Started by Baruch, December 31, 2016, 10:15:52 AM
Quote from: Baruch on January 03, 2017, 08:04:32 PMHakurei ... splitting computer hairs isn't a practical argument.
Quote from: Jason78 on January 04, 2017, 02:06:29 AMDo you imagine the little dog speaking with my deep voice or just the little fella yipping?
Quote from: Jason78 on January 04, 2017, 02:11:29 AMThat's not splitting hairs. That's a genuine concern within the field of computer science. It's almost on the level of the P vs NP problem.
Quote from: Baruch on January 03, 2017, 08:04:32 PMHakurei ... splitting computer hairs isn't a practical argument. Yes, in any practical sense, memory is finite, but will execute most programs (most programmers design for the hardware).
QuoteAnd there is a halt, or a loop.
QuoteOf course sometimes the goal is some output, but sometimes more indirect, the side-effects of execution are what are sought.
QuoteAre you simply doing a "must have last comment"? That doesn't address the OP.
QuoteMarketing defines AI, that and the credulity of DARPA or venture capitalists or the completely ignorant computer user.
QuoteIf moving ones and zeros are AI, then we have had AI for many decades now. My programmable calculator in the 1970s was worthy of civil rights ;-)) Number 5 Is Alive! Similarly if random atomic configurations are a life form, then the kitchen garbage I throw out is a life form (not just the mold on the overly old cottage cheese).
Quote from: Baruch on January 04, 2017, 07:07:56 PMAll human words are just vocalizations of apes ... they don't mean anything (I am often told here that life has no meaning, or that it is purely subjective). The thoughts behind the words are equally meaningless ... random sounds produced by random neural firings.
Quote from: Baruch on January 04, 2017, 07:07:56 PM"Intelligence wasn't something we crafted, but emerged naturally, so of course the definition of intelligence is kind of fuzzy when trying to characterize it after the fact, and artificial intelligence even more so." ... yes, a perfect sales opportunity for science grifters and their followers. Like polywater and cold fusion. Actual fusion research is also still ... 20 years away, for over 60 years now.
Quote from: Baruch on January 04, 2017, 07:07:56 PMProgramming not for doing accounting or physics, usually involves loops these days (to check for new input in a dynamic way from some human acting asynchronously). That is the basic difference between old world programming and modern graphical windows programming (vs the days of punched cards). And no, in that case, with say a web site ... it isn't supposed to exit, it is supposed to be up and available 99.99% of the time. Halting is a fault, not a success (though maybe necessary for periodic maintenance). In an interconnected system (how much more complex than a single cpu Turing machine) ... the side effects don't stop there (see first computer worm).
Quote from: Baruch on January 04, 2017, 10:05:26 PMThe universe is a Turing machine, therefore any machine of any complexity (including networking and human input) is necessarily within the bounds of a Turing machine? That is circular logic.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 04, 2017, 11:27:07 PM^ Sorry, Cavebear, you're wrong. Turing machines are state machines. Nothing about the definition requires or implies self-awareness or simulation of the same. (Though this may actually be the case for some Turing machines.) No, the universe isn't a Turing machine because the number of states is bounded.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 04, 2017, 11:18:45 PMThe universe cannot be a Turing Machine. A Turing Machine involves self awareness or the simulation of such. I have yet to see an argument supporting the idea that the "universe" has self-awareness.
Quote from: Cavebear on January 05, 2017, 12:27:20 AMNot sure what you mean by "state machines".