Learner
Veteran Member
Emulating stupidity hmmm.. Ironically A.S. seems to be the "real thing" in itself ... without the AS researchers realising it.
-
Features
Artificial intelligence: more difficult than one might expect?
- Thread starter lpetrich
- Start date
Learner
Veteran Member
Hypothetically ... "yes" to the hypothetical underlined.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
I don't understand what you mean.
Learner
Veteran Member
Bringing up good points (adding to my theology pov ... cheers
) one would have the ability to "heal you" so to speak whereas the other would do practically zilch benefit in comparison.If you're not sure what is you're looking at on your lawn, then its not Jesus appearing in front of you but the other e.g. hologram other, and .. you'd still be an atheist .
- - - Updated - - -
Apologies, I agree with the underlined.
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,069
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
People get excited about so-called "machine learning" but on close inspection we see that it's still just a man-made machine doing - by rote - what it was told to do.
Make 10 trillion different combinations of chess moves and record/log/memorise which if-then combination of moves is the fastest (most efficient) pathway to a checkmate. Is such a computer, when it defeats a human Grandmaster, any different to a Ferrari that can beat Usain Bolt in a race?
Make 10 trillion different combinations of chess moves and record/log/memorise which if-then combination of moves is the fastest (most efficient) pathway to a checkmate. Is such a computer, when it defeats a human Grandmaster, any different to a Ferrari that can beat Usain Bolt in a race?
Elixir
Made in America
Heh ... the question of which is which is personal, and still remains.
So, conversely.... lol!
What puzzles me about theists is their assumption that the place whence they derive benefit needs to be others' sole source (only troo religion, like all the rest).
That's why I like your "if you're not sure what you're looking at..." meme. If you're SURE you're looking at a hologram, or at a manifestation of the FSM, then it is (FAPP) "Jesus" - as long as the benefit is realized.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Bringing up good points (adding to my theology pov ... cheers
If you're not sure what is you're looking at on your lawn, then its not Jesus appearing in front of you but the other e.g. hologram other, and .. you'd still be an atheist .
- - - Updated - - -
Apologies, I agree with the underlined.
The old theist two step dance avoiding the issue. You have no way to know objectively if faith healing works, or if an apparently miraculous cure is not just a biological function. There are documented cases of cancer remission. Faith healing is a bit off topic.
I knew an Evangelical who absolutely belived in faith healing. He made trips to a church in Nortern Claifinia rthat was a center for it. He could ralle off a list clamed healings yet never saw one and did not know anyone who did.
Someone in his group had a heart exam that showed severe thinning of heart walls and a number was given to it, ultrasound does that. When they opened him up it was thicker. He claimed it was divine intervention that thickened his heart walls.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Yes, it is different in many ways, of course. But an interesting way is that such a computer - or rather, such a program + computer, and more precisely, in this case a NN (neural network), like Leela Chess Zero (LC0) - defeats the best humans at an intellectual task. The Ferrari does not. A better analogy would be an electronic calculator. Still, there are interesting differences. LC0 does not know in advance that a certain move will lead to mate, and does not compute the best path (except when using table bases, but that's for the endgame only, and LC0 is pretty limited at that; in fact, some of the versions do not even use them). Rather, LC0 plays against itself many, many times, and comes up with playing strategies that beat humans and nearly all chess engines, though only with a considerably more powerful hardware than the engines in question are not able to take advantage to. If the engines are given the best hardware available to them, it would be more difficult, and I'm not sure which ones would beat LC0.
Stockfish is a traditional chess engine (in particular, no machine learning) that beats LC0 consistently with the usual hardware use in top competitions, even if LC0 is given the best available hardware, but that might change as the NN is trained with more games and its hardware becomes also more powerful. It's hard to predict when, if at some point, the best NN will beat the best traditional engine, if ever, but the point is that the way it learns is pretty different from traditional programming (details: http://blog.lczero.org/2018/10/lc0-training.html#more ), and the strategies it comes up with are not human strategies + a huge amount of computing power. Something similar happens when AlphaZero plays Go (or chess, but A0 seems to have been retired because it wasn't commercially interesting for Google).
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,069
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
The chess machine is not performing an intellectual task. It's not 'playing' chess.
A Roomba vacuum doesn't know why keeping a clean house is or isn't a good idea.
DaVinci's mechanical lion amazed and astonished the people of his day but it isn't carnivorous.
