posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 06:40 PM
Parsing text and analyzing patterns to display car options meeting your specifications is not intelligence.
you are incorrect in saying that no human intelligence or creative work went into the system, the system was designed by engineers and thus it DID
involve human intelligence. For the most part, it is doing what it is told by the engineers. It can change over time to meet the trends it observes
during its operation, but it's not as if the machine can jump in thought from how to make a red car to philosophy or ethics without being told to by
a programmer, and even if it could it would have no concept of these. It would only observe the raw data being given to it.
Interesting idea about a human being a tool, but tools are designed for a specific purpose, and used by someone/something. So who/what designed us,
what is our purpose, and who/what uses us and to what end?
How am I using false logic? It's simple. you claim we are at our limit. We agree that the progress is technological. Thus, you claim we are at 100%
of our potential. If that were true, why are more and more technologies being developed, some being born even as we type this? We are clearly not at
our limit, or we are continually overcoming our limitations, because otherwise we would be at 101% of our potential, which is an impossible state to
be in. Furthermore, why 2 years? What about people buying stupid stuff? just what is it that you are trying to say?
brainwashing or current consumer society has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. A human can build abstract concepts and conceive of things
which have no empirical basis. the concept of subtraction does not exist to a computer, only addition of negative numbers. The concept of love? The
future? What could be? the computer has to work with statistical projections, we are free to imagine.
Accepting our limit sounds like apathy. That's not how progress happens. As for your economic presentation you posted, I have a few issues with it.
You don't pay more money hoping to get more productivity, you pay money to reward the top talent to keep them from leaving your company and so, as
the man says, they don't think about money but rather they think about work. The 3 things we need for job satisfactions can be achieved today if you
pick the right career. If you pick another career, well then you need to rise to the top and fight for it so you get the 3 things.
Also, Open Source cannot be applied to everything. The world relies on computers at the moment. The demand for computers will certainly outstrip the
production capability for volunteers to construct the computers, and society as we know it will regress. I do not think I have ever seen an open
source product which has impressed me to the point where I have decided to completely forgo the commercial alternatives. Simply put, the big "evil"
money-making companies attract the best talent using a combination of purpose and MONEY and then they set them to work on what the company thinks is
important. If the person has a passion, that will be displayed in the quality of the product and they will be rewarded. I know that I won't work on
relevant software unless I'm paid, certainly not when I could be just as fulfilled coding useless video games and things like that for 20 hours a
week and then go out and party like a rockstar the rest of the week - since everything is free now.
The solution to the problem is not to give away everything for free, but give it away if it's open source, and sell it if you're being paid - like
it is now. It works perfectly fine, and there's a great relationship between open source and commercial software right now.
the NSA's tool is not surprising and a reasonable application of AI. Most of the links you provide aren't terribly surprising, because they don't
tap into true intelligence. They're essentially just data mining and using some human designed heuristic to decide on several human designed