IBM produce the next step of AI overlording
 

Interesting, although it is limited, as mentioned, that it cannot create new connections just work with what it has, and that is only a few hundred thousand connections, the human brain has millions or even billions of connections. The technology isn't there yet but this is a step in the correct direction.

One step closer to AM, especially with DARPA involved.

Brilliant :D

The limitations of physical board layout will diminish with time, I predict :)

Thumbs up for this one in the article:

Forgive me for this moment of childish glee.

I want one I want one I want one! :shoop:

And now I'm wondering what he's doing teaching cognitive computing. There's nothing magical in computers until you hit the indistinguishable-from-magic stage.

Its only magic if you choose to bask in ignorance.

The Blue Brain Project is underway and is the next step after IBM. They are trying to create a functional human brain inside of a computer: Blue Brain Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And that's really cool :)

Is it even possible to bask in ignorance, seeing as ignorance is the absence of knowledge, so how does one bask in lack of something?

:D Waiting anxiously for that rat brain. So much to look forward to in 2014 :P

Excellent point; I agree.

Curling up and refusing to accept knowledge out of fear or stubbornness, like our friend Aurora here.

I know you two don't really get along, but isn't that assuming tad much?

Aurora is idealistic and perhaps somewhat naive, but I wouldn't say that she actively refuses to acknowledge that which is true. Then again I'm not really any good when it comes to judge of character.

Yeah, I agree with Aquaplant... I mean, there was a time where you were at least intelligent when you blatantly personally insulted other people. Now, you're not even making that effort.

Observation, not assumption.

Well all I know is that she doesn't like technology, but that's about it.

I don't think it's that Aurora doesn't like technology, probably more that she has very specific ways she'd like to see it used :P My guess, but Aurora should come set me straight if that's wrong.

Just a question, but why can't something that has an explanation be magical, I mean if a magic has an explanation, it's still magic.

He hasn't insulted anyone in this thread.

There's a difference between accepting information as it comes and defending an opinion against evidence. The vast majority of people do both - the former on things they are ambivalent on and the latter on held opinions.

I am idealistic and I think that is a good thing, but I refuse to be called naive or ignorant. There have been a few occasions where I have argued against something and retreated when there was enough evidence to the contrary, but in the points that I stick to, I have not really have gotten convincing evidence to the contrary. Naive would mean to look at things oversimplified and that I certainly do not do. I see that things are vastly complex and rather would say that exactly that complexity makes it immensely hard to make predictions about "solutions". Being ignorant would mean to ignore evidence or facts. What I usually do when arguments are brought up that run contrary to what I claim is that I try to use facts and conclusions against that. I am stubborn only when I think that the "facts" I am presented with are not complete or simply faulty. What you can hold against me is that in some topics i bring up philosophic or holistic argumentations - something a few of you seem to dislike as viable arguments (despite most of the famous scientists also being philosophers in some way or another).

That topic is a bit more complicated indeed. Technology can include by definition many things from making fire all the way up to genetic modification. I think however that there are appropriate and sustainable technologies and those who are not, I think that the relationship to technology is vastly important and do not accept a blind faith in technology to solve every problem. and I think that a lot of especially modern technology when used to the extent it is done now is destroying too much of what I love - this planet and the living beings on it. As some of you know, I am a scientist - i am working with technology daily, do chemistry for a living and used to build electronics and program software back when I was young in the 1980ies. I am no stranger to technology - but over all these years of digging it, I also found out some things that led me to the conclusions that I write here.

It's simply the way our sanity works, because we constantly seek information to reinforce what we perceive to be correct, and any opposing information is usually to be feared. There is also the idealistic aspect as to how we personally would wish for things to be, versus how they are in reality, and for me this is the source of all my bitterness towards all things reality.

Being idealistic is usually a good thing, unless you are messed up like I am, but lets not go there. I know you are smart enough not to be purposefully ignorant, but I still consider you to be naive in some regards, though that is of course only my opinion on the matter. Then again as I don't know anything about you other than what you write here and what I make of it, so my assumptions may not be entirely correct, and this holds true to everyone else here evaluating your content, like Isard and Human No More. This is simply a restriction we can't go around.

