>Years ago,
I read a book (hah!) I think it was called "The Emperors New Mind." It's a good
read on the differences between the human mind and
computers.
Penrose's thesis is widely rejected these
days.
>The binary process that is the basis of computing does not approximate
the associative capabilities of the human mind.
Those are different levels
of "computing." Apples and oranges.
>I'll add that extrapolating growth into the future is pretty much
always wrong.
Except for the fact that Kurzweil is nearly always correct.
>The advances in AI during that time have been small
Have you seen the phones that translate languages in real time?
t
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 3:36
PM
Subject: Re: 2045: The Year Man Becomes
Immortal
I don't buy it. Computers work differently than the human mind.
Speed them up as fast as you want, but you still won't have the human
mind.
Years ago, I read a book (hah!) I think it was called "The
Emperors New Mind." It's a good read on the differences between the human mind
and computers.
The binary process that is the basis of computing does
not approximate the associative capabilities of the human mind.
I'll
add that extrapolating growth into the future is pretty much always
wrong.
Artificial Intelligence has been a chief goal of computer
science research for the past 20 years or more. The advances in AI during that
time have been small. I have a friend who used to work at a game company. For
the higest levels of the game, the computer opponent could "cheat" and make
several moves a turn. That was the best approach they had to challenge skilled
humans.
--
Art
Simon
simart@gmail.com
myspace
[dot] com/artsimon