Obama Seeks to Ax Moon Mision

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by madanthonywayne, Jan 27, 2010.

  1. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I tend to try to give the benefit of the doubt. In this case his idea that computers do math by look-up tables is so silly that I assumed he was merely trying to illustrate that they need to be told (at least in some complex way, like an algorithm for the solution) how to get the answer.

    My main point is that even that generous interpretation is not correct. NNs do not need any algorithm.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Im not argueing that it will be impossible for neural networks to equal humans.
    The design of them are very innovative, but are vastly complicated to construct in a simulation let alone in real life. Of course, thats really not a limiting factor because hey, if we were willing to build a machine to take us to the moon, we will be willing to make a somewhat adaptive computer.

    But the problem is that it is not equal to a human's general ability to make adaptive decisions, when you think about it, yes a NN would probably be better in several fields that would be occupied by a human, but the problem is, that is all that NN would be good at, put it in the driver seat of a car and it wont even know what is going on.

    They would be great in a specialized task, but the second the parameters change, the NN would have to adapt, and the problem is that it adapts based on patterns, if something is out of place once, it adjusts maybe a fraction of lets say a millimeter (lets say it has to do with attaching parts to a....car I suppose), but the distance needed to move is a foot, it could potentially mess up several times before it hits the right place. It's called trial and error.

    The problem is, that it won't always get a second chance. ie, in space, if something changes the parameters, messing up once could end it.

    And that's if it even knows what is the problem in the first place.

    NN is going to be a great invention, but it will still need a problem library, it won't need the answers necessarily, but it will need to know for things like outer space that if hypothetically the space ship keeps rolling at a rapid rate, that it is a problem with the valve of the thruster.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    fedr808,

    Well it was a bad metaphor because it made me want to go out and kill the nearest living thing in induced stupidity rage.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Really, Mad, that's all NASA will be doing? Nothing else? Not one single thing?

    Human's cannot do anything else in near Earth orbit. The space station is the stupidest thing imaginable. Name one single thing, beyond a "bonding" experience for nations, that's come from it? Even one thing expected to come from it in the near future?

    The problem is, right now, we don't have the cash to go to Mars and plant our flag.

    We should be spending the bulk of NASA's budget on R&D for robotics, telescopes, launch systems, etcetera, not sending people to Mars before we realistically have the capability.

    ~String
     
  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Study of zero gravity on umm stuff. I do agree the space station does not really do much per say but it does provide some science, true I would say certainly not enough per its price tag.

    Yeah its not like we have the cash to go to two wars at once? Heck the Iraq war alone could have paid for 40 trips to mars, at $50 billion each!

    Well constellation was an attempt to bring back such a capability, mind you an expensive moronic attempt, but an attempt none the less.
     
  9. PieAreSquared Woo is resistant to reason Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,144
    let the private sector take over
     
  10. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Take over what?
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    NASA has/is incented private ventures in space.
     
  12. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    that is the dumbest idea, and I have no idea why people think it's a good idea.

    First off, NASA was created for the science of it all, not for some sort of cheap profit.

    If the private sector takes it, they will take it for cash, we will be going to space so we can show some tourists around, not to explore.
     
  13. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    I disagree. Configuring the network and developing the scoring algorithm are just programming. Particularly the latter. Do you know how neural networks work?

    Apparently not.

    The learning algorithm is yet another thing that neural net programmers can twiddle with. Even more importantly, a neural net programmer must develop a mathematical algorithm to assess the error in the neural net's output. While this can be very easy in the case of yes/no answers, in general it is anything but easy.

    Even in the case of yes/no answers, making sure the neural net truly has "learned" what it was supposed to learn can be difficult. A notorious (but perhaps apocryphal) example is the neural net trained to recognize tanks. Depending on which version of the story one reads, the neural network learned to identify forests (the training data consisted of pictures of tanks hidden amidst trees versus pictures of a prairie), or it learned to identify cloudy skies (the training data consisted of tanks hidden amidst trees on a cloudy day versus pictures of trees taken on a clear day).

    Progress has been made since the 1980s, but neural networks are still just dumb AI. True artificial intelligence remains a pipe dream.
     
  14. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    first off, as I have said twice now,

    1. it was a metaphor.

    2. I was not addressing NN's.

    And I even explicitly said so,

    The fact is that the math example is the simplest example I can give you guys without completely confusing you with all the analogy crud.
     
  15. Creeping Death Out of darkness came light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    We will never get off this rock!
     
  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Again a semantics disagreement. I clearly in above include both these aspects in the "learning procedure"

    You have avoided responding to my claim (in post 70) that you are inconsistent in your use of "programming." I.e. avoided telling if the many examples I gave earlier are programming or design, so I will point blank ask about only one:

    You say that the human designer of a NN who decides if the intermediate layer should have 15, 30 or 45 nodes is "programming."
    Do you also say that the human designer of a digit computer deciding between 16, 32, or 64 bit length words is "programming" ?


    If you do call that "programming" instead of "hardware design" I think you are in a very tiny (perhaps unique) group.

    I have agreed that some humans must make these hardware decision for NNs, but do not accept your calling that "programming."

    For me all the choices made by a human that are fixed in the hardware to be used or to be sold are not "programming." They are machine design. "Programming" is the design of and implementation in that hardware of A PROBLEM SPECIFIC ALGORYTHM, not any part of the hardware used for many different problems.

    But as I think we both understand the other's POV, let’s drop this detour (after you answer my specific question in blue text above).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 30, 2010
  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Good!
     
  18. PieAreSquared Woo is resistant to reason Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,144
    if you have worked at a nasa site you would understand

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Ganymede Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,322
    As I've said before. No one reading this forum will never see a live mission to the moon. It's way to hard to fake it now.
     
  20. madanthonywayne Morning in America Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Are ;you implying that the previous moon missions were faked?
     
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Well that it, the great pragmatist just free marketed the US space industry, you conservatives should be proud, I was hoping for a near term replacement for the shuttle though, its now in congresses hands to make a decision to go with the president or to demand to keep constellation.

    http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/01nasabudget/
     
  22. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Omg, this is such an idiotic decision.

    3 billion dollars for a new heavy lift future vehicle, we already have one in the G-d damn works you moron! we are testing the god damn thing, we have poured craploads of money into it, and you are taking it away so you can get the damn credit for the future one!

    Sorry, I had to get that out of my system...
     
  23. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714
    This year we will give enough money to the pharmaceutical industry in outright grants, tax breaks for advertising, free R&D(little secret, they don't pay much for R&D your taxes do), etc, to do 3 moon missions at least.

    That's this year alone.

    Our president is fine with that, just like the last one was.

    Sickening.
     

Share This Page