State of the Game

nemolomen

nemolomen
Just said:
Hell yeah!

I won't restrain myself from driving my no catalyst 20 years old car tuned to 630 HP for the sake of some future human who
a) doesn't deserve it
b) his life will be probably a miserable struggle anyway, if not for real reasons like climate collapse then he will make up excuses to be unhappy and pathetic, as most people do.
Click to expand...
Life is always a miserable struggle, as it always was and always will be, and as it should be.

Without that we'll never get anywhere if its too easy to just be too lazy all of the time.

We, as a race/biological grouping, need it to be challenging or we'll stagnate, at which point the remote possibilities of Elite Dangerous, Star Trek, Doctor Who, etc...would be reduced to 0% chance.
 

PRORABBIT67

PRORABBIT67
kittens.gif
 

nemolomen

nemolomen
Boomtrooper said:
^^ this!
Coming from a farming background, it's been known for centuries that you have too many sheep/cows whatever in too small an area, you run into problems with disease, behavioural issues, all the things we see in our over-populated world. It's always the elephant in the room whenever carbon footprint comes up - the world has too many people, end-of... and at some point nature will give us a clubbing...
Click to expand...
I find it interesting that people I've actually known will believe this but not in expanding humanity into outer space.

They usually think that we have to solve all of our problems here first then expand. I think that the low likelihood of the first will always prevent the second.
 

Just

Just
nemolomen said:
Life is always a miserable struggle, as it always was and always will be, and as it should be.

Without that we'll never get anywhere if its too easy to just be too lazy all of the time.

We, as a race/biological grouping, need it to be challenging or we'll stagnate, at which point the remote possibilities of Elite Dangerous, Star Trek, Doctor Who, etc...would be reduced to 0% chance.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that Universe treats humans, their "top tier product/asset" (AFAIK)
like like an evil corporation treats their human resources:
as expendables, not caring about their well-being, just squeezing as much usefulness from them as possible and throwing away when they become a burden?
 
Last edited:

nemolomen

nemolomen
Just said:
Are you saying that Universe treats humans, their "top tier product/asset" (AFAIK)
like like an evil corporation treats their human resources:
as expendables, not caring about their well-being, just squeezing as much usefulness from them as possible and throwing away when they become a burden?
Click to expand...
WHAT?!?, er, I mean you may be on to something there but probably not.

AFAIK, and I'm obviously at a disadvantage regarding the entirety of my puny subset of all possible knowledge, humanity is the only thing in the universe capable of understanding most of it, possibly all but maybe not, and using that knowledge to move things in one direction or another (rightly or wrongly) wrt the universes natural flow.

Sure, we could let the universe just use us as it wishes, but we're a little too egocentricto just let that happen.
 

Just

Just
nemolomen said:
WHAT?!?, er, I mean you may be on to something there but probably not.

AFAIK, and I'm obviously at a disadvantage regarding the entirety of my puny subset of all possible knowledge, humanity is the only thing in the universe capable of understanding most of it, possibly all but maybe not, and using that knowledge to move things in one direction or another (rightly or wrongly) wrt the universes natural flow.

Sure, we could let the universe just use us as it wishes, but we're a little too egocentricto just let that happen.
Click to expand...

As I don't know my purpose here and I can't remember agreeing to being abused by Universe by making me live an unhappy, full of self-control and pleasure-deprived life,
in name of some blurry higher goal that will be forever a mystery to me,
I will continue doing anything I feel like as long as it does not cause (too much) harm to selected circle of people I have a bond with and care about.

The rest, including the whole future humanity I will never get to know, can die soon after my departure from this life.
And it may be actually a salvation for them.
 
Last edited:

Lysette

Lysette
PiLhEaD said:
I did hear an interesting tidbit about some researchers watching an AI learn and grow, and they said that there was a point beyond which where they didn't know how it was working (as in making decisions) any more. But it was getting things right.

AI or politicians.... which to Blam! first? It's the modern dilemma... so, how about we just put them all in a big cage and it's last one standing?

mad-max-gathering-at-thunderdome.jpg
Click to expand...
it is sometimes hard to tell, how it is making decisions, because not all of them are reasonable by itself and at a certain time. let's take a very simple case, for any input there would be just an output of 1 bit - it could be a decision like "linear motor active" (1 for forward motion) or "angular motor active" (0 for a turn). So you could make a look up table, where you have for any input an output, what to do in that case. if there is just 1 table, you have an equivalent of an "instinctive" behavior - it will always act like that, if a certain input is given. Now if you take 4 tables like this and choose one "randomly" if a decision has to be made, you get 5 different behaviors:
  1. instinctively turning away - 0 in every of those 4 tables
  2. likely to turn away - 0 in 3 of those tables, 1 in one table
  3. undecided - 0 in 2 of those tables, 1 in the other 2 tables
  4. likely to move forward - 0 in one table, 1 in 3 tables
  5. instinctively moving forward - 1 in every of those 4 tables
now if you assume a random start in those tables, some might think that "undecided" would be the most likely behavior, but it is actually not. There are just 6 out of 16 possibilities, to have just 2 bits set - so "undecided" has just a probability of 37.5% - whereas the rest has a tendency towards one or the other action. The more tables you would use, the less likely undecided and instinctive behavior will get in favor of "desire" and "dislike" (to use these human terms) - but it acts as such, even those are just lookup tables. The probabilities are shaped by evolution - simply by "survival of the fittest" - you take 3 from the pool, test them, discard the weakest and replace it with a cross-over of the 2 "winners" - simple multi-point cross-over like offspring := (A & R) | (B & ~R); with A and B the winner tables and R being a random table.

How these tables evolve is quite often dependent as well how parallel the computation is - because if you have parallel computation, you have chaos in the game as well and the resulting tables will be more chaos-stable then those, which were computed with less or no parallel execution. Some of those behaviors will be quite reasonable and one can find out pretty quickly why it came to this result - but others are taking chaos into account and it is not easy to say, why the behavior is like that. Evolution can cater to events with infinite complexity as well, because the result is purely experience based and happened to be the best way to deal with that problem - the way of the survivors. Whereas an engineer would eventually have a very hard time to find a good algorithm due to infinite complexity of some of the problem's parameters.

Not sure if that is now any clearer at all - but eventually you might see where I was going with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom