Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
The accusation I'm "Selectively citing" parts of the wikipedia article is simply you being upset that I'm not going to engage you in an argument based on a strawman of my statements you invented in your mind.

Yes, some concepts of the Singularity involve advanced AI. Not all of them. The assumption that I was speaking specifically, rather than broadly, isn't supported by any statement I've made, including the first one. And trying to blame me for you being a presumptuous faggot is just more of the same.

I can't fix you wanting to hear/read what you want to in other people's statements, wormie. That's not my fault. That's your fault. Period. Thank you.
You dropped some "wisdom" on us by interjecting into a conversation on a certain topic. Now all of a sudden it was not an opinion on that topic but a general statement. Go ahead post your last word reply and then do eat a dick. Thanks!

PS. Tuco had the same thought as me as to what you meant by your post. Its not just me reading into things, its you.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
I didn't interject shit, I responded to the post by Khorum. And it was a general statement. Singularity style future was the words I used. Nothing specific about that, at all. Butthurt some fucking more.
 

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,036
I once heard a Ted talk from an engineer/biologist which had this fascinating comparison with social evolution (Singularity) and biological evolution; he posited that it's all based on communication. The faster and more efficient the communication, the more specialized and efficient the basic components can become. So, you start off with colonies or weakly connected cell structures using chemical communication--just like humans started with verbal communication. It's slow, and not organized, thus prone to information loss and not understanding--but it is effective at relaying information. Then you continuously upgrade that until it's highly specialized and effecient (IE Endocrine system vs mail/printing press) but then you take a leap and you reach animals/electric communication; ie the formation of a nervous system (I know this isn't precisely how the evolutionary timeline works :p he admitted it was a rough comparison). In other words, the Telegraph and Telephone were the start of a kind of primitive social nervous system--the internet is the formation of a far more advanced one, complete with a kind of brain, and the smartest humans acting as parts of that brain.

From there the singularity will happen as the "brain" fully evolves, by not only connecting the humans better but also assisting them in computation. That doesn't need to happen with a huge grand AI that is an actual "brain" in and of itself--it can happen with a constant stream of small improvements to the tools humans are using to communicate. As the tools improve, the humans become faster at imrpoving the tools and, most importantly, because the communication is faster--learning the tools become faster. Which leads to higher and higher degrees of integration. So it doesn't have to be a radical AI that becomes this "brain", it can just be a group of highly integrated sentient humans, working with far faster and more efficient communication systems thanks to how integrated their tools are. So less like an an AI and more like an assembly line of ideas/work.

I mean, think about how the SJW from Twit-tumblr seem to act like a single organism? Imagine them connected by information systems that essentially let them share thoughts moment to moment in ways that make the current internet look as clumsy/slow to them as the telegraph does to us. What we perceive now as extreme tribalism, might eventually one day become a kind of pseudo consciousness. But who knows, the guy could have been full of shit and this could all be retarded :p but it makes sense to me--as humans become more interconnected, the various "like minded" areas of the net will act more and more like global entities. It might be hard to imagine now, but it's not hard for me to see group think go from being a figurative construct to quite a literal one. So not so much an "AI" singularity, as a "hive mind" singularity. (We become the borg. All hail the borg.)
 

khorum

Murder Apologist
24,338
81,363
The thing I don't understand is how they ever managed to grow beyond their initial parameters. And I'm not sure if that's AI, or an incredibly powerful (and clever) trial-and-error test.

I mean either way, neat. And I suppose it's impressive enough that if they want to call it AI (and there is probably an argument beyond the jargon-definition of the word to be made that it's asortof rudimentary intelligence) then dat koo.

That page does make it sound more like it was a very powerful sort + computation model. But then again, the model found 2 unsuspected proteins which, by definition, could not have been in the initial parameters. That is an impressive bit of induction. So mostly I'm curious how it grew beyond those initial parameters.
Yeah I linked the paper if you were curious. The news article had to reduce it something digestible so it does kinda end up sounding like a recursive brute-force approach. But I actually heard about it via folks in machine learning and they were kinda psyched about an AI that was doing more than just learning swahili to improve its Civilization score by 0.2%.

Honestly, I thought the revolutionary bit was more about the regenerative medicine! The planarian model is fucking HUGE. It's been something of a holy grail since their regenerative process doesn't express a Hayflick limit and Leonard Hayflick himself mentioned planarian regeneration as an exception.

