Artificial Intelligence 2020 - is there progress? - page 9
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
Scientists had fun with it, there is a list of references at the bottom. The point for us is in the scale of numbers, that it is impossible to solve a complicated problem in our life by simple enumeration in any reasonable time. That is, you can't program by describing sequences. It is necessary to connect either known mechanisms, which nature has seen, or to make up your own for the same numbers of years.
What can't be a simple overshoot, perhaps not a simple overshoot. I have repeatedly wondered at programmers who think so poorly of their field. With such an attitude and outlook, it is generally possible to progress, but either not far or not in the direction of development. And you are very young for such a destructive attitude in your field. :)
It's really easier to use existing mechanisms than to create artificial ones. I've already expressed this idea here. It's not that it's impossible to create something new, separate or even something new. But the goals are completely different. So they manipulate what is in nature. With no regard for life or death. Nothing sacred.
The lifespan of the universe is ~13 billion years. Will it make it?
I'm afraid not :(. In fact this number is taken from the BBC - and is the mathematical limit to which mankind will reach.... at least for now..... Even hard to believe that the number can not be written more than 10^10^123 bits (physically) - and adjusted that never at all, not even after billions of years of development
I have repeatedly been surprised by programmers who think so poorly of their field.
Well look, experience burdens the mind. When the mind is clear of knowledge in a field, one can fantasise unrealistically much. When, one begins to study a field, one becomes familiar with the boundaries in that field. And you enclose yourself in those boundaries. Knowledge allows you to solve problems you weren't able to solve before, but it grounds the mind, creating more pessimism. Such is the payback.
The lifespan of the universe is ~13 billion years.
There's an individual who went into the lotus position. I wish he'd get a hiccup. :)
Time is not an absolute parameter, Alexei. And even some spheres of science sometimes stutter about it (though it does not go further than hiccups). And the Universe is also a notion conditional. What I mean ... when the established program (and any academic science is nothing but an established program), limited by narrow specificity, starts to define from its format what it is not prescribed, it comes out something, which is unreal and has no sense to apply to the phenomena and processes, which images are not reflected in its arrays and algorithms.
This expression of yours, like that about monkeys, starts from an empty X, beyond which there can be an infinite number of not only linear values, but also other than linear values. But leads through a linear mathematical formula to a specific value. And such conclusions cannot be labelled other than schizophrenia...
Well, look, experience burdens the mind. When the mind is clear of knowledge in an area, one can fantasise unrealistically much. When you begin to study a field, you become familiar with the boundaries of that field. And you enclose yourself in those boundaries. Knowledge allows you to solve problems you weren't able to solve before, but it grounds the mind, creating more pessimism. That's the price you pay.
Yes, I remember what our attempts in the same thread stumbled into. But think about this: all more or less significant discoveries were made not by those who loaded their brains with images of the barriers you talk about, but by those who overcame these barriers through a direct view of the world, and not through conventional images prescribed in a particular science at a particular moment.
Yes? I'll have to read it. Where is it written?
go right into the search engine - there are so many copies broken that half of the Internet is flooded ... mathematicians are funny and just as stoned as we are :-)
also " Boltzmann's brain", which a) probably was, b) if "a" is correct, then we are inside him, we are his paranoia :-)
there are cantorian measures, but for such a thing you have to take it on the chest already
Indeed, how has artificial intelligence really helped the stock market?
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/86386
no end in sight yet.
but you'd have to be on your chest for that.
Vitaly, you have a clear mind in this area. Maybe some of your free fantasies will find confirmation. I will not criticize at once, not to frighten away the idea.
And by what parameters do you distinguish so called free fantasies from the realistic view? How do you distinguish between Zeland and Einstein, Newton or Galileo? If originally you have, as you put it, a "pure mind"?
With a "pure mind" in your vein there is nothing to do in this world at all. It will freak out in free fantasies until it is loaded with the images of goals, coordinates and barriers that the current regime needs.