Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Char13magne]

yes we can. Just check a weather forecast.

But are they always correct? I thought not.

[Forumsdwarf]

This thread is on the thin, jagged edge of morphing into a global warming debate ...

... but you didn't hear that from me! 

On topic, now: the real question should be are we as good at modeling thought as we are at modeling ideas, and the answer for now is "no".
At least some kinds of complex prediction veer into np-hard territory, so what we're discussing is really an AI design problem.
I predict that methods for growing AI's will eventually get good enough we can grow an AI that will "think" better than a human, and I further speculate that at that point -- but not before -- at least some AI's will be able to consistently make np-hard predictions better than us.  (The ability to copy those AI's makes it theoretically possible that almost all AI's could be better predictors.)
In the real world human-AI hybrid systems (tech-savvy managers with sophisticated data mining tools) are already outperforming either one separately.

Edit: and several studies have shown that even a monkey can out-perform a bad manager. 

[Duke 2.0]

yes we can. Just check a weather forecast.

But are they always correct? I thought not.

 Not always right /= Not right.

 Just because we cannot calculate the future with 100% accuracy does not mean we cannot predict the future. It just means there is a chance we could be wrong, or the details are a little fuzzy. Considering that for a great many things we can predict the future in order to survive hostile environments to the degree that we have, I would say our ability to predict the future does have some amount of legitimacy.

[Char13magne]

This thread is on the thin, jagged edge of morphing into a global warming debate ...

... but you didn't hear that from me! 

On topic, now: the real question should be are we as good at modeling thought as we are at modeling ideas, and the answer for now is "no".
At least some kinds of complex prediction veer into np-hard territory, so what we're discussing is really an AI design problem.
I predict that methods for growing AI's will eventually get good enough we can grow an AI that will "think" better than a human, and I further speculate that at that point -- but not before -- at least some AI's will be able to consistently make np-hard predictions better than us.  (The ability to copy those AI's makes it theoretically possible that almost all AI's could be better predictors.)
In the real world human-AI hybrid systems (tech-savvy managers with sophisticated data mining tools) are already outperforming either one separately.

Edit: and several studies have shown that even a monkey can out-perform a bad manager. 

Why does everyone think now that just because I start a thread means I have to be trying to spark a debate?

[Char13magne]

yes we can. Just check a weather forecast.

But are they always correct? I thought not.

 Not always right /= Not right.



 Just because we cannot calculate the future with 100% accuracy does not mean we cannot predict the future. It just means there is a chance we could be wrong, or the details are a little fuzzy. Considering that for a great many things we can predict the future in order to survive hostile environments to the degree that we have, I would say our ability to predict the future does have some amount of legitimacy.

I never said humans were incapable of predicting into the future, just not good at it, oh, and weathermen use computers!!!

[fenrif]

yes we can. Just check a weather forecast.

But are they always correct? I thought not.

 Not always right /= Not right.



 Just because we cannot calculate the future with 100% accuracy does not mean we cannot predict the future. It just means there is a chance we could be wrong, or the details are a little fuzzy. Considering that for a great many things we can predict the future in order to survive hostile environments to the degree that we have, I would say our ability to predict the future does have some amount of legitimacy.

I never said humans were incapable of predicting into the future, just not good at it, oh, and weathermen use computers!!!

You said it is a rare and treasured trait to be able to predict anything in our daily lives, implying that its something that is beyond the grasp of most mere mortals.

Why does everyone think now that just because I start a thread means I have to be trying to spark a debate?

You post threads every day that consist of "controversial topic, discuss!" This one only differs in that it's "I kinda thought of something, discuss!"

Also, double posting is bad form, you know this because people keep telling you.

[Char13magne]

yes we can. Just check a weather forecast.

But are they always correct? I thought not.

Being so literal is "such bad form" (to quote you a little bit, oh, and yes I'm being quite hypocritical right now with the literal part).

 Not always right /= Not right.



 Just because we cannot calculate the future with 100% accuracy does not mean we cannot predict the future. It just means there is a chance we could be wrong, or the details are a little fuzzy. Considering that for a great many things we can predict the future in order to survive hostile environments to the degree that we have, I would say our ability to predict the future does have some amount of legitimacy.

I never said humans were incapable of predicting into the future, just not good at it, oh, and weathermen use computers!!!

You said it is a rare and treasured trait to be able to predict anything in our daily lives, implying that its something that is beyond the grasp of most mere mortals.

Why does everyone think now that just because I start a thread means I have to be trying to spark a debate?

You post threads every day that consist of "controversial topic, discuss!" This one only differs in that it's "I kinda thought of something, discuss!"

Also, double posting is bad form, you know this because people keep telling you.

Being so literal on the forums is "such bad form" (to use your very words).

And I've only posted one, two topics at tops like this. Would you call "The Holy Roman Empire, neither Holy Nor Roman Nor An Empire," or "Wars Of The Roses, Yorkist Or Lancastrian" controversial?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Also, my response to him in that case was more of a joke, but, hey, however you took it.

And regarding the second point you've made, I'm getting better aren't I? There aren't that many people who are perfect at this 100% of the time, that I can tell.

Oh, and don't tell me you don't see threads just like this all the time!

[piecewise]

www.redorbit.com/news/science/126649/can_this_black_box_see_into_the_future/

Who needs to see into the future? I've got a random number generator for that.

[fenrif]

Being so literal on the forums is "such bad form" (to use your very words).

And I've only posted one, two topics at tops like this. Would you call "The Holy Roman Empire, neither Holy Nor Roman Nor An Empire," or "Wars Of The Roses, Yorkist Or Lancastrian" controversial?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Also, my response to him in that case was more of a joke, but, hey, however you took it.

And regarding the second point you've made, I'm getting better aren't I? There aren't that many people who are perfect at this 100% of the time, that I can tell.

Oh, and don't tell me you don't see threads just like this all the time!

It just seems to me like you've been on some sort of epic e-peen quest to get your post count as high as possible since you joined the forums. Sorry if im wrong, but it's kinda annoying.

Also: You're confusing being literal with quoting someone. Being literal is taking a statement that was meant to be figurative, like a metaphor, simile, or turn of phrase, and taking the words at face value, as opposed to their intended meaning. I just quoted you.

[Char13magne]

Oh, and don't tell me you don't see threads just like this all the time!

It just seems to me like you've been on some sort of epic e-peen quest to get your post count as high as possible since you joined the forums. Sorry if im wrong, but it's kinda annoying.

Sorry if I should, but I have no idea what that means. Anyone care to enlighten me?

[Jackrabbit]

Trying to gain popularity by making a lot of posts.

It doesn't work, by the way.

[Char13magne]

Trying to gain popularity by making a lot of posts.

It doesn't work, by the way.

Wouldn't that just get annoying? I see many flaws in the thought process behind that idea.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I ran some numbers in Visual Basic and it predicted that everyone will get way too tense, and someone will suggest that we just mellow out, and someone else will get angry about that.

I'm not sure.

[Char13magne]

I ran some numbers in Visual Basic and it predicted that everyone will get way too tense, and someone will suggest that we just mellow out, and someone else will get angry about that.

I'm not sure.

What's "Visual Basic"?

[ein]

You guys need to just chill out.