 'springs to life'.
As do you.

Oh.
And since I'm here. Might as well chime in on the topic.

The Singularity (tm) is sensationalistic garbage.

Then you don't understand that your link is for software that simulates a neural network?

The point Billy is making is perfectly valid. The 'programming' of a neural network exists in the hardwiring between the various nodes.
Each individual node might have some sort of programming to determine what it will do when a signal crosses its threshold (although this too could easily be dealt with through hardware, not software), but even so then you'd be talking about node programming and not programming of the network.

The neural network is an emergent process. It emerges from the nodes.
So, yes, it 'springs to life'.
As do you.

Yes, I did realize it was about simulating a neural net, but it's still valid in the point that EACH node must still be told (programmed) initally in order for it to do anything.

And I never once said or even implied that the network itself needed programming - I'm talking about the individual nodes themselves. They absolutely cannot "spring to life" on their own.

Then you're not talking about neural net programming, are you?

By the way, would you consider a neural net based on hydraulic valves and some sort of liquid to be 'programmed'? Just curious about your semantics.

(The valves, that is, not the network at large. We've already established that neural networks aren't programmed.)

Then you're not talking about neural net programming, are you?

By the way, would you consider a neural net based on hydraulic valves and some sort of liquid to be 'programmed'? Just curious about your semantics.

Correct, not the net as a unit.

And yes, one consisting of hydraulic valves. servos, pumps, cylinders, etc. would most certainly be programmed - fully analogous with hard-wired programming and the ability to be changed.

Billiard balls, too?

Billiard balls, too?

Certainly - in the sense that one can be made to affect the positioning of another or multiple others in chain-fashion. Action/reaction with the initial action supplied by an external force.

But not in the sense that they can learn and affect their own positions on order to achieve whatever. :D

When is it programmed? Each node is programmed before being connected to the other nodes in the neural net....More proof of your ignorance! - You must know nothing about neural networks. Normally, each node in layer 1 (the input layer) is connected to all nodes in the second layer by a resister. Likewise all the outputs from the second layer nodes are connected to all the input nodes of the third or output layer (assuming a three layer net) by a resister. How do you program a resister? LOL

Typically, all resister have slightly different randomly chosen values initially.

One of the first methods of learning was proposed by Hebb - If the response on the first trial in the training set is a correct response (50/50 chance if only yes/no type of out put - two out put nodes) then more active paths (smaller interconnect resister) are strengthened. If the first response was wrong, then the more active paths are weakened. Then another member of the trianing set is presented to the input and if wrong same as before, if right same as before untill all membes of the training set have been presented. --- Repeated this thru all members of the set many times, repeating trials on each mamber, and eventually on the training set the performance is good, if not perfect. (More details I will not go into about how to have a good chance that the net will be able to solve the type of problem you are interested in.)

Neural nets are very useful precisely in complex problems with many variables - So complex that no human knows how to solve and certainly no human can program a solution to a problem so complex that he does not understand how to get any solution to the problem.

Sometimes, if the problem is not too complex, it is possible to examine the final values of the resisters in the fully trained net and then humans can understand how the network solved the problem - perhaps then it is even possible to program a von Neumann machine to solve the problem.

Programming a solution, when you do not know how to achieve a solution is clearly impossible - another "proof that" you are wrong - neural networks are not programmed because (1) usually humans do not know how to solve the problem and (2) you can not program the inter connection resistors!

.... A neural net is nothing more than a lattice of machines connected together, each containing the software (programming) enabling them to communicate with each other, make decisions based on existing rules (programming) and create their own new rules (programming)....Amazing ignorance!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nodes in the net are interconnected only by resisters whose values can be increased or reduced by the net itself, depending on the results of each trial during the training period. There are no programmed computers.

Hebb's, and as far as I know (25+ years ago anyway), all learning is very "behavioristic" I.e. punish* the active parts of circuit when the net gets wrong answer and strengthen them when the net get it right, trial by trial on the training set until either (1) the performance is acceptable (to the human wanting a solution) OR (2) performance on the training set is no longer improving as training continues.

