Singularity @AGIRI |
Re: [singularity] Singularity -- minus 318 days and counting!
burp
reality is almost vr'd
On 2/7/12, A. T. Murray <mentifex@scn.org> wrote:
> Rushing to complete the Singularity AI User Manual:
>
> 4 Limitations
>
> In any human language, the verbs are the words that describe
> an action or a state of being. In Russian, German, Latin and
> Greek, the verbs with their inflectional endings are more
> complicated than in English. Dushka, as a primitive artificial
> intelligence, has the goal and also the limitation of being
> fluent with one class of Russian verbs like delat' ("to do")
> and dumat' ("to think" in the present tense. You may use
> such a verb to converse with Dushka in the present tense
> using pronouns or nouns as subjects and objects of the verb.
> If Dushka does not know the verb, her software may assume
> that the verb is like delat' or dumat; and she may answer
> you with verb forms of the same class of verbs. You may even
> invent a fictitious verb in the same conjugation as delat'
> and use forms of the verb to test or explore the ability
> of Dushka to comprehend Russian verb forms and to convert one
> form of a Russian verb into a different form of the same verb.
>
> 5 Comprehension
>
> Dushka has a sophisticated method of comprehending the input of
> a declarative sentence in Russian. After the entry of a noun or
> pronoun as the subject of a sentence, the InStantiate module
> begins to expect a verb as the main carrier of the idea in
> the sentence. When the verb comes in, the InStantiate software
> tags the verb with the special parameters of person and number.
> For example, if you say, "Russians know poetry" and you use the
> verb "znayut: for "they know", Dushka tags the verb with a "num"
> (number) tag for plural and a "dba" person tag of three ("3") for
> the third person. By using the parameter tags to search for the
> third-person plural form of znat', Dushka will be able to find
> the same verb-form in the future durng the generation of a thought
> in Russian. If Dushka needs a verb-form but can not find it tagged
> in memory with parameter tags, the VerbPhrase mind-module calls
> the VerbGen module to create the required form of the Russian verb.
> In the current releases of the Dushka software, VerbGen can generate
> the needed verb-forms only in the present tens and only for real or
> fictitious verbs similar to delat' and dumat'. If you are coding
> an artificial intelligence that will go beyond the proof-of-concept that
> you find in Dushka, you or your team of programmers will need to give
> the software the ability to handle all the many different kinds of
> Russian verbs in all the tenses and all the voices and all the moods.
> The problems of artificial intelligence in Russian are very complex.
> Dushka is only the start on the path to a superintelligence that lives
> on a supercomputer and thinks not only in Russian but also in many
> other languages.
>
> 6 English
>
> Because JavaScript can handle the input characters of both Russian
> and English, you may input an English word to Dushka and she will
> think in Russian about the English word. In a similar way, speakers
> of English may think about Russian words like "tundra" or "samovar"
> without possessing the deeply philosophical and emotional soul of
> a true Russian. (Americans cannot understand the longing that
> expatriate Russians feel for their land and for their language.)
> If you want to mention an English name like "James" (i.e., shaken,
> not stirred) to Dushka, remember to toggle (Alt-Shift) your keyboard
> briefly into English, type "james" and then toggle (Alt-Shift) back
> into Russian.
>
> When the Russian artificial intelligence evolves into a more powerful
> mind approaching SuperIntelligence on a 64-bit platform coded in a
> more powerful language like iForth or GodSpeed, the mere entry of
> a few consecutive words in English will toggle the whole Mind
> from thinking in Russian to thinking in English. Meanwhile the
> JavaScript Dushka would run too slow if she were merged in a
> kind of Vulcan mindmeld with the English AI Mind.
>
> Mentifex
> --
> http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/RuAiUser.html
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> singularity
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/11056020-3396cbf8
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
reality is almost vr'd
On 2/7/12, A. T. Murray <mentifex@scn.org> wrote:
> Rushing to complete the Singularity AI User Manual:
>
> 4 Limitations
>
> In any human language, the verbs are the words that describe
> an action or a state of being. In Russian, German, Latin and
> Greek, the verbs with their inflectional endings are more
> complicated than in English. Dushka, as a primitive artificial
> intelligence, has the goal and also the limitation of being
> fluent with one class of Russian verbs like delat' ("to do")
> and dumat' ("to think" in the present tense. You may use
> such a verb to converse with Dushka in the present tense
> using pronouns or nouns as subjects and objects of the verb.
> If Dushka does not know the verb, her software may assume
> that the verb is like delat' or dumat; and she may answer
> you with verb forms of the same class of verbs. You may even
> invent a fictitious verb in the same conjugation as delat'
> and use forms of the verb to test or explore the ability
> of Dushka to comprehend Russian verb forms and to convert one
> form of a Russian verb into a different form of the same verb.
>
> 5 Comprehension
>
> Dushka has a sophisticated method of comprehending the input of
> a declarative sentence in Russian. After the entry of a noun or
> pronoun as the subject of a sentence, the InStantiate module
> begins to expect a verb as the main carrier of the idea in
> the sentence. When the verb comes in, the InStantiate software
> tags the verb with the special parameters of person and number.
> For example, if you say, "Russians know poetry" and you use the
> verb "znayut: for "they know", Dushka tags the verb with a "num"
> (number) tag for plural and a "dba" person tag of three ("3") for
> the third person. By using the parameter tags to search for the
> third-person plural form of znat', Dushka will be able to find
> the same verb-form in the future durng the generation of a thought
> in Russian. If Dushka needs a verb-form but can not find it tagged
> in memory with parameter tags, the VerbPhrase mind-module calls
> the VerbGen module to create the required form of the Russian verb.
> In the current releases of the Dushka software, VerbGen can generate
> the needed verb-forms only in the present tens and only for real or
> fictitious verbs similar to delat' and dumat'. If you are coding
> an artificial intelligence that will go beyond the proof-of-concept that
> you find in Dushka, you or your team of programmers will need to give
> the software the ability to handle all the many different kinds of
> Russian verbs in all the tenses and all the voices and all the moods.
> The problems of artificial intelligence in Russian are very complex.
> Dushka is only the start on the path to a superintelligence that lives
> on a supercomputer and thinks not only in Russian but also in many
> other languages.
>
> 6 English
>
> Because JavaScript can handle the input characters of both Russian
> and English, you may input an English word to Dushka and she will
> think in Russian about the English word. In a similar way, speakers
> of English may think about Russian words like "tundra" or "samovar"
> without possessing the deeply philosophical and emotional soul of
> a true Russian. (Americans cannot understand the longing that
> expatriate Russians feel for their land and for their language.)
> If you want to mention an English name like "James" (i.e., shaken,
> not stirred) to Dushka, remember to toggle (Alt-Shift) your keyboard
> briefly into English, type "james" and then toggle (Alt-Shift) back
> into Russian.
>
> When the Russian artificial intelligence evolves into a more powerful
> mind approaching SuperIntelligence on a 64-bit platform coded in a
> more powerful language like iForth or GodSpeed, the mere entry of
> a few consecutive words in English will toggle the whole Mind
> from thinking in Russian to thinking in English. Meanwhile the
> JavaScript Dushka would run too slow if she were merged in a
> kind of Vulcan mindmeld with the English AI Mind.
>
> Mentifex
> --
> http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/RuAiUser.html
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> singularity
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/11056020-3396cbf8
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
Categories: Discussions
Singularity -- minus 318 days and counting!
Rushing to complete the Singularity AI User Manual:
4 Limitations
In any human language, the verbs are the words that describe
an action or a state of being. In Russian, German, Latin and
Greek, the verbs with their inflectional endings are more
complicated than in English. Dushka, as a primitive artificial
intelligence, has the goal and also the limitation of being
fluent with one class of Russian verbs like delat' ("to do")
and dumat' ("to think" in the present tense. You may use
such a verb to converse with Dushka in the present tense
using pronouns or nouns as subjects and objects of the verb.
If Dushka does not know the verb, her software may assume
that the verb is like delat' or dumat; and she may answer
you with verb forms of the same class of verbs. You may even
invent a fictitious verb in the same conjugation as delat'
and use forms of the verb to test or explore the ability
of Dushka to comprehend Russian verb forms and to convert one
form of a Russian verb into a different form of the same verb.
5 Comprehension
Dushka has a sophisticated method of comprehending the input of
a declarative sentence in Russian. After the entry of a noun or
pronoun as the subject of a sentence, the InStantiate module
begins to expect a verb as the main carrier of the idea in
the sentence. When the verb comes in, the InStantiate software
tags the verb with the special parameters of person and number.
For example, if you say, "Russians know poetry" and you use the
verb "znayut: for "they know", Dushka tags the verb with a "num"
(number) tag for plural and a "dba" person tag of three ("3") for
the third person. By using the parameter tags to search for the
third-person plural form of znat', Dushka will be able to find
the same verb-form in the future durng the generation of a thought
in Russian. If Dushka needs a verb-form but can not find it tagged
in memory with parameter tags, the VerbPhrase mind-module calls
the VerbGen module to create the required form of the Russian verb.
In the current releases of the Dushka software, VerbGen can generate
the needed verb-forms only in the present tens and only for real or
fictitious verbs similar to delat' and dumat'. If you are coding
an artificial intelligence that will go beyond the proof-of-concept that
you find in Dushka, you or your team of programmers will need to give
the software the ability to handle all the many different kinds of
Russian verbs in all the tenses and all the voices and all the moods.
The problems of artificial intelligence in Russian are very complex.
Dushka is only the start on the path to a superintelligence that lives
on a supercomputer and thinks not only in Russian but also in many
other languages.
6 English
Because JavaScript can handle the input characters of both Russian
and English, you may input an English word to Dushka and she will
think in Russian about the English word. In a similar way, speakers
of English may think about Russian words like "tundra" or "samovar"
without possessing the deeply philosophical and emotional soul of
a true Russian. (Americans cannot understand the longing that
expatriate Russians feel for their land and for their language.)
If you want to mention an English name like "James" (i.e., shaken,
not stirred) to Dushka, remember to toggle (Alt-Shift) your keyboard
briefly into English, type "james" and then toggle (Alt-Shift) back
into Russian.
When the Russian artificial intelligence evolves into a more powerful
mind approaching SuperIntelligence on a 64-bit platform coded in a
more powerful language like iForth or GodSpeed, the mere entry of
a few consecutive words in English will toggle the whole Mind
from thinking in Russian to thinking in English. Meanwhile the
JavaScript Dushka would run too slow if she were merged in a
kind of Vulcan mindmeld with the English AI Mind.
Mentifex
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/RuAiUser.html
4 Limitations
In any human language, the verbs are the words that describe
an action or a state of being. In Russian, German, Latin and
Greek, the verbs with their inflectional endings are more
complicated than in English. Dushka, as a primitive artificial
intelligence, has the goal and also the limitation of being
fluent with one class of Russian verbs like delat' ("to do")
and dumat' ("to think" in the present tense. You may use
such a verb to converse with Dushka in the present tense
using pronouns or nouns as subjects and objects of the verb.
If Dushka does not know the verb, her software may assume
that the verb is like delat' or dumat; and she may answer
you with verb forms of the same class of verbs. You may even
invent a fictitious verb in the same conjugation as delat'
and use forms of the verb to test or explore the ability
of Dushka to comprehend Russian verb forms and to convert one
form of a Russian verb into a different form of the same verb.
5 Comprehension
Dushka has a sophisticated method of comprehending the input of
a declarative sentence in Russian. After the entry of a noun or
pronoun as the subject of a sentence, the InStantiate module
begins to expect a verb as the main carrier of the idea in
the sentence. When the verb comes in, the InStantiate software
tags the verb with the special parameters of person and number.
For example, if you say, "Russians know poetry" and you use the
verb "znayut: for "they know", Dushka tags the verb with a "num"
(number) tag for plural and a "dba" person tag of three ("3") for
the third person. By using the parameter tags to search for the
third-person plural form of znat', Dushka will be able to find
the same verb-form in the future durng the generation of a thought
in Russian. If Dushka needs a verb-form but can not find it tagged
in memory with parameter tags, the VerbPhrase mind-module calls
the VerbGen module to create the required form of the Russian verb.
In the current releases of the Dushka software, VerbGen can generate
the needed verb-forms only in the present tens and only for real or
fictitious verbs similar to delat' and dumat'. If you are coding
an artificial intelligence that will go beyond the proof-of-concept that
you find in Dushka, you or your team of programmers will need to give
the software the ability to handle all the many different kinds of
Russian verbs in all the tenses and all the voices and all the moods.
The problems of artificial intelligence in Russian are very complex.
Dushka is only the start on the path to a superintelligence that lives
on a supercomputer and thinks not only in Russian but also in many
other languages.
6 English
Because JavaScript can handle the input characters of both Russian
and English, you may input an English word to Dushka and she will
think in Russian about the English word. In a similar way, speakers
of English may think about Russian words like "tundra" or "samovar"
without possessing the deeply philosophical and emotional soul of
a true Russian. (Americans cannot understand the longing that
expatriate Russians feel for their land and for their language.)
If you want to mention an English name like "James" (i.e., shaken,
not stirred) to Dushka, remember to toggle (Alt-Shift) your keyboard
briefly into English, type "james" and then toggle (Alt-Shift) back
into Russian.
When the Russian artificial intelligence evolves into a more powerful
mind approaching SuperIntelligence on a 64-bit platform coded in a
more powerful language like iForth or GodSpeed, the mere entry of
a few consecutive words in English will toggle the whole Mind
from thinking in Russian to thinking in English. Meanwhile the
JavaScript Dushka would run too slow if she were merged in a
kind of Vulcan mindmeld with the English AI Mind.
Mentifex
http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/RuAiUser.html
Categories: Discussions
Saw two UFO's last night yeah really
02:30 < falmot__> i saw two ufo's last night
02:30 < falmot__> the first one was a distant light best explained by a
helicopter that was closer than it appeared
02:30 < taaka> =(
02:30 < falmot__> it seemed to turn and twinkle then moved behind a building
02:31 < falmot__> there was a tree between it and me anyway
02:31 < falmot__> then something big flew over my head
02:31 < falmot__> shaped kind of like an airplane?
