Sorry, Dougstdter. It’s probably not that simple.

Question: Will there be a “heart” to an Al program, or will it simply consist of “senseless loops and sequences of trivial operations” (in the words of Marvin Minsky)?

Speculation: If we could see all the way to the bottom, as we can a shallow pond, we would surely see only “senseless loops and sequences of trivial operations”-and we would surely not see any “heart”. Now there are two kinds of extremist views on AI: one says that the human mind is, for fundamental and mysterious reasons, unprogrammable. The other says that you merely need to assemble the appropriate “heuristic devices-multiple optimizers, pattern-recognition tricks, planning algebras, recursive administration procedures, and the like”,’ and you will have intelligence. I find myself somewhere in between, believing that the “pond” of an Al program will turn out to be so deep and murky that we won’t be able to peer all the way to the bottom. If we look from the top, the loops will be invisible, just as nowadays the current-carrying electrons are invisible to most programmers. When we create a program that passes the Turing test, we will see a “heart” even though we know it’s not there.
—Douglas Hofstadter, GEB
If you look [at] how decision making happens in a company like Toyota, you would see that even though the decisions that affect…on a global scale and, over years - large space and time scales - decisions that the company make[s] have effects on those scales, they often amount to certain individuals ([e.g.] the CEO, a small group of engineers, and then maybe one more influential engineer among those engineers) making those decisions and then, [as] textbook neurobiology would have it, when the CEO, or the influential engineer thinks about something or comes up with an idea or decision - that this is mapped back to individual neurons. So far, I think, not a controversial story. So what we see [are] acts on spatio-temporally large scales being forwarded back to very small scale[s] in various…structures, and what I have a hard time believing is that sort of the “Russian puppet” just stops at the single neuron level; that there’s a hard ceiling [where] information processing [happening] below does not matter… When we study nature and how information flows are organized - it doesn’t seem to look this way.
Hartmut Neven, Director of Engineering at Google
"It is amazing how deep this problem with the word “the” is. It is probably safe to say that writing a program which can fully handle the top five words of English-“the”, “of”, “and”, “a”, and “to”-would be equivalent to solving the entire problem of AI, and hence tantamount to knowing what intelligence and consciousness are. A small digression: the five most common nouns in English are-according to the Word Frequency Book compiled by John B. Carroll et al-“time”, “people”, “way”, “water”, and “words” (in that order). The amazing thing about this is that most people have no idea that we think in such abstract terms. Ask your friends, and 10 to 1 they’ll guess such words as “man”, “house”, “car”, “dog”, and “money”."

— Douglas Hofstadter, GEB

I feel like Clinton could have cited this in his grand jury testimony…

  • [After a long string of increasingly abstract "Why" questions and answers]
  • Daughter: Why?
  • Louis CK: Well because some things ARE, and some things ARE NOT!
  • Daughter: Why?
  • Louis CK: Well because THINGS THAT ARE NOT CAN'T BE!
  • Daughter: Why?
  • Louis CK: BECAUSE THEN NOTHING WOULDN'T BE! YOU CAN'T HAVE FUCKING "NOTHING ISN'T"; "EVERYTHING IS"!
  • Daughter: Why?
  • Louis CK: BECAUSE IF NOTHING WASN'T, THERE'D BE FUCKING ALL KINDS OF SHIT THAT WE DON'T-- LIKE GIANT ANTS WITH TOP HATS DANCING AROUND! THERE'S NO ROOM FOR ALL THAT SHIT!
  • Daughter: Why?
  • Louis CK: AW FUCK YOU! EAT YOUR FRENCH FRIES YOU LITTLE SHIT!
"What is there that is the “same” about all butterflies? The mapping from one butterfly to another does not map cell onto cell; rather, it maps functional part onto functional part, and this may be partially on a macroscopic scale, partially on a microscopic scale. The exact proportions of parts are not preserved; just the functional relationships between parts. This is the type of isomorphism which links all butterflies in Escher’s wood engraving Butterflies to each other. […]
Taking this exploration of sameness to a yet higher plane of abstraction, we might well ask, “What is there that is the ‘same’ about all Escher drawings?” It would be quite ludicrous to attempt to map them piece by piece onto each other. The amazing thing is that even a tiny section of an Escher drawing or a Bach piece gives it away. Just as a fish’s DNA is contained inside every tiny bit of the fish, so a creator’s “signature” is contained inside every tiny section of his creations. We don’t know what to call it but “style”—a vague and elusive word."

— Douglas Hofstadter, GEB

twcno:

futurebatgirl:

patrexes:

4sensesplusascarf:

Whenever I hear people say that classical music is boring I just want to remind them that Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture called for a cannon to be fired a total of 16 times.

image

remove cattle from stage

that’s not even the best partimagekey terms include:

  • balance your chair on two legs”
  • "continue swimming motion"
  • "insert peanuts"
  • "play ball!"
  • "release the penguins"
  • "gradually become agitated"
  • "light explosives now….. and…..   ….. now."

(via standingupontheshouldersofgiants)

Tags: music

risingmind:

Hunter S. Thompson and Bill Murray

risingmind:

Hunter S. Thompson and Bill Murray

(via brandomason)

Wes Anderson

Camera with wide-angle lens floats along a line of symmetry in a pastel room full of white people.

Inception is Hollywood’s critique of itself. Have fun with that. Bye now.

PS: Watch The Imaginarium of Dr. parnassus