Escaping Spirituality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-06-2017, 06:05 PM
RE: Escaping Spirituality
(04-06-2017 01:13 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(03-06-2017 08:42 AM)AB517 Wrote:  Yes again, "artificial" is a "word" used for communication reasons. But the fact is the universe makes everything. It is going to evolve. humans are just the best protein it ever made ... to date, that we know of.
that is empirical, so arguing it become a silly endeavor, with a silly person, to me.

That has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that "AI" is a "null term". But you do seem like a silly person if that's what you're trying to say.

Yeah it does. I said AI is a null term. I say that because the universe makes everything. That's the first axiom. It is more valid than "man makes this and the universe makes that" as the base axiom.

I also agree, that AI is good for communication reasons when we areclassifying systems. AI, means that humans did it and we didn't find it out somewhere else.

But, The universe naturally made that AI. You don't see that?

Is there anybody here with a physics degree or chemistry degree or engineering degree with either chemistry or physics?

My claims use basic college level science observations that can be found in many types of science texts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2017, 06:05 PM
RE: Escaping Spirituality
(04-06-2017 05:43 PM)AB517 Wrote:  
(04-06-2017 01:07 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Uh, no it's not. It is refuted by those graphs. You do realize those graphs are on a logarithmic scale, right? You do know how to read a graph with a logarithmic scale, right? You do know what a logarithmic scale is, right? You do know what a logarithm is, right? 'Cause your post indicates that you don't.

so i don't think you know what you talking about. we are adding more chips because moore's law has stop with the number of transistors per unit volume. sorry man, if you don't know that's what i said, that's on you.

They are adding chips, not adding more transitions the same volume anymore. at least the ones that fit moore's predictions. so your graphs are old.
No, "they" are not "adding chips". "They" are adding more instructions per clock cycle and more cores within the chips and less power consumption.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
04-06-2017, 06:27 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2017 06:47 PM by Cosmo.)
RE: Escaping Spirituality
(Duplicated me saying I wasn't going to respond anymore, while responding. Inherently dumb and feeding the troll. ) Sad

~ The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you ~
-Neil Degrasse Tyson
[Image: stairway_to_heaven_by_tomtr.png]
~ 0 ~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2017, 06:42 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2017 06:48 PM by Cosmo.)
RE: Escaping Spirituality
Edit: please delete this stupid, ill timed post. If not, that's fine.

~ The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you ~
-Neil Degrasse Tyson
[Image: stairway_to_heaven_by_tomtr.png]
~ 0 ~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2017, 04:13 AM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2017 04:20 AM by AB517.)
RE: Escaping Spirituality
(04-06-2017 06:05 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(04-06-2017 05:43 PM)AB517 Wrote:  so i don't think you know what you talking about. we are adding more chips because moore's law has stop with the number of transistors per unit volume. sorry man, if you don't know that's what i said, that's on you.

They are adding chips, not adding more transitions the same volume anymore. at least the ones that fit moore's predictions. so your graphs are old.
No, "they" are not "adding chips". "They" are adding more instructions per clock cycle and more cores within the chips and less power consumption.


Yes, I agree. I am talking getting more transistors per unit volume. as i applied to moores laws. We are reaching the physical limit mord. You know that, I am not sure why you are fighting me so hard on this. And what you just said is what I totally agree with. as I have said before.

how are they getting the more switches per clock cycle?

They are not doing it by putting more transistors per unit volume. you said it and I said it. Where you are not being totally clear is that they are adding more chips, but not at the cpu.. They are putting chips in graphic cards, sound cards, monitors, more cores in each of them, or more cores in many peripheral devices. so that more instructions can be reached per second. mort, I am not wrong in that? I don't think you look at the whole system when we talk. I look at the computer and everything it is attached to and how it is engineered. Including internet. Internet is more chips and more instructions.

they are also working on making more efficient kernels. But that is a work in progress. that fits you claimed "instructions" claim, I totally agree with that. I have no issue with that statement.

Remember the original claim. You say 100 years AI and said you could be wrong. I said 200 years or less using biomedical engineering and I could be wrong.