The revolution in AI is in machine learning tho. A brand new neural-network AI learned to intuitively play a perfect game of space invaders without ANY introductory paramaters defining "game" or "joystick" or "aliens" or even "score". It was literally like anewborn baby beating the world's high score a few hours after slurping out of mom.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
PS. Tuco had the same thought as me as to what you meant by your post. Its not just me reading into things, its you.
Actually Tuco responded more generally first, and then moved to the AI question. So all we have here is another case of your confirmation bias driven thinking leading you to read what you want and discard what people are actually saying.

But regardless, irt Lithose:

Exactly. When people are integrating processors and memory chips into their brains that allow for instant recall, mathematical processing, and mass communication, human society will have altered so rapidly that it would fit the broad definition of a Singularity, without need for advanced artificial intelligence. AI is just one possibility.

Humans integrating technology directly into their physiology is already going to make us an entirely new species, for all intents and purposes. Homo artificialus.

IRT Khorum: Yeah the planarian being basically reverse engineered here is a big step forward as well.
 

khorum

Murder Apologist
24,338
81,363
hodj can't be wrong because he can just say "wait longer it will happen"
Well if that's what he's saying then no, he can't be wrong lol. Does anyone actually doubt that if we wait long enough literally ANYTHING will happen?

Most people tend to object about Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns---the exponential pace of progress that's counterintuitive to the linear pace our civilization "feels" it has observed for 10,000 years---which suggests we don't have to wait long at all. But I don't think anyone really doubts "wait longer and it will happen". The Permian die-off killed 97% of all life on Earth and "we waited longer" and we still managed to land on the moon lol.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,388
80,836
See, wormie, here's your problem: You're reading in my statement what you want to read.

Not what I actually said.

So the only person that needs to come again is yourself. You need to come read that statement again until you realize at no point is it a claim that we are currently approaching "strong AI" whatever the fuck you think that means.

And for the record, here is the definition of a technological Singularity

Technological singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I was going to quote the same paragraph as a reason why I disagree with your assertion that a technological singularity is an almost certainty that we are rapidly approaching.

The key part of the technological singularity is that it's a moment in time where 'everything is different now'. I don't think this will ever happen. We will continue to improve our tech, but it just won't be this fantasy of making a discovery that adds that distinct level of separation to warrant the term.

You could conceive of several ways a singularity could occur:
1. Some AI we flip on that suddenly self-improves to the point of being able to solve and create a massive range of problems.
2. Some invention that allows us to experience reality in some multi-planar or multi-dimensional way (time travel etc).
3. The introduction to some inter-galactic community that gives us aids blankets and/or technology way beyond our tech tree.
4. Some fucked up forced evolution that either turns us into telepathic greys or wisps.

None of these scenarios is likely.

What is more likely is we'll continue to evolve as a species, improve our technology and slowly increase our understanding of our universe through one failure after another. We'll be improving our computational tech, our travel tech, our self-longevity tech, our human biology/cyborg tech etc. In a hundred years maybe we'll have tech that would blow us away. But it'll happen gradually and even then we'd still be able to relate to one another.
 

BrotherWu

MAGA
<Silver Donator>
3,259
6,502
"strong AI" whatever the fuck you think that means.
These articles lay out those definitions. Personally, I think that the concerns and projections are way overstated.

The AI Revolution: Road to Superintelligence - Wait But Why

The AI Revolution: Our Immortality or Extinction | Wait But Why

AI Caliber 1) Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI): Sometimes referred to as Weak AI, Artificial Narrow Intelligence is AI that specializes in one area. There's AI that can beat the world chess champion in chess, but that's the only thing it does. Ask it to figure out a better way to store data on a hard drive, and it'll look at you blankly.

AI Caliber 2) Artificial General Intelligence (AGI): Sometimes referred to asStrongAI, or Human-Level AI, Artificial General Intelligence refers to a computer that is as smart as a human across the board-a machine that can perform any intellectual task that a human being can. Creating AGI is a much harder task than creating ANI, and we're yet to do it. Professor Linda Gottfredson describes intelligence as "a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience." AGI would be able to do all of those things as easily as you can.

AI Caliber 3) Artificial Superintelligence (ASI): Oxford philosopher and leading AI thinker Nick Bostrom defines superintelligence as "an intellect that is much smarter than the best human brains in practically every field, including scientific creativity, general wisdom and social skills." Artificial Superintelligence ranges from a computer that's just a little smarter than a human to one that's trillions of times smarter-across the board. ASI is the reason the topic of AI is such a spicy meatball and why the words immortality and extinction will both appear in these posts multiple times.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
IRT Tuco: I think I'm saying closer to what you're saying here than you think, basically.

I'm not saying there's going to be some EUREKA style moment, akin to when the Monolith appears in 2001 A Space Oddysey, and suddenly chimpanzees are bashing one another's skulls in with bones and rocks, I am talking about gradiation into a new form of existence, though, that will be virtually unrecognizable to us today, in the same way internets and cell phones will appear like magic to people living a mere 150 years ago.

Of course it will be a gradiation, not a singular defining moment, where its like BANG! now we're superman or some shit.

Punctuated equilibrium still requires, you know, a million years to occur or whatever. All evolution is gradiation, some occurs over longer time scales than others, but none of it is instantaneous. Just because something is gradual, though, doesn't mean there doesn't come a point where recognition that a significant change has occurred is made. A beard grows ever so slowly, but it does grow, and even if we cannot point to the exact moment that facial hair becomes a beard, does not imply that a beard cannot exist.

I think you've taken my use of the term singularity to imply the sort of pop culture BANG POW now we have super human AI, which is how Kurzweil has popularized the idea with his book on the subject, but that's really not what I'm saying. I don't see you and I in disagreement here, its more a misunderstanding of the term thanks to the popular culture view of it.

Also, 100 years IS a miniscule amount of time relative to typical evolutionary time scales, and if we are 100 years away from such changes, we are absolutely rapidly approaching them.
 

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
The revolution in AI is in machine learning tho. A brand new neural-network AI learned to intuitively play a perfect game of space invaders without ANY introductory paramaters defining "game" or "joystick" or "aliens" or even "score". It was literally like anewborn baby beating the world's high score a few hours after slurping out of mom.
Sometimes it learned to beat the games in ways the researchers didn't expect. In Breakout, deep Q-network figured out how to tunnel through the wall, something the research team hadn't thought of.
Dumb fucking research team doesn't know how to play Breakout.
 

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,897
+Lith

If instantaneous group think is the new future, and we become an organic collective brain, we will need an immune system to fight off cancer. I support the visionary pioneer Dr. Mario Speedwagon in his efforts to rid our collective brain of its cancers.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,388
80,836
IRT Tuco: I think I'm saying closer to what you're saying here than you think, basically.

I'm not saying there's going to be some EUREKA style moment, akin to when the Monolith appears in 2001 A Space Oddysey, and suddenly chimpanzees are bashing one another's skulls in with bones and rocks, I am talking about gradiation into a new form of existence, though, that will be virtually unrecognizable to us today, in the same way internets and cell phones will appear like magic to people living a mere 150 years ago.

Of course it will be a gradiation, not a singular defining moment, where its like BANG! now we're superman or some shit.

Punctuated equilibrium still requires, you know, a million years to occur or whatever. All evolution is gradiation, some occurs over longer time scales than others, but none of it is instantaneous. Just because something is gradual, though, doesn't mean there doesn't come a point where recognition that a significant change has occurred is made. A beard grows ever so slowly, but it does grow, and even if we cannot point to the exact moment that facial hair becomes a beard, does not imply that a beard cannot exist.

I think you've taken my use of the term singularity to imply the sort of pop culture BANG POW now we have super human AI, which is how Kurzweil has popularized the idea with his book on the subject, but that's really not what I'm saying. I don't see you and I in disagreement here, its more a misunderstanding of the term thanks to the popular culture view of it.

Also, 100 years IS a miniscule amount of time relative to typical evolutionary time scales, and if we are 100 years away from such changes, we are absolutely rapidly approaching them.
Evolutionary time scale yes, but on a human timescale that's still several generations of time which I think is more important when you're talking tech singularities.

At this point I think we're debating semantics. I think for the term technological singularity to be applied to our advancement there has to be a singular defining moment where everything is changed. This moment may separate the population is some significant way where people who get on board are in a completely different culture than those who don't. Or it could be universal and the person from the day before it happened would need to make a significant adjustment to enter the new world.

I feel like you're saying, "Boy, tech sure is continuing to improve pretty fast. I bet it will continue to improve at the same rate and we'll see a lot more cool shit in say, 50 years. Let's call this 50 year period a technological singularity.".

And by that definition you could say that we're experiencing the singularity now, and it started around the time we started using nuclear energy, electromagnetism, fire or blankets.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Agree with pretty much all this, but the definition of Singularity I posted doesn't necessarily imply a singular moment, and I wasn't really using it in that vein exclusively. It COULD be that such an event will occur, but I don't think its necessary for a Singularity style future to come about. The EUREKA moment concept of a Singularity is more a Kurzweilian popularization of the idea, so I can see how that has led to this confusion.

I do think that it is a cumulative result of the gradual evolution of our species' usage of tools and our tool making capabilities, but we can differentiate modern, rapid technological growth, from like lithic shaping and fire making of the past in a variety of relavent and functional ways that I think makes it particularly different from those events. Certainly those were the foundations, though. Just because we can see a gradiation from there to here, doesn't mean there wasn't many points where the change was great enough to warrant labeling it an important moment. But yeah anyway, I think we've clarified things a bit better here and are pretty much seeing eye to eye.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Alexander The Great's Father Found In Tomb With Foreign Princess - Forbes

A warrior and a diplomat, Philip II ruled the kingdom of Macedon from 359-336 BC. He was assassinated during a visit to the town of Aegae, now called Vergina, by a member of his bodyguard, but both ancient and modern historians are at odds as to why. With his assassination, his son Alexander ascended the throne at just 20 years old, earning the title of Great by becoming one of history's best military commanders and empire builders.

When a spectacular tomb full of artifacts was found buried under a mound of dirt at Vergina in the 1970s, archaeologists began their quest to discover the identity of the tomb's occupants. In the 1980s, Jonathan Musgrave, John Prag, and Richard Naeve posited that the male occupant of that tomb was Philip II based on an injury to the skeleton's right eye socket consistent with a wound Philip II was known to have suffered in battle. Fast forward to 2000, when Antonis Bartsiokas writing in Science showed that the eye socket damage was related to cracking during cremation and reconstruction after excavation. Is this or is this not Philip of Macedon?

In an article published this week in the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, researchers Theodore Antikas and Laura Wynn-Antikas attempt to settle the longstanding question. Their new analysis is based in part on computed tomography (CT) and x-ray fluorescence (XRF) techniques and identifies two of the Vergina tomb occupants as Philip II and a Scythian princess.

The skeletal evidence that Antikas and Wynn-Antikas spell out for their identification of Philip includes basic demographics: the skeleton in question was male and around 40-50 years old based on traits of the skull and the pelvis. But the pathological issues are more interesting, as they give bioarchaeologists information about injuries suffered during a person's life. Evidence for horseback riding comes from herniated disks in his lower back and bone markers of attachment sites for muscles heavily used in riding. Bone growth was evident in the facial sinuses; this could relate to an old injury to the face, which Philip is known to have endured, or it could relate to an upper respiratory disease. Additional bony changes on the ribs suggest a disease that targeted the lungs, but the researchers cannot pinpoint an origin. As a king, Philip's life and appearance are well-recorded in histories. Philip is said by Demosthenes to have suffered injuries during his lifetime to his eye, hand, clavicle, and leg. Sharp trauma to one of the bones of his palm is actually the only injury the researchers found that lines up with historical accounts, but they point out that soft tissue injuries, such as to the eye, may not show up on bone.

More evidence may still point to an identification of the skeleton as Philip's, including one of the other skeletons in the tomb. The second skeleton is not as complete as the first, but based on features of the skull and long bones, the researchers think they have a female in her early 30s. She also suffered from herniated disks in her mid-back, suggestive of a life riding horses, as well as a fracture of her lower leg that had healed before her death. The fracture was so severe, however, that it ended up shortening one leg. In excavating the Vergina tomb originally, archaeologists found greaves (shin armour) that were two different lengths; Antikas and Wynn-Antikas speculate that these were made specifically for this woman with the injured leg. Because of her age, the warrior weaponry, and her propensity for horseback riding, it is suggested that the woman was Philip's seventh wife, the daughter of King Atheas of Scythia.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
There goes the theist argument that "Well if you don't believe Jesus was a real person, you can't believe Alexander the Great and Caeser were real people either!!!1111" argument.

Here's a Livescience article on it as well, but they fuck up some of the bone biology

Burned Bones in Alexander the Great Family Tomb Give Up Few Secrets

The Forbes link is written by Kristina Killgrove, who is a very well known osteologist who runs the blog Powered by Osteons, and was recently picked up by Forbes to write about physical anthropology and archaeology and other topics related to that field.

Kristina Killgrove
 

Tripamang

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
5,378
32,683
Research Blog: Inceptionism: Going Deeper into Neural Networks

Really cool article, basically google trained a simple neural network to identify images. But they wanted to know what the neural network was actually recognizing as the object. So they initially gave it a blank canvas and asked it to fill it with what it thought a dumbbell was, and it produced some images. Then they took other images unrelated to what it was trained to see, and told it to find those things in the images and those trippy pictures are what it's producing as output. It produces some really mind bending art.