What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
80 Comments
- betrayed, on 05/27/2009, -2/+32Human thought is one giant nested if statement.
- SpectralSounds, on 05/27/2009, -0/+22My cpu is a neural net processor, a learning computer.
- krisrm, on 05/27/2009, -7/+26"The Defense Department is continuing its push to reduce human thought and human action to a few lines of code."
Does this disturb you as much as it disturbs me?
<begin skynet comments> - XkenX87, on 05/27/2009, -1/+15Man can you imagine what would happen if the sky turned into a huge net. No one would escape. Very Disturbing.
- inigomntoya, on 05/27/2009, -0/+13With one simple ELSE at the end:
Else DoNothing; - drmangrum, on 05/27/2009, -1/+10Why do writers of these types of articles have to boil everything down to a hard target applications? There is more to combat than camouflage and bullet slinging.
Just off the top of my head:
-Better intelligence analysis
-Superior automated air traffic control systems.
-Automated load masters for cargo planes.
-Unmanned assault vehicles capable of surveying, evaluating, and engaging a target without the need of a ground-based pilot.
The list could go on and on. Being able to offload tasks to a computer allows for a smaller military. - XkenX87, on 05/27/2009, -0/+9OOOOhhh RAH
- nyxerebos, on 05/27/2009, -0/+8It's an enormous, dazzlingly complicated neural net, not a binary decision tree. Feasibility fail.
- americanoboy, on 05/27/2009, -15/+22don't all the people in US military already have reduced human thought?
- Berkana, on 05/27/2009, -0/+7If they are trying to reproduce human thought, they will not succeed in building artificial intelligence, only artificial stupidity.
- solecize, on 05/27/2009, -0/+5it's not
- evilregis, on 05/27/2009, -1/+6The brain is computational... nested ifs, case statements, boolean operations, etc.. Why is this such a shock?
- dromni, on 05/27/2009, -0/+5“New computational and mathematical principles of cognition are needed to form a symbiosis between human and machine systems”. Are they trying to make cyborgs? If so, I hope they are giant robots with human brains in top jars. I love the B-movie ring of that!
- inactive, on 05/27/2009, -0/+5i think in the warmer areas of the world they use a lot of GOSUBs
- Ymeg, on 05/27/2009, -2/+7I'm pretty sure military scientists, engineers, technicians, etc are far more intelligent than your troll posts.
- Cidinho, on 05/27/2009, -0/+5I wonder if the parts that are not completely red on the brain pic are the ones that produce half-baked thoughts.
- darkego666, on 05/27/2009, -0/+5I replaced 3 people this week with a shell script.
- LittleDas, on 05/27/2009, -0/+4Nope. Sounds awesome.
- inactive, on 05/27/2009, -1/+5do while humans > 0 "kill all humans"
- tomturtle18, on 05/27/2009, -1/+4Wonder what programming language they're using. A few lines, can't be prolog.
- dman24752, on 05/27/2009, -0/+3About as much as their attempts to develop technologies that break the laws of physics disturb me... as a taxpayer.
- grbradsk, on 05/28/2009, -0/+3Ironically, these computers will believe that they were created by an "intelligent designer" ... but unlike we puny humans, they'll be right.
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -1/+4It's 42 guys. There, we can all go home.
- NikoKun, on 05/27/2009, -0/+3The problem with trying to recreate the human brain in programming, is that we do not have a dynamic enough programing language for it yet. The "program code" of the human mind is constantly changing... The results and outcomes often never follow any formula, and results could be different for the same situation, solely on a whim. The human mind is more like a giant image of almost random static, than any programing language we currently have.
I'd wager that things such as if-thens, and other programing statements/concepts are far too simple to accurately portray the human mind... at least in a short amount of code, anyway. It's probably far more complex, using things we just can't comprehend yet.
We probably don't even have a powerful enough computer yet, to run such a code on... Although we're getting there, as processors become more complex with hundreds upon hundreds of cores running together.
The human brain is more like billions and billions of such processors, working together. - grendl2000, on 05/27/2009, -5/+8A disturbingly anti-science piece from Wired. What if you really can reduce human thought to basic algorithms? That doesn't diminish human thought, but it might lead to a greater understanding of it.
And "God-given gifts"? Since when do we simply write off something as "God-given" and therefore not worthy of scientific inquiry? What's next, Wired? An endorsement of Creationism? - Diosjenin, on 05/27/2009, -0/+3Couldn't they just... wait a few years?
http://digg.com/d1mI4D - solarwind24, on 05/27/2009, -0/+3Good luck
- sponeil, on 05/27/2009, -1/+3"Think Russian"
- drmangrum, on 05/27/2009, -0/+2No. I didn't. The skynet jokes are beyond old.
- evergrim, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2EAT.
SLEEP.
KILL.
KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL!
KILL! - shutaro, on 05/27/2009, -1/+3The bastard hacked my eyes!!!
- iconmaster, on 05/27/2009, -0/+2Dugg for Snow Crash reference.
- EricAnderton, on 05/27/2009, -1/+3*sigh* Time to brush up on my cuneiform.
- defektiv, on 05/27/2009, -0/+2Think OR gates. I'm convinced our brains are just huge storage devices that manipulate and store information based upon familiarity.
- borez, on 05/27/2009, -6/+8SKYNET
/see above. - ck376227, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2I'm detective JOHN KIMBLE
- inactive, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2Dude. It's called a joke. Way to ironically prove his point though....
- inactive, on 05/27/2009, -0/+2i c wut u did thar
- ElGubrush, on 05/27/2009, -0/+2HEY HEY!
HO HO!
100110! - shylove, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2It's ok because non-thought meditation will still work!! It is just one algorithm anyway, this leads to that and that leads to this. It is one or the other but what happens when it is both.
Taking the yin and yanging it is about the same as taking the yang and yinning it! So what direction do you go in when the answer is both... - grbradsk, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2I, for one, welcome our new ... yada yada.
- JQP123, on 05/27/2009, -0/+2"What if you really can reduce human thought to basic algorithms? "
Where's the evidence that suggests you *might* be able to do this?
All the evidence I've seen suggests just the opposite. Take speech or facial recognition for example. The brain does it instantly and effortlessly. Exactly *how* is still somewhat of a mystery but it's pretty obvious that it's not any sort of math-like algorithmic process.
While they're at it, why not spend a few billion dollars trying to reduce all the physical laws of the universe down to a few simple algorithms. It might be possible. - akphidelt, on 05/27/2009, -0/+2This has nothing to do with figuring out how the brain actually works from a scientific point. It is more of a simple yes/no test with some statistics done. They just use big words to make it sound sophisticated.
When you get shot at will you hide?
When you feel depressed do you think of suicide?
blah blah blah. This is nothing extroadinary. - Hortinstein, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2flashes of snowcrash here... talking about deep connections programmers make...dont stare into any bitmaps
- covertbadger, on 05/28/2009, -0/+2@tomis
Your 'current understanding of physics' is somewhat out of date. The flight of bees is (obviously) entirely within the laws of physics, and well-understood. The original misunderstanding is over 70 years old, and based on the incorrect assumption that bees used fixed-wing flight. - inactive, on 05/28/2009, -0/+1If (TargetIsWhite) then
{long series of tests to determine friend or foes)
else
{kill} - j3ff86, on 05/27/2009, -0/+1But Skynet pre-sets the switch to read-only when we're sent out alone.
-
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is