Computing Evolution

[Christopher Chan]

Brian Fahrlander wrote:
> Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>> We cannot even fully understand how the brain works let alone how the 
>> mind exists and you want to talk about artificial INTELLIGENCE?
>>   
>     Did we understand how the brain works when creating a desktop 
> metaphor starting with simple switches and vacuum tubes? People tend to 
> think a) Everything they do has a clear goal, and b) It's worth reaching.

Haha, that's it, compare making a bunch of logic gates to the pipe dream 
of creating an intelligence. A mathematical challenge to creating a 
mind. People really should start using proper descriptions of 
preprogrammed 'intelligence' instead of spouting nonsense.

> 
>     Look how many well-trained businessmen change meaningless parts 
> (think: Compaq and their Torx-headed screws) will make them into the 
> next, indispensable IBM? What was on IBM's mind when they struck the 
> accord with Bill Gates for the PC?
> 
>     It's not about neurons; it's about logic. Objective logic. When the 
> newspaper comes do we ever answer the phone to retrieve it? When the 
> waiter brings food, do we go to the garage to get it installed?  Life as 
> we know it has a 'way' about it. It's time computers start to understand 
> such things.

Don't talk about computers as if they can think. It is time that 
computers are preprogrammed to make life more 
convenient/efficient/whatever. The only problem being that the way of 
life of many is virtually as varied as  there are colours. We still have 
issues with basic stuff as interfacing the computer be they the desktop 
environment + keyboard + mouse and you want to talk about programmers 
taking on the challenge of making computers handle aspects of life 
without error?

>> Speech recognition has reached a fair level if you ask me but I suppose 
>> you are talking about INTELLIGENT processing of speech by 
>> computers...well, that is not going to happen. The most one can expect 
>> is speech triggers.
>>   
>     Yeah, speech is stalled. Remember the last time cellphones were 
> using it to simply dial phone numbers?  Anyone still doing that?  
> There's a reason.

Same reason why 'AI' will not happen although speech triggers are 
probably doable in the future.

Not enough processing power. The latest SUPERCOMPUTERS come no where 
close to taking on the brain in both processing and memory capacity. 
Hopefully they are good enough to take on speech recognition but you 
still have to program the triggers.

>> Why would a kernel have anything to do with this stuff? It is more how 
>> will GNOME/KDE/GNU/more complete environment make use of such new 
>> technology
>     We managed to interconnect computers without synapses; we can even 
> get them to grab audio-n-video to get caught up on our information. Real 
> ground can be taken, but not in arguing over window-manager decorations 
> or trivial stuff.
> 
>     It's about flexible logic; the case-insensative search. The fuzzy 
> match. The XML that doesn't fail if things aren't as expected, but 
> instead returns what it 'knows' how.  That's where progress awaits.
> 

Don't hold your breath.