Any proper argument worth something is fuelled only by information that can be deemed objective enough by all parties involved, and usually such occurrences are so rare, that arguments tend to go on for eternity because people drag irrelevant or subjective points into them.

We also may have a semantic issue on our hands when it comes to naivety. Perhaps I could use the word romantic, but that overlaps somewhat with idealism already, so I don't really know. Words in themselves are sometimes too rigid in their definitions and how they are used to relay information, but this is also something we can't go around.

So you should know that technology in itself is not the problem, we are.

Objectivity is often a good goal, but in many cases it cannot be achieved and in others it is not the main basis for decisions. Especially, objectivity is often assumed when actually the matter is subjective on a larger level. For example it may be very much an objective concept that to bring some indigenous people elelctricity, TVs and western medicine will make their lives better because they can live longer and have more fun. We assume it is objective but in fact that assessment is just a subjective one, just one that is shared by a large majority. Science can produce objective statements though.
But still, even if something is objective, still the subjective considerations of people involved cannot be ignored. If people are afraid of lets say cellphone radiation and science finds only few evidence of it causeing cancer, people will still be afraid. You can try to convince them otherwise, show them studies and all that, but in the end I think one has to accept that these people do not want to have a transmitter installed across the road. At that point one can act in two ways - not build it because one respects the fear of these people and building it would cause them to be unhappy, fearful and maybe develop psychologically induced illness. Or one can - and sadly this is all too often the case - just ignore their concerns out of the reasoning that their subjectiveness is irrelevant in the face of the own (perceived or real) objectivity. And at that point objectivity can be used in the wrong way - and it does all the time.
Another example for this is the inability to objectively determine the value of a species, the scent of a flower, the beautiy of a butterfly or the feeling of being at home. Thus for someone, a certain flower or a beloved tree can be extremely valuable while for someone else it is a temporary decoration or a couple of meters of 2x4s. Objectivity just does not have the ability to cover every aspect of human and nonhuman life.

My signature says it :P - I think its the relationship between them, not some "flawed human nature" or a inherent "evilness of technology". However I think that a lot of modern technology is based on a lack of relationship or the wrong kind of relationship, hence it is destructive and that cannot easily be mitigated because if something is born out of a bad relationship it is extremely hard to set it right. From what I know for example about the Mayans (littele do I know yet), it seems they did have certain rituals involving respect, consideration, thankfulness and thoughfulness when they took something from the Earth, like a lump of metal to make objects. This technological act to use something from the Earth and make it into something useful or beautiful for humans was given proper consideration - it was thought of what it will do to the place that it is taken from, determined if something has to be done to heal it and there was of course also spiritual rituals involved that made such an act one that was only done when it is "worth it". In contrast at present day, the minerals are ripped off the Earth, considered to be free of charge, "undeveloped resources" and therelike. Little consideration is given to the place that it is taken from unless demanded by regulators and the materials gained are sold as cheaply as possible. I think there is a fundamental discrepancy here in the relationship and I think a positive relationship is possibly incompatible with the technologies of mining that we use today (with huge open pits, tailings, toxic chemicals and acidic mine drainage).
I took mining just as an illustrative example here - please dont make this thread one about mining...

Personal preferences are not something that can be objectively discussed, because they simply don't derive from the fundamental needs that we all share, such as need for food, warmth and so on.

That is, you have issues with opinions, not science, but you sound like you are having issues with both.

Fear is the enemy of mankind, of us all, because it makes us do terrible things. To be somewhat cliched, we fear the things we don't understand. Fear is the primitive safeguard reaction designed to keep us safe, but it can no longer serve its intended purpose, considering how "unnatural" our lives have become.

Technology is here to serve us, and if some people do not want said technology, then it's their prerogative to refuse from it, but those of us who want the conveniencies provided by technological advancements, we are willing to accept the possible repercussions.

This is true, and that is why I said that personal preferences can't be subjected to objective discussions, because objectivity means sharing a common denominator. Then again we mostly place too much from too little value for personal preferences in many regard, but I'm not about to go there now because I'm not about to write a book about this particular subject.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by lack of or wrong kind of relationship? Can you elaborate?

Just like we must eat the fruits of a tree to stay healthy, we must use other materials that are available. Then again this particular subject can be expanded too much to handle on my own, but suffice to say that I want to differentiate between what is needed for handy stuff, and what is done just for profit, but because in our society these things are so intertwined, it's rather difficult to keep them apart so to speak.