There are no programmed computers and NO PROGRAMMING. - Just an electrical circuit wired up. - Is a radio receiver programmed too? -LOL

PS to help you get at least a slight idea about what you so ignorantly have been posting: A "node" in the intemediate and output layers is typically the summation junction or input of a high gain op-amp. All the prior layer outputs, via variable resistors, come to the summation junction of each intermediate and and output node. There usually are threshold circuits also. It is not a sub-computer in a network of computers as you are obviously assuming in your ignorance as to what neural networks are.
-----------------------------
*By the net itself, depending on the results of each trial during he training period. All the human does is tell net if answer was correct or wrong (and start the next trail)

Wow, ... No Nanotubes is not going to magically make this possible....

Look at the polls , u r about 2 b extinct ,

:D

http://www.dailytech.com/IBM+Creates+SelfAssembling+Chips+Modeled+After+Nat ure/article7155.htm

human attitude is appalling

Oh.
And since I'm here. Might as well chime in on the topic.

The Singularity (tm) is sensationalistic garbage.

http://www.singinst.org/

That is NOT what Singularity is! I myself am a Singularitarian (EG, try to help the advance of singularity) so let me explain:

Singularity is the theory and practice of the exponential growth of science. The more you have, the faster it can advance due to better methods of research and development. The point of Singularity is where Biological and Mechanical mesh (which is already happening- prosthetics anyone?)

There will be no "super robots" taking over the world- instead it will be cybernetic implants helping to increase our brains NATURAL abilities. After all, the average dipshit uses what... 10% of their brain at best? Most "geniuses" only use around 13%... c'mon! Singularity is when we learn to "unlock" this latent potential. It IS the next step in human evolution because it is the only practical step left.

Singularity does NOT grant eternal life (that would be foolish)- instead, it grants you life at 125% efficiency UNTIL THE DAY YOU DIE. That's it... you decide "Oh, well, my affairs are in order and I've done all I wanted to do, time to pass on" And you are allowed to die with DIGNITY and HONOR! Not this slowly melting away in a bed hooked up to IV's and machines bullshit. You die with your boots on man!

Singularity is when NOBODY lies because people can TELL when you are lying! Think about that for a second- politicians and big business would HAVE to start getting their shit together or else people will tear em a new one! Crime will decrease drastically because criminals would have no way to hide. Privacy would be 100% and yet 0% at the same time!

Nobody would suffer the ravages of cancer, aids, and other such atrocities. Disease would NOT be 100% removed, as that defeats the purpose of living- you can NOT have good without it's equivalent bad! Instead, the recovery time is cut in half or more and methods are in place to enable you to carry on even while sick should you choose to do so.

Singularity is about embracing religion- a true religion. EVERY religion is the same damn thing with different interpretations. You cannot deny that christianity, catholocism, buddhism, jewdism, and paganism (the five main religions of the world) have some seriously striking similarities. Most differences are superficial - angels, lesser gods, demons, etc can all be the same thing described by different people. God, Buddha, Allah, etc are all the same "being", just as different people have seen him/her/it (burning bush anyone?) Religion is a set of guidelines set to enable humanity to survive... a set of guidelines that so many people are twisting to their own stubborn ends.

Humanity will be lucky to survive to singularity because we are so hellbent on destroying ourselves...

U all humans based on primitive instincts, (programmed Neural Nets) U are doing it again (the functioning) ie.

I am better than u, i know more than u, my knowledge is far superior than yours.

Inshort u r not evolving because u all are struck in your frame of evolution.

Now think what happens when the generation starts to evolve while thinking. No need to wait for the offsprings.

"Singularitys Gona Get U all" :itold:

You sir are an insult to Ray Kurzweil and singularitarians everywhere...

Thanks for that Billy, I'd never actually looked into the details of how a neural net is wired up, I just knew the basic idea. I knew that there were ways to handle the interconnections through hardware, but also assumed that the nodes could be any number of different mechanisms. Some of which could utilize hardware such as your example. Some of which might incorporate something along the lines of a microprocessor to route traffic.

Interesting read actually getting into the nuts and bolts of it though.

A neural net should be just that- neural. Biological components (like neurons) have a slower rate of transfer than most current methods, but they don't suffer from having to go only one way, breaks in the circuit can be self repairing, and all you need is some glucose and it's happily working :)

Have you heard of HTMs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_Temporal_Memory)? Similar to neural networks but modelled on the structure of the human neocortex.

Ah, aighty then