Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: pofnlice on 3 October 2003, 18:02
-
OK, we all saw the movies some the anime and others the game...Now lets talk about which O/S did them damn sentient computers use...I say it was deffinately open source and not Winblowz. If they used windows, how many times would the machines have crashed and died causing the total extiction of everything...Also, is Jimmy Agent Smith?
-
I say it was closed source Unix. Probably something from SCO. Cold, evil and uncaring but still with a reasonable amount of stability.
-
No. They obviously ended up writing thier own OS that would be vastly superiour to any man made OS due to the fact that they are machines.
-
See machines, I told you it was sco. :-D
-
Why would their being machines qualify them as better software engineers?
-
doctors can't operate on themselves, I believe Freud tried and cut out his gums... ewwwwwww
anyway...I think it was a hybrid of Midori Linux, it did have Japanese characters in those code lines running down the screen...
Where is agent Smith any way???
-
The second movie showed of programs that went out of control and became ghosts werewolves and things. One of their security features, an 'agent', became a virus and spread like mad. It was revealed that the matrix was in its 6th generation after the first 5 failed.
I think The Matrix is run on Windows.
V
-
Here's what I think: Linux is going to win the software war. No-one uses Windows, and Linux has a market share of 78%. People unite (partly because of Linux, the universal operating system) and create the big AI.
The AI starts to care for itself and writes the Matrix on the operating system it was already given to it by humans.
-
Does Midori even exist anymore??? If so, could the Matrix be Midori's revenge for becoming so forgotten.
-
It was a unix system because Trinity hacked it through a (actually real) bug in ssh.
Must have been SCO.
-
I don't think a positronic net would have an "OS" aside from "conciousness"
remember, true AI isn't digital, but analog. sentience cannot be programmed, it can only happen.
and yes. I AM Agent Smith, Mr. Bastard.
:: pulls a Desert Eagle::
[ October 03, 2003: Message edited by: Jimmy the Shyster ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Why would their being machines qualify them as better software engineers?
The answer to this question lies in economical aspects, as well as physical differences between machines and humans and intelligence advantages of the former.
For one thing, an average human being has a life expectancy of 78 years, 5 of which are spent playing with toys, 12 of which are spent in grade school, and 8 more years in University (numbers may vary with the school system), which gives us a total of 25 years of formation, and 13+ more years in retirement, if we assume that the person retires at 65. This gives the human software engineer an effective work period of only 40 years. A fact that must also be taken in consideration is that humans need to sleep 8 hours per day, which is about a third of a whole day. So the total work period is only of 27 years. And since humans don't work 2 days out of seven, multiplying 5/7 per 27 gives about 20 years of work.
While for now, machines may not last as long as humans years, though they may last much longer in 50 years, they cost much less in maintenance and training costs than human beings. Training costs of human engineers are high, whether for the student or the state that sponsors his studies; whereas a machine has a zero training cost, assuming that the software of the machine is included in its assembly costs. Furthermore, the success of the training of the human engineer is not garanteed, and the failure rate is generally high, therefore resulting in a scant number of software engineers. On the other hand, since machines are all assembled by machines themselves, and all equal, a much higher number of robot engineers is obtained than human engineers, and the cost of defect robots is much lower than that of human rejects. Another important fact to consider is that there is no cost related to machine retirement: the obselete machines are simply recycled into other machines, and there is no need for maintaing machines, because they do not need or care about resting before dying.
Furthermore, the energy source of machines is more practical and steady than that of living beings. Humans depend on a food and sleep in order to survive, and must regularly interrupt their activities to nourrish, whereas machines can run on a constant source of energy. Humans are also more polluting than machines, as they emit carbon dioxide, whereas machines that feed on hydroelectrical energy do not emit any pollution. Machines are also much more robust than humans, making them more resistant to accidents and untimely demises, as well as fatigue.
It is a well known fact that computers have much more processing power than humans. While it is true that developping the necessary artificial intelligence to allow computers to program themselves will take a long time, the raw processing power of a computer allied with such a possibility would make computers infinitely more powerful software engineers than human beings. Also, since a computer is automated, and cannot make trivial mistakes such as 2 + 2 = 5, they would be likely to write much fewer bugs than human engineers.
In conclusion, the longevity, the robustness, the lower costs and the higher processing power could potentially make machines much better software engineers than human beings. This is why the human species must work on improving their reliaility and their longevity, by concentrating scientific research in genetics, or it will be a matter of time before humans become obselete in less than half a century from now. Those matters must be taken seriously, or the HBOS (Human Brain Operating System) may become another loved but extinct technology like the Amiga or BeOS.
[edited]
A research brought to you by way too much time on my hands.
-
The physical differences between humans and machines really only amount to a 'quantity over quality' argument i.e. it's akin to suggesting that if you sit 1000 monkeys in front of 1000 keyboards you'll end up with a good piece of software. What's important is the intelligence and creativity of the programmer, not how many man (or machine) hours you throw at the problem. A 3 billion teraflop super computer running for a year might not write as good a piece of code as a 16 year old novice programmer could do in an hour.