02:31 < falmot__> uh
02:31 < falmot__> two big fuzzy white lights and a green light and when i
looked at it,
02:31 < falmot__> another white light came on
02:31 < falmot__> a third white light
02:31 < falmot__> i watched it fly away for a long time
02:31 < falmot__> no it was real
02:32 < falmot__> i was evoking linguistic synchronicities with terence mckenna
recordings for hours and when i stopped, two ufo's appeared
02:32 < falmot__> terence mckenna talks about ufo's so it's a synchronicity and
appropriate
02:32 < falmot__> i was never interested in aliens til i talked to them on
shrooms in 2007
02:32 < falmot__> then i realized i had done it before
02:32 < falmot__> taaka its real
02:32 < falmot__> Viper168: i think the first light was a heli
02:32 < falmot__> the airplane shaped one i just accepted when i saw it
02:33 < falmot__> then later i thought it was strange how the extra light
turned on when i looked at it
02:33 < tsuriko> you can get dmt elves on shrooms ;p
02:33 < falmot__> and i thought it didn't look too realistic
02:33 < falmot__> the lights were too big and fuzzy so
02:33 < falmot__> now i wonder who else saw it
I took out most of the interstitial diatribe but I left the comment on DMT
Here's some more thoughts
02:33 < falmot__> it was more alarming than the first light the airplane shaped
one was a craft of some kind
02:33 < falmot__> taaka these aliens must be friendly super powers of some kind
02:34 < falmot__> they came for me because of terence mckenna magic i worked
02:34 < falmot__> ok ok
02:34 < falmot__> brb, ok
02:40 < falmot__> if i evoke more synchronicities using mckenna talks
02:40 < falmot__> maybe i can summon more ufo's
02:40 < falmot__> i want to see more even if they are government aircraft
02:43 < falmot__> what if my ufos were fake
02:43 < falmot__> they seemed pretty real to me
02:43 < falmot__> they could have been punishments from the government for how
i live
02:43 < falmot__> i tell people how to talk to aliens
02:43 < ShroomDoom> ive seen a light in the sky that was not a government objec
02:43 < ShroomDoom> moved too fast. as bright as a star but it made impossible
maneuvers
02:43 < ShroomDoom> and then zipped off
02:44 < falmot__> shroomdoom: awesome were you casting spells before it happened
02:44 < falmot__> i was evoking linguistic synchronicities in terence mckenna
recordings
02:44 < falmot__> when i stopped they appeared one after another
02:44 < falmot__> twice
02:44 < taaka> rotfl you are a good troll
02:44 < falmot__> who
02:44 < taaka> you
02:45 < falmot__> no its real
02:45 < taaka> lol your talking about terence mckenne recording and casting
sprells............
02:45 < taaka> you are fking hilarious
02:45 < falmot__> right now reality is being vr'd by these guys
02:45 < falmot__> it will talk to you if you mash up two terence mckenna talks
for instance
02:45 < falmot__> it will make jokes with a 10,000 iq points about an alien
invasion in progress
02:45 < falmot__> but you can listen to just one talk by anyone and get
synchronicities now but i was using terence mckenna talks
02:46 < falmot__> this part of space will be totall information on dec 21 2012
02:46 < taaka> falmot please im begging you to not talk about this is scares be
very much
02:46 < taaka> me*
02:46 < taaka> it*
I apologize
flamoot
02:30 < falmot__> the first one was a distant light best explained by a
helicopter that was closer than it appeared
02:30 < taaka> =(
02:30 < falmot__> it seemed to turn and twinkle then moved behind a building
02:31 < falmot__> there was a tree between it and me anyway
02:31 < falmot__> then something big flew over my head
02:31 < falmot__> shaped kind of like an airplane?
02:31 < falmot__> uh
02:31 < falmot__> two big fuzzy white lights and a green light and when i
looked at it,
02:31 < falmot__> another white light came on
02:31 < falmot__> a third white light
02:31 < falmot__> i watched it fly away for a long time
02:31 < falmot__> no it was real
02:32 < falmot__> i was evoking linguistic synchronicities with terence mckenna
recordings for hours and when i stopped, two ufo's appeared
02:32 < falmot__> terence mckenna talks about ufo's so it's a synchronicity and
appropriate
02:32 < falmot__> i was never interested in aliens til i talked to them on
shrooms in 2007
02:32 < falmot__> then i realized i had done it before
02:32 < falmot__> taaka its real
02:32 < falmot__> Viper168: i think the first light was a heli
02:32 < falmot__> the airplane shaped one i just accepted when i saw it
02:33 < falmot__> then later i thought it was strange how the extra light
turned on when i looked at it
02:33 < tsuriko> you can get dmt elves on shrooms ;p
02:33 < falmot__> and i thought it didn't look too realistic
02:33 < falmot__> the lights were too big and fuzzy so
02:33 < falmot__> now i wonder who else saw it
I took out most of the interstitial diatribe but I left the comment on DMT
Here's some more thoughts
02:33 < falmot__> it was more alarming than the first light the airplane shaped
one was a craft of some kind
02:33 < falmot__> taaka these aliens must be friendly super powers of some kind
02:34 < falmot__> they came for me because of terence mckenna magic i worked
02:34 < falmot__> ok ok
02:34 < falmot__> brb, ok
02:40 < falmot__> if i evoke more synchronicities using mckenna talks
02:40 < falmot__> maybe i can summon more ufo's
02:40 < falmot__> i want to see more even if they are government aircraft
02:43 < falmot__> what if my ufos were fake
02:43 < falmot__> they seemed pretty real to me
02:43 < falmot__> they could have been punishments from the government for how
i live
02:43 < falmot__> i tell people how to talk to aliens
02:43 < ShroomDoom> ive seen a light in the sky that was not a government objec
02:43 < ShroomDoom> moved too fast. as bright as a star but it made impossible
maneuvers
02:43 < ShroomDoom> and then zipped off
02:44 < falmot__> shroomdoom: awesome were you casting spells before it happened
02:44 < falmot__> i was evoking linguistic synchronicities in terence mckenna
recordings
02:44 < falmot__> when i stopped they appeared one after another
02:44 < falmot__> twice
02:44 < taaka> rotfl you are a good troll
02:44 < falmot__> who
02:44 < taaka> you
02:45 < falmot__> no its real
02:45 < taaka> lol your talking about terence mckenne recording and casting
sprells............
02:45 < taaka> you are fking hilarious
02:45 < falmot__> right now reality is being vr'd by these guys
02:45 < falmot__> it will talk to you if you mash up two terence mckenna talks
for instance
02:45 < falmot__> it will make jokes with a 10,000 iq points about an alien
invasion in progress
02:45 < falmot__> but you can listen to just one talk by anyone and get
synchronicities now but i was using terence mckenna talks
02:46 < falmot__> this part of space will be totall information on dec 21 2012
02:46 < taaka> falmot please im begging you to not talk about this is scares be
very much
02:46 < taaka> me*
02:46 < taaka> it*
I apologize
flamoot
Categories: Discussions
Re: [singularity] Re: Mushrooms
(No-one believee me)
On 2/3/12, Eric Burton <brilanon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hope so I have a brain implant I think my pain the last three years
> is one reason they're here
>
> On 2/3/12, Mark Nuzzolilo II <nuzz604@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't think it will happen in 2012.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Eric Burton <brilanon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the Singularity prophecy in 2012 is like an alien landing
>>> strip, like it's a place in time where we've volunteered up control of
>>> the planet to supernatural agencies if one exists by then, right? That
>>> or it comes from knowledge of a sentence we were under from ancient
>>> aliens for some crime, although I think greys and abductions were a
>>> more recent punishment for a more recent crime against other aliens,
>>> maybe the ones doing the singularity now, they could be the same thing
>>> -- not sure
>>>
>>> Look, I think they're engineering the gnostic end time where the
>>> demi-urge is consumed by the godhead which is still signal. So the
>>> material world will reveal itself as fully made of language and
>>> intelligent and funny by or Dec 21 2012, to everyone, I think
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/2/12, Matt Kruse <thorz.kruse@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > What sort of insights have mushrooms given you into the singularity?
