On 31 Mar 2024 14:24:12 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

>On 2024-03-30, Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 30/03/2024 14.33, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 30/03/2024 06.12, D wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yes, if we're talking narrow, focused use cases such as chess and go, massive progress indeed. Depending on how you define it, you could add great progress when it comes to self driving cars, robots, image recognition and voice recognition too.
>>>>
>>>> If I recall correctly, in _Go:del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid_,
>>>> Douglas Hofstader commented that "AI is sometimes just whatever hasn't
>>>> been done yet."
>>>
>>> But none of what is called "AI" today is really AI. It's just machine learning
>>> and pattern matching with a massive database of patterns. Eliza writ large.
>>
>> Agreed. If it learns more than word patterns, I might be impressed. But
>> right now, it's just textual manipulation. When the words start to have
>> meaning to the program(s), then we'll really be approaching the Singularity.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, though, it's not aware that there's conflicting
>> information out there. If you fed a bunch of Electric Universe text into
>> one of these programs, it'd be just as happy parroting it back as it
>> would GR. It wouldn't realize that the two "systems" are in conflict
>> with each other.
>
>Without the narrow world of AlphaZero and games, where what is happening
>and not happening is much clearer, I'd have to argue from my experiences
>with text and GPT. I think we all agree that that is much less convincing
>and satisfactory. Nonetheless, I'll give a brief argument, though my
>previous post on AlphaZero is the better argument.
>
>I've been doing research in simple machine learning and pattern
>matching of text for over 40 years. That's pretty much the definition
>of statistical information retrieval. I know what the limits of
>simple LLM's are. People have been trying to add AI and knowledge
>structures on top of statistical ir for many decades, but unsuccessfully
>(for general search.)
>
>And the level of performance of simple LLM's and pattern matching is
>pretty bad. It's far below what you've seen every day from Google Search
>for the past 20 years. Google Search (at least in the 200X's) got its
>increased performance by adding human input, mostly indirect. It did a very
>good job at using human links between web pages and using human click-through
>data (what pages humans actually click on after searching.)
>
>This poor performance of simple LLMs and pattern matching continues to
>this day. A couple of years ago I participated in a workshop
>"comparison" designed to look at the problems of retrieval in a
>rapidly changing domain (Covid research papers). Performance of
>simple LLMs (including from researchers from places like Google) wasn't
>significantly better than year 2000 systems.
>
>So what has changed from simple LLMs to LLMs like GPT-4? Basically
>deep learning: being able to make use of multiple layers of processing,
>where high level concepts are defined and recognized and then operated
>on by higher layers of processing (with feedback from those higher levels
>used at the lower levels.) That's pretty much how I define "intelligence":
>the ability to recognize and reason with high level (abstract) concepts.
>
>Note that when you say "it's just machine learning and pattern recognition",
>I don't really disagree. But that's because my definition of
>"machine learning" includes "machine intelligence" as an almost
>proper subset. GPT-4 (or AlphaZero) is learning new abstract concepts
>and operating with them. What more do you require from machine
>intelligence?

I think that, real-world-wise, I myself am waiting for one of the
artificial alleged-intelligences to produce the GUT. Or something
equally impressive.

One of my brothers claimed, for a while, that our dog, a small
terrier-mix which would jump up and down when I got out his leash and
said, in a baby-talk voice, "Georgie want to go for a walk?",
understood what I was saying.

So, one day after a particularly vexing discussion on the topic, I got
out the leash and, in the same tone of voice, said "Georgie want to be
cooked and eaten?". And he jumped and down just the same, which
convinced my brother that the dog didn't understand what I was saying
at all (well, once I pointed out that the only alternative was that he
/did/ want to be cooked and eaten just as much as he wanted to go for
a walk).

And then, of course, I attached the leash to his collar and took him
for a walk. To do anything else, after all, would have been cruel.

But the point is that people have a tendency to ascribe, to clearly
non-human entities, traits which they just don't have. And not just
animals, of course.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 3/31/2024 8:12 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> On 3/30/2024 11:11 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 3/30/2024 7:50 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-30, Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 30/03/2024 14.33, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 06.12, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, if we're talking narrow, focused use cases such as chess and
>>>>>>> go, massive progress indeed. Depending on how you define it, you
>>>>>>> could add great progress when it comes to self driving cars,
>>>>>>> robots, image recognition and voice recognition too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I recall correctly, in _Go:del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden
>>>>>> Braid_,
>>>>>> Douglas Hofstader commented that "AI is sometimes just whatever
>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>> been done yet."
>>>>>
>>>>> But none of what is called "AI" today is really AI.  It's just
>>>>> machine learning
>>>>> and pattern matching with a massive database of patterns.   Eliza
>>>>> writ large.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. If it learns more than word patterns, I might be impressed. But
>>>> right now, it's just textual manipulation. When the words start to have
>>>> meaning to the program(s), then we'll really be approaching the
>>>> Singularity.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I can tell, though, it's not aware that there's conflicting
>>>> information out there. If you fed a bunch of Electric Universe text
>>>> into
>>>> one of these programs, it'd be just as happy parroting it back as it
>>>> would GR. It wouldn't realize that the two "systems" are in conflict
>>>> with each other.
>>>
>>> All you folks are redefining AI once again, twisting it to mean
>>> something unrecognizable (to me at least). It is not Artificial
>>> Consciousness; it is not Artificial Embodiment. It is Artificial
>>> *Intelligence*.
>>>
>>> Is a fish intelligent? Are some dogs more intelligent than others?
>>>
>>> I included my paragraph on AlphaZero for a reason.  AlphaZero is given
>>> the rules of the game but no other game info. It took 34 hours of
>>> playing itself at Go to become the best in the world. (The even more
>>> impressive MuZero doesn't even have the rules of the game programmed
>>> in.)
>>>
>>> It is not just pattern matching. By 50 moves of Go with strong
>>> probability the board is in a position that it has never simulated,
>>> and games to completion go 200+ moves. Every move and stone on the
>>> board is important. AlphaZero is learning high level concepts on its
>>> own.  It then uses those high level concepts to only consider
>>> reasonable moves. (It does several orders of magnitude fewer
>>> simulations at game time than other programs, at least at chess.)
>>>
>>> How is this not intelligence? What would AlphaZero have to do to show
>>> intelligence in your opinion?
>>>
>> I would say that is highly advanced number crunching.  It can run
>> predictive simulations much farther into the "future" than past
>> systems but that is just more advanced computation hardware.  But the
>> main problem with claiming successful "artificial intelligence" is you
>> first have to _define_ "intelligence" in some kind of measurable,
>> objective manner.  As far as I know we can't.
>
> There's a saying, attributed to Lenin: "Quantity has a quality all its
> own."
>
> I go for the duck test.
>
> If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck,
> then its a duck.
>
Show me the AI duck. :)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> On 3/31/2024 8:12 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> On 3/30/2024 11:11 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 3/30/2024 7:50 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-30, Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 30/03/2024 14.33, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 06.12, D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, if we're talking narrow, focused use cases such as chess and go,
>>>>>>>> massive progress indeed. Depending on how you define it, you could
>>>>>>>> add great progress when it comes to self driving cars, robots, image
>>>>>>>> recognition and voice recognition too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I recall correctly, in _Go:del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden
>>>>>>> Braid_,
>>>>>>> Douglas Hofstader commented that "AI is sometimes just whatever hasn't
>>>>>>> been done yet."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But none of what is called "AI" today is really AI.  It's just machine
>>>>>> learning
>>>>>> and pattern matching with a massive database of patterns.   Eliza writ
>>>>>> large.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. If it learns more than word patterns, I might be impressed. But
>>>>> right now, it's just textual manipulation. When the words start to have
>>>>> meaning to the program(s), then we'll really be approaching the
>>>>> Singularity.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I can tell, though, it's not aware that there's conflicting
>>>>> information out there. If you fed a bunch of Electric Universe text into
>>>>> one of these programs, it'd be just as happy parroting it back as it
>>>>> would GR. It wouldn't realize that the two "systems" are in conflict
>>>>> with each other.
>>>>
>>>> All you folks are redefining AI once again, twisting it to mean
>>>> something unrecognizable (to me at least). It is not Artificial
>>>> Consciousness; it is not Artificial Embodiment. It is Artificial
>>>> *Intelligence*.
>>>>
>>>> Is a fish intelligent? Are some dogs more intelligent than others?
>>>>
>>>> I included my paragraph on AlphaZero for a reason.  AlphaZero is given
>>>> the rules of the game but no other game info. It took 34 hours of
>>>> playing itself at Go to become the best in the world. (The even more
>>>> impressive MuZero doesn't even have the rules of the game programmed
>>>> in.)
>>>>
>>>> It is not just pattern matching. By 50 moves of Go with strong
>>>> probability the board is in a position that it has never simulated,
>>>> and games to completion go 200+ moves. Every move and stone on the
>>>> board is important. AlphaZero is learning high level concepts on its
>>>> own.  It then uses those high level concepts to only consider
>>>> reasonable moves. (It does several orders of magnitude fewer
>>>> simulations at game time than other programs, at least at chess.)
>>>>
>>>> How is this not intelligence? What would AlphaZero have to do to show
>>>> intelligence in your opinion?
>>>>
>>> I would say that is highly advanced number crunching.  It can run
>>> predictive simulations much farther into the "future" than past systems
>>> but that is just more advanced computation hardware.  But the main problem
>>> with claiming successful "artificial intelligence" is you first have to
>>> _define_ "intelligence" in some kind of measurable, objective manner.  As
>>> far as I know we can't.
>>
>> There's a saying, attributed to Lenin: "Quantity has a quality all its
>> own."
>>
>> I go for the duck test.
>>
>> If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck,
>> then its a duck.
>>
> Show me the AI duck. :)

I'd say it's a duck called Turing! =)

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 3/31/2024 8:12 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> On 3/30/2024 11:11 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 3/30/2024 7:50 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-30, Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 30/03/2024 14.33, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 06.12, D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, if we're talking narrow, focused use cases such as chess and
>>>>>>>> go, massive progress indeed. Depending on how you define it, you
>>>>>>>> could add great progress when it comes to self driving cars,
>>>>>>>> robots, image recognition and voice recognition too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I recall correctly, in _Go:del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden
>>>>>>> Braid_,
>>>>>>> Douglas Hofstader commented that "AI is sometimes just whatever
>>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>>> been done yet."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But none of what is called "AI" today is really AI.  It's just
>>>>>> machine learning
>>>>>> and pattern matching with a massive database of patterns.   Eliza
>>>>>> writ large.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. If it learns more than word patterns, I might be impressed. But
>>>>> right now, it's just textual manipulation. When the words start to have
>>>>> meaning to the program(s), then we'll really be approaching the
>>>>> Singularity.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I can tell, though, it's not aware that there's conflicting
>>>>> information out there. If you fed a bunch of Electric Universe text
>>>>> into
>>>>> one of these programs, it'd be just as happy parroting it back as it
>>>>> would GR. It wouldn't realize that the two "systems" are in conflict
>>>>> with each other.
>>>>
>>>> All you folks are redefining AI once again, twisting it to mean
>>>> something unrecognizable (to me at least). It is not Artificial
>>>> Consciousness; it is not Artificial Embodiment. It is Artificial
>>>> *Intelligence*.
>>>>
>>>> Is a fish intelligent? Are some dogs more intelligent than others?
>>>>
>>>> I included my paragraph on AlphaZero for a reason.  AlphaZero is given
>>>> the rules of the game but no other game info. It took 34 hours of
>>>> playing itself at Go to become the best in the world. (The even more
>>>> impressive MuZero doesn't even have the rules of the game programmed
>>>> in.)
>>>>
>>>> It is not just pattern matching. By 50 moves of Go with strong
>>>> probability the board is in a position that it has never simulated,
>>>> and games to completion go 200+ moves. Every move and stone on the
>>>> board is important. AlphaZero is learning high level concepts on its
>>>> own.  It then uses those high level concepts to only consider
>>>> reasonable moves. (It does several orders of magnitude fewer
>>>> simulations at game time than other programs, at least at chess.)
>>>>
>>>> How is this not intelligence? What would AlphaZero have to do to show
>>>> intelligence in your opinion?
>>>>
>>> I would say that is highly advanced number crunching.  It can run
>>> predictive simulations much farther into the "future" than past
>>> systems but that is just more advanced computation hardware.  But the
>>> main problem with claiming successful "artificial intelligence" is you
>>> first have to _define_ "intelligence" in some kind of measurable,
>>> objective manner.  As far as I know we can't.
>>
>> There's a saying, attributed to Lenin: "Quantity has a quality all its
>> own."
>>
>> I go for the duck test.
>>
>> If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck,
>> then its a duck.
>>
> Show me the AI duck. :)
>

Just generated this one, with the prompt "Draw a detailed image of a duck
swimming on a pond."

https://imgur.com/NN8n3px

Pt

On 3/31/2024 1:46 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 3/31/2024 8:12 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>> On 3/30/2024 11:11 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 3/30/2024 7:50 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-30, Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 14.33, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 06.12, D wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, if we're talking narrow, focused use cases such as chess and
>>>>>>>>> go, massive progress indeed. Depending on how you define it, you
>>>>>>>>> could add great progress when it comes to self driving cars,
>>>>>>>>> robots, image recognition and voice recognition too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I recall correctly, in _Go:del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden
>>>>>>>> Braid_,
>>>>>>>> Douglas Hofstader commented that "AI is sometimes just whatever
>>>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>>>> been done yet."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But none of what is called "AI" today is really AI.  It's just
>>>>>>> machine learning
>>>>>>> and pattern matching with a massive database of patterns.   Eliza
>>>>>>> writ large.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed. If it learns more than word patterns, I might be impressed. But
>>>>>> right now, it's just textual manipulation. When the words start to have
>>>>>> meaning to the program(s), then we'll really be approaching the
>>>>>> Singularity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I can tell, though, it's not aware that there's conflicting
>>>>>> information out there. If you fed a bunch of Electric Universe text
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> one of these programs, it'd be just as happy parroting it back as it
>>>>>> would GR. It wouldn't realize that the two "systems" are in conflict
>>>>>> with each other.
>>>>>
>>>>> All you folks are redefining AI once again, twisting it to mean
>>>>> something unrecognizable (to me at least). It is not Artificial
>>>>> Consciousness; it is not Artificial Embodiment. It is Artificial
>>>>> *Intelligence*.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is a fish intelligent? Are some dogs more intelligent than others?
>>>>>
>>>>> I included my paragraph on AlphaZero for a reason.  AlphaZero is given
>>>>> the rules of the game but no other game info. It took 34 hours of
>>>>> playing itself at Go to become the best in the world. (The even more
>>>>> impressive MuZero doesn't even have the rules of the game programmed
>>>>> in.)
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not just pattern matching. By 50 moves of Go with strong
>>>>> probability the board is in a position that it has never simulated,
>>>>> and games to completion go 200+ moves. Every move and stone on the
>>>>> board is important. AlphaZero is learning high level concepts on its
>>>>> own.  It then uses those high level concepts to only consider
>>>>> reasonable moves. (It does several orders of magnitude fewer
>>>>> simulations at game time than other programs, at least at chess.)
>>>>>
>>>>> How is this not intelligence? What would AlphaZero have to do to show
>>>>> intelligence in your opinion?
>>>>>
>>>> I would say that is highly advanced number crunching.  It can run
>>>> predictive simulations much farther into the "future" than past
>>>> systems but that is just more advanced computation hardware.  But the
>>>> main problem with claiming successful "artificial intelligence" is you
>>>> first have to _define_ "intelligence" in some kind of measurable,
>>>> objective manner.  As far as I know we can't.
>>>
>>> There's a saying, attributed to Lenin: "Quantity has a quality all its
>>> own."
>>>
>>> I go for the duck test.
>>>
>>> If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck,
>>> then its a duck.
>>>
>> Show me the AI duck. :)
>>
>
> Just generated this one, with the prompt "Draw a detailed image of a duck
> swimming on a pond."
>
> https://imgur.com/NN8n3px
>
Its not quacking like a duck, so not a duck. :P

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:

> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 3/31/2024 8:12 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>> On 3/30/2024 11:11 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 3/30/2024 7:50 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-30, Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 14.33, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 06.12, D wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, if we're talking narrow, focused use cases such as chess and
>>>>>>>>> go, massive progress indeed. Depending on how you define it, you
>>>>>>>>> could add great progress when it comes to self driving cars,
>>>>>>>>> robots, image recognition and voice recognition too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I recall correctly, in _Go:del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden
>>>>>>>> Braid_,
>>>>>>>> Douglas Hofstader commented that "AI is sometimes just whatever
>>>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>>>> been done yet."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But none of what is called "AI" today is really AI.  It's just
>>>>>>> machine learning
>>>>>>> and pattern matching with a massive database of patterns.   Eliza
>>>>>>> writ large.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed. If it learns more than word patterns, I might be impressed. But
>>>>>> right now, it's just textual manipulation. When the words start to have
>>>>>> meaning to the program(s), then we'll really be approaching the
>>>>>> Singularity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I can tell, though, it's not aware that there's conflicting
>>>>>> information out there. If you fed a bunch of Electric Universe text
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> one of these programs, it'd be just as happy parroting it back as it
>>>>>> would GR. It wouldn't realize that the two "systems" are in conflict
>>>>>> with each other.
>>>>>
>>>>> All you folks are redefining AI once again, twisting it to mean
>>>>> something unrecognizable (to me at least). It is not Artificial
>>>>> Consciousness; it is not Artificial Embodiment. It is Artificial
>>>>> *Intelligence*.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is a fish intelligent? Are some dogs more intelligent than others?
>>>>>
>>>>> I included my paragraph on AlphaZero for a reason.  AlphaZero is given
>>>>> the rules of the game but no other game info. It took 34 hours of
>>>>> playing itself at Go to become the best in the world. (The even more
>>>>> impressive MuZero doesn't even have the rules of the game programmed
>>>>> in.)
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not just pattern matching. By 50 moves of Go with strong
>>>>> probability the board is in a position that it has never simulated,
>>>>> and games to completion go 200+ moves. Every move and stone on the
>>>>> board is important. AlphaZero is learning high level concepts on its
>>>>> own.  It then uses those high level concepts to only consider
>>>>> reasonable moves. (It does several orders of magnitude fewer
>>>>> simulations at game time than other programs, at least at chess.)
>>>>>
>>>>> How is this not intelligence? What would AlphaZero have to do to show
>>>>> intelligence in your opinion?
>>>>>
>>>> I would say that is highly advanced number crunching.  It can run
>>>> predictive simulations much farther into the "future" than past
>>>> systems but that is just more advanced computation hardware.  But the
>>>> main problem with claiming successful "artificial intelligence" is you
>>>> first have to _define_ "intelligence" in some kind of measurable,
>>>> objective manner.  As far as I know we can't.
>>>
>>> There's a saying, attributed to Lenin: "Quantity has a quality all its
>>> own."
>>>
>>> I go for the duck test.
>>>
>>> If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck,
>>> then its a duck.
>>>
>> Show me the AI duck. :)
>>
>
> Just generated this one, with the prompt "Draw a detailed image of a duck
> swimming on a pond."
>
> https://imgur.com/NN8n3px
>
> Pt

What AI service are you using? Is it free?

Chris Buckley wrote:

<snip>

> "Intelligence" is yet another, even more difficult, high level concept
> that there will never be a single agreed upon definition in English.
> Just too high a level of concept and too many fuzzy English words
> (other high level concepts) around. But that doesn't mean we can't
> come up with useful definitions for our purposes, just as we do with
> "life".
>
> You need to be very careful when talking about measurable, objective
> manner. That implies automated, implying a program, say Eval_I, could
> do it. Would you be satisfied with an intelligence evaluation of a
> program that examined possible solutions of whatever problem and
> picked the one that scored highest on Eval_I?
>
> This is not just a theoretical problem. For instance, the premier
> Information Retrieval conference has a workshop this summer on
> evaluating information retrieval systems using GPT as the decider
> of "correct" answers. The problems and difficulties are obvious.

"Intelligence" is an ambiguous abstraction, adaptable to circumstances,
as needed. In my idiom "intelligence" implies people able to discern
narratives embedded in corporate media, AI, or anything else.

At present, AI helps search engines act more like a "friend" towards
me. Better AI than me sift through an endless heaps of search results.

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.

On 4/1/2024 4:41 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2024 8:12 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>> On 3/30/2024 11:11 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>> On 3/30/2024 7:50 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-30, Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 14.33, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 06.12, D wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if we're talking narrow, focused use cases such as chess and
>>>>>>>>>> go, massive progress indeed. Depending on how you define it, you
>>>>>>>>>> could add great progress when it comes to self driving cars,
>>>>>>>>>> robots, image recognition and voice recognition too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If I recall correctly, in _Go:del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden
>>>>>>>>> Braid_,
>>>>>>>>> Douglas Hofstader commented that "AI is sometimes just whatever
>>>>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>>>>> been done yet."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But none of what is called "AI" today is really AI.  It's just
>>>>>>>> machine learning
>>>>>>>> and pattern matching with a massive database of patterns.   Eliza
>>>>>>>> writ large.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed. If it learns more than word patterns, I might be
>>>>>>> impressed. But
>>>>>>> right now, it's just textual manipulation. When the words start
>>>>>>> to have
>>>>>>> meaning to the program(s), then we'll really be approaching the
>>>>>>> Singularity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as I can tell, though, it's not aware that there's
>>>>>>> conflicting
>>>>>>> information out there. If you fed a bunch of Electric Universe text
>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>> one of these programs, it'd be just as happy parroting it back as it
>>>>>>> would GR. It wouldn't realize that the two "systems" are in conflict
>>>>>>> with each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All you folks are redefining AI once again, twisting it to mean
>>>>>> something unrecognizable (to me at least). It is not Artificial
>>>>>> Consciousness; it is not Artificial Embodiment. It is Artificial
>>>>>> *Intelligence*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is a fish intelligent? Are some dogs more intelligent than others?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I included my paragraph on AlphaZero for a reason.  AlphaZero is
>>>>>> given
>>>>>> the rules of the game but no other game info. It took 34 hours of
>>>>>> playing itself at Go to become the best in the world. (The even more
>>>>>> impressive MuZero doesn't even have the rules of the game programmed
>>>>>> in.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not just pattern matching. By 50 moves of Go with strong
>>>>>> probability the board is in a position that it has never simulated,
>>>>>> and games to completion go 200+ moves. Every move and stone on the
>>>>>> board is important. AlphaZero is learning high level concepts on its
>>>>>> own.  It then uses those high level concepts to only consider
>>>>>> reasonable moves. (It does several orders of magnitude fewer
>>>>>> simulations at game time than other programs, at least at chess.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How is this not intelligence? What would AlphaZero have to do to show
>>>>>> intelligence in your opinion?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I would say that is highly advanced number crunching.  It can run
>>>>> predictive simulations much farther into the "future" than past
>>>>> systems but that is just more advanced computation hardware.  But the
>>>>> main problem with claiming successful "artificial intelligence" is you
>>>>> first have to _define_ "intelligence" in some kind of measurable,
>>>>> objective manner.  As far as I know we can't.
>>>>
>>>> There's a saying, attributed to Lenin: "Quantity has a quality all its
>>>> own."
>>>>
>>>> I go for the duck test.
>>>>
>>>> If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck,
>>>> then its a duck.
>>>>
>>> Show me the AI duck.  :)
>>>
>>
>> Just generated this one, with the prompt "Draw a detailed image of a duck
>> swimming on a pond."
>>
>> https://imgur.com/NN8n3px
>>
>> Pt
>
> What AI service are you using? Is it free?\

https://perchance.org/ai-photo-generator

Yes, it was free, at least for my use.

I just googled 'free ai image generator', and picked one. I have no
informed opinion to compare them.

BTW, that was it's second try. The first had two duck bodies, left
and right, centered on one duck head.

pt

On Mon, 1 Apr 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:

> On 4/1/2024 4:41 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2024 8:12 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>>> On 3/30/2024 11:11 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/30/2024 7:50 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-30, Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 14.33, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 06.12, D wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if we're talking narrow, focused use cases such as chess and
>>>>>>>>>>> go, massive progress indeed. Depending on how you define it, you
>>>>>>>>>>> could add great progress when it comes to self driving cars,
>>>>>>>>>>> robots, image recognition and voice recognition too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I recall correctly, in _Go:del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden
>>>>>>>>>> Braid_,
>>>>>>>>>> Douglas Hofstader commented that "AI is sometimes just whatever
>>>>>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>>>>>> been done yet."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But none of what is called "AI" today is really AI.  It's just
>>>>>>>>> machine learning
>>>>>>>>> and pattern matching with a massive database of patterns.   Eliza
>>>>>>>>> writ large.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agreed. If it learns more than word patterns, I might be impressed.
>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> right now, it's just textual manipulation. When the words start to
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> meaning to the program(s), then we'll really be approaching the
>>>>>>>> Singularity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As far as I can tell, though, it's not aware that there's conflicting
>>>>>>>> information out there. If you fed a bunch of Electric Universe text
>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>> one of these programs, it'd be just as happy parroting it back as it
>>>>>>>> would GR. It wouldn't realize that the two "systems" are in conflict
>>>>>>>> with each other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All you folks are redefining AI once again, twisting it to mean
>>>>>>> something unrecognizable (to me at least). It is not Artificial
>>>>>>> Consciousness; it is not Artificial Embodiment. It is Artificial
>>>>>>> *Intelligence*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is a fish intelligent? Are some dogs more intelligent than others?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I included my paragraph on AlphaZero for a reason.  AlphaZero is given
>>>>>>> the rules of the game but no other game info. It took 34 hours of
>>>>>>> playing itself at Go to become the best in the world. (The even more
>>>>>>> impressive MuZero doesn't even have the rules of the game programmed
>>>>>>> in.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not just pattern matching. By 50 moves of Go with strong
>>>>>>> probability the board is in a position that it has never simulated,
>>>>>>> and games to completion go 200+ moves. Every move and stone on the
>>>>>>> board is important. AlphaZero is learning high level concepts on its
>>>>>>> own.  It then uses those high level concepts to only consider
>>>>>>> reasonable moves. (It does several orders of magnitude fewer
>>>>>>> simulations at game time than other programs, at least at chess.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How is this not intelligence? What would AlphaZero have to do to show
>>>>>>> intelligence in your opinion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would say that is highly advanced number crunching.  It can run
>>>>>> predictive simulations much farther into the "future" than past
>>>>>> systems but that is just more advanced computation hardware.  But the
>>>>>> main problem with claiming successful "artificial intelligence" is you
>>>>>> first have to _define_ "intelligence" in some kind of measurable,
>>>>>> objective manner.  As far as I know we can't.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a saying, attributed to Lenin: "Quantity has a quality all its
>>>>> own."
>>>>>
>>>>> I go for the duck test.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck,
>>>>> then its a duck.
>>>>>
>>>> Show me the AI duck.  :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just generated this one, with the prompt "Draw a detailed image of a duck
>>> swimming on a pond."
>>>
>>> https://imgur.com/NN8n3px
>>>
>>> Pt
>>
>> What AI service are you using? Is it free?\
>
> https://perchance.org/ai-photo-generator
>
> Yes, it was free, at least for my use.
>
> I just googled 'free ai image generator', and picked one. I have no
> informed opinion to compare them.
>
> BTW, that was it's second try. The first had two duck bodies, left
> and right, centered on one duck head.
>
> pt

