Replies

1 posted on 01/26/2004 7:20:12 PM PST by Momaw Nadon

To: RightWingAtheist; Doctor Stochastic; PatrickHenry; RadioAstronomer; tortoise

2 posted on 01/26/2004 7:36:04 PM PST by Momaw Nadon (Goals for 2004: Re-elect President Bush, over 60 Republicans in the Senate, and a Republican House.)

Here is a link to an Optical Character Recognition neural network demo I wrote a long time ago.

The mathematics is all there.

3 posted on 01/26/2004 7:38:03 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)

Son of a gun! What will we, no, the machine, think up next?

5 posted on 01/26/2004 7:44:12 PM PST by hershey

"I can never imagine a world that looks like 'Terminator.' What do people want? Food. Land. Mates. Machines aren't interested in that," Thaler said.

That's exactaly the fear. I machine that can think like us but has none of the weaknesses that we have. Talk about a "Terminator."

6 posted on 01/26/2004 7:44:16 PM PST by Only1choice____Freedom (The word system implies they have done something the same way at least twice)

7 posted on 01/26/2004 7:47:30 PM PST by capydick ("The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got.")

To: BartMan1; Nailbiter

8 posted on 01/26/2004 7:54:32 PM PST by IncPen ( What does it avail a man to gain a fortune and lose his soul?)

Harder than diamonds? Nah..

10 posted on 01/26/2004 8:32:00 PM PST by Last Dakotan

Thought this would interest you.

11 posted on 01/26/2004 8:37:32 PM PST by BillF (Fight terrorists in Iraq & elsewhere, instead of waiting for them to come to America!)

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/ai/creativity.jsp

This creativity machine is old news and is not as dramatic as the journalist's sensationalism conveys.

It is a random combination generator with a programmed filter to weed out outrageous combinations. Still, the human inventor determines what is usable and not. These have been around for years, according to the New Scientist article.

12 posted on 01/26/2004 8:41:59 PM PST by Loc123

I also like the perfucntory and biased rebuttal: but humans can still dance! He who reaps the strawman, sows a strawman.

13 posted on 01/26/2004 8:44:39 PM PST by Loc123

Note that a randomly driven copmuter can compute no more functions than a deterministic one. It can compute them in a different order.

If directional hardness matters, I would think that graphite would be hard in the chicken-wire plane but soft normal to the plane.

14 posted on 01/26/2004 8:47:16 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)

15 posted on 01/26/2004 8:47:59 PM PST by M Kehoe

17 posted on 01/26/2004 8:50:49 PM PST by Consort

Big deal! I built one of these AI synaptic-deranged robots and what did I get for my troubles? Sure at first the little suck-up brown noser did my bidding cooking supper and waxing the car, but soon he was lapping up my imported beer and calling the phone-sex hotlines behind my back! Can't trust them. No more free-thinking robots for me. Am I wrong?

18 posted on 01/26/2004 8:51:44 PM PST by BipolarBob (The voices in my head are starting to sound like Howard Dean YEEEAAAAGH)

Cross-action toothbrush; functional equivalent: "Wax on, wax off."

22 posted on 01/26/2004 9:30:41 PM PST by Old Professer

To: Momaw Nadon; All

Take a bunch of words on paper, put them in a jar, and shake. Interpret the random results. That is the creativity machine for the most part. The only difference is the scientist adds some algorithms to the “secret layer” to rule out useless combinations based on set rules. These useless combinations are only applicable to certain systems (IE the citation of the car—obviously the car needs certain constants in place).

They key is, an analyst needs to analyze the results of the tempered combinations. That takes creativity.

Also, it is doubtful as of today that this method of combination can produce mechanical models of the universe since often times the forces are imaginary/contrived. The machine only deals with knowns and their combinations.

Interestingly, I had earlier predicted that machines could simulate reality given the knowns, but that they couldn’t interpret it. Even so, I thought perhaps they could “interpret” with us inputting desirable states of the agents/objects in the system. The computer could then use the criteria the scientist inputs and that would execute that combination of agents/items. This is similar to human thought except that we can unilaterally decide what is desirable, whereas a machine follows our orders.

Resonse to the journalists piece: complete biased. She presents two angles on the creativity machine. 1) It has creativity and will be magnificant. 2) It has creativity and will be detrimental. Post-humanists aside, there seems to be a more credible, more accepted viewpoint: it doesnt have creativity and is an upgraded randomness generator, and this has been around for years (New Scientist article I cited before).

Don't get me wrong; this is a great analytical tool. But the truth about the machine has been covered up by an agenda. The author even admits that this is his religion (see his website).

23 posted on 01/26/2004 9:32:39 PM PST by Loc123

To: Lazamataz; Bush2000; Dominic Harr

25 posted on 01/26/2004 9:45:32 PM PST by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)

Here's a link to an article I posted a while ago, about a robot which could "do" science: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058579/posts

28 posted on 01/26/2004 10:53:57 PM PST by RightWingAtheist

31 posted on 01/27/2004 4:45:36 AM PST by SC Swamp Fox (Aim small, miss small.)

32 posted on 01/27/2004 4:51:47 AM PST by Junior (Some people follow their dreams. Others hunt theirs down and beat them mercilessly into submission)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794