Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Post edit history

Zero-K story: Behind the scenes

To display differences between versions, select one or more edits in the list using checkboxes and click "diff selected"
Post edit history
Date Editor Before After
2/17/2013 12:56:23 AMGBrankTheEloIsALie before revert after revert
2/17/2013 12:55:34 AMGBrankTheEloIsALie before revert after revert
2/17/2013 12:51:24 AMGBrankTheEloIsALie before revert after revert
2/17/2013 12:50:25 AMGBrankTheEloIsALie before revert after revert
2/17/2013 12:49:58 AMGBrankTheEloIsALie before revert after revert
2/17/2013 12:48:52 AMGBrankTheEloIsALie before revert after revert
2/17/2013 12:45:00 AMGBrankTheEloIsALie before revert after revert
2/17/2013 12:41:00 AMGBrankTheEloIsALie before revert after revert
Before After
1 That is indeed the current state. 1 That is indeed the current state.
2 \n 2 \n
3 But with enough power and data input, you could have code evolving from itself to solve arbitrarily complex problems. Let me render this more precisely: 3 But with enough power and data input, you could have code evolving from itself to solve arbitrarily complex problems. Let me render this more precisely:
4 \n 4 \n
5 Humans are (evolutionarily) optimized for the problems they are supposed to deal with (while sucking at other things). We haven't even started computer evolution (in terms of them training themselves), so you can't say computers are unable to have abstraction/problem solving capabilities/reality "interpolation". I'm constantly observing myself thinking in models of stuff, which is just what computers do. We are not aware how much we abstract and classify the flood of information pouring down on us, but internally we use simple models into which we fit the stuff we see, hear or feel. We act led by our hormones, think in categories and assume us to be self-aware. Creativity is currently not easy for computers, but would you expect a jellyfish to be creative? 5 Humans are (evolutionarily) optimized for the problems they are supposed to deal with (while sucking at other things). We haven't even started computer evolution (in terms of them training themselves), so you can't say computers are unable to have abstraction/problem solving capabilities/reality "interpolation". I'm constantly observing myself thinking in models of stuff, which is just what computers do. We are not aware how much we abstract and classify the flood of information pouring down on us, but internally we use simple models into which we fit the stuff we see, hear or feel. We act led by our hormones, think in categories and assume us to be self-aware. Creativity is currently not easy for computers, but would you expect a jellyfish to be creative?
6 \n 6 \n
7 Also (about "internal self-awareness"), would you say that dolphins or apes are less sentient than humans? I don't think so. They recognize themselves in mirrors, they have emotions and "know" how to interact with their environment. So what difference is there between them and us, aside from the fact that we are abusing our environment on a large scale? 7 Also (about "internal self-awareness"), would you say that dolphins or apes are less sentient than humans? I don't think so. They recognize themselves in mirrors, they have emotions and "know" how to interact with their environment. So what difference is there between them and us, aside from the fact that we are abusing our environment on a large scale?
8 More to the point: How do you [i]know[/i] that something is [i]not[/i] self-aware? 8 More to the point: How do you [i]know[/i] that something is [i]not[/i] self-aware? If it's something "spiritual", how can we know it doesn't happen in microprocessors?