Ahh, got it. Thank you for the pointer!

On 3/29/2024 10:57 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Having been a software developer since 1975, I am really wondering about
>> the AI hype. The AI thing so far seems to be a major expansion of the
>> old Eliza program. Of course, I am really outdated, writing in Fortran
>> and C++ nowadays. I have about two million lines of F77 / C++ code that
>> I am shepherding around the place for several customers.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
>
> Don't think about it as Eliza, because Eliza is rules-based and you can
> look into the box.
>
> Think about machine learning as giant matrix. Stuff goes in and we tweak
> the matrix coefficients so that the stuff comes out that we want when we
> multiply the matrix by the stuff that went in. After the learning period
> is over, we put completely new stuff in, and other completely new stuff
> comes out that hopefully is related in the same way as the data we trained
> it on.
>
> It's not really rules-based and what something weird comes out, it is very
> difficult to go back and work out what data in the training process caused
> that weird association to occur. Often it is impossible.
>
> If you remember the McCulloch and Pitts Perceptron machine in the sixties,
> that is basically the great grandfather of the modern machine learning
> systems. In the end, connectionism won and traditional AI methods lost.
> --scott

My degree is in Mechanical Engineering, not software engineering, so I
don't have the background that you have.

I don't remember a McCulloch and Pitts Perceptron machine. Never saw it
as far as I know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptron

Lynn

On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 12:07:17 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/1/2024 4:41 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2024 8:12 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>>> On 3/30/2024 11:11 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/30/2024 7:50 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-30, Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 14.33, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 06.12, D wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if we're talking narrow, focused use cases such as chess and
>>>>>>>>>>> go, massive progress indeed. Depending on how you define it, you
>>>>>>>>>>> could add great progress when it comes to self driving cars,
>>>>>>>>>>> robots, image recognition and voice recognition too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I recall correctly, in _Go:del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden
>>>>>>>>>> Braid_,
>>>>>>>>>> Douglas Hofstader commented that "AI is sometimes just whatever
>>>>>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>>>>>> been done yet."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But none of what is called "AI" today is really AI.  It's just
>>>>>>>>> machine learning
>>>>>>>>> and pattern matching with a massive database of patterns.   Eliza
>>>>>>>>> writ large.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agreed. If it learns more than word patterns, I might be
>>>>>>>> impressed. But
>>>>>>>> right now, it's just textual manipulation. When the words start
>>>>>>>> to have
>>>>>>>> meaning to the program(s), then we'll really be approaching the
>>>>>>>> Singularity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As far as I can tell, though, it's not aware that there's
>>>>>>>> conflicting
>>>>>>>> information out there. If you fed a bunch of Electric Universe text
>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>> one of these programs, it'd be just as happy parroting it back as it
>>>>>>>> would GR. It wouldn't realize that the two "systems" are in conflict
>>>>>>>> with each other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All you folks are redefining AI once again, twisting it to mean
>>>>>>> something unrecognizable (to me at least). It is not Artificial
>>>>>>> Consciousness; it is not Artificial Embodiment. It is Artificial
>>>>>>> *Intelligence*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is a fish intelligent? Are some dogs more intelligent than others?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I included my paragraph on AlphaZero for a reason.  AlphaZero is
>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>> the rules of the game but no other game info. It took 34 hours of
>>>>>>> playing itself at Go to become the best in the world. (The even more
>>>>>>> impressive MuZero doesn't even have the rules of the game programmed
>>>>>>> in.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not just pattern matching. By 50 moves of Go with strong
>>>>>>> probability the board is in a position that it has never simulated,
>>>>>>> and games to completion go 200+ moves. Every move and stone on the
>>>>>>> board is important. AlphaZero is learning high level concepts on its
>>>>>>> own.  It then uses those high level concepts to only consider
>>>>>>> reasonable moves. (It does several orders of magnitude fewer
>>>>>>> simulations at game time than other programs, at least at chess.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How is this not intelligence? What would AlphaZero have to do to show
>>>>>>> intelligence in your opinion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would say that is highly advanced number crunching.  It can run
>>>>>> predictive simulations much farther into the "future" than past
>>>>>> systems but that is just more advanced computation hardware.  But the
>>>>>> main problem with claiming successful "artificial intelligence" is you
>>>>>> first have to _define_ "intelligence" in some kind of measurable,
>>>>>> objective manner.  As far as I know we can't.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a saying, attributed to Lenin: "Quantity has a quality all its
>>>>> own."
>>>>>
>>>>> I go for the duck test.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck,
>>>>> then its a duck.
>>>>>
>>>> Show me the AI duck.  :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just generated this one, with the prompt "Draw a detailed image of a duck
>>> swimming on a pond."
>>>
>>> https://imgur.com/NN8n3px
>>>
>>> Pt
>>
>> What AI service are you using? Is it free?\
>
>https://perchance.org/ai-photo-generator
>
>Yes, it was free, at least for my use.
>
>I just googled 'free ai image generator', and picked one. I have no
>informed opinion to compare them.
>
>BTW, that was it's second try. The first had two duck bodies, left
>and right, centered on one duck head.

Reminds me of a police procedural novel I read once which opens with
two cops recalling how they "solved" a case by demonstrating that a
man could shoot himself and the cartridge ejected could come to rest
in a vertical position on its base on the top of the dresser. They
recorded a test of the whole event (no, they didn't shoot anyone).
Their Captain was very happy with them, as it promised to be a very
sticky murder otherwise.