All in all, I think we should have a more efficient way of having this conversation, mostly because I tire at typing, and even more so I tire of thinking, which is rare in itself because that's the only thing I always like to do, but now my mind is beginning to slow down due to sleep deprivation or something.

In summation, I want to advocate such technology that can allow us to stop abusing nature as we do, while still retaining most of modern comforts we enjoy today. Technology is a tool to solve problems, and while the people in the mining industry don't see their destructive behaviour as a problem, and thus aren't interested investing in developing technologies that are more resource efficient, or don't require physical materials to begin with.

I think I need lots of sugar or something to wake my brain up, because I feel like zombie or something...

I think it's more incompatible with industrialisation. I also think it would be naive to think that industrialisation can be put back into it's genie-lamp; the only way you could do that would be to make material processing economically irrelevant, and that's not happening any time soon.

At that point, this idea runs into several problems.
For once the mentioned abuse of objectivity. Because some people claim to have objective proof that something does no harm gives them the perceived right to do it because the others wont be affected. So the cellphone lovers would say that studies show that cellphone towers do not harm people, so they can build it even if the neighbors do not want it, because it does not harm them according to the perceived objectivity. But that ignores the problem of subjectivity because for those neighbors who do not think the studies are conclusive or even for those who are just "supersitious" it is still a violation. The only possible way out would be to build cellphone towers only in places where no one in the vicinity has any objections and if they have objections to educate and convince them. But in many cases the shortcut is taken, the cellphone tower is built and if someone complains they are slapped in the face with some studies or data that "prove" that there is no harm done. I think this is elitist, arrogant and undemocratic.
The other thing is that with the present technologies, or at least most of them, the repercussions of using them are carried by someone else. The cars we drive create global warming in Africa, oil spills in the Niger delta, displace indigenous in the Amazon and create acid mine drainage in Chile. The cellphones we use create toxic lakes in REE mining in China, impacts of copper and gold mining in South America and end up polluting the air and soil and people in crude attempts of recycling in Africa. In most cases the people living there profit a lot less of these technologies than the burden they carry (often they dont have a car and one usually has no more than one cellphone). This also happens on a more local scale. And it happens massively with nonhumans. I would not mind zip if some people want to have all kinds of technologies if they would themselves bear all the impacts and consequences of it. If they want, they can also have death camps and wars. But the confinement of the impacts is impossible with present technologies, so in most cases some people suffer and some other people endulge in the benefits.

Voluntarily - probably not. When this civilization hits the boundaries of growth and faces collapse - it better be so. Jared Diamond wrote about this in his books, that (ancient) civilizations most often collapse when they hit the limits of their resources they depend on but that some managed to get over it by a couple of means. Those are adaptability to completely new ways of life, positive social coherence and others. It often takes to throw overboard very basic assumptions of a culture to make it. In some cases, this meant that those who survived adopted lifestyles that do not resemble the previous civilization anymore.
The auto industry will become economically irrelevant when oil runs out, so will oil and gas driven industrial agriculture. In some cases, new technologies can replace the ones that hit limits, but in some cases it simply is not feasible economically. For example it is simply impossible to drive all the cars with bioethanol and if it would be possible it would be way more expensive, so that it would be madness to keep up the highway system for the remaining cars.
Many times these new technologies run into new limits again and the cycle seems to go faster and faster as technological development goes faster and faster. A new technology might hit limits within a few years after its boom and maybe even before it managed to replace the old technology completely. I mean few people would have thought that rare Earth mining would become a limiting factor to the transition to renewable energy in such a short time. Or that Uranium production actually will peak within a few decades.

To stick with your analogy of the Djinn and the bottle - if we cannot bring him back into the bottle but find that with every wish that we are granted he distorts it in a way that causes massive damage elsewhere or to ourselves or our children - what do we do? In the story the Djinn is either tricked back into the bottle or he is somehow defeated. If he was always only doing good things he might also be freed. But I dont think we deal with a Djinn that only does good - we are dealing with one of Chaos that gives you a beautiful flower and kills a forest to make it....

I think it's important to note here that studies actually go both ways. Some say there is increased risk, others say no risk, and others still say (oddly enough) a decreased risk. Really, the scientific and medical communities freely admit that it's inconclusive - we don't really know. For more information on that, see this medical journal article from the Journal of Neuro-oncology here.

However, those studies are actually referring to cell phones themselves, and we aren't making neighbours get cell phones. We're just building cell towers. And according to the World Health Organization, there's absolutely no risk, other than a clinically insignificant rise in core temperature.

Where did you read about those things? I haven't heard of some of those and would like to read more, so if you would post your sources, I would much appreciate that.

I think most of those impacts are from technologies we don't really need, especially things like massive-scale steel production. Really, to make a bunch of computers and connectors, it wouldn't take that much steel. And once it was all made, that would be it. That would be the end of the pollution. We might need a bunch to begin with to make things like long-distance terminals across space to create an interplanetary Internet, but once that's done, that's it, and the pollution ends there.

I have to disagree with that because of your use of the concept of economy. If you haven't noticed, the Na'vi do just fine without a monetary system, and I see no reason why a moneyless society couldn't work, barring people's greed. And anyway, things like running out of oil won't be an issue with these new electric cars coming out, which can get electricity from stations that derive it from sunlight or running water.

To chip in here, wealth and money are not synonymous. The Na'vi do not have a system of money, but it's nigh-impossible for them not to have a concept of wealth. I'm sure that leaders' family (I can't remember the exact titles) will be one of the wealthier members of the tribe.

In what way? What would the leaders have that other Na'vi wouldn't?

More stuff, to put it simply, i.e. the larger families will have more time, collectively, to work, and so will generally have access to more resources than smaller families.

Well, that's not the only thing about our society that is elitist, arrogant and undemocratic, because there are far worse scenarios than that, but you are correct about the principle though. The thing is that we should learn to live so that we take each other into consideration when making decisions, but that's difficult because the power to make these decisions is never local to the places it's being used on, so it's kind of hard that way. And even if it is local, a few well placed donations to the right places gets things done regardless, because there are always multiple parties of interest, and most of them benefit from such decisions, so they will make sure that they are approved.

I think there are far worse cases of subjectivity violations like I said, and I sometimes wonder how do you manage with all that, because every time I start to think about problems, they pile up to enormous heights and then tumble down on me, crushing me to moody depression.

Yes I'm aware of the nature of the problem, but as we both know, it's the result of the capitalist profit oriented paradigm that causes these ecological problems, because management of natural resources only hinders production volumes, and proper waste disposal and transportation costs money, so that is often left to bare minimum, but you know this already, so it's kind of pointless when we talk about things we are both aware of. I don't think many people here even try to understand what you are on about, but you persistence is admirable. If were I in your place, I would have a weekly mental breakdown, because I get so easily frustrated.

Then again I do not possess enough knowledge on the matter that I could check if it were actually possible to get these things done without causing inappropriate amount of stress to the environment. Granted there are many technological things that I do not care too much about, but it matters not in the grand scheme of things what I think, because as long as any product can be sold with large volumes and thus profits, it will be done, no matter if it's not even useful or necessary in any way.

But once again, I ramble on about things you already know of. It's not really fair when the truth is stacked against me, because the system itself is so terrible, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done in a better way, though that's something I can't be sure about.

You are really good with the inconvenient facts, you know that? All of these problems are of such large scale, that they are often ignored because they seem impossible to fix in our current system. Anyhow, even inconvenient truth is still the truth, and my intellectual integrity requires that I do not try to argue against it.

I see your point, but the Na'vi rely very heavily on equality and community. Though I suppose that could be skewed in certain situations. Then again, Neytiri didn't seem much more well-off than any other, and she was the leader's daughter.

Consensus is impossible without true understanding, though. The Na'vi have come up with a rather interesting way of getting around that - tsaheylu - which affords them communal knowledge and the ability to make informed decisions. I'm sure decisions about cell towers (though this really applies to any issue) would be a lot easier if everyone understood where each other were coming from.

But humans are stuck with democracy and majority votes instead of consensus, unfortunately, which means that it's inevitable that someone's going to be unhappy with any one decision.

You're referring to bias and bribery, and those definitely exist in humans. Nothing's really what it seems in politics, because most things are at least a little corrupt.