On the other hand, the computer might be able to do a better job in a few seconds, if its artificial intelligence is somehow superior to that of a human's natural intelligence. But its level of intelligence is not necessarily proportional to the processing power available. For example, a genius hacker could probably write in a couple of hours a better piece of software to solve a particular problem than a team of 100 below-average talented programmers could manage in a year, or could ever manage for that matter.
quote:
Also, since a computer is automated, and cannot make trivial mistakes such as 2 + 2 = 5, they would be likely to write much fewer bugs than human engineers.
True; provided the software that was writing the software was bug-free, it could be safe to assume that the computer could internally formally prove the correctness of any code it produced, so it could be bug-free, but that still doesn't guarantee quality of implementation. It might be too slow, or the machine might not be able to produce a program to do what it actually wants to do, simply because it lacks human intuition/creativity.
-
Another thing, what was HAL based on?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
Another thing, what was HAL based on?
HAL is actually IBM. IBM wouldent let Arthur C. Clarck use their brand so Mr. Clarck simply went one letter back.
Observe
H is before I in the alphabet
A is before B
and L is before M
Thus, we can conclude HAL was either running PC-DOS or OS/2 warp :D
-
Ah I knew about the number rotation thing, but I originally thought that was maybe just because IBM was such a popular brand. Know i know better I guess. :) AIX maybe? That's an IBM thing isnt it?
-
quote:
On the other hand, the computer might be able to do a better job in a few seconds, if its artificial intelligence is somehow superior to that of a human's natural intelligence.
Yes, as I said, computers would need an equal or superior artificial intelligence to that of humans in order to be better programmers, which I assume will probably be the case if ever we are taken over by machines. I am fully aware that processing power alone will only make a software type some random code really fast until a result is obtained, and it's possible that the output would not be the expected result.
I guess that an artificial intelligence made of electronic circuits and equal to our own would be feasible, since it has already been done by organic cells and nerves. Of course, this is likely to take a very long time, given that learning about our own brains is already a big challenge, let alone reproducing it with inorganic materials.
[ October 04, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
What does AIX stand for, anyway?
[ October 04, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
quote:
I guess that an artificial intelligence made of electronic circuits and equal to our own would be feasible, since it has already been by organic cells and nerves. Of course, this is likely to take a very long time, given that learning about our own brains is already a big challenge, let reproducing it with inorganic materials.
Well they'll have to find a way to store analog data in exceedingly small areas first, and it's going to be very hard to get a transistor down to the size of a neuron. I have heard of some guy who managed to hook up enough bits to claim that he had made something equivalent to a rat brain though, so I guess they're getting there.
AIX... nfi. AIX is uniX?
edit:
matrix machines seem to be very cold and very... well ordered. IMO machines will be by their nature mechanical, which may not be good for lateral thinking.
[ October 04, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
-
Apparently AIX = Advanced IBM unix
-
machines certainly will have different base concepts. if they are self aware, then they will in fact, know what they are. they'll think in terms of being a machine, not worrying about pain, or biological processes. they'd likely have less fear of injury or death, as they know that by their very nature, it's easier to repair them. as for thinking "coldly" or without emotion... not necessarily. it depends on how complex their mind is. most likley, if they have a very developed psyche, then, they would exhibit similar patterns to organic beings. Remember, though, there's a different in intelligence and sentience. a machine might be as smart, or smarter than humans, but it could be on the emotional level of a mantis or beetle.
the agents knew that they were software. they were sentient blocks of code. essentially, a software-based neural net. they were able to deal with people in a very human fashion. yeah, they were mean, and operated in a "shoot first" fashion, but they were also quick to deal, and had no reason to deceive.
I highly doubt that the matrix itself has any core software. instead, it probably has another positronic brain at its core that coordinates everything. the entire thing would have to be analog, otherwise it would require the most complex DAC ever devised... for each person.
-
but what if the matrix really is winblowz driven...and the reason it keeps screwing up (other than the obvious windows thing) is because there's a server on Windows 2400 (or some shit) and all the terminals vary from 3.11 to windows 2399, since windows hates itself, wouldn't that cause some significant quirks (no offense quirk)
-
The matrix can't be Windows driven, people have a reasonable level of free will within it's boundaries. :-P
-
The Matrix would have evolved out of an RTOS (Real Time Operating System), like QNX. Highly stable, efficient, Modular with fantastic clustering properties. But light years better than QNX you understand.
The "wiring" would have come from nano-tech type technology, building components using single atoms, which has already happened to a degree.
Quantum style computing could offer intelligence (in some respects) better than our own, especially mine :(
Quantum computation will be able to factor huge numbers simultaneously. Calculating all known variables simultaneously is a very powerful thing to posses. I read somewhere (can't quite remember were) that with a 500 atom register / stack you could calculate more variables than exist atoms in the known universe, simultaneously.