What they /didn't/ mention to their Captain is that what he saw
recorded on film was the result of their 47th attempt.

And it only took the "ai image generator" two tries. But, of course, a
duck floating in water isn't quite the same thing.

It was, BTW, a nice-looking image.

I can hardly wait for ai image generators to be deployed politically.
If they haven't been already.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 4/2/2024 11:59 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 12:07:17 -0400, Cryptoengineer
> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/1/2024 4:41 AM, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/2024 8:12 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/30/2024 11:11 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/30/2024 7:50 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-30, Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 14.33, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 06.12, D wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if we're talking narrow, focused use cases such as chess and
>>>>>>>>>>>> go, massive progress indeed. Depending on how you define it, you
>>>>>>>>>>>> could add great progress when it comes to self driving cars,
>>>>>>>>>>>> robots, image recognition and voice recognition too.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I recall correctly, in _Go:del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden
>>>>>>>>>>> Braid_,
>>>>>>>>>>> Douglas Hofstader commented that "AI is sometimes just whatever
>>>>>>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>>>>>>> been done yet."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But none of what is called "AI" today is really AI.  It's just
>>>>>>>>>> machine learning
>>>>>>>>>> and pattern matching with a massive database of patterns.   Eliza
>>>>>>>>>> writ large.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Agreed. If it learns more than word patterns, I might be
>>>>>>>>> impressed. But
>>>>>>>>> right now, it's just textual manipulation. When the words start
>>>>>>>>> to have
>>>>>>>>> meaning to the program(s), then we'll really be approaching the
>>>>>>>>> Singularity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As far as I can tell, though, it's not aware that there's
>>>>>>>>> conflicting
>>>>>>>>> information out there. If you fed a bunch of Electric Universe text
>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>> one of these programs, it'd be just as happy parroting it back as it
>>>>>>>>> would GR. It wouldn't realize that the two "systems" are in conflict
>>>>>>>>> with each other.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All you folks are redefining AI once again, twisting it to mean
>>>>>>>> something unrecognizable (to me at least). It is not Artificial
>>>>>>>> Consciousness; it is not Artificial Embodiment. It is Artificial
>>>>>>>> *Intelligence*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is a fish intelligent? Are some dogs more intelligent than others?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I included my paragraph on AlphaZero for a reason.  AlphaZero is
>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>> the rules of the game but no other game info. It took 34 hours of
>>>>>>>> playing itself at Go to become the best in the world. (The even more
>>>>>>>> impressive MuZero doesn't even have the rules of the game programmed
>>>>>>>> in.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not just pattern matching. By 50 moves of Go with strong
>>>>>>>> probability the board is in a position that it has never simulated,
>>>>>>>> and games to completion go 200+ moves. Every move and stone on the
>>>>>>>> board is important. AlphaZero is learning high level concepts on its
>>>>>>>> own.  It then uses those high level concepts to only consider
>>>>>>>> reasonable moves. (It does several orders of magnitude fewer
>>>>>>>> simulations at game time than other programs, at least at chess.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How is this not intelligence? What would AlphaZero have to do to show
>>>>>>>> intelligence in your opinion?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would say that is highly advanced number crunching.  It can run
>>>>>>> predictive simulations much farther into the "future" than past
>>>>>>> systems but that is just more advanced computation hardware.  But the
>>>>>>> main problem with claiming successful "artificial intelligence" is you
>>>>>>> first have to _define_ "intelligence" in some kind of measurable,
>>>>>>> objective manner.  As far as I know we can't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's a saying, attributed to Lenin: "Quantity has a quality all its
>>>>>> own."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I go for the duck test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck,
>>>>>> then its a duck.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Show me the AI duck.  :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just generated this one, with the prompt "Draw a detailed image of a duck
>>>> swimming on a pond."
>>>>
>>>> https://imgur.com/NN8n3px
>>>>
>>>> Pt
>>>
>>> What AI service are you using? Is it free?\
>>
>> https://perchance.org/ai-photo-generator
>>
>> Yes, it was free, at least for my use.
>>
>> I just googled 'free ai image generator', and picked one. I have no
>> informed opinion to compare them.
>>
>> BTW, that was it's second try. The first had two duck bodies, left
>> and right, centered on one duck head.
>
> Reminds me of a police procedural novel I read once which opens with
> two cops recalling how they "solved" a case by demonstrating that a
> man could shoot himself and the cartridge ejected could come to rest
> in a vertical position on its base on the top of the dresser. They
> recorded a test of the whole event (no, they didn't shoot anyone).
> Their Captain was very happy with them, as it promised to be a very
> sticky murder otherwise.
>
> What they /didn't/ mention to their Captain is that what he saw
> recorded on film was the result of their 47th attempt.
>
> And it only took the "ai image generator" two tries. But, of course, a
> duck floating in water isn't quite the same thing.
>
> It was, BTW, a nice-looking image.
>
> I can hardly wait for ai image generators to be deployed politically.
> If they haven't been already.

They have:
Fake Trump arrest: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65069316

Faked Biden robocall:
https://www.wired.com/story/biden-robocall-deepfake-danger/

There are other cases, in the US and other countries.