The main point I tried to make is that both claims are reasonable and can coexist. Where is the engineering wrong and the notion that I feel both are valid claims wrong?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2017, 05:36 AM
RE: Escaping Spirituality
(05-06-2017 04:13 AM)AB517 Wrote:  
(04-06-2017 06:05 PM)mordant Wrote:  No, "they" are not "adding chips". "They" are adding more instructions per clock cycle and more cores within the chips and less power consumption.
how are they getting the more switches per clock cycle?
More instructions per clock cycle.
(05-06-2017 04:13 AM)AB517 Wrote:  Where you are not being totally clear is that they are adding more chips, but not at the cpu.
The use of specialized chips is not new. GPUs and math coprocessors have been around for a very long time. Specialized processors for neural net-related things are new, but not a response to limitations of growth in general purpose CPU speed or miniaturization.
(05-06-2017 04:13 AM)AB517 Wrote:  They are putting chips in graphic cards, sound cards, monitors, more cores in each of them, or more cores in many peripheral devices. so that more instructions can be reached per second. mort, I am not wrong in that?
Yes, you're wrong in that. I'm talking about more instructions per clock cycle in general purpose CPUs, such that a 1.7 ghz processor today runs more instructions in the same time as a 1.7 ghz processor of the previous generation. This is achieved largely through pipelining.
(05-06-2017 04:13 AM)AB517 Wrote:  Remember the original claim. You say 100 years AI and said you could be wrong. I said 200 years or less using biomedical engineering and I could be wrong.

The main point I tried to make is that both claims are reasonable and can coexist. Where is the engineering wrong and the notion that I feel both are valid claims wrong?
I don't know why you are obsessed with this notion. We are both guessing about the future, which is unknown. I think I am more likely to be correct, but could be wrong. Even those who think AI is imminent could be right, for various reasons. So what? It doesn't mean everyone who is guessing will eventually be right. Only those who ultimately are correct will be correct. At this point it is just interesting, and hopefully educated, speculation.

Similarly, not everyone is as successful in closely approaching an accurate view of current reality. Some are more right than wrong, some the inverse. Some have better epistemological methods, some have completely broken and discredited ones. Get over it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2017, 08:32 AM
RE: Escaping Spirituality
(03-06-2017 01:51 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(03-06-2017 08:46 AM)AB517 Wrote:  no, your claim is horse shit because your claim is based on nothing. so omni dude horse shit or your horse shit. Either way we need to shovel it out of the way so regular people can choose for themelves.

What claim have I made? Be specific, and provide a link.

(03-06-2017 08:46 AM)AB517 Wrote:  of course, if'en you want, we can list our observations supporting our claims. I am assuming you have some training in science otherwise your opinion is a giant load of horeshit. based on what you want to be real. Just like a run of the mill literal theist.

this site is thinking atheists. its supposed to be think first, horse shit second.

You're also assuming you know my stance on the matter, and you're imputing some mysterious claim to me.

If this is your idea of rigorous thinking, I submit that there's a lot more slop between your ears than you seem aware of.

Again: link to this "claim" I'm said to have made, and we'll go from there.

Over to you.

I'm still waiting for you to link to this claim you say I made.

Somehow I don't think you will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2017, 09:37 AM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2017 09:49 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Escaping Spirituality
(04-06-2017 06:05 PM)AB517 Wrote:  
(04-06-2017 01:13 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  That has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that "AI" is a "null term". But you do seem like a silly person if that's what you're trying to say.

Yeah it does. I said AI is a null term. I say that because the universe makes everything. That's the first axiom. It is more valid than "man makes this and the universe makes that" as the base axiom.

I also agree, that AI is good for communication reasons when we areclassifying systems. AI, means that humans did it and we didn't find it out somewhere else.

But, The universe naturally made that AI. You don't see that?

Your first axiom is bullshit. The universe doesn't make shit. Manufacturing implies intent and purpose. The universe has no intent or purpose. Beings in the universe can make shit with local intent and purpose but the universe itself is devoid of intent and purpose. Buying into your bullshit would mean that the universe made CERN, Voyager, the Golden Gate bridge and everything else we attribute to man-made technology. Your claim that "the universe makes everything" is the null term. It is totally vacuous and banal without any explanatory or discriminating power whatsoever. Might as well say "the Bob makes everything."

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
05-06-2017, 10:41 AM
RE: Escaping Spirituality
(05-06-2017 09:37 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  It is totally vacuous and banal without any explanatory or discriminating power whatsoever.

This might as well be AB(ullshitter)517 user title Drinking Beverage

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: