Planes that are afraid of crashing?

[Jim Fisher]

An interesting excerpt from
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/05/23/brain.download/index.html :

" Pearson (some brainiac computer expert guy) predicted that it would be
possible to build a fully conscious computer with superhuman levels of
intelligence as early as 2020.
IBM's BlueGene computer can already perform 70.72 trillion calculations a
second and Pearson said the next computing goal was to replicate
consciousness.

"We're already looking at how you might structure a computer that could
become conscious. Consciousness is just another sense, effectively, and
that's what we're trying to design in computer."

Pearson said that computer consciousness would make feasible a whole new
sphere of emotional machines, such as airplanes that are afraid of
crashing."



I'm not sure if this is scary as hell or not.

--
Jim Fisher

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
. ..
> [...]
> " Pearson (some brainiac computer expert guy) predicted that it would be
> possible to build a fully conscious computer with superhuman levels of
> intelligence as early as 2020.

People have been saying AI is 10 or 20 years away since the late 70's (at
least).

Furthermore, we can create an airplane today that acts exactly like an
airplane that was actually afraid of crashing. In the case of machine
intelligence, emotions may be one way of encoding goals and motivations, but
I hardly think it's clearly the best way.

> [...]
> Pearson said that computer consciousness would make feasible a whole new
> sphere of emotional machines, such as airplanes that are afraid of
> crashing."
>
> I'm not sure if this is scary as hell or not.

Possibly for machines with extremely complex design goals (consider a fully
autonomous replacement for human soldiers, for example), using emotions
might be an effective way to allow various competing interests to be
efficiently processed. But when you're just trying to get the machine from
point A to point B without running into anything, I doubt adding emotions
would improve things.

I think talk like that isn't so much scary as it is just plain dumb.

Pete

[Paul kgyy]

I wonder what the afraid-of-crashing plane would do if a crankshaft
broke. But maybe by then they'll have chutes on everything so it can
drop safely into a playground.

[Jim Fisher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> [...]
>> " Pearson (some brainiac computer expert guy) predicted that it would be
>> possible to build a fully conscious computer with superhuman levels of
>> intelligence as early as 2020.
>
> People have been saying AI is 10 or 20 years away since the late 70's (at
> least).

And those predictions were correct. We do have "AI" and it's been here for
at least 10 years or so in one form or another.

A "conscious" computer, though. That's light years beyond "AI."
Consciousness entails self-preservation ("fear") and all the other emotional
baggage we humans deal with every day. That's much different than the fuzzy
logic AI that causes a plane to respond with a synthesized "pull up!" when
the plane "knows" it's not landing.

Machine consciousness is not "dumb" nor "scary." We humes will take it for
granted in the not too distant future. That's just mind blowing.

--
Jim Fisher

[Jim Fisher]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I wonder what the afraid-of-crashing plane would do if a crankshaft
> broke.

It would say, "Oh ****!" for you.

--
Jim Fisher

[Jose]

> Machine consciousness is not "dumb" nor "scary."

Machine consciousness =is= scary, because it means that we won't know
what the machines will do, or why. It's already happening with
software, although part of the problem there is that the publishers
refuse to tell us what the software is =actually= doing, (and most
people don't care to know).

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[JohnH]

What would prevent the plane's curiousity from testing it's own limits? Or
commiting planacide?

[Garner Miller]

In article >, Jim Fisher
> wrote:

> Pearson said that computer consciousness would make feasible a whole new
> sphere of emotional machines, such as airplanes that are afraid of
> crashing."
>
> I'm not sure if this is scary as hell or not.

"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that..."

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
. ..
> An interesting excerpt from
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/05/23/brain.download/index.html :
>
> " Pearson (some brainiac computer expert guy) predicted that it would be
> possible to build a fully conscious computer with superhuman levels of
> intelligence as early as 2020.
> IBM's BlueGene computer can already perform 70.72 trillion calculations a
> second and Pearson said the next computing goal was to replicate
> consciousness.
>
> "We're already looking at how you might structure a computer that could
> become conscious. Consciousness is just another sense, effectively, and
> that's what we're trying to design in computer."
>
> Pearson said that computer consciousness would make feasible a whole new
> sphere of emotional machines, such as airplanes that are afraid of
> crashing."
>
>
>
> I'm not sure if this is scary as hell or not.
>
> --
> Jim Fisher

Sounds redundant to me. You've already got the pilot who's afraid of
crashing, plus any passengers. No need to unnecessarily torment an innocent
machine by scaring it too...