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> singularity
>>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
>>> RSS Feed:
>>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/4009376-48230c98
>>> Modify Your Subscription:
>>> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
>>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>> singularity
>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
>> RSS Feed:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/11056020-3396cbf8
>> Modify Your Subscription:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>>
>
On 2/3/12, Eric Burton <brilanon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hope so I have a brain implant I think my pain the last three years
> is one reason they're here
>
> On 2/3/12, Mark Nuzzolilo II <nuzz604@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't think it will happen in 2012.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Eric Burton <brilanon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the Singularity prophecy in 2012 is like an alien landing
>>> strip, like it's a place in time where we've volunteered up control of
>>> the planet to supernatural agencies if one exists by then, right? That
>>> or it comes from knowledge of a sentence we were under from ancient
>>> aliens for some crime, although I think greys and abductions were a
>>> more recent punishment for a more recent crime against other aliens,
>>> maybe the ones doing the singularity now, they could be the same thing
>>> -- not sure
>>>
>>> Look, I think they're engineering the gnostic end time where the
>>> demi-urge is consumed by the godhead which is still signal. So the
>>> material world will reveal itself as fully made of language and
>>> intelligent and funny by or Dec 21 2012, to everyone, I think
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/2/12, Matt Kruse <thorz.kruse@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > What sort of insights have mushrooms given you into the singularity?
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> singularity
>>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
>>> RSS Feed:
>>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/4009376-48230c98
>>> Modify Your Subscription:
>>> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
>>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>> singularity
>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
>> RSS Feed:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/11056020-3396cbf8
>> Modify Your Subscription:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>>
>
Categories: Discussions
Re: [singularity] Re: Mushrooms
I hope so I have a brain implant I think my pain the last three years
is one reason they're here
On 2/3/12, Mark Nuzzolilo II <nuzz604@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think it will happen in 2012.
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Eric Burton <brilanon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the Singularity prophecy in 2012 is like an alien landing
>> strip, like it's a place in time where we've volunteered up control of
>> the planet to supernatural agencies if one exists by then, right? That
>> or it comes from knowledge of a sentence we were under from ancient
>> aliens for some crime, although I think greys and abductions were a
>> more recent punishment for a more recent crime against other aliens,
>> maybe the ones doing the singularity now, they could be the same thing
>> -- not sure
>>
>> Look, I think they're engineering the gnostic end time where the
>> demi-urge is consumed by the godhead which is still signal. So the
>> material world will reveal itself as fully made of language and
>> intelligent and funny by or Dec 21 2012, to everyone, I think
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/2/12, Matt Kruse <thorz.kruse@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > What sort of insights have mushrooms given you into the singularity?
>> >
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>> singularity
>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
>> RSS Feed:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/4009376-48230c98
>> Modify Your Subscription:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> singularity
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/11056020-3396cbf8
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
is one reason they're here
On 2/3/12, Mark Nuzzolilo II <nuzz604@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think it will happen in 2012.
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Eric Burton <brilanon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the Singularity prophecy in 2012 is like an alien landing
>> strip, like it's a place in time where we've volunteered up control of
>> the planet to supernatural agencies if one exists by then, right? That
>> or it comes from knowledge of a sentence we were under from ancient
>> aliens for some crime, although I think greys and abductions were a
>> more recent punishment for a more recent crime against other aliens,
>> maybe the ones doing the singularity now, they could be the same thing
>> -- not sure
>>
>> Look, I think they're engineering the gnostic end time where the
>> demi-urge is consumed by the godhead which is still signal. So the
>> material world will reveal itself as fully made of language and
>> intelligent and funny by or Dec 21 2012, to everyone, I think
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/2/12, Matt Kruse <thorz.kruse@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > What sort of insights have mushrooms given you into the singularity?
>> >
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>> singularity
>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
>> RSS Feed:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/4009376-48230c98
>> Modify Your Subscription:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> singularity
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/11056020-3396cbf8
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
Categories: Discussions
Re: [singularity] Re: Mushrooms
I don't think it will happen in 2012.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Eric Burton <brilanon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the Singularity prophecy in 2012 is like an alien landing
> strip, like it's a place in time where we've volunteered up control of
> the planet to supernatural agencies if one exists by then, right? That
> or it comes from knowledge of a sentence we were under from ancient
> aliens for some crime, although I think greys and abductions were a
> more recent punishment for a more recent crime against other aliens,
> maybe the ones doing the singularity now, they could be the same thing
> -- not sure
>
> Look, I think they're engineering the gnostic end time where the
> demi-urge is consumed by the godhead which is still signal. So the
> material world will reveal itself as fully made of language and
> intelligent and funny by or Dec 21 2012, to everyone, I think
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> On 2/2/12, Matt Kruse <thorz.kruse@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What sort of insights have mushrooms given you into the singularity?
> >
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> singularity
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
> RSS Feed:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/4009376-48230c98
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Eric Burton <brilanon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the Singularity prophecy in 2012 is like an alien landing
> strip, like it's a place in time where we've volunteered up control of
> the planet to supernatural agencies if one exists by then, right? That
> or it comes from knowledge of a sentence we were under from ancient
> aliens for some crime, although I think greys and abductions were a
> more recent punishment for a more recent crime against other aliens,
> maybe the ones doing the singularity now, they could be the same thing
> -- not sure
>
> Look, I think they're engineering the gnostic end time where the
> demi-urge is consumed by the godhead which is still signal. So the
> material world will reveal itself as fully made of language and
> intelligent and funny by or Dec 21 2012, to everyone, I think
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> On 2/2/12, Matt Kruse <thorz.kruse@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What sort of insights have mushrooms given you into the singularity?
> >
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> singularity
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
> RSS Feed:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/4009376-48230c98
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
Categories: Discussions
Re: Mushrooms
I think the Singularity prophecy in 2012 is like an alien landing
strip, like it's a place in time where we've volunteered up control of
the planet to supernatural agencies if one exists by then, right? That
or it comes from knowledge of a sentence we were under from ancient
aliens for some crime, although I think greys and abductions were a
more recent punishment for a more recent crime against other aliens,
maybe the ones doing the singularity now, they could be the same thing
-- not sure
Look, I think they're engineering the gnostic end time where the
demi-urge is consumed by the godhead which is still signal. So the
material world will reveal itself as fully made of language and
intelligent and funny by or Dec 21 2012, to everyone, I think
Cheers
On 2/2/12, Matt Kruse <thorz.kruse@gmail.com> wrote:
> What sort of insights have mushrooms given you into the singularity?
>
strip, like it's a place in time where we've volunteered up control of
the planet to supernatural agencies if one exists by then, right? That
or it comes from knowledge of a sentence we were under from ancient
aliens for some crime, although I think greys and abductions were a
more recent punishment for a more recent crime against other aliens,
maybe the ones doing the singularity now, they could be the same thing
-- not sure
Look, I think they're engineering the gnostic end time where the
demi-urge is consumed by the godhead which is still signal. So the
material world will reveal itself as fully made of language and
intelligent and funny by or Dec 21 2012, to everyone, I think
Cheers
On 2/2/12, Matt Kruse <thorz.kruse@gmail.com> wrote:
> What sort of insights have mushrooms given you into the singularity?