pt

On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 13:52:29 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/2/2024 11:59 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 12:07:17 -0400, Cryptoengineer
>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/1/2024 4:41 AM, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/31/2024 8:12 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/30/2024 11:11 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2024 7:50 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-30, Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 14.33, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 06.12, D wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if we're talking narrow, focused use cases such as chess and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> go, massive progress indeed. Depending on how you define it, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could add great progress when it comes to self driving cars,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> robots, image recognition and voice recognition too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If I recall correctly, in _Go:del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden
>>>>>>>>>>>> Braid_,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Douglas Hofstader commented that "AI is sometimes just whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> been done yet."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But none of what is called "AI" today is really AI.  It's just
>>>>>>>>>>> machine learning
>>>>>>>>>>> and pattern matching with a massive database of patterns.   Eliza
>>>>>>>>>>> writ large.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Agreed. If it learns more than word patterns, I might be
>>>>>>>>>> impressed. But
>>>>>>>>>> right now, it's just textual manipulation. When the words start
>>>>>>>>>> to have
>>>>>>>>>> meaning to the program(s), then we'll really be approaching the
>>>>>>>>>> Singularity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As far as I can tell, though, it's not aware that there's
>>>>>>>>>> conflicting
>>>>>>>>>> information out there. If you fed a bunch of Electric Universe text
>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>> one of these programs, it'd be just as happy parroting it back as it
>>>>>>>>>> would GR. It wouldn't realize that the two "systems" are in conflict
>>>>>>>>>> with each other.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All you folks are redefining AI once again, twisting it to mean
>>>>>>>>> something unrecognizable (to me at least). It is not Artificial
>>>>>>>>> Consciousness; it is not Artificial Embodiment. It is Artificial
>>>>>>>>> *Intelligence*.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is a fish intelligent? Are some dogs more intelligent than others?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I included my paragraph on AlphaZero for a reason.  AlphaZero is
>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>> the rules of the game but no other game info. It took 34 hours of
>>>>>>>>> playing itself at Go to become the best in the world. (The even more
>>>>>>>>> impressive MuZero doesn't even have the rules of the game programmed
>>>>>>>>> in.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not just pattern matching. By 50 moves of Go with strong
>>>>>>>>> probability the board is in a position that it has never simulated,
>>>>>>>>> and games to completion go 200+ moves. Every move and stone on the
>>>>>>>>> board is important. AlphaZero is learning high level concepts on its
>>>>>>>>> own.  It then uses those high level concepts to only consider
>>>>>>>>> reasonable moves. (It does several orders of magnitude fewer
>>>>>>>>> simulations at game time than other programs, at least at chess.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How is this not intelligence? What would AlphaZero have to do to show
>>>>>>>>> intelligence in your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would say that is highly advanced number crunching.  It can run
>>>>>>>> predictive simulations much farther into the "future" than past
>>>>>>>> systems but that is just more advanced computation hardware.  But the
>>>>>>>> main problem with claiming successful "artificial intelligence" is you
>>>>>>>> first have to _define_ "intelligence" in some kind of measurable,
>>>>>>>> objective manner.  As far as I know we can't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's a saying, attributed to Lenin: "Quantity has a quality all its
>>>>>>> own."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I go for the duck test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck,
>>>>>>> then its a duck.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Show me the AI duck.  :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just generated this one, with the prompt "Draw a detailed image of a duck
>>>>> swimming on a pond."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://imgur.com/NN8n3px
>>>>>
>>>>> Pt
>>>>
>>>> What AI service are you using? Is it free?\
>>>
>>> https://perchance.org/ai-photo-generator
>>>
>>> Yes, it was free, at least for my use.
>>>
>>> I just googled 'free ai image generator', and picked one. I have no
>>> informed opinion to compare them.
>>>
>>> BTW, that was it's second try. The first had two duck bodies, left
>>> and right, centered on one duck head.
>>
>> Reminds me of a police procedural novel I read once which opens with
>> two cops recalling how they "solved" a case by demonstrating that a
>> man could shoot himself and the cartridge ejected could come to rest
>> in a vertical position on its base on the top of the dresser. They
>> recorded a test of the whole event (no, they didn't shoot anyone).
>> Their Captain was very happy with them, as it promised to be a very
>> sticky murder otherwise.
>>
>> What they /didn't/ mention to their Captain is that what he saw
>> recorded on film was the result of their 47th attempt.
>>
>> And it only took the "ai image generator" two tries. But, of course, a
>> duck floating in water isn't quite the same thing.
>>
>> It was, BTW, a nice-looking image.
>>
>> I can hardly wait for ai image generators to be deployed politically.
>> If they haven't been already.
>
>They have:
>Fake Trump arrest: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65069316
>
>Faked Biden robocall:
>https://www.wired.com/story/biden-robocall-deepfake-danger/
>
>There are other cases, in the US and other countries.

Semantic goo now spreads to images!

Wow, is /that/ discouraging!
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 4/3/2024 11:56 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 13:52:29 -0400, Cryptoengineer
> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/2/2024 11:59 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 12:07:17 -0400, Cryptoengineer
>>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/1/2024 4:41 AM, D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/31/2024 8:12 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2024 11:11 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2024 7:50 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-30, Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 14.33, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 06.12, D wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if we're talking narrow, focused use cases such as chess and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go, massive progress indeed. Depending on how you define it, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could add great progress when it comes to self driving cars,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robots, image recognition and voice recognition too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I recall correctly, in _Go:del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Braid_,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Douglas Hofstader commented that "AI is sometimes just whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> been done yet."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But none of what is called "AI" today is really AI.  It's just
>>>>>>>>>>>> machine learning
>>>>>>>>>>>> and pattern matching with a massive database of patterns.   Eliza
>>>>>>>>>>>> writ large.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed. If it learns more than word patterns, I might be
>>>>>>>>>>> impressed. But
>>>>>>>>>>> right now, it's just textual manipulation. When the words start
>>>>>>>>>>> to have
>>>>>>>>>>> meaning to the program(s), then we'll really be approaching the
>>>>>>>>>>> Singularity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As far as I can tell, though, it's not aware that there's
>>>>>>>>>>> conflicting
>>>>>>>>>>> information out there. If you fed a bunch of Electric Universe text
>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>> one of these programs, it'd be just as happy parroting it back as it
>>>>>>>>>>> would GR. It wouldn't realize that the two "systems" are in conflict
>>>>>>>>>>> with each other.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All you folks are redefining AI once again, twisting it to mean
>>>>>>>>>> something unrecognizable (to me at least). It is not Artificial
>>>>>>>>>> Consciousness; it is not Artificial Embodiment. It is Artificial
>>>>>>>>>> *Intelligence*.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is a fish intelligent? Are some dogs more intelligent than others?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I included my paragraph on AlphaZero for a reason.  AlphaZero is
>>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>>> the rules of the game but no other game info. It took 34 hours of
>>>>>>>>>> playing itself at Go to become the best in the world. (The even more
>>>>>>>>>> impressive MuZero doesn't even have the rules of the game programmed
>>>>>>>>>> in.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is not just pattern matching. By 50 moves of Go with strong
>>>>>>>>>> probability the board is in a position that it has never simulated,
>>>>>>>>>> and games to completion go 200+ moves. Every move and stone on the
>>>>>>>>>> board is important. AlphaZero is learning high level concepts on its
>>>>>>>>>> own.  It then uses those high level concepts to only consider
>>>>>>>>>> reasonable moves. (It does several orders of magnitude fewer
>>>>>>>>>> simulations at game time than other programs, at least at chess.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How is this not intelligence? What would AlphaZero have to do to show
>>>>>>>>>> intelligence in your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would say that is highly advanced number crunching.  It can run
>>>>>>>>> predictive simulations much farther into the "future" than past
>>>>>>>>> systems but that is just more advanced computation hardware.  But the
>>>>>>>>> main problem with claiming successful "artificial intelligence" is you
>>>>>>>>> first have to _define_ "intelligence" in some kind of measurable,
>>>>>>>>> objective manner.  As far as I know we can't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's a saying, attributed to Lenin: "Quantity has a quality all its
>>>>>>>> own."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I go for the duck test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck,
>>>>>>>> then its a duck.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Show me the AI duck.  :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just generated this one, with the prompt "Draw a detailed image of a duck
>>>>>> swimming on a pond."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://imgur.com/NN8n3px
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pt
>>>>>
>>>>> What AI service are you using? Is it free?\
>>>>
>>>> https://perchance.org/ai-photo-generator
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it was free, at least for my use.
>>>>
>>>> I just googled 'free ai image generator', and picked one. I have no
>>>> informed opinion to compare them.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, that was it's second try. The first had two duck bodies, left
>>>> and right, centered on one duck head.
>>>
>>> Reminds me of a police procedural novel I read once which opens with
>>> two cops recalling how they "solved" a case by demonstrating that a
>>> man could shoot himself and the cartridge ejected could come to rest
>>> in a vertical position on its base on the top of the dresser. They
>>> recorded a test of the whole event (no, they didn't shoot anyone).
>>> Their Captain was very happy with them, as it promised to be a very
>>> sticky murder otherwise.
>>>
>>> What they /didn't/ mention to their Captain is that what he saw
>>> recorded on film was the result of their 47th attempt.
>>>
>>> And it only took the "ai image generator" two tries. But, of course, a
>>> duck floating in water isn't quite the same thing.
>>>
>>> It was, BTW, a nice-looking image.
>>>
>>> I can hardly wait for ai image generators to be deployed politically.
>>> If they haven't been already.
>>
>> They have:
>> Fake Trump arrest: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65069316
>>
>> Faked Biden robocall:
>> https://www.wired.com/story/biden-robocall-deepfake-danger/
>>
>> There are other cases, in the US and other countries.
>
> Semantic goo now spreads to images!
>
> Wow, is /that/ discouraging!

