Artificial Intelligence 2020 - is there progress? - page 5
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Vitaly, of course, if you look at it from our bell towers, you might call it reflexes. But they are very well tuned reflexes that have been refined over millions of years. They can solve logical problems. There is something to it, if you look at the big picture.
Well, the logic problem is solved here not only at the expense of the amoeba, but also at the expense of the NS. If you take away the illumination generated by the NS, the amoeba will simply eat as it pleases, and not solve the logical problem. I am not arguing about natural qualities. But reflexes are not quite the same as intelligence. Intelligence is all about the deliberate processing of data. Reflexes, on the other hand, are direct reactions to impulses without processing by what is commonly defined as intelligence. But programming, yes, is present in both.
The financial market, is AI) People are there to donate. People working for the market, from programmers to client managers, have created AI with their ideas and actions and developments) It lives as long as it is energised by people who are in the market as employees and people who go there as donors. Like a pendulum (according to Zeland), and a destructive one at that.
Peter Konow wrote that the commercial component is the main one. This is clear, the costs must always be recouped. The more masses the product can reach, the better.
Many people work to maintain the market idea, including those on this forum. They all have to eat, and at someone else's expense.)
What ex-employee Solomon Brothers writes about the market, you can check out the book Poker Liars. I have already advised one of them. He denied it and still believes it's possible to make money)
Propaganda, news, articles, analysis, etc. - Part goes autogenerate, just to stuff more information and spur demand for products that the market generates.
P.S. I recently found some information on the Internet about a trader from Goldman Sachs and his team. They advertise their educational courses now (for several years now), actively implanting in people's heads the idea that it is possible to make money. That's a bummer. From Goldman Sachs and suddenly teaching, teaching nerds in the market to make money. You know who the target audience is? People who are fed up with the idea of making money but can't get off. And here they are at Goldman, the pros are their hope and their real chance.
Hope dies last.
Or you become part of the system, working for the system and in it. By mucking up the donors. Or the system poaches you as a donor.)
I understand the vast majority of the forum is part of the system.
I agree on almost everything. I even had a topic on the forum "Trader - Victim?" I also believed in the market till the last and my last hope was A.Gerchik. I thought that his system should definitely work in the market. Yes, it does. (I just don't really understand what the AI has to do with it).
They have a complicated experiment, I'm not exactly aware of everything myself. Here is an extract:
"The plasmodium's problem in finding the shortest path is that its branches must not enter the frequently illuminated lanes and must extend into the optimal combination of the least frequently illuminated lanes. However, the optimal combination cannot be found if the branches always obey the control principle; if always the branches contracted when illuminated and expanded when not illuminated, the plasmodium would not escape hitting the local minimum. To better study the potential energy landscape and determine the global minimum (the shortest tour), the plasmodium must misallocate the resource among its branches, and the branches must violate the control principle with some small probability, because the duration of the tours can be compared only when the branches work against their photoavoidance response. That is, at appropriate moments of time, location and frequency, the branches must expand even when illuminated and contract even when unlit. In our experiment, due to the internal spatiotemporal oscillatory dynamics of the plasmodium, each branch could appropriately vary its responses to light stimuli depending on the oscillatory phase; in the ascending phase the branch expands even when illuminated, whereas in the descending phase it shrinks even when unlit. Consequently, it is highly probable that the plasmodium has found a sufficiently good solution and reached a more comfortable environment for itself".
I agree with you on almost everything. I even had a thread on the forum called "Trader - Victim?". I also believed in the market to the last minute and my last hope was A.Gerchik. I thought that his system should definitely work in the market. Yes, it does. (I just don't really understand what the AI has to do with it).
The AI from my post above is the Pendulum. Created by energy (human labour and people's thoughts). The Pendulum lives as long as it is nourished.
If the Pendulum is not nourished, it will stop and cease to exist. For example pagers. Any devices, technologies which have outlived themselves. Passed through a period of general insanity and disappeared. Tamagotchi, for example. Spinners will soon be gone altogether, while they collect the remnants of demand from the much hyped Pendulum... The idea was AI = Pendulum, it won't exist on its own if there is no need for it and no one is powering it (no demand for it anymore). Who will the AI (Pendulum) live for if no one needs it and there is no use for it, on its own?
By the way, the 'crafty' Alice would have said something like "what do you think?"
The AI from my post above is the Pendulum. Created by energy (human labour and people's thoughts). The Pendulum lives as long as it is nourished.
If the Pendulum is not nourished, it will stop and cease to exist. For example pagers. Any devices, technologies which have outlived themselves. Passed through a period of general insanity and disappeared. Tamagotchi, for example. Spinners will soon be gone altogether, while they collect the remnants of demand from the much hyped Pendulum... The idea was AI = Pendulum, it won't exist on its own if there is no need for it and no one is powering it (no demand for it anymore).
So what you're saying is that AI as an idea is the spawn of a growing technology market, and like any of its products, will sooner or later fade away when attention and interest in it wanes? And consequently, no one will invest a dime in AI development because market "donors" will cool down, just as they once cooled down to fly to the moon?
That's an interesting view. Haven't looked at the question from that angle.
Hype goes away - AI dies?))Sorry, but from one point of view I can give 10 answers. And from a simple one - a cow has no wings! Unless it's like a cartoon about planets
Or propeller.))
They have a complicated experiment, I'm not exactly aware of everything myself. Here is an extract:
"The plasmodium's problem in finding the shortest path is that its branches must not enter the frequently illuminated lanes and must extend into the optimal combination of the least frequently illuminated lanes. However, the optimal combination cannot be found if the branches always obey the control principle; if always the branches shrank when illuminated and expanded when not illuminated, the plasmodium would not escape hitting the local minimum. To better study the potential energy landscape and determine the global minimum (the shortest tour), the plasmodium must misallocate the resource among its branches, and the branches must violate the control principle with some small probability, because the duration of the tours can be compared only when the branches work against their photoavoidance response. That is, at appropriate moments of time, location and frequency the branches must expand even when illuminated and contract even when unlit. In our experiment, due to the internal spatiotemporal oscillatory dynamics of the plasmodium, each branch could appropriately vary its responses to light stimuli depending on the oscillatory phase; in the ascending phase the branch expands even when illuminated, whereas in the descending phase it shrinks even when unlit. Consequently, the plasmodium is highly likely to have found a sufficiently good solution and reached a more comfortable environment for itself"
Yeah, you mocked the amoeba. I reread that, Alexei. Of course it could be written more simply (scientists often get used to simple human language): the amoeba avoided illuminated areas not so completely, but chose optimal variants in order both to consume and to expose itself to the least possible discomfort from light.
Here again, there are two factors: 1) Feeding 2) Avoiding light. These two factors of course worked together and the amoeba tried its best to achieve optimum conditions for itself. Like any other creature that senses and experiences.