I think this is actually a really, really important point that needs to be emphasized. Capitalism and greed drive humanity to stick it to the environment.

Me too.

And there are better ways of doing a lot of things in society, but they are all more expensive, and greedy corporate giants could care less about the environment - which I think is awful.

I think it's important to note, though, that these problems are fixable, but nobody wants to fix them because the economy tends to take precedence over the environment and public health. And I have a big problem with the fact that the economy is placed first, but that's an argument for another thread.

We're all pretty accepting here, though (correct me if I'm wrong), so you should feel free to post your thoughts if you want to.

The thing about consensus is that it's difficult the more there are people like me for example, because I'm stubborn, but complete consensus is rather difficult in every possible scenario regardless, so we use the majority excuse to hide that little problem.

Even if we had a similar mind sharing system akin to the Na'vi, most people would still disagree with each other, because they would still have differing opinions, but instead of assuming why, now they would know why they have such opinions, but do you think that would stop people from arguing about it? Like when people do irrational things based on their opinions, I still don't agree with them even when I understand their reasoning.

Lately I've been having to disagree with myself a whole lot because I'm currently in the conflict between rationality and feelings. It's quite hard to balance out because the other stands on firm ground due to its inherent truth, while the other plays unfair by pulling the emotional strings. So no amount of mind sharing is going to solve these problems because even one mind can't get along, so how could many different? Then again perhaps I'm not the best candidate to use as a norm.

In a world where money gets you nearly everything, corruption is always ever present, no matter what.

Of course there are better ways of doing things, but the way things are done now couldn't really be much worse. And this is why it's so difficult for me to justify my techno obsession because it's mostly just for fun and in no way necessary, but I want it anyways, so in order not to be hypocrite, I should be able to do way much better than what is currently being done to justify my vanity. If it wasn't for vanity, then I'd only have to do a bit better, but even I enjoy my personal share of technological vanity.

They probably are, but I have no idea how much cool stuff I would have to give up to get to such middle ground. Then again I think it would have to go way over to the other side, because of the fact how messed up everything is these days. I guess I get to enjoy my techno stuff as long as this horrible system lasts, and hopefully get to enjoy a better world when I have to give up my gadgets. Then again I think I will loose both my gadgets as well as healthy planet if this keeps up, so what am I supposed to do? Not that it matters anyhow what I do, because I'm just another internet nobody whose impact on the world is infinitely small.

It's not that I don't agree with Aurora, I would just like to keep my gadgets because I've got uses for them, but it would be irrational of me to demand something that conflicts with something that I essentially agree with. I know many of the things I enjoy in the technological spectrum are not necessary to our well being as a species, and that their production is detrimental to nature, while I know all that, I still want, so it's making me crazy.

It's like ultimately complicated when the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but also the enemy of my friend, who is also my enemy while still being a friend.

(I've shuffled this conversation off to another thread, FYI.)

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Humans aren't rational in the majority of times/places, after all.

It's this, "humans are irrationally greedy" thing again, I'm afraid. I'd like to get rid of it, but don't know how. :P

Humans are not irrationally greedy, they are rationally greedy, because that is the only way to play the game of financial success in a broken system.

AFAIK, rational greed would actually dictate maintaining the environment. In the (misremembered) words of Captain Jack, "a night of rum every ten years forever is still more than a lifetime's rum."

I would say that what we have now is the rational kind of greed, because greed is inherently a bad thing, so even if it is the rational kind of greed, it still produces unpleasant results. Then again I think it's not even possible to have rational greed, because they contradict when you look at it from the ethical perspective. To put a simple analogy, it's like saying that this water is hot and cold, because it can't be both at the same time when looking from a fixed perspective.

Rationality doesn't have any judgement on "good" or "bad," though. It only evaluates "efficient." It's certainly more profitable in the long run to run a eco-friendly business forever than it is to run the Earth into the ground.

And how well have humans done in the past when it comes to looking things in the long run? I'm not really big on history, but the fact alone that people who usually make decisions are just individuals looking to cover their own asses rather than to work together towards a better future.

We are short sighted morons for the most part, which is ironic in the sense considering how intelligent we are, but we often lack the wisdom to correctly use said intelligence.