Are we even having the same conversation? Half the time it feels like you are talking past me rather than too me.
Read my posts, Stirk, before responding. Memory Contest people. Do it for shows and the like. It is a real, if uncommon, thing; just cause you haven't heard of it til now doesn't mean it's not real.
*Sigh* No.
You read
my post. In case it wasn't clear, I was subtly implying that this has never ever happened, from the first time our ancestors figured out they could stand on two feet to me hitting the "post" button. Because it hasn't. "Memory Contest people" don't typically have a better memory then most people, and use tricks. Such as memorizing the periodic table to the tune of your favorite song. No "memory contest participant" has
ever gone insane from trying to memorize things. In fact, no "memory contest people"
ever remembered a significant amount more then what a normal human would in the course of their lifetime. There has never been a single case of this happening ever.
Ever. I think I made it clear now?
Additionally, if nothing else we could always just make what amount to mechanical neurons, with how nanotechnology and gentix engineering is progressing. In ten years? Probably not. In twenty? Still unlikely. But thirty years is a long time for technology, in the modern day.
People in general greatly overestimate the abilities of nanomachines, by the way people talk about them one would assume they where little Gods. You are still vastly underestimating the human brain. Do you not understand how difficult it would be to make anything like the human brain out of metal? There are trillions of connections. Microscopic connections. We would practically have to have control over every single atom to make that even feasible. Thirty years, fifty years, two hundred years is far to short a time to make something like that happen.
Well, Stirk, you aren't the foremost expert nor do I have any reason to believe you would be better educated in the field I'm more or less planning to go into than I do, so I have zero reason to believe your assumptions and sources are any more credible than my own! And yes I simplified it a bit but the gist of AI is a set of software and behavioral principles that constantly learns and adapts. That's more or less what intelligence is.
The fact you think they can be on par with humans is what the real problem is. If what you are looking for is a video game that learns new skill in a very small area in a very set pattern, we might manage to have that in thirty years. It won't be nearly as adaptable as, say, a mentally ill rat, or able to do anything not in its game, but if that is what your goal is...
Also, one neuron doesn't equal one byte. They aren't on-off switches that can be read and interpreted. There're pathways and snipped bits and the bits that don't do anything besides preventing another bit from functioning and blah-dy-blah-dy blah. Just because I don't feel like getting into an in-depth discussion about the nature of organic versus inorganic processing power doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. I just don't care enough about debating things with you, because you just do it for argument's sake rather than any actual desire to learn. Or do anything other than point at people you arbitrarily decide are less intelligent than you because they have different viewpoints beliefs and ideas, and laugh at them for being stupid.
....*Sigh again*...Did you read any of the source assuming how much information was stored in the brain? First, I never claimed a neuron equals one byte. Some of the sources guessing the amount of information the brain could store did, though. You DON'T know what you are talking about. Using the "I totally know what I am talking about I just don't want to share." excuse isn't about to work on me.
Just remembered the rule about off-topic conversations. I'll make some fanart in a while.
I thought that was only for politics
Technology causes a change in society we couldn't even have imagined, say, 50 years ago.
Huh, I never heard that term used like that before.
'Near future'? Try 'now'.
Can you summarize? I am in a kinda-sorta-public lounge while my roommate is sleeping and don't want to make a lot of noise.
It has happened before. Agriculture, writing, gunpowder, industry, computers... And the way it is going, it has to happen or we (mankind) will collapse as the current form of society does.
Even though I know what you mean by "Singularity" now, I still don't really like it as a classification. As a rule, we are horrible at assuming future advances as a people. I don't see mankind collapsing any time soon, and cannot fathom what you mean by that.
Those advancements really didn't change things all that much, at their base. Society as a whole has, more or less, not changed much even with all the advancements and technology. A Roman may had access to less technology and different viewpoints, but he really isn't all that different from a Modern American. Humans are still humans, and there really is no reason to assume "Soon the world will change spectacularly forever" in my opinion.
That is one solution. Getting it to work in practice is another problem, though.
If we can somehow magically make machines more intelligent, why would it be any harder to get humans more intelligent? Especially with the assistance of all the now-intelligent machines.
I can't find anything like that existing. The closest thing I can find is hyperthymesia, which doesn't appear to work at all as you describe. They seem to have some difficulties, but it appears to be more "Keep getting distracted thinking about the past because they have legitimate OCD about it", and they haven't "lost the ability to forget" so much as they obsess about their past to the point it is nearly impossible to forget.
I had addressed that. As the rest of the article states, there is reason to believe it is essentially a form of
OCD, which has the same problems. Basically what I am saying that it is not a problem that has to do with "memory overload" or whatever.
Poll
7 (41.2%)
Author
Topic: Ye Gods 1 OOC [21/∞] Talk here (Read 438349 times)