Forgot your password?
Cyhist Dec 18 1996 G
Document Actions
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 22:44:42 -0500
Reply-To: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU>
From: "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security"
<PADGETT@hobbes.orl.mmc.com>
Subject: I get a chill, I close the window
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
>Has anyone in the computer world ever gotten a sense that any synergy of brute force processing and self-modifying algorithm has produced any symptoms of independant thought that can be perceived in a direct manner? Are we in for more of these glimpses as 1.8 and 3.0 teraflop computers come on line?
Don't know about that, do know that have never had any luck trying to model my own thought process though have always enjoyed being able to program very fast once the processor/system is *completely* understood.
However trypical reaction to problem is innate knowlege that there is a solution followed by a suspician of the shape that the solution might take followed by a set of models to approximate the architecture, folowed by 20 hour days of programming (and unless I document thoroughly, will not have a clue why some of the structures were there).
This kind of model will not work in real time since the ramp-up period is so long, sometimes 75% of the total period so there is a long period when nothing happens, a brief silence, the all h*ll breaks loose (come to think of it, that was how the sysops who were watching described my latest "penetration study" of a 3090).
Chess is a structured game with a finite series of opportunities for every move. Human thought is different, rapidly adapting to different and unpredictable rule changes.
Suspect the real factor is that most computers operate linearly while thought is more of a seiving process, able to consider possibilities even if rules are broken. Suspect it is more of a parallel process with voting.
As for AI, am told that the cows do not really mind...
Warmly,
Padgett
______________________________________________________________________
Reply-To: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU>
From: "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security"
<PADGETT@hobbes.orl.mmc.com>
Subject: I get a chill, I close the window
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
>Has anyone in the computer world ever gotten a sense that any synergy of brute force processing and self-modifying algorithm has produced any symptoms of independant thought that can be perceived in a direct manner? Are we in for more of these glimpses as 1.8 and 3.0 teraflop computers come on line?
Don't know about that, do know that have never had any luck trying to model my own thought process though have always enjoyed being able to program very fast once the processor/system is *completely* understood.
However trypical reaction to problem is innate knowlege that there is a solution followed by a suspician of the shape that the solution might take followed by a set of models to approximate the architecture, folowed by 20 hour days of programming (and unless I document thoroughly, will not have a clue why some of the structures were there).
This kind of model will not work in real time since the ramp-up period is so long, sometimes 75% of the total period so there is a long period when nothing happens, a brief silence, the all h*ll breaks loose (come to think of it, that was how the sysops who were watching described my latest "penetration study" of a 3090).
Chess is a structured game with a finite series of opportunities for every move. Human thought is different, rapidly adapting to different and unpredictable rule changes.
Suspect the real factor is that most computers operate linearly while thought is more of a seiving process, able to consider possibilities even if rules are broken. Suspect it is more of a parallel process with voting.
As for AI, am told that the cows do not really mind...
Warmly,
Padgett
______________________________________________________________________
