Science and Technology news... :: View topic

BURT · Guest

On Jul 25, 10:14 pm, "|-|erc" <h...@r.c> wrote:
[quote]In 5 to 20 years search engines will have a new feature,
contextual search. This will make them quite smart, for
instance if you wanted to search for "a man with a square
jaw and a scar under his eye", the engine will find all
pictures that fit. Or if you are searching for "Godel>s
Proof" it will find all sites that contain Godel>s proof,
not the myriad of sites that just mention the terms, or
if you are looking for an actual "art shop", the search
engine will find all the art shops for you, it may ask
if you want to include Amazon resellers.

1 year after contextual search is available, we will crack
artificial intelligence. Computers will talk and figure
things out. Within 5 years of that we will have driverless
cars, androids and intelligent talking house robots.

By 2040 smart computers will develop a cure for cancer and
a virus that will halt the aging process, immortality for those
who can afford it. By 2060 there will be natural feeling
bionic limbs, and bionic eyes for the blind.

The 21st century is just getting started, and it all begins
with contextual search.

Herc
--
what the dictionaries don>t tell you is that words bring new meaning
when used in conjunction with each other
[/quote]
Nano is for wind shield wippers.

Mitch Raemsch

Guest · Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:38 am Post subject: Re: Technology Prophecy

On 26 Jul, 18:20, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
[quote]ju...@diegidio.name wrote:

On 26 Jul, 07:14, "|-|erc" <h...@r.c> wrote:
In 5 to 20 years search engines will have a new feature,
contextual search.

You are quite misinformed: there is no intelligence at all in a search
engine. In 5 years, the whole R&D around intelligent search agents is
going to be recognized for what it is: a big bunch of rubbish, a waste
of some 50 years for humanity, the usual gain for the usual
speculators.

The search agents you and I can find on the 'net may be rubbish, but the
state of the art is quite a bit further along. Its also either
classified or being developed overses.
[/quote]

No, it>s just rubbish, and I can prove it with the simpliest of the
arguments: even with the best microscope, if you are looking at
rubbish, you are still looking at rubbish.

There was an attempt of debate at the begginning of the Web, on
alt.hypertexts IIRC (around the early 90>s), just ignored. The basic
principles anyway came from Vannevar Bush, and then Engelbart and
Nelson, and they have been ignored.

As for the Cyberneticians, actually the exact opposite has been
implemented in every case. The whole thing is just the usual
speculation, with the up and downs we keep seeing.

-LV

[quote]
--
Paul Hovnanian p...@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.[/quote]

Guest · Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:57 am Post subject: Re: Technology Prophecy

On 27 Jul, 01:38, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
[quote]On 26 Jul, 18:20, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
On 26 Jul, 07:14, "|-|erc" <h...@r.c> wrote:
In 5 to 20 years search engines will have a new feature,
contextual search.

You are quite misinformed: there is no intelligence at all in a search
engine. In 5 years, the whole R&D around intelligent search agents is
going to be recognized for what it is: a big bunch of rubbish, a waste
of some 50 years for humanity, the usual gain for the usual
speculators.

The search agents you and I can find on the 'net may be rubbish, but the
state of the art is quite a bit further along. Its also either
classified or being developed overses.

No, it>s just rubbish, and I can prove it with the simpliest of the
arguments: even with the best microscope, if you are looking at
rubbish, you are still looking at rubbish.

There was an attempt of debate at the begginning of the Web, on
alt.hypertexts IIRC (around the early 90>s), just ignored. The basic
principles anyway came from Vannevar Bush, and then Engelbart and
Nelson, and they have been ignored.
[/quote]

Cool, I have found back one of the posts of mine. The rest, who
knows...

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.hypertext/browse_frm/thread/800efb899cbd51d8/a4a9761a042901bb?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=webzone.it#a4a9761a042901bb

Enjoy.

-LV

[quote]
As for the Cyberneticians, actually the exact opposite has been
implemented in every case. The whole thing is just the usual
speculation, with the up and downs we keep seeing.

-LV

--
Paul Hovnanian p...@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.[/quote]

Guest · Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:55 am Post subject: Re: Technology Prophecy

On 27 Jul, 04:22, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
[quote]ju...@diegidio.name wrote:

The above link returns:
"There was an error processing your request. Please try again."
[/quote]
Sorry, I am posting from Google and the above link works for me.

This one I hope is going to do the trick:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.hypertext/msg/4262de07b4c18254

For the rest: Are you serious about having a discussion on these
matters? I>d be glad, but not just for fun. I>m going to dream very
shortly now, but tomorrow I>ll check this thread and the points you
have raised.

Cheers.

-LV

[quote]
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:P...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Porsche: If I went any faster, I>d have to eat airline food.[/quote]

|-|erc · Guest

<porky_pig_jr@my-deja.com> wrote ...
On Jul 26, 2:14 am, "|-|erc" <h...@r.c> wrote:

[quote]guess who>s back! and with more crap.

hey bozo, are your countably infinite Turing machines still working to
prove that the there is no such thing as uncountably infinite set?
[/quote]
It would require the complete formalization of mathematics and an
exhaustive search to prove that there is no such thing as uncountably
infinite set. I just claim you haven>t proven one exists, you line up
some numbers, which contain every possible sequence of digits to
infinite length, then you self reference and modify a number and
then claim wham - sets larger than infinity. Its in your head, purely
platonic at best.

