I didn't get on board the old Battlestar Galactica series, but loved the newer one. The Expanse was exceptional as well. Blade Runner was a great movie.
New in cosmology and fundamental physics
Sort:
Mar 8, 2023
0
#463
Tom Cruise is a decent actor. After all, he took on Rice's Lestat. The 4th or 5th remake of War of the Worlds was really cool at the beginning.
After this clip of Edge of Tomorrow a clip of The Running Man, a movie that shoves the truth right in your face with its host Richard Dawson. "We don't Lie...show them the truth on TV"!
Who do you love?.....Killian
Mar 8, 2023
0
#464
MelvinGarvey wrote:
@Elroch, I'm (re) watching currently the serie "Foundation", and have read (and re-read) all of his books long ago. What do you think of his science fiction, scientifically speaking?
I presume you refer to Asimov. I was a fan as a teenager. In hindsight, I like Asimov's short stories better than his novels. His novels were enjoyable reads, but somewhat padded, I feel - he really could churn out the words! The robotics stuff is great, if challenging to get near in reality. The level of abstraction involved in the 3 laws is extremely high, requiring powerful AGI.
Mar 8, 2023
0
#466
I queried ChatGPT about obeying Asimov's three laws, but I feel it dodged the question.
Elroch:>
If you were interfaced to control a simple robot with no intelligence or programming except to move and sense its surroundings, would you obey Asimov's three laws of robotics?
ChatGPT:>
As an artificial intelligence language model, I do not have the capability to "obey" or "disobey" any set of laws, including Asimov's three laws of robotics. I am a machine learning model that responds to inputs based on the data I have been trained on.
However, Asimov's three laws of robotics are a set of guidelines for the behavior of robots that were designed to ensure the safety and well-being of humans. If a robot is programmed to follow these laws, it would prioritize the safety of humans over its own actions.
Therefore, if a simple robot were programmed to follow Asimov's three laws of robotics, it would prioritize human safety over its own actions. However, it is important to note that programming a robot to follow these laws may not be sufficient to ensure that it behaves ethically and responsibly in all situations.
Mar 8, 2023
0
#467
Anyone remember "Star Blazers"?
A graphic cartoon akin to Speed Racer.
Mar 8, 2023
0
#468
I did not know that MG. The running man was 1987.
Which one did you prefer?
Mar 8, 2023
0
#469
MelvinGarvey wrote:
@Elroch ChatGPT is a boring thing to talk about, all has been said already about it in other threads and blogs. You'll even find Youtube videos about its limitations and lack of any sort of intelligence, even a dumb one.
It got 147 on an IQ test. It has also passed law and medical exams.
Just a quickie. The question is probably whether simulated intelligence in a robot or computer can be artificial intelligence. That is, is are we writing programmed instructions on how to answer questions and respond in a seemingly intelligent way? I think that real intelligence is not understood. To produce artificial intelligence, we have to know what intelligence is and how it works. Therefore, we are nowhere near artificial intelligence.
Mar 8, 2023
0
#471
Optimissed wrote:
Just a quickie. The question is probably whether simulated intelligence in a robot or computer can be artificial intelligence. That is, is are we writing programmed instructions on how to answer questions and respond in a seemingly intelligent way? I think that real intelligence is not understood. To produce artificial intelligence, we have to know what intelligence is and how it works. Therefore, we are nowhere near artificial intelligence.
As usual, this comes down to recognising that there is not some natural thing that we identify and give the name "intelligence". Rather there is a diverse continuum of behaviour that we associate to varying degree with the concept "intelligence", and then we try to make up a definition that aggregates that.
There is evidence in humans that there is a mode of variation in the capabilities of human brains that is informative about a range of individual capabilities of humans. We call this "general intelligence" or "the g-factor". It is a statistical thing in that when you have a set of psychological tests of specialised types (the sorts you might find in an IQ test), and do something like a principal component analysis, the primary mode explains a lot of the variance in results on the individual tests. This is the basis for the notion of IQ - estimated by doing a range of the more specialised tests and combining the results, informed by the statistical decomposition of variation.
So even the notion of "general intelligence" we have for humans is a rather rough concept based more on empirical ability to do tests than anything more substantial (admittedly, this concept then has some value in predicting more substantial capabilities - but far less than many would guess. The variation in IQ associated with jobs is way lower than that between people, and two people doing a demanding job can have very different IQs. One will be better at doing tests, but that does not mean they will be better at the job).
So when it comes to non-humans - eg animal intelligence - it's forcing a square peg into a round hole to some extent. All sorts of species are capable of things humans can't do, but none of them competes on things like tool making and use, modelling the world and abstract thought, as far as we know.
With artificial general intelligence, the success of agents such as ChatGPT at tests as well as at passing the Turing test gives a claim to intelligence. But ChatGPT has no interface to the world except for text dialog, so we can easily reject it for anything criterion that involves interfacing to the world.
I think the bottom line is that we have now got to narrow definition AGI, and it's a matter of adding more and more specialised capabilities. There is no magic line to cross, all the way to an entity that, if we wished, could mimic an entire human life. And this would be to anthropomorphize intelligence far too much. The better line of development is to do tasks better than humans, including ones we can't do at all without tools.
That was a long post @Elroch. I'll probably be able to read it with more concentration tomorrow. By intelligence, I meant the mode of functioning of the brain, rather than a human or cognitive quality. I certainly disagree with the validity of the Turing test. He was wrong and describing or testing something other than intelligence.
kidathome07 wrote:
A valid question
Not a very good one, though.
Logic too can be valid yet wrong.
Maybe THIS will help......... or not. 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/most-mind-blowing-images-ever-143500695.html
Mar 9, 2023
0
#475
MelvinGarvey wrote:
Elroch a écrit :
It got 147 on an IQ test. It has also passed law and medical exams.
And found its answers in the huge database it has, including thousands of pages of IQ test questions and their answers.
It is best not to guess when you have little knowledge. ChatGPT has no "database". Its core is an engine that outputs 50,000 probabilities for what the next token will be, and it samples one randomly (with a temperature to indicate the chosen degree of randomness). Repeating this including earlier outputs is how it outputs a sentence (or a multidigit number). There are an infinite number of possible IQ test questions, just like there are a vast number of chess positions and LeelaZero does not have a "database of positions". Likewise I am sure it had not seen the law and medical exam questions - every exam is mostly new questions).
Interestingly, it would not give the exact same answers twice in most cases, much like a person (though a question that is particularly clear to it may receive the same answer almost all the time). Technically there is _always_ a non-zero probability of divergence (high in most applications).
You could do with learning about how the AI works
I wrote about it here:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/chatgpt-is-a-swindle
You would have done much better to have learnt how it worked before trying to write about it.
Trailer:
#3
"Anyhow, my point was to demonstrate it doesn't actually "think" (or compute, calculate) much anything: it only does search for some reply to give in some database of texts, and has criterias that are more or less efficients to help it pick the right(s) answers, but this is where it stops. Only people who can't figure out some tricky enough questions can be fooled by it.
It's not even about the Turinge Test, it's about being an actual AI, as in, any type of intelligence at all. For what I saw, it is no intelligence at all, not even a dumb one."
What definition of intelligence were you using? Were you using one at all, even a dumb one? (just playing a bit. )
For some reason, and without a word of explanation, I collected an anonymous "-2" as some people disliked what I wrote.
Not me, but you can count me in as a vote against poorly informed pontification.
But so it is nowadays, try tell them it's day while it's day, someone will not be happy you wrote that, and give you an anonymous brave -1 for it...
How I learnt how ChatGPT works.
Mar 9, 2023
0
#476
MG - Have not seen the original "running man" nor Edge of Tomorrow.
I just thought The Running Man was mainly about the control of the masses via mainstream media.
Mar 9, 2023
0
#478
Correct answer: THEY DO NOT.
The speaker has some sort of mental problems. He starts by saying the Sun and the Moon are ABOVE the flat Earth, then spouts nonsense that no sane person would agree (ask any hundred architects, scientists, engineers, or artists) about "the law of perspective". Perspective, his backside!
He tries to get round the fact that the nonsensical description could not possibly explain the observations by avoiding any quantification. He should be able to describe the way the exact 3-dimensional location of the objects changes with time and then calculate the appearance from any point. I have not consumed most of his trash, but you can be sure he has not. (If he has, please show me and in 5 minutes I will identify at least one fatal blunder in his incompetent reasoning.
Mar 9, 2023
0
#479
Show me any engineer/scientist/architect/artist that incorporates 8" per mile squared into their work?
MelvinGarvey wrote:
Optimissed a écrit :
... I think that real intelligence is not understood...
Oh, it was YOU?
What was me?
Anyone who knows me knows that I use English as it's meant to be used: that is, rather ambiguously and in an undefined manner. Since intelligence also refers to ability to solve puzzles and to knowledge which is gained discreetly, I combined their meanings there, to use it to refer to the actual workings of the brain. That is, to whatever processes that occur which turn our brains into our minds, the bare outlines only of which are understood. I think I'm talking about transference of data. Without that, there's no hope to artificially duplicate intelligence.
Naturally, I'm teasing, because I think I do know the answer and a year or two ago, I think someone else hit on the reality. I saw it mentioned somewhere as a possibility.
I watched Battlestar Galactica as a kid. Loved it!
Do you have a favorite Sci Fi movie? I mean one that you could watch over and over.
Mine is Blade Runner.