Newest 1sttube Sift Talk Posts
comment listing type:
Friends O' the Sift
Subscribe
Top 15 Mystery Sifters of All Time
Top 3 Mystery Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
Newest 1sttube Sift Talk Posts comment listing type: Friends O' the Sift Subscribe Top 15 Mystery Sifters of All Time Top 3 Mystery Sifters of the Past Week VideoSift Links |
blankfist
(and a little aroused)
UPVOTE EVERYTHING DAY (Sift Talk Post)
Now I know how Sarzy feels.
(And I only vote for awesome things, so if everything is awesome, I'll upvote it.
alien_concept
Intelligent Design - Where is AI going? (Videogames Talk Post)
I think so.
There are some definite problems with computability, such as the halting problem which can never be solved by a turing machine. This can be accounted for, with checks and balances - the computer doesn't have to give the right answer, just reply that it can't calculate it - a human couldn't calculate it either.
I am inclined to think that we work much like a computer, but obviously not in exactly the same way; we don't have 1s and 0s in our head. But our head does have much lover atomic parts that our conscience have no connection to, much like a high level language does not have direct access to hardware or the intricacies of register addressing.
My whole point is that it may be prudent to consider that the term Strong AI may be a faulty one, and that there are only different degrees complexity in "Weak" AI. I may be mistaken, of course, and there may indeed be some "magical" step that needs to be taken before something is actually thinking, but I doubt it.
I think that more we learn about the human brain, the more we demystify the I in AI. Thoughts and consciousness will likely be not that special when broken down, but because the brain is so complex it seems a mystical answer is easier for now.
The term "weak AI" does not only mean the classical pre-programmed AI that is used in the games above, it also means neural networks and artificial life (swarm AI) and a better word is probably "narrow AI" because it typically only has a narrow application. The term "Strong AI" could easily be exchanged with "General AI", because it has to be able to do basically everything. My point is that there is no threshold where one becomes the other, it is a sliding scale of complexity.
kulpims
In reply to this comment by kulpims:
>> ^BillOreilly:
Unfortunately, I agree with the LiberalSift consensus, our resident dope-smoker needs to go.
shit, i thought you meant me
TED Talks - George Smoot: The design of the universe
thepinky
I honestly didn't care about the video (which is why I haven't voted on it), but the comments are fun.
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
>> ^gwiz665:
She totally does and they are very sweet... in this picture I drew.
You're misrepresenting my cause, too. I just said that this video is NOT objectification of women. But you're right. This video is mildly amusing and not very offensive at all. I just have a personal problem with boobies tags and videos that make #3 because of cleavage.
Aaargh! I'm sorry. Why do I even try? It's not even a big deal. Carry on.
Should Our Resident "Hater" Be Banned? (Wtf Talk Post)
Should Our Resident "Hater" Be Banned? (Wtf Talk Post)
I've been on the fence with this one for a while, because if we ban for "just not liking a person", which it seemed the siftquisition of him was about, the sift changes into something I don't like. But lately, I've been fed up.
We have to be careful about applying the rules extremely rigorously, because there are many of us that would be out of here in that case. It's more guidelines than laws, really.
ยง32.5
"Abuse of the site, other members, votes, posts, comments, or any privileges, especially star abilities, whether mentioned above or not, may result in account suspension or a permanent ban."
His deceitful posts is a symptom of playing the system instead of "the game". I'm not certain he explicitly breaks any rules, other than the one above, but he certainly breaks the spirit of the rules.
I hate to see a prolific user banned, but for me he's banned already anyway. Do with him what you will, I'm not voting on his posts any more.
THE THING (Complete Blood Test Scene)
Synesthesia: Seeing music, hearing colors (Part 3)
Still, very interesting condition.
CaptWillard
In reply to this comment by CaptWillard:
[cut]
Ron Paul Interview 1988
>> ^Razor:
Holy shit, he is consistent.
paul4dirt
In reply to this comment by paul4dirt:
x.
I'm a little disappointed in VideoSift (Wtf Talk Post)