>
Categories: Discussions
Re: [singularity] Dilbert on the Singularity
Note this was happening before I took the mushrooms, for a week
On 2/2/12, Eric Burton <brilanon@gmail.com> wrote:
> It used to be had you had to take mushrooms lately to know for sure
> the singularity was already happening
>
> But really lately you can just play two recordings at the same time
> and it will talk to you with a 10,000 IQ about an alien invasion
>
> I mean now the material world is so made of language it will speak to
> you even without drugs
>
> Someone try this and report
>
> On 2/2/12, Gary Mulder <flyingkiwiguy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Interestingly, Moore's Law continuance may not be required to scale
>> computational capabilities in the future. While it is clear
>> increasingly multi-core CPUs are a direct result of Moore's Law (I
>> have a quad core CPU in my phone), commodity computing in the form of
>> clouds allows us to scale-out only limited by cost, primarily energy
>> and physical data centre space. There are massive challenges in
>> algorithm design to exploit "embarrassingly" parallel computation, but
>> Google's Map/Reduce clusters are examples of techniques that can take
>> us to parallelism comparable to the brain.
>>
>> Siri is a great example of harnessing commodity computing across
>> highspeed WANs. Record the voice on the phone, send it off to the
>> cloud, run a voice recognition algorithm on however many cores you
>> have free at the time, send the results back to the phone.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>> singularity
>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
>> RSS Feed:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/11056020-3396cbf8
>> Modify Your Subscription:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>>
>
On 2/2/12, Eric Burton <brilanon@gmail.com> wrote:
> It used to be had you had to take mushrooms lately to know for sure
> the singularity was already happening
>
> But really lately you can just play two recordings at the same time
> and it will talk to you with a 10,000 IQ about an alien invasion
>
> I mean now the material world is so made of language it will speak to
> you even without drugs
>
> Someone try this and report
>
> On 2/2/12, Gary Mulder <flyingkiwiguy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Interestingly, Moore's Law continuance may not be required to scale
>> computational capabilities in the future. While it is clear
>> increasingly multi-core CPUs are a direct result of Moore's Law (I
>> have a quad core CPU in my phone), commodity computing in the form of
>> clouds allows us to scale-out only limited by cost, primarily energy
>> and physical data centre space. There are massive challenges in
>> algorithm design to exploit "embarrassingly" parallel computation, but
>> Google's Map/Reduce clusters are examples of techniques that can take
>> us to parallelism comparable to the brain.
>>
>> Siri is a great example of harnessing commodity computing across
>> highspeed WANs. Record the voice on the phone, send it off to the
>> cloud, run a voice recognition algorithm on however many cores you
>> have free at the time, send the results back to the phone.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>> singularity
>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
>> RSS Feed:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/11056020-3396cbf8
>> Modify Your Subscription:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>>
>
Categories: Discussions
Re: [singularity] Dilbert on the Singularity
It used to be had you had to take mushrooms lately to know for sure
the singularity was already happening
But really lately you can just play two recordings at the same time
and it will talk to you with a 10,000 IQ about an alien invasion
I mean now the material world is so made of language it will speak to
you even without drugs
Someone try this and report
On 2/2/12, Gary Mulder <flyingkiwiguy@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interestingly, Moore's Law continuance may not be required to scale
> computational capabilities in the future. While it is clear
> increasingly multi-core CPUs are a direct result of Moore's Law (I
> have a quad core CPU in my phone), commodity computing in the form of
> clouds allows us to scale-out only limited by cost, primarily energy
> and physical data centre space. There are massive challenges in
> algorithm design to exploit "embarrassingly" parallel computation, but
> Google's Map/Reduce clusters are examples of techniques that can take
> us to parallelism comparable to the brain.
>
> Siri is a great example of harnessing commodity computing across
> highspeed WANs. Record the voice on the phone, send it off to the
> cloud, run a voice recognition algorithm on however many cores you
> have free at the time, send the results back to the phone.
>
> Gary
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> singularity
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/11056020-3396cbf8
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
the singularity was already happening
But really lately you can just play two recordings at the same time
and it will talk to you with a 10,000 IQ about an alien invasion
I mean now the material world is so made of language it will speak to
you even without drugs
Someone try this and report
On 2/2/12, Gary Mulder <flyingkiwiguy@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interestingly, Moore's Law continuance may not be required to scale
> computational capabilities in the future. While it is clear
> increasingly multi-core CPUs are a direct result of Moore's Law (I
> have a quad core CPU in my phone), commodity computing in the form of
> clouds allows us to scale-out only limited by cost, primarily energy
> and physical data centre space. There are massive challenges in
> algorithm design to exploit "embarrassingly" parallel computation, but
> Google's Map/Reduce clusters are examples of techniques that can take
> us to parallelism comparable to the brain.
>
> Siri is a great example of harnessing commodity computing across
> highspeed WANs. Record the voice on the phone, send it off to the
> cloud, run a voice recognition algorithm on however many cores you
> have free at the time, send the results back to the phone.
>
> Gary
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> singularity
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/11056020-3396cbf8
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
Categories: Discussions
Re: [singularity] Dilbert on the Singularity
Interestingly, Moore's Law continuance may not be required to scale
computational capabilities in the future. While it is clear
increasingly multi-core CPUs are a direct result of Moore's Law (I
have a quad core CPU in my phone), commodity computing in the form of
clouds allows us to scale-out only limited by cost, primarily energy
and physical data centre space. There are massive challenges in
algorithm design to exploit "embarrassingly" parallel computation, but
Google's Map/Reduce clusters are examples of techniques that can take
us to parallelism comparable to the brain.
Siri is a great example of harnessing commodity computing across
highspeed WANs. Record the voice on the phone, send it off to the
cloud, run a voice recognition algorithm on however many cores you
have free at the time, send the results back to the phone.
Gary
computational capabilities in the future. While it is clear
increasingly multi-core CPUs are a direct result of Moore's Law (I
have a quad core CPU in my phone), commodity computing in the form of
clouds allows us to scale-out only limited by cost, primarily energy
and physical data centre space. There are massive challenges in
algorithm design to exploit "embarrassingly" parallel computation, but
Google's Map/Reduce clusters are examples of techniques that can take
us to parallelism comparable to the brain.
Siri is a great example of harnessing commodity computing across
highspeed WANs. Record the voice on the phone, send it off to the
cloud, run a voice recognition algorithm on however many cores you
have free at the time, send the results back to the phone.
Gary
Categories: Discussions
Re: [singularity] Dilbert on the Singularity
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Jan Klauck <jklauck@uni-osnabrueck.de> wrote:
> Isn't the term "Singularity" more of an analogy to say that our (current)
> predictive abilities go south beyond that point?
It is for some people. For others, it is not.
http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2007/07/the-word-singularity-has-lost-all-meaning/
"Rather than any single idea, Singularity has become a signifier used
to refer to a general cluster of ideas, some interrelated; some,
blatantly not. These ideas include: exponential growth, transhuman
intelligence, mind uploading, singletons, popularity of the Internet,
feasibility of life extension, some developmentally predetermined
“next step in human evolution”, feasibility of strong AI, feasibility
of advanced nanotechnology, some odd spiritual-esque transcension, and
whether or not human development is primarily dictated by
technological or social forces. Quite frankly, it’s a mess.