Herc

|-|erc · Guest

"Nam Nguyen" <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> wrote
[quote]|-|erc wrote:

By 2040 smart computers will develop a cure for cancer and
a virus that will halt the aging process, immortality for those
who can afford it.

A wishful thinking! How could we trust "smart" computers would
really care - and not plan to destroy - a species they>re not of?

[/quote]
The takeover would be more subtle I think, nearly every desk job
could be done by computer. Unless you>re doing something physical
in your job an AI can do it. There would be entire cities of retrenched
people, just networks talking to each other in paperless humanless offices.

Herc

zzbunker@netscape.net · Guest

On Jul 26, 10:44 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@shaw.ca> wrote:
[quote]|-|erc wrote:
By 2040 smart computers will develop a cure for cancer and
a virus that will halt the aging process, immortality for those
who can afford it.

A wishful thinking! How could we trust "smart" computers would
really care - and not plan to destroy - a species they>re not of?
[/quote]
Well, "we" don>t. Since the people who know history, energy, logic,
science,
and offices of 2040 will work are already working with robots, PV
Cells,
GPS, Holograms, Wind Energy, lasers, fiber optics, HDTV, and cruise
missiles,
rather than any kind of, either pro or con, paper-motivated idiots.

[quote]

Herc- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -[/quote]

Paul Hovnanian P.E. · Guest

julio@diegidio.name wrote:
[quote]
On 27 Jul, 01:38, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
On 26 Jul, 18:20, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
On 26 Jul, 07:14, "|-|erc" <h...@r.c> wrote:
In 5 to 20 years search engines will have a new feature,
contextual search.

You are quite misinformed: there is no intelligence at all in a search
engine. In 5 years, the whole R&D around intelligent search agents is
going to be recognized for what it is: a big bunch of rubbish, a waste
of some 50 years for humanity, the usual gain for the usual
speculators.

The search agents you and I can find on the 'net may be rubbish, but the
state of the art is quite a bit further along. Its also either
classified or being developed overses.

No, it>s just rubbish, and I can prove it with the simpliest of the
arguments: even with the best microscope, if you are looking at
rubbish, you are still looking at rubbish.
[/quote]
Granted, most of the web is crap. But an intelligent web crawler could
deduce this from the content. That bit of information is quite valuable
when you are searching for something.

[quote]There was an attempt of debate at the begginning of the Web, on
alt.hypertexts IIRC (around the early 90>s), just ignored. The basic
principles anyway came from Vannevar Bush, and then Engelbart and
Nelson, and they have been ignored.
[/quote]
You are talking about building the web around semantic structures. Good
idea, but its too late for that. I>m taking about parsing natural
language not originally authored with automation in mind to extract
knowledge. Been there, done that. The underlying principles predate the
web.

[quote]Cool, I have found back one of the posts of mine. The rest, who
knows...

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.hypertext/browse_frm/thread/800efb899cbd51d8/a4a9761a042901bb?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=webzone.it#a4a9761a042901bb

Enjoy.
[/quote]
The above link returns:
"There was an error processing your request. Please try again."

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Porsche: If I went any faster, I>d have to eat airline food.

David Bernier · Guest

|-|erc wrote:
[quote]"Nam Nguyen" <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> wrote
|-|erc wrote:

By 2040 smart computers will develop a cure for cancer and
a virus that will halt the aging process, immortality for those
who can afford it.
A wishful thinking! How could we trust "smart" computers would
really care - and not plan to destroy - a species they>re not of?

The takeover would be more subtle I think, nearly every desk job
could be done by computer. Unless you>re doing something physical
in your job an AI can do it. There would be entire cities of retrenched
people, just networks talking to each other in paperless humanless offices.
[/quote]
You seem to be envisioning a machine like Dr. Know, the
holographic oracle in the movie "A.I." directed by
Stephen Spielberg...

Cf.:
[*** SPOILERS ***]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212720/
for Dr. Know quotes.

David Bernier

P.S. It>s a prophecy, according to me

Guest · Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:05 am Post subject: Re: Technology Prophecy

On 28 Jul, 01:02, "|-|erc" <h...@r.c> wrote:

[quote]Yes, all we have to do is decipher the meaning of sentences algorithmically and AI
will be solved after that.
[/quote]
What is the meaning of this sentence?

-LV

|-|erc · Guest

"David Bernier" <david250@videotron.ca> wrote ...
[quote]|-|erc wrote:
"Nam Nguyen" <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> wrote
|-|erc wrote:

By 2040 smart computers will develop a cure for cancer and
a virus that will halt the aging process, immortality for those
who can afford it.
A wishful thinking! How could we trust "smart" computers would
really care - and not plan to destroy - a species they>re not of?

