Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - P3nT4gR4m

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 612
Bring and Brag / Re: P3nT's Shoops
« on: Yesterday at 06:43:50 pm »
I'm calling him "Shostrich" cos there's a bit of shark and a bit of ostrich in him (along with fuck knows all what else)

Imported into unreal engine and squared off against spiderman. I've stood next to these guys in the rift and they're about 10 foot tall. This is my future. As advertised. Does not dissapoint!

Techmology and Scientism / Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« on: December 03, 2016, 06:35:11 pm »
Most recent thing that showed up was today. Don't recognise the source (clickbait), came via google.

I've seen it posted on a couple of forums and FB places. Didn't want to waste time fact checking if you knew anything about it. Filing it as crap pending further info.

Bring and Brag / Re: P3nT's Shoops
« on: December 03, 2016, 04:54:13 pm »
Keeping going with the WTF-theme

Techmology and Scientism / Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« on: December 03, 2016, 03:46:55 pm »
On a side note, Nigel, I'd be interested in your take on this N=2i-1 thing that has flashed across my radar three or four times in the last week or so. Google seems ignorant, the sources are somewhere in the middle of the credibility scale but it seems really interesting and maybe not totally nonsensical. What are proper neuroscientists saying about it? Is it even a thing?

Beyond the wall / Re: Space dogs
« on: December 02, 2016, 09:50:27 pm »

So some people have genes that make these damn things. 

One word -  death camps

Beyond the wall / Re: Space dogs
« on: December 02, 2016, 08:24:11 pm »
Okay so now I'm freaked the fuck out about this prions shit. I think we may owe it to the world to spread mass-panic

Bring and Brag / Re: P3nT's Shoops
« on: December 02, 2016, 05:50:27 pm »
Next week hand controllers arrive for oculus and I get a free copy of Medium - sculpting in VR. Also UE4 has controller support already. I get to build VR, in VR :fap:

Minotaur-pig-rabbit-demon. Brainfart-doodle from today. (don't ask - I have literally no idea)

Next he'll be accusing us of doing it on purpose  :evil:

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Random News Stories
« on: December 02, 2016, 11:17:49 am »
Meanwhile, in my neck of the woods, we keep it classy

at one point he could been seen on CCTV taking an empty chewing gum container out of a bin, performing a sex act into it, and putting it on one of the women's desks.

I think of Aini more like a sack of beetles on account of that thing LMNO wrote about PI

Techmology and Scientism / Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« on: December 01, 2016, 02:36:47 pm »
What you said about philosophy rings true with me. Philosophy seems to have a grammar and language suited to examining consciousness which science totally lacks. Science likes objectivity. Consciousness is an entirely subjective phenomenon. I think the article in the OP is what happens when objective science tries to understand the wellspring of subjectivity. Sure, we might figure it out eventually but until then I expect there will be many more lulzfests like this.

Techmology and Scientism / Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« on: December 01, 2016, 01:38:31 pm »

I'm actually having trouble finishing the article, I'm just cringing too much. They referenced the hard problem of consciousness right at the beginning of the article without one mention of the guy who popularized the term, David Chalmers. Leaps of logic and half-baked metaphors abound. I don't think I can read it all

Maybe the hard problem is only hard because we're trying to solve it using consciousness. Like trying to measure a ruler using the ruler itself. Maybe there are finite limits to what a couple of pounds of meat is capable of understanding. Maybe consciousness is what happens when you have something really simple happening over and over, in parallel, at massive scale. We can just about grok what an individual neuron does with a signal or even a small group of them but, by the time your get to a couple of thousand, we're clueless. Millions? Billions? Forget it.

I'm not sure that's ever likely to change. Maybe scientific study of consciousness is impossible. Science can't even prove such a thing exists, never mind how it works. We'd almost certainly need a brand new language to describe it. Just grabbing a trendy branch of mathematics off the shelf doesn't look like it's going to get far.

Techmology and Scientism / Re: I need someone smarter than me to parse this
« on: December 01, 2016, 10:17:04 am »
The idea that what were doing is measuring publicly accessible objects, the idea that objectivity results from the fact that you and I can measure the same object in the exact same situation and get the same results its very clear from quantum mechanics that that idea has to go. Physics tells us that there are no public physical objects.

A lot of what he's saying makes sense and, to be honest, there's really nothing new there but I'm getting a strong sense of barstool in places where he does what most of these guys do and extrapolates too far. They take cause out of cause and effect and expect shit to still work.

If every third word in a - there's no such thing as reality - article is "quantums" I grow dubious.

My (mis)understanding is that these things work by observing the existing relationships within a corpus. When asked to make a decision, it's just selecting the "most probable response" based on the existing relationships.

To me, that implies a ceiling of what's capable using this method. Neural networks trying to model human intelligence can become, at best, as smart as a human. If there is some advanced form of reasoning that we don't use, it won't appear in a neural network (at least, not one that's studying humans).

I think where you're going a bit off is with this idea of trying to model human intelligence. The machine isn't even aware of how humans do something and any similarity in approach is coincidental. If you decouple "Human" and "intelligence" and concentrate on defining raw intelligence or raw cognition it's much more nuts and bolts than how human brains do it.

As for advanced reasoning, it depends how you define advanced. The ability to form a correlation based on billions of pages of data would suggest to me advanced in terms of processing throughput. No human could see a pattern in that much data. They wouldn't even be able to read it. Machines are pretty simplistic in comparison. A black and decker drill with a couple of hundred component parts is a lot less complex than a human with  trillions of cells but if I wanted a row of perfect 1/8th holes drilled in something I know which one I'd reach for first.

On the other side of the scale you have things humans do in a much more advanced way than machines. Love and poetry and convincing other humans they're conscious and intelligent.

In the middle of the scale - the battleground between meat and silicon is where we will find out that a lot of intelligent things humans used to be unsurpassed at are going to be done tens, hundreds or even thousands of times better by humanoid robots with titanium endoskeletons and an insatiable lust for world domination.

If you can be arsed wading through academic jargon the paper on arxiv goes into excruciating detail on how machine translation works these days.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 612