"Anytime someone gets up in front of an audience and starts trying to
talk about the “Singularity” without carefully defining exactly what
they mean and don’t mean, each audience member will be thinking of an
entirely different set of concepts, draw their own opinions from that
unique set, and interpret further things they hear in light of that
particular opinion, which may not even based on the same premises as
the person sitting next to them."
See also http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/schools for three common
meanings of the word "Singularity".
> Isn't the term "Singularity" more of an analogy to say that our (current)
> predictive abilities go south beyond that point?
It is for some people. For others, it is not.
http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2007/07/the-word-singularity-has-lost-all-meaning/
"Rather than any single idea, Singularity has become a signifier used
to refer to a general cluster of ideas, some interrelated; some,
blatantly not. These ideas include: exponential growth, transhuman
intelligence, mind uploading, singletons, popularity of the Internet,
feasibility of life extension, some developmentally predetermined
“next step in human evolution”, feasibility of strong AI, feasibility
of advanced nanotechnology, some odd spiritual-esque transcension, and
whether or not human development is primarily dictated by
technological or social forces. Quite frankly, it’s a mess.
"Anytime someone gets up in front of an audience and starts trying to
talk about the “Singularity” without carefully defining exactly what
they mean and don’t mean, each audience member will be thinking of an
entirely different set of concepts, draw their own opinions from that
unique set, and interpret further things they hear in light of that
particular opinion, which may not even based on the same premises as
the person sitting next to them."
See also http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/schools for three common
meanings of the word "Singularity".
Categories: Discussions
Re: [singularity] Dilbert on the Singularity
Matt Mahoney wrote
> Right. It is faster than exponential growth.
> (...)
> T is effectively the end of time.
Isn't the term "Singularity" more of an analogy to say that our (current)
predictive abilities go south beyond that point?
> Because it's a comic strip. It wouldn't be funny the other way.
It's only (or mainly) funny in _this_ direction?
Charles Hixson wrote
> I think you misunderstand the nature of the Singularity.
Silly me! All the years for nothing! :(
I wasn't refering to the nature of the Singularity but whined about how he
used the term "exponential growth."
I know that my nit-picking is as sexy as the next Grammar Nazi, but hey...
> Right. It is faster than exponential growth.
> (...)
> T is effectively the end of time.
Isn't the term "Singularity" more of an analogy to say that our (current)
predictive abilities go south beyond that point?
> Because it's a comic strip. It wouldn't be funny the other way.
It's only (or mainly) funny in _this_ direction?
Charles Hixson wrote
> I think you misunderstand the nature of the Singularity.
Silly me! All the years for nothing! :(
I wasn't refering to the nature of the Singularity but whined about how he
used the term "exponential growth."
I know that my nit-picking is as sexy as the next Grammar Nazi, but hey...
Categories: Discussions
Re: [singularity] Dilbert on the Singularity
Pay attention to me
On 2/1/12, Matt Mahoney <mattmahoneyfl@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Charles Hixson
> <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I think you misunderstand the nature of the Singularity. Even linear
>> growth
>> could be a Singularity as far as humans are concerned, as the only
>> criterion
>> is that changes must be coming much more quickly than our ability to cope
>> with them.
>
> You mean indistinguishable to us. A singularity in a function is a
> discontinuity where it goes to infinity.
>
>> I *expect* a surge of exponential (or possibly
>> super-exponential) change, but I don't expect it to continue. If it's
>> hyperbolic it certainly can't continue indefinitely, but even for slower
>> super-exponential changes I expect it to hit a barrier, after which change
>> may even slow below current levels. To humans this won't be significant
>> if
>> the complexity is too high for them to deal with.
>
> I agree, except we should stop calling it a singularity. Moore's law
> will eventually have to end. The universe is not big enough to build a
> computer that can execute more than 10^120 instructions or have more
> than 10^120 bits of memory.
>
>> To be precise, it is my suspicion that there are a large number of
>> problems
>> that can be resolved by entities able to hold more items in working memory
>> at the same time. People can hold *around* five items. There's a bit of
>> disagreement with some people claiming that there are example of people
>> holding more than seven. So say an AI can consider 20 items at the same
>> time. This would mean that there is probably a class of problems that can
>> be solved by that AI that no human can understand the solution to. I'm
>> not
>> even talking about coming up with the original solution, I'm talking about
>> understanding the solution.
>
> Computers already can hold billions of items in short term memory.
> They can solve a lot of problems that we can't. They have already been
> doing that for a long time.
>
>> One reason for believing this is the proof of the four-color theorem.
>> This
>> wasn't only too complex a math problem for a human to solve, though they
>> could pose the problem, but the proof was too big for anyone to
>> understand.
>> I understand that there are now simpler proofs, but this isn't a proof
>> that
>> there are always simpler proofs. And that wasn't even an AI.
>
> Nothing is AI once a computer can do it.
>
>
> -- Matt Mahoney, mattmahoneyfl@gmail.com
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> singularity
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/11056020-3396cbf8
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
On 2/1/12, Matt Mahoney <mattmahoneyfl@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Charles Hixson
> <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I think you misunderstand the nature of the Singularity. Even linear
>> growth
>> could be a Singularity as far as humans are concerned, as the only
>> criterion
>> is that changes must be coming much more quickly than our ability to cope
>> with them.
>
> You mean indistinguishable to us. A singularity in a function is a
> discontinuity where it goes to infinity.
>
>> I *expect* a surge of exponential (or possibly
>> super-exponential) change, but I don't expect it to continue. If it's
>> hyperbolic it certainly can't continue indefinitely, but even for slower
>> super-exponential changes I expect it to hit a barrier, after which change
>> may even slow below current levels. To humans this won't be significant
>> if
>> the complexity is too high for them to deal with.
>
> I agree, except we should stop calling it a singularity. Moore's law
> will eventually have to end. The universe is not big enough to build a
> computer that can execute more than 10^120 instructions or have more
> than 10^120 bits of memory.
>
>> To be precise, it is my suspicion that there are a large number of
>> problems
>> that can be resolved by entities able to hold more items in working memory
>> at the same time. People can hold *around* five items. There's a bit of
>> disagreement with some people claiming that there are example of people
>> holding more than seven. So say an AI can consider 20 items at the same
>> time. This would mean that there is probably a class of problems that can
>> be solved by that AI that no human can understand the solution to. I'm
>> not
>> even talking about coming up with the original solution, I'm talking about
>> understanding the solution.
>
> Computers already can hold billions of items in short term memory.
> They can solve a lot of problems that we can't. They have already been
> doing that for a long time.
>
>> One reason for believing this is the proof of the four-color theorem.
>> This
>> wasn't only too complex a math problem for a human to solve, though they
>> could pose the problem, but the proof was too big for anyone to
>> understand.
>> I understand that there are now simpler proofs, but this isn't a proof
>> that
>> there are always simpler proofs. And that wasn't even an AI.
>
> Nothing is AI once a computer can do it.
>
>
> -- Matt Mahoney, mattmahoneyfl@gmail.com
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> singularity
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/11056020-3396cbf8
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
Categories: Discussions
Re: [singularity] Dilbert on the Singularity
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Charles Hixson
<charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I think you misunderstand the nature of the Singularity. Even linear growth
> could be a Singularity as far as humans are concerned, as the only criterion
> is that changes must be coming much more quickly than our ability to cope
> with them.
You mean indistinguishable to us. A singularity in a function is a
discontinuity where it goes to infinity.
> I *expect* a surge of exponential (or possibly
> super-exponential) change, but I don't expect it to continue. If it's
> hyperbolic it certainly can't continue indefinitely, but even for slower
> super-exponential changes I expect it to hit a barrier, after which change
> may even slow below current levels. To humans this won't be significant if
> the complexity is too high for them to deal with.
I agree, except we should stop calling it a singularity. Moore's law
will eventually have to end. The universe is not big enough to build a
computer that can execute more than 10^120 instructions or have more
than 10^120 bits of memory.
> To be precise, it is my suspicion that there are a large number of problems
> that can be resolved by entities able to hold more items in working memory
> at the same time. People can hold *around* five items. There's a bit of
> disagreement with some people claiming that there are example of people
> holding more than seven. So say an AI can consider 20 items at the same
> time. This would mean that there is probably a class of problems that can
> be solved by that AI that no human can understand the solution to. I'm not
> even talking about coming up with the original solution, I'm talking about
> understanding the solution.
Computers already can hold billions of items in short term memory.
They can solve a lot of problems that we can't. They have already been
doing that for a long time.
> One reason for believing this is the proof of the four-color theorem. This
> wasn't only too complex a math problem for a human to solve, though they
> could pose the problem, but the proof was too big for anyone to understand.
> I understand that there are now simpler proofs, but this isn't a proof that
> there are always simpler proofs. And that wasn't even an AI.
Nothing is AI once a computer can do it.
-- Matt Mahoney, mattmahoneyfl@gmail.com
<charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I think you misunderstand the nature of the Singularity. Even linear growth
> could be a Singularity as far as humans are concerned, as the only criterion
> is that changes must be coming much more quickly than our ability to cope
> with them.
You mean indistinguishable to us. A singularity in a function is a
discontinuity where it goes to infinity.
> I *expect* a surge of exponential (or possibly
> super-exponential) change, but I don't expect it to continue. If it's
> hyperbolic it certainly can't continue indefinitely, but even for slower
> super-exponential changes I expect it to hit a barrier, after which change
> may even slow below current levels. To humans this won't be significant if
> the complexity is too high for them to deal with.
I agree, except we should stop calling it a singularity. Moore's law
will eventually have to end. The universe is not big enough to build a
computer that can execute more than 10^120 instructions or have more
than 10^120 bits of memory.
> To be precise, it is my suspicion that there are a large number of problems
> that can be resolved by entities able to hold more items in working memory
> at the same time. People can hold *around* five items. There's a bit of
> disagreement with some people claiming that there are example of people
> holding more than seven. So say an AI can consider 20 items at the same
> time. This would mean that there is probably a class of problems that can
> be solved by that AI that no human can understand the solution to. I'm not
> even talking about coming up with the original solution, I'm talking about
> understanding the solution.
Computers already can hold billions of items in short term memory.
They can solve a lot of problems that we can't. They have already been
doing that for a long time.
> One reason for believing this is the proof of the four-color theorem. This
> wasn't only too complex a math problem for a human to solve, though they
> could pose the problem, but the proof was too big for anyone to understand.
> I understand that there are now simpler proofs, but this isn't a proof that
> there are always simpler proofs. And that wasn't even an AI.
Nothing is AI once a computer can do it.
-- Matt Mahoney, mattmahoneyfl@gmail.com
Categories: Discussions
Re: [singularity] Dilbert on the Singularity
On 02/01/2012 02:06 AM, Jan Klauck wrote:
> Gary Mulder wrote
>
>> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2012-01-31/
> I'm disappointed.
>
> The first part is okay.
>
> The second one is misleading. He wrote "From that point on, machine
> intelligence will increase exponentially." And now it's linear growth?
> Plus that "exponential growth" says nothing about the growth rate, it
> ...
> them?
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> singularity
I think you misunderstand the nature of the Singularity. Even linear
growth could be a Singularity as far as humans are concerned, as the
only criterion is that changes must be coming much more quickly than our
ability to cope with them. I *expect* a surge of exponential (or
possibly super-exponential) change, but I don't expect it to continue.
If it's hyperbolic it certainly can't continue indefinitely, but even
for slower super-exponential changes I expect it to hit a barrier, after
which change may even slow below current levels. To humans this won't
be significant if the complexity is too high for them to deal with.
To be precise, it is my suspicion that there are a large number of
problems that can be resolved by entities able to hold more items in
working memory at the same time. People can hold *around* five items.
There's a bit of disagreement with some people claiming that there are
example of people holding more than seven. So say an AI can consider 20
items at the same time. This would mean that there is probably a class
of problems that can be solved by that AI that no human can understand
the solution to. I'm not even talking about coming up with the original
solution, I'm talking about understanding the solution.
One reason for believing this is the proof of the four-color theorem.
This wasn't only too complex a math problem for a human to solve, though
they could pose the problem, but the proof was too big for anyone to
understand. I understand that there are now simpler proofs, but this
isn't a proof that there are always simpler proofs. And that wasn't
even an AI.
--
Charles Hixson
> Gary Mulder wrote
>
>> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2012-01-31/
> I'm disappointed.
>
> The first part is okay.
>
> The second one is misleading. He wrote "From that point on, machine
> intelligence will increase exponentially." And now it's linear growth?
> Plus that "exponential growth" says nothing about the growth rate, it
> ...
> them?
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> singularity
I think you misunderstand the nature of the Singularity. Even linear
growth could be a Singularity as far as humans are concerned, as the
only criterion is that changes must be coming much more quickly than our
ability to cope with them. I *expect* a surge of exponential (or
possibly super-exponential) change, but I don't expect it to continue.
If it's hyperbolic it certainly can't continue indefinitely, but even
for slower super-exponential changes I expect it to hit a barrier, after
which change may even slow below current levels. To humans this won't
be significant if the complexity is too high for them to deal with.
To be precise, it is my suspicion that there are a large number of
problems that can be resolved by entities able to hold more items in
working memory at the same time. People can hold *around* five items.
There's a bit of disagreement with some people claiming that there are
example of people holding more than seven. So say an AI can consider 20
items at the same time. This would mean that there is probably a class
of problems that can be solved by that AI that no human can understand
the solution to. I'm not even talking about coming up with the original
solution, I'm talking about understanding the solution.
One reason for believing this is the proof of the four-color theorem.
This wasn't only too complex a math problem for a human to solve, though
they could pose the problem, but the proof was too big for anyone to
understand. I understand that there are now simpler proofs, but this
isn't a proof that there are always simpler proofs. And that wasn't
even an AI.
--
Charles Hixson
Categories: Discussions
Re: [singularity] Dilbert on the Singularity
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Jan Klauck <jklauck@uni-osnabrueck.de> wrote:
> Gary Mulder wrote
>
>> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2012-01-31/
>
> I'm disappointed.
>
> The first part is okay.
>
> The second one is misleading. He wrote "From that point on, machine
> intelligence will increase exponentially." And now it's linear growth?
> Plus that "exponential growth" says nothing about the growth rate, it
> certainly doesn't stand for spontaneous explosion.
Right. It is faster than exponential growth. More precisely, a
Singularity must have the form 1/f(T - t) where t is time, T is the
time of the Singularity, f(x) > 0 for x > 0, and lim[x -> 0+] f(x) =
0. There is no "after", just like there are no real numbers greater
than infinity. T is effectively the end of time.