ETA - I'm interested in Angra Mainyu's dichotomy of machines which can beat humans in contests of speed (boring) and machines which can calculate 987 divided by 16 (intellectual prowess)
Is there a ghost in the chess machine but not in the Ferrari? Mind versus matter? What's going on here? Human mind versus computer mind. Human muscle versus machine muscle?
A Roomba vacuum doesn't know why keeping a clean house is or isn't a good idea.
DaVinci's mechanical lion amazed and astonished the people of his day but it isn't carnivorous.
ETA - I'm interested in Angra Mainyu's dichotomy of machines which can beat humans in contests of speed (boring) and machines which can calculate 987 divided by 16 (intellectual prowess)
Is there a ghost in the chess machine but not in the Ferrari? Mind versus matter? What's going on here? Human mind versus computer mind. Human muscle versus machine muscle?
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Chess is an intellectual task for humans. As to whether it's an intellectual task for machines, it may depend on one's definition, but it's not the issue.
Rather, I'm trying to highlight the matter that the machine is doing better at a task that is intellectual for humans. Now, I did not say that beating humans at contests of speed was boring. Nor did I say that there is a dichotomy - there may well be borderline cases, a fuzzy transition, etc.
But you were apparently objecting for some reason to people's getting excited about machine learning, and presented the chess example. I'm saying there are significant differences between this new kind of program and the previous ones, both in the way they work and their potential effects on human society. For example, one may consider future jobs and which tasks will be performed by machines better than they are performed by humans. Oh, and I wasn't making claims about ghosts, or about subjective experience. I do not adhere to any particular theory on the matter. Maybe it's some sort of emergence, or maybe panpsychism (no, not the trivially easy to attack kind; that would be a strawman). But I wasn't talking about that. These technologies (including new and better forms of machine learning) are having a big impact and will only have a bigger one in the future because of what they're capable of, leaving aside the matter of minds.
Rather, I'm trying to highlight the matter that the machine is doing better at a task that is intellectual for humans. Now, I did not say that beating humans at contests of speed was boring. Nor did I say that there is a dichotomy - there may well be borderline cases, a fuzzy transition, etc.
But you were apparently objecting for some reason to people's getting excited about machine learning, and presented the chess example. I'm saying there are significant differences between this new kind of program and the previous ones, both in the way they work and their potential effects on human society. For example, one may consider future jobs and which tasks will be performed by machines better than they are performed by humans. Oh, and I wasn't making claims about ghosts, or about subjective experience. I do not adhere to any particular theory on the matter. Maybe it's some sort of emergence, or maybe panpsychism (no, not the trivially easy to attack kind; that would be a strawman). But I wasn't talking about that. These technologies (including new and better forms of machine learning) are having a big impact and will only have a bigger one in the future because of what they're capable of, leaving aside the matter of minds.
Learner
Veteran Member
Heh ... the question of which is which is personal, and still remains.
Not wanting to keep on the theist line on computer thread. I don't know what you mean here, but my reply is the "interactions" with holograms and Jesus (as HE's understood to be) unless the post I replied to, mean't: just merely staring at the figure fron a considerable distance and saying nothing to what appears in front etc..
So, conversely.... lol!
What puzzles me about theists is their assumption that the place whence they derive benefit needs to be others' sole source (only troo religion, like all the rest).
That's why I like your "if you're not sure what you're looking at..." meme. If you're SURE you're looking at a hologram, or at a manifestation of the FSM, then it is (FAPP) "Jesus" - as long as the benefit is realized.
A little more advanced a level than a hologram's capability such a Jesus is known to be .... HE would perform miracles!
Learner
Veteran Member
Perhaps another thread but I'm not avoiding the issue. I answered the question you previously posted but its just not an acceptable answer to you. Your question was " IF Jesus i.e. the real mc'coy (as known in the bible) you seem to be saying ; appeared in your front lawn. Now you are giving a different context here that you don't actually mean Jesus but another hologram or hallucination. Well thats a different question in another context, perhaps thats what you actually mean't.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Your answer was that if it was really JC 'you would know the difference'. Essentially a subjective belief with no objective basis in reality. In other words, religious faith. I have no problem with an individual's faith. It is just for once I'd like to see an acknowledgement that it is just that, faith.
If proof is healing, again maybe advanced technology?
If you truly believe then it should be easy to express faith without having to explain, prove, or defend it. Faith without intellectualizing.
Learner
Veteran Member
*post deleted"
Last edited:
Learner
Veteran Member
Continued on religious thread
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?16265-I-can-easily-prove-that-God-does-not-exist-but&p=614068#post614068