Illwinter is ahead of the Computer Science Field by CENTURIES

[hEad]

But what is this learning we speak of? Is it not a structure of inherent behaviours used to evaluate a given choice at a given time? Are we not with out prescience our selves?

Therefore our own actions are essentially reasoned conclusions given the parameters of our experiences. A program functions on the premise of best course of action defined by the programmer given a set of circumstances. We ourselves reason along these lines - only able to perform that what we know and only perform that which we think is the best course of action.

We attain more sophistication by experience; a program increases capacity through algorithmic development. Surely the two processes are very similar? But of the containers that shunts these processes about - the bone water bags and the note books, well, only one of them needs to pee....

[Endoperez]

Originally Posted by hEad

A program functions on the premise of best course of action defined by the programmer given a set of circumstances. We ourselves reason along these lines - only able to perform that what we know and only perform that which we think is the best course of action.

hEad v 3.25.6, When humans gather and/or re-evaluate information, the premises behind our actions and decisions change, automatically, all the time.


This is much easier than updating a program, hEad v 3.25.7, wouldn't you agree?

We attain more sophistication by experience; a program increases capacity through algorithmic development. Surely the two processes are very similar?

Of course they are. Program increases its capacity when programmers attain more sophistication. Both processes depend on a human's learning.

[Renojustin]

Originally Posted by Endoperez

hEad v 3.25.6, When humans gather and/or re-evaluate information, the premises behind our actions and decisions change, automatically, all the time.


This is much easier than updating a program, hEad v 3.25.7, wouldn't you agree?

Of course they are. Program increases its capacity when programmers attain more sophistication. Both processes depend on a human's learning.

At this point you have passed beyond Dominions 3 geekiness level and there is no more I can do for you.

[hEad]

Originally Posted by Endoperez

hEad v 3.25.6, When humans gather and/or re-evaluate information, the premises behind our actions and decisions change, automatically, all the time.


This is much easier than updating a program, hEad v 3.25.7, wouldn't you agree?

Of course they are. Program increases its capacity when programmers attain more sophistication. Both processes depend on a human's learning.

Cor.. that one begs to be prodded by a discussion on the origins of causality. Indeed, perhaps our own learning is dependent on the actions of a greater force external to ourselves – plenty of ideas to suggest that man is not the sovereign agent he believes himself to be. Man certainly has the monopoly on efficiency but his intelligence is not alone in its capacity to respond to stimuli.

Anyway, no rush. I haven’t seen a movie or heard a theory yet that doesn’t portend bad news for humanity if AI gets its 1’s in front of its 0’s by itself!

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by hEad

Cor.. that one begs to be prodded by a discussion on the origins of causality. Indeed, perhaps our own learning is dependent on the actions of a greater force external to ourselves – plenty of ideas to suggest that man is not the sovereign agent he believes himself to be. Man certainly has the monopoly on efficiency but his intelligence is not alone in its capacity to respond to stimuli.

Perhaps you're all a hallucination of mine.

You cannot debate what is possible, but unprovable. You can only debate what can be shown to be true, at least to our perception. Since we can perceive anything that we put our minds to - we are intelligent. The machine only perceives what we tell it to - it is not intelligent.

Since people's perspectives can change over their lifetime, and indeed, instantly - and we cannot detect any "greater force" influencing that activity - the only sane assumption that can be made, is that we are self determinate.

To put it another way, the machine is not responsible for what it does. The programmer, or operator is responsible for the machine. Humans are responsible for their own actions, and to claim otherwise is recklessly irrational.

[vfb]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

...

You cannot debate what is possible, but unprovable.

...

His Eminence Carmont objects to your heresy, and would like to invite you to come sit in the comfortable chair for a while.