KB

[tony roberts]

Manly low wings wouldn't use that would they Jim :)

Good to see you back!

Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

In article >,
"Jim Fisher" > wrote:

> An interesting excerpt from
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/05/23/brain.download/index.html :
>
> " Pearson (some brainiac computer expert guy) predicted that it would be
> possible to build a fully conscious computer with superhuman levels of
> intelligence as early as 2020.
> IBM's BlueGene computer can already perform 70.72 trillion calculations a
> second and Pearson said the next computing goal was to replicate
> consciousness.
>
> "We're already looking at how you might structure a computer that could
> become conscious. Consciousness is just another sense, effectively, and
> that's what we're trying to design in computer."
>
> Pearson said that computer consciousness would make feasible a whole new
> sphere of emotional machines, such as airplanes that are afraid of
> crashing."
>
>
>
> I'm not sure if this is scary as hell or not.

[Casey Wilson]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> Sounds redundant to me. You've already got the pilot who's afraid of
> crashing, plus any passengers. No need to unnecessarily torment an
> innocent machine by scaring it too...
>
> KB

Yeah, but I'm gonna create "Prozac for Pipers" and a whole family of
companion designer drugs. Cessna Chill-Outs, Questar Qualudes... The
opportunites are boundless.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:FIQke.2381$GN3.390@trnddc04...
>
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>
>>
>> Sounds redundant to me. You've already got the pilot who's afraid of
>> crashing, plus any passengers. No need to unnecessarily torment an
>> innocent machine by scaring it too...
>>
>> KB
>
> Yeah, but I'm gonna create "Prozac for Pipers" and a whole family of
> companion designer drugs. Cessna Chill-Outs, Questar Qualudes... The
> opportunites are boundless.

You're gonna need an STC to make any money off that idea. You'll never get
the volume if you have to file 337's for each prescription.

[Franklin Newton]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
. ..
> An interesting excerpt from
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/05/23/brain.download/index.html :
>
> " Pearson (some brainiac computer expert guy) predicted that it would be
> possible to build a fully conscious computer with superhuman levels of
> intelligence as early as 2020.
> IBM's BlueGene computer can already perform 70.72 trillion calculations a
> second and Pearson said the next computing goal was to replicate
> consciousness.
>
> "We're already looking at how you might structure a computer that could
> become conscious. Consciousness is just another sense, effectively, and
> that's what we're trying to design in computer."
>
> Pearson said that computer consciousness would make feasible a whole new
> sphere of emotional machines, such as airplanes that are afraid of
> crashing."
>
>
>
> I'm not sure if this is scary as hell or not.
>
> --
> Jim Fisher
>
>

It would certainly make for some interesting ag flying.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
. ..
>> People have been saying AI is 10 or 20 years away since the late 70's (at
>> least).
>
> And those predictions were correct. We do have "AI" and it's been here
> for at least 10 years or so in one form or another.

It should have been obvious from the context, but by "AI" I mean TRUE
artificial intelligence. That is, consciousness. A goldfish has more
complex capability to reason, learn, adapt, etc than the best computer does,
and I still wouldn't call *it* all that intelligent.

There's not a single computer out there that really qualifies as
"intelligent". Computers still just basically do exactly what we tell them
to do. And we are no closer to having them go beyond that than we were
three decades ago.

It's true that there's a field of computer science called "artificial
intelligence". But even the more innovative aspects of that field,
including neural nets and expert systems, aren't actually examples of
intelligent computers.

Pete

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Jose wrote:
>> Machine consciousness is not "dumb" nor "scary."
>
> Machine consciousness =is= scary, because it means that we won't know
> what the machines will do, or why.