The takeover would be more subtle I think, nearly every desk job
could be done by computer. Unless you>re doing something physical
in your job an AI can do it. There would be entire cities of retrenched
people, just networks talking to each other in paperless humanless offices.

You seem to be envisioning a machine like Dr. Know, the
holographic oracle in the movie "A.I." directed by
Stephen Spielberg...
[/quote]
Was that the screen with (a cartoon) Einstein on it asking for 3 questions or something
like that? I remember thinking that was just an advanced search engine when I saw it.
It was coin slot operated or something.

Yes, all we have to do is decipher the meaning of sentences algorithmically and AI
will be solved after that. It would be a strange universe if our brains could do it, a piece
of meat with predominently 1 type of cell - the neuron, but computers couldn>t do it.
Hopefully we>ll solve AI in our lifetimes because it will revolutionise society.

Herc

David Bernier · Guest

|-|erc wrote:
[quote]"David Bernier" <david250@videotron.ca> wrote ...
[...][/quote]

[quote]You seem to be envisioning a machine like Dr. Know, the
holographic oracle in the movie "A.I." directed by
Stephen Spielberg...

Was that the screen with (a cartoon) Einstein on it asking for 3 questions or something
like that? I remember thinking that was just an advanced search engine when I saw it.
It was coin slot operated or something.
[/quote]
Yes, the "oracle" was coin or token-operated, in Rouge City. David
and Joe learned that the Blue Fairy was in Manhattan and headed there
on a commandeered police vehicle/spaceship.

[quote]Yes, all we have to do is decipher the meaning of sentences algorithmically and AI
will be solved after that. It would be a strange universe if our brains could do it, a piece
of meat with predominently 1 type of cell - the neuron, but computers couldn>t do it.
Hopefully we>ll solve AI in our lifetimes because it will revolutionise society.
[/quote]
One effort in that direction (maybe a small step) is the semantic web;
cf.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web

David Bernier

Robert Israel · Guest

julio@diegidio.name writes:

[quote]On 28 Jul, 01:02, "|-|erc" <h...@r.c> wrote:

Yes, all we have to do is decipher the meaning of sentences
algorithmically and AI
will be solved after that.

What is the meaning of this sentence?

-LV
[/quote]
That>s the first job for |-|erc>s algorithm.
--
Robert Israel israel@math.MyUniversitysInitials.ca
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada

Sanforized · Guest

Robert Israel wrote:

[quote]julio@diegidio.name writes:

On 28 Jul, 01:02, "|-|erc" <h...@r.c> wrote:

Yes, all we have to do is decipher the meaning of sentences
algorithmically and AI
will be solved after that.

What is the meaning of this sentence?

-LV

That>s the first job for |-|erc>s algorithm.
[/quote]
It seems to be failing so far.

Lars Kecke · Guest

|-|erc schrieb:
[quote]In 5 to 20 years search engines will have a new feature,
contextual search.
[/quote]
you mean, like the Science Citation Index? Has been around since the
invention of <meta> tags.

[quote]This will make them quite smart, for
instance if you wanted to search for "a man with a square
jaw and a scar under his eye", the engine will find all
pictures that fit.
[/quote]
only if properly indexed. And this indexing still needs a human (just
look at the state of the art in face recognition. Where are they now? at
90%?)

[quote]Or if you are searching for "Godel>s
Proof" it will find all sites that contain Godel>s proof,
not the myriad of sites that just mention the terms,
[/quote]
So you really believe those search engines will have a "do as I want,
don>t do as I say" feature? Btw, even with today>s ranking techniques,
the original proof shows up in the top 10, simply because it has more
links to it than the pages that just mention it.

[quote]or
if you are looking for an actual "art shop", the search
engine will find all the art shops for you, it may ask
if you want to include Amazon resellers.

1 year after contextual search is available, we will crack
artificial intelligence.
[/quote]
no way. Since we still don>t know what this "intelligence" thing is, we
won>t recognize AI until it kicks us.

[quote]Computers will talk and figure things out.
[/quote]
you mean, like Eliza or expert systems that were en vouge in the 80s and
still see some limited applications?

[quote]Within 5 years of that we will have driverless cars,
[/quote]
already do. They just have problems with dumb roads.

[quote]androids and intelligent talking house robots.
[/quote]
usually I don>t want my appliances to talk to me as long as they do
their jobs.

[quote]By 2040 smart computers will develop a cure for cancer and
a virus that will halt the aging process, immortality for those
who can afford it.
[/quote]
ironically, mortality is nature>s defence against cancer. Resetting your
clock will leave you in constant need for maintenance. Oh, and don>t put
too much money in "smart" computers, they don>t even prove math
therorems yet, and that is a really limited and logical part of our
world. Computers are great at handling large amounts of data but they
relly suck at pattern recognition, the stuff us humans do sub-conciously.

[quote]By 2060 there will be natural feeling
bionic limbs, and bionic eyes for the blind.
[/quote]
Probably no need for it. Just use headless clones as organ donors.

Lars


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Logic Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 2 of 6