« First « Previous Comments 101 - 103 of 103 Search these comments
Add a few more product generation cycles on this and soon, we'll have a very limited white collar workspace.
Pretty much jobs will no longer exist. Soon enough, machines can do practically anything a human can do, only better and cheaper. Moreover, self-replicating robotic law enforcement can maintain peace in ANY environment, effectively and without moral confusion.
It is going to be interesting. :-)
Obviously, (3) is the most interesting because machines can move beyond its programming. This is where true emergence can occur.
Which one are you talking about?
(2) and (3) are always included in (1). They are programs like any other.
(2) and (3) are both necessary for intelligence. They just play different roles.
Obviously, (3) is the most interesting because machines can move beyond its programming. This is where true emergence can occur.
Which one are you talking about?
(2) and (3) are always included in (1). They are programs like any other.
(2) and (3) are both necessary for intelligence. They just play different roles.
Yes, they build on one another. (2) and (3) are programs but not in the same sense as (1). You as the programmer further removed from the problem (as its solver) in (2) and (3) then in (1).
« First « Previous Comments 101 - 103 of 103 Search these comments
In either case, it is because Modernism is scared. In reality, it is reductionism fighting against the unknown and any possible emergence.
Science, as it stands today, is pathetic.
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/stephen-hawking-artificial-intelligence-could-150024478.html
Stephen Hawking seems to be afraid. Alas, who cares for a theory of everything?