[rsch20]

computers have passed the turing test, humans have also failed it.

it's not a very good test.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('outcast', 'Y')ou know what I mean, maybe you don't want to go back to hunter gathering society but you do either think we will or you want to go "back to the future" to about what things were 200-300 years ago before the industrial revolution.


My views take a more realistic approach. PO is very much a technical problem with technical solutions.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', 'c')omputers have passed the turing test, humans have also failed it.

it's not a very good test.

[outcast]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o fuel = no technical advancement, no technical solution.

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('outcast', '
')No fuel means we need to adjust our technology to use different fuel sources. Not impossible.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('outcast', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o fuel = no technical advancement, no technical solution.

[outcast]

fallacy upon fallacy

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')n The Oil Drum Stuart Staniford argues agriculture will not deindustrialize when the production of oil peaks and goes into long term decline.

So when you industrialize a society, is that a reversible process? Can you take it on a backward path to a deindustrialized society that looks in the important ways like the society you had before the industrialization? As far as I can see, the "second wave" peak oil writers treat it as fairly obvious that this is both possible and desirable. It appears to me that it is neither possible or desirable, but at a minimum, someone arguing for it should seriously address the question. And it is this failure that I am calling the Fallacy of Reversibility. It is most pronounced in Kunstler, who in addition to believing we need a much higher level of involvement in agriculture also wants railways, canals, and sailing ships back, and is a strong proponent of nineteenth century urban forms.

I think those who see collapse in a post-oil peak world are making a number of mistakes. First, they are underestimating the potential of substitutes. Granted, the substitutes will initially cost more. So a shift to substitutes will cause a dip in living standards. But that is not collapse of civilization and a reversion to people following oxen around farm fields. The biggest problem with substitutes is the lag time while new capital expenditures for energy substitutes get made as oil production declines. But oil production won't collapse in a year. We will have time to make the shift. For people in First World countries it will be difficult but not a collapse of civilization.

[Dezakin]

Not to mention that its fairly unlikely that fossil fuel production will fall by 30% in only 20 years.

[Grifter]

I also believe it is impossible to deindustrialise.

That is part of the reason I am a doomer.

[Carlhole]

Amazon: "Wired For War"

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Amazon Reviewer, Julie Neal', 'T')his frightening and funny book helped me understand the future of war in all its technological splendor. What was once the stuff of science fiction, such as machines thinking for themselves, is now our military's reality.

Unfortunately, as Isaac Asimov quotes in Wired for War: "The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."

[Carlhole]

How Do You Build A Synthetic Brain?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SD', 'S')cienceDaily (Feb. 12, 2009) — Nanocarbon modeling may be the next step toward emulating human brain function. That’s the focus of USC electrical engineering professor Alice Parker’s “synthetic cortex” study funded by the National Science Foundation which has set out to create nanocarbon brain neurons that can talk to each other.

[PenultimateManStanding]

duplicate

[PenultimateManStanding]

AI is a broad category and doesn't necessarily involve a singularity. The Deep Blue chess program is obviously very intelligent when it comes to chess. There are many other examples. The notion of a self-aware computer intelligence that rapidly evolves is a whole different matter. If the military is interested in these very sophisticated software developments it's hardly surprising. But the "technical singularity" remains speculative. Naturally, people in the field will do everything they can to make it happen. I mastered the 8086 chip's binary code back in the 80's and learned to access it with assembly language. It's all very straightforward logic as is all programming. When I heard or read about AI I came to the conclusion then, and I still stand by it, that computers will only do what they are programmed to do and they will never do anything more.

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'A')I is a broad category and doesn't necessarily involve a singularity. The Deep Blue chess program is obviously very intelligent when it comes to chess. There are many other examples. The notion of a self-aware computer intelligence that rapidly evolves is a whole different matter. If the military is interested in these very sophisticated software developments it's hardly surprising. But the "technical singularity" remains speculative. Naturally, people in the field will do everything they can to make it happen. I mastered the 8086 chip's binary code back in the 80's and learned to access it with assembly language. It's all very straightforward logic as is all programming. When I heard or read about AI I came to the conclusion then, and I still stand by it, that computers will only do what they are programmed to do and they will never do anything more.

[PenultimateManStanding]

Carlhole, it's a debate. No need to get nasty about it. I'm sure that every glimmer we get about organic intelligence will be utilized. Who knows where it will lead. But some facts are indisputable: we have not reached any singularity, AI has done some amazing things and that's all we've got for now. Furthermore, I haven't said anything about human understanding of how creatures process information. You are putting words into my mouth that I haven't uttered. So knock it off with the 'bah, everyone heard you the first time" crap. I have every right to post what I think in this interesting thread.

[rsch20]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'I')t's all very straightforward logic as is all programming. When I heard or read about AI I came to the conclusion then, and I still stand by it, that computers will only do what they are programmed to do and they will never do anything more.

[outcast]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Deep Blue chess program is obviously very intelligent when it comes to chess.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', '
')
You seem to have dropped the ridicule which is nice and I will do the same. But again the problem with your participation in this thread is that you don't understand the subject matter very well and tend to make blatantly false statements with the certitude of fact. This type of thing is tiring to deal with.

[rsch20]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rsch20', '
')
You seem to have dropped the ridicule which is nice and I will do the same. But again the problem with your participation in this thread is that you don't understand the subject matter very well and tend to make blatantly false statements with the certitude of fact. This type of thing is tiring to deal with.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen I heard or read about AI I came to the conclusion then, and I still stand by it. . .