No more scary than other human beings, which we don't know what will do
or why.

Imagine the benefits - by the time we can make a truly conscious machine
with human intelligence, we will probably have the technology to do a
brain-dump. You could brain dump into a machine, discard your feeble
meat body, and go off into space and explore the planets - requiring no
pesky, complex, difficult life support to keep meat alive.

[Jose]

> [machine conscousness is ]No more scary than other human beings, which we don't know what will do
> or why.

Human beings are not mere tools. When I deal with a human or a dog or
even a frog, I do not expect it to merely do what it was designed to do.
When I put a light on a certain spot on stage, I expect that it will
stay there, even if it disagrees with me as to whether or not I am doing
a good job of lighting. If the lights start to design themselves, I
will lose control over whatever it is I am trying to accomplish for the
audience. Likewise I don't want my hammer to start reviewing the
architectural plans of the house I'm building and then refuse to hammer
the seventh and eighth beams into place.

I expect certain behavior from tools, and act accordingly. I expect
different behavior from people, and treat them accordingly.

> Imagine the benefits - by the time we can make a truly conscious machine
> with human intelligence, we will probably have the technology to do a
> brain-dump. You could brain dump into a machine, discard your feeble
> meat body, and go off into space and explore the planets - requiring no
> pesky, complex, difficult life support to keep meat alive.

I don't think I'd ever want to do that.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Jose wrote:
>> [machine conscousness is ]No more scary than other human beings, which we don't know what will do
>> or why.
>
> Human beings are not mere tools. When I deal with a human or a dog or
> even a frog, I do not expect it to merely do what it was designed to do.

You're evidently not used to computers, they seem to do what they damn
well please :-)

>> Imagine the benefits - by the time we can make a truly conscious machine
>> with human intelligence, we will probably have the technology to do a
>> brain-dump. You could brain dump into a machine, discard your feeble
>> meat body, and go off into space and explore the planets - requiring no
>> pesky, complex, difficult life support to keep meat alive.
>
> I don't think I'd ever want to do that.

I'd be first to sign up.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[George Patterson]

Casey Wilson wrote:
>
> Yeah, but I'm gonna create "Prozac for Pipers" and a whole family of
> companion designer drugs. Cessna Chill-Outs, Questar Qualudes... The
> opportunites are boundless.

And then the FAA will start requiring medical certificates for aircraft just so
they can ground them when they start taking your drugs.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Wizard of Draws]

On 5/24/05 1:52 PM, in article ,
"Jim Fisher" > spewed:

> An interesting excerpt from
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/05/23/brain.download/index.html :
>
> " Pearson (some brainiac computer expert guy) predicted that it would be
> possible to build a fully conscious computer with superhuman levels of
> intelligence as early as 2020.
> IBM's BlueGene computer can already perform 70.72 trillion calculations a
> second and Pearson said the next computing goal was to replicate
> consciousness.
>
> "We're already looking at how you might structure a computer that could
> become conscious. Consciousness is just another sense, effectively, and
> that's what we're trying to design in computer."
>
> Pearson said that computer consciousness would make feasible a whole new
> sphere of emotional machines, such as airplanes that are afraid of
> crashing."
>
>
>
> I'm not sure if this is scary as hell or not.

What would a machine do if it panicked?

Regardless, most of us are quite afraid of crashing, but that bit of fear
certainly doesn't keep it from happening every now and then anyway.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[[email protected]]

Jim Fisher wrote:
> "Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >I wonder what the afraid-of-crashing plane would do if a crankshaft
> > broke.
>
> It would say, "Oh ****!" for you.

Just so long as it doesn't say "Watch this!"

-cwk.

[Montblack]

wrote)
>> >I wonder what the afraid-of-crashing plane would do if a crankshaft
>> > broke.

>> It would say, "Oh ****!" for you.

> Just so long as it doesn't say "Watch this!"


That's exactly what it will say --- "Watch this!"...as it dials up a
satellite link and sends all of its important "AI" files off as an e-mail
attachment to itself.

It's called the "Live to fight another day" sub-routine.


Montblack
"What would you do with a second chance at life, and love?"