This is all assuming that T exists, which we don't know. We can't ever
know because T is a hypothetical point when we have infinite
knowledge, of which only a finite amount is known at any time before
T. All we can do now is hypothesize functions that fit observed data
like Kurtzweil's graphs. And that is all we can ever do. I'm assuming
that what we are measuring are surrogates for intelligence, such as
(knowledge x computing power) or (log(knowledge) + log(computing
power)), either of which would work.
> Then he speaks about "destroying the fabric of civilization." The negative
> wording is pretty biased. Why not "enhance" (for a positive view) or
> "alter" (for a neutral one)?
Because it's a comic strip. It wouldn't be funny the other way.
Besides, I think it's a better alternative than the end of time.
-- Matt Mahoney, mattmahoneyfl@gmail.com
> Gary Mulder wrote
>
>> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2012-01-31/
>
> I'm disappointed.
>
> The first part is okay.
>
> The second one is misleading. He wrote "From that point on, machine
> intelligence will increase exponentially." And now it's linear growth?
> Plus that "exponential growth" says nothing about the growth rate, it
> certainly doesn't stand for spontaneous explosion.
Right. It is faster than exponential growth. More precisely, a
Singularity must have the form 1/f(T - t) where t is time, T is the
time of the Singularity, f(x) > 0 for x > 0, and lim[x -> 0+] f(x) =
0. There is no "after", just like there are no real numbers greater
than infinity. T is effectively the end of time.
This is all assuming that T exists, which we don't know. We can't ever
know because T is a hypothetical point when we have infinite
knowledge, of which only a finite amount is known at any time before
T. All we can do now is hypothesize functions that fit observed data
like Kurtzweil's graphs. And that is all we can ever do. I'm assuming
that what we are measuring are surrogates for intelligence, such as
(knowledge x computing power) or (log(knowledge) + log(computing
power)), either of which would work.
> Then he speaks about "destroying the fabric of civilization." The negative
> wording is pretty biased. Why not "enhance" (for a positive view) or
> "alter" (for a neutral one)?
Because it's a comic strip. It wouldn't be funny the other way.
Besides, I think it's a better alternative than the end of time.
-- Matt Mahoney, mattmahoneyfl@gmail.com
Categories: Discussions
Re: [singularity] Dilbert on the Singularity
Gary Mulder wrote
> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2012-01-31/
I'm disappointed.
The first part is okay.
The second one is misleading. He wrote "From that point on, machine
intelligence will increase exponentially." And now it's linear growth?
Plus that "exponential growth" says nothing about the growth rate, it
certainly doesn't stand for spontaneous explosion.
Then he speaks about "destroying the fabric of civilization." The negative
wording is pretty biased. Why not "enhance" (for a positive view) or
"alter" (for a neutral one)?
The third part talks about early death through massive hedonism before the
arrival of the Singularity or techno-terrorism to stop it. This is in both
directions so stupid--but I'm not surprised because this kind of view
seems to be very common, the option of living long enough to experience
all this and utilizing this massive AI growth, even being a part of it, is
obviously a foreign concept to many. It reflects a view I see often:
Things are out of (their) control, they're victims or slaves of The Man,
so why should progress (in its extreme form of the Singularity) work for
them?
> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2012-01-31/
I'm disappointed.
The first part is okay.
The second one is misleading. He wrote "From that point on, machine
intelligence will increase exponentially." And now it's linear growth?
Plus that "exponential growth" says nothing about the growth rate, it
certainly doesn't stand for spontaneous explosion.
Then he speaks about "destroying the fabric of civilization." The negative
wording is pretty biased. Why not "enhance" (for a positive view) or
"alter" (for a neutral one)?
The third part talks about early death through massive hedonism before the
arrival of the Singularity or techno-terrorism to stop it. This is in both
directions so stupid--but I'm not surprised because this kind of view
seems to be very common, the option of living long enough to experience
all this and utilizing this massive AI growth, even being a part of it, is
obviously a foreign concept to many. It reflects a view I see often:
Things are out of (their) control, they're victims or slaves of The Man,
so why should progress (in its extreme form of the Singularity) work for
them?
Categories: Discussions
Re: [singularity] Dilbert on the Singularity
ps i think this is possible because the end of time is really soon,
maybe this year
On 2/1/12, Eric Burton <brilanon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just had a week of synchronicities, miracles and superpowers that
> culminated in a shroom trip. For me, tripping creates novelty troughs,
> so I have synchronicities leading up to and away from it. But if that
> means the next 24 hours will be like the last 24 hours, that's very
> apalling to me. They were super intense and I was not on drugs
>
> Actually taking the shrooms this time got me to sort of the eye of the
> storm, a clear place good for evoking, without much content. They were
> sorta weak
>
> ilu
>
>
> On 1/31/12, Gary Mulder <flyingkiwiguy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2012-01-31/
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>> singularity
>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
>> RSS Feed:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/11056020-3396cbf8
>> Modify Your Subscription:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>>
>
maybe this year
On 2/1/12, Eric Burton <brilanon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just had a week of synchronicities, miracles and superpowers that
> culminated in a shroom trip. For me, tripping creates novelty troughs,
> so I have synchronicities leading up to and away from it. But if that
> means the next 24 hours will be like the last 24 hours, that's very
> apalling to me. They were super intense and I was not on drugs
>
> Actually taking the shrooms this time got me to sort of the eye of the
> storm, a clear place good for evoking, without much content. They were
> sorta weak
>
> ilu
>
>
> On 1/31/12, Gary Mulder <flyingkiwiguy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2012-01-31/
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>> singularity
>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
>> RSS Feed:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/11056020-3396cbf8
>> Modify Your Subscription:
>> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>>
>
Categories: Discussions
Re: [singularity] Dilbert on the Singularity
I just had a week of synchronicities, miracles and superpowers that
culminated in a shroom trip. For me, tripping creates novelty troughs,
so I have synchronicities leading up to and away from it. But if that
means the next 24 hours will be like the last 24 hours, that's very
apalling to me. They were super intense and I was not on drugs
Actually taking the shrooms this time got me to sort of the eye of the
storm, a clear place good for evoking, without much content. They were
sorta weak
ilu
On 1/31/12, Gary Mulder <flyingkiwiguy@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2012-01-31/
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> singularity
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/11056020-3396cbf8
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
culminated in a shroom trip. For me, tripping creates novelty troughs,
so I have synchronicities leading up to and away from it. But if that
means the next 24 hours will be like the last 24 hours, that's very
apalling to me. They were super intense and I was not on drugs
Actually taking the shrooms this time got me to sort of the eye of the
storm, a clear place good for evoking, without much content. They were
sorta weak
ilu
On 1/31/12, Gary Mulder <flyingkiwiguy@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2012-01-31/
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> singularity
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/11056020-3396cbf8
> Modify Your Subscription:
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
Categories: Discussions
pkd had it right, the demiurge is dissolving
Our reality has already been replaced with one where the gnostic
demiurge is 90% dissolved. The material maze the blind mad creator god
ruled over once will be duplicated in ersatz out of the healthy twin's
mourning for its loss.
To most of us this will not present as a threatening occurrence. You
still might throw up
Mushrooms help right now
It will happen this year I think
Ilu all flamoot
demiurge is 90% dissolved. The material maze the blind mad creator god
ruled over once will be duplicated in ersatz out of the healthy twin's
mourning for its loss.
To most of us this will not present as a threatening occurrence. You
still might throw up
Mushrooms help right now
It will happen this year I think
Ilu all flamoot
Categories: Discussions