Comments by "roidroid" (@roidroid) on "TED"
channel.
-
256
-
147
-
93
-
79
-
63
-
61
-
57
-
34
-
26
-
25
-
22
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
justgivemethetruth No offense, but the same can be said of you, ie: how do we know you're really "understanding" anything? This is the base problem related to the Turing test, if you say that a computer doesn't do a specific thing and is therefore different to a human - you must have a way of testing to prove that humans indeed DO that thing (as you claim they do).Are you sure that human learning is anything more than "a consolidation of statistics with rules applied to them"?ps: there was an interesting A.I. program a few years ago which was being fed a stream of data from a real-world inverse pendulum physical experiment. From analyzing the data on it's own it was able to FROM SCRATCH deduce various mathematical laws of physics concerning gravitation, inertia, friction, air resistance etc to explain the movement it was seeing (and predict future movement). It came up with these equations on it's own, continually refining them until they were passably accurate, using evolutionary methods. It even seemed to discover some new mathematical equations to explain aspects of the inverse pendulum movement, equations which we didn't recognize and yet gave eerily accurate results. This was pretty amazing, the system not only reproduced thousands of years of human thought and science in mere minutes, it actually went further and hinted at surpassing human knowledge.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6