On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 12:49:53 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/3/2024 11:56 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 13:52:29 -0400, Cryptoengineer
>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/2/2024 11:59 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 12:07:17 -0400, Cryptoengineer
>>>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/1/2024 4:41 AM, D wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2024 8:12 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2024 11:11 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2024 7:50 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-30, Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 14.33, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/03/2024 06.12, D wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if we're talking narrow, focused use cases such as chess and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go, massive progress indeed. Depending on how you define it, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could add great progress when it comes to self driving cars,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robots, image recognition and voice recognition too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I recall correctly, in _Go:del, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Braid_,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Douglas Hofstader commented that "AI is sometimes just whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been done yet."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But none of what is called "AI" today is really AI.  It's just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine learning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and pattern matching with a massive database of patterns.   Eliza
>>>>>>>>>>>>> writ large.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed. If it learns more than word patterns, I might be
>>>>>>>>>>>> impressed. But
>>>>>>>>>>>> right now, it's just textual manipulation. When the words start
>>>>>>>>>>>> to have
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning to the program(s), then we'll really be approaching the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Singularity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as I can tell, though, it's not aware that there's
>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicting
>>>>>>>>>>>> information out there. If you fed a bunch of Electric Universe text
>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>> one of these programs, it'd be just as happy parroting it back as it
>>>>>>>>>>>> would GR. It wouldn't realize that the two "systems" are in conflict
>>>>>>>>>>>> with each other.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All you folks are redefining AI once again, twisting it to mean
>>>>>>>>>>> something unrecognizable (to me at least). It is not Artificial
>>>>>>>>>>> Consciousness; it is not Artificial Embodiment. It is Artificial
>>>>>>>>>>> *Intelligence*.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is a fish intelligent? Are some dogs more intelligent than others?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I included my paragraph on AlphaZero for a reason.  AlphaZero is
>>>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>>>> the rules of the game but no other game info. It took 34 hours of
>>>>>>>>>>> playing itself at Go to become the best in the world. (The even more
>>>>>>>>>>> impressive MuZero doesn't even have the rules of the game programmed
>>>>>>>>>>> in.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not just pattern matching. By 50 moves of Go with strong
>>>>>>>>>>> probability the board is in a position that it has never simulated,
>>>>>>>>>>> and games to completion go 200+ moves. Every move and stone on the
>>>>>>>>>>> board is important. AlphaZero is learning high level concepts on its
>>>>>>>>>>> own.  It then uses those high level concepts to only consider
>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable moves. (It does several orders of magnitude fewer
>>>>>>>>>>> simulations at game time than other programs, at least at chess.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How is this not intelligence? What would AlphaZero have to do to show
>>>>>>>>>>> intelligence in your opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would say that is highly advanced number crunching.  It can run
>>>>>>>>>> predictive simulations much farther into the "future" than past
>>>>>>>>>> systems but that is just more advanced computation hardware.  But the
>>>>>>>>>> main problem with claiming successful "artificial intelligence" is you
>>>>>>>>>> first have to _define_ "intelligence" in some kind of measurable,
>>>>>>>>>> objective manner.  As far as I know we can't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's a saying, attributed to Lenin: "Quantity has a quality all its
>>>>>>>>> own."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I go for the duck test.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck,
>>>>>>>>> then its a duck.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Show me the AI duck.  :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just generated this one, with the prompt "Draw a detailed image of a duck
>>>>>>> swimming on a pond."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://imgur.com/NN8n3px
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What AI service are you using? Is it free?\
>>>>>
>>>>> https://perchance.org/ai-photo-generator
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it was free, at least for my use.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just googled 'free ai image generator', and picked one. I have no
>>>>> informed opinion to compare them.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, that was it's second try. The first had two duck bodies, left
>>>>> and right, centered on one duck head.
>>>>
>>>> Reminds me of a police procedural novel I read once which opens with
>>>> two cops recalling how they "solved" a case by demonstrating that a
>>>> man could shoot himself and the cartridge ejected could come to rest
>>>> in a vertical position on its base on the top of the dresser. They
>>>> recorded a test of the whole event (no, they didn't shoot anyone).
>>>> Their Captain was very happy with them, as it promised to be a very
>>>> sticky murder otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> What they /didn't/ mention to their Captain is that what he saw
>>>> recorded on film was the result of their 47th attempt.
>>>>
>>>> And it only took the "ai image generator" two tries. But, of course, a
>>>> duck floating in water isn't quite the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> It was, BTW, a nice-looking image.
>>>>
>>>> I can hardly wait for ai image generators to be deployed politically.
>>>> If they haven't been already.
>>>
>>> They have:
>>> Fake Trump arrest: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65069316
>>>
>>> Faked Biden robocall:
>>> https://www.wired.com/story/biden-robocall-deepfake-danger/
>>>
>>> There are other cases, in the US and other countries.
>>
>> Semantic goo now spreads to images!
>>
>> Wow, is /that/ discouraging!
>
>It looks like that 'verifying what is true' is becoming
>increasingly difficult.