Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
5.0 out of 5 stars
Some complexity can be contained, however there are an infinite number of possible creations, September 7, 2008
Some complexity can be contained, however there are an infinite number of possible creations. A infinite intelligence is required too understand an infinite complexity of patterns. Complexity requires time to understand and utilize, a framework needs to be established to understand context. A machine would need to change to a more infinite design as it started to solve more complex problems or an infinite number of complex problems. Mathematics could component's and integrated with the machine through an advanced network using the computers as assemble plant of code to find a mathematical solution. If the mathematics of everything, nuclear explosion, protemics, engineering, etc were reusable components then a machine could solve all mechanical and quantitive problem. Would that make the machine superior? Would machines drive us to work, feed us, provide medical care, teach us, and cloth us?
Mankind will eventually reach a maxim of complexity it can manage and understand? Or will it break through into a new realm just as the super computers that beat the world greatest chess player.
How can the tool become the master unless the tool exceeds the power of the brain?
The limits of logic are human imagination. How to you teach a computer to learn. The computer must have the ability to see. Seeing means interpreting symbols, such as images, characters, relationships, and context. If a computer can see than it can learn.
Suppose, a company right now has the ability to teach a learning machine. The learning machine is begin to replicate parts it needs to extend its functionality. The designs are strange but the computer uses trillions of generations of solutions to derive it. The designs are implemented and a new level of functional emerges. These designs are elementary now, but are not expected to remain elementary as the computer begins to fabricate and solve more difficult problems.
If one argues computers are stupid forever than it is a framework argument. They are arguing that nothing new gets created and things only expand in functionality. For example, speech to text, it has been around for over two decades. Speech to text has not innovated, only expanded in scope. So in the next thirty years will we see only the expansion of existing functionality or will we see an new enhanced and advanced civilization?
So the question should remains, what new innovations has a computer created? Music, medicene, electronics, toys, etc. If none can be found, we must surmise that computers have not gained the ability to create. Humans create and computers describe these creations.
|
|
|
4 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Jaron Lanier is good PhD material, December 20, 2002
This guy talks like a PhD. He puts words and sentences together very well that mean little or nothing. He makes up ideas and concepts that sound impressive on the surface but have very little or no substance, based on very simple concepts in reality. Gets the word count up good. If he's not a PhD he should be. This guy is dumb. Except he makes a lot more money than me.
|
|
|
|
