Artificial Intelligence 2020 - is there progress? - page 11
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
Humans haven't taught monkeys intelligence in a long time, can they cope with teaching computers intelligence . hmmm.
If the parts of the process are more or less clear: chemical reactions, physical laws (which we also accept with reservations), then understanding the driving force of the world is a problem.
But I bet that you did not understand it. But your conclusions are unambiguous and destructive. Things have also progressed with the understanding of the driving force. They just did not shout about it too much. Well, guess what is the driving force of the world, Alexei?! :)
In principle, physics is originally based on energy. Only generally accepted physics considers mainly processes and phenomena of general order. When it comes to living beings, it is more common to refer to biochemistry, genetics, etc. science.
If you write regression analysis, it is boring mathematics, but if you write machine learning, you get interested immediately.
If you write cybernetics, it is a science of the past millennium, but if you call it artificial intelligence, it is definitely the future
)))
Here's a bet, though,
And on the subject of mystery, I don't believe it.
And faith has nothing to do with it. Science is not based on it. But you're not just about this area, you're making prematurely destructive conclusions everywhere without understanding. And you do so solely on the basis of your faith or disbelief.
you are jumping to premature destructive conclusions without understanding.
Why destructive, what's negative about it? Very positive: the world is beautiful with its mysteries that we haven't solved yet.
About faith, well, yes, there is some conviction. One has to hold on to some views, one has to have something to lean on.
I don't believe in world conspiracy and others, because competition rules it out. And the powerful of the world are also people who will fight for a place under the sun and with us and with each other. And no knowledge can be kept secret. That's a subjective opinion. I admit that you may have a different opinion.
Why destructive, what's negative about it? Very positive: the world is beautiful with its mysteries that we haven't solved yet.
What is destructive is that you declare everywhere: this and that is impossible. Phenomena and processes do not exist for you a priori, or the possibility to cognize them. There is agnosticism, for example, as a philosophical movement. Its representatives proceed from the fact that they do not know something, but without denying the potentiality to know. So agnosticism potentially turns into gnosticism - cognition. With you, everything is unknowable and not subject to cognition.
The world is indeed partly beautiful. But there are fewer mysteries in it than I would like. Although I myself would like a lot of things to remain mysteries. Because while some deny it, others manipulate it. And your approach is very destructive to our species. You think that if someone discovers something, it's inherently public knowledge. And they'll write you about it on the hubrhabra to flatter your romantic predispositions. In practice, however, the opposite is true: many discoveries and achievements are deliberately absurdized and ridiculed in order to eliminate the accompanying competition and interest in them.
In principle, if one has the goal of really understanding, there is plenty of material available that makes most of the so-called mysteries someone's realm of achievement.
About faith, well, yes, there is some conviction. One has to hold on to some views, one has to have something to lean on.
I don't believe in world conspiracy and others, because competition rules it out. And the powerful of the world are also people who will fight for a place under the sun and with us and with each other. And no knowledge can be kept secret. That's a subjective opinion. I admit that you may have a different one.
Let's separate views as opinions, with facts. Facts and opinions are not something that can be put on an equal footing. And as for mysteries, let's be specific about what you think is unknowable and unknowable, and try to sort out how much of it remains unknowable and unknowable.
I would like to contribute to this discussion.
I think it is impossible to create an AI. Exactly AI INTELLECT.
You can gather all sorts of programs and call them whatever you want, but there will be no intelligence.
As humans we know what glass, silicon, iron, water and other physical materials are made of.
We know what we ourselves are made of. We can take it all apart into molecules and atoms.
But there is a stumbling block. We don't know what electricity is.
What it's made of, its structure, you can't see it under a microscope, etc.
No, I'm not arguing, you can see the discharge and the arc itself,
but no-one knows what the phenomenon is made up of. In electrical engineering, there's a description of how it all happens,
but it's only written for general understanding. In reality it is not so.
Professors themselves say that they do not know what electricity is.
It is impossible to create an AI without knowledge of electricity.