If anyone is interested there's a great book I read a couple of years ago:
"Visions - How Science will revolutionise the 21st century and beyond"
by Michio Kaku
ISBN 0 19 850086 6
-
Now that's why I like Zardov...doesn't he just have a way of saying things that make you go...DUH>>>I coulda thought of that...lol
-
ya... but there's still one huge misconception
electronic intelligence will not be digital. it'll be analog.
-
this is kind of like the PS controller thingy with the direction buttons versus the knobby thing right
what I mean is, why would it be so critical that it be either analog or digital, couldn't it be possible it develope some other sort of datum transference? Again one that would be superior to both?
[ October 13, 2003: Message edited by: AmericanBastard ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Agent Jimmy James Smith:
ya... but there's still one huge misconception
electronic intelligence will not be digital. it'll be analog.
Perhaps, if we model machine intelligence through reverse-engineering of the human brain, which I suspect we will successfully accomplish in around 40 years or so. However, it doesn't seem too far-fetched to me to build a machine brain that contains both analog components and digital components for doing advanced math/memory manipulation inside its head. Kinda like a human having a calculator integrated in his brain.
-
At any rate, for now we may at least be able to operate machinery directly from the brain.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17434-2003Oct12?language=printer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17434-2003Oct12?language=printer)
-
Check out this mind-bending article about quantum computing and consciousness:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=memelist.html?m=3%23534 (http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=memelist.html?m=3%23534)
Most of it went over my head but it was still very intresting. According to the author, primitive consciousness probably evolved during the early Cambrian explosion in small worms and urchins, since they are the first known creatures to contain the theoretically necessary quantum sctructures needed to create consciousness.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7: Has half Macman's posts:
At any rate, for now we may at least be able to operate machinery directly from the brain.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17434-2003Oct12?language=printer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17434-2003Oct12?language=printer)
Eventually you won't need implants to interface with computers; there will be nanobots that you ingest that go to your brain and wirelessly transmit data back and forth like a massive wireless LAN. Check out this article for more info:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?m=6 (http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?m=6)
quote:
Now let's consider the virtual-reality framework envisioned by The Matrix
-
I'm going to rely on a piece of old-fashioned tech to protect myself from bullshit tech like that.
it's called a gun.
I hate the current wave of stupid star trek inspired shit tech ideas they've got.
"hey, instead of actually coming out with real medical advances, we're gonna make some nano-probes"
fuck you, shitmasters. I don't want a goddamn version 1.0 droid dicking around inside me.
"lets come out with some turdburglar half-ass computer shit"
how about you stop thinking inside the box and work on complex analog circuits if you want to recreate a real brain?
we'll never "program" intelligence. it can't be done, because you'd have to plan on EVERY eventuality. you simply cannot do it.
oh well, I better be on the lookout for captain picard. him and Geordi are g onna come around with some nano probes and try to fix all my problems with their blue glowy beam devices.
what? need to fix your car? LET'S SHOOT SOME TACHYONS AT IT
-
What if the programmer was capable of expressing "x" variables and a learning process intiated...I mean something similar to this is all ready with defense analysis computers. It's basically all math, but it wargames strategies to determine the most feasible outcomes...tho8ugh I wouldn't exactly call this learning as it is as much as evaluation...but lets say we set a program to follow certain protocols, ie...the "X" variables...asses, analyze, decide and memorize...that's basically learning without the overcomplications of philosophical fact gatherings and processes. Learning requires a lot, one thing is will another is focus. Computers have great focus, but honestjy could care less y they crunch numbers, there we go with the whole vulcan thing right... Soooo back to my other ??? why would it have to be analog or digital...what about protien synthesis, they are all ready building protien chips that can grow through use, though mostly failing now, it is a promising field. Imagine a puter that gets more powerful the more you use it.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Darth Jimmy James:
I'm going to rely on a piece of old-fashioned tech to protect myself from bullshit tech like that.
it's called a gun.
I hate the current wave of stupid star trek inspired shit tech ideas they've got.
"hey, instead of actually coming out with real medical advances, we're gonna make some nano-probes"
fuck you, shitmasters. I don't want a goddamn version 1.0 droid dicking around inside me.
"lets come out with some turdburglar half-ass computer shit"
how about you stop thinking inside the box and work on complex analog circuits if you want to recreate a real brain?
we'll never "program" intelligence. it can't be done, because you'd have to plan on EVERY eventuality. you simply cannot do it.
oh well, I better be on the lookout for captain picard. him and Geordi are g onna come around with some nano probes and try to fix all my problems with their blue glowy beam devices.
what? need to fix your car? LET'S SHOOT SOME TACHYONS AT IT
I hate to break it to you but nanotechnology *is* going to be the next Big Thing, on the same level of influence as the computing revolution. Perhaps you should read up a bit more on it instead of dismissing it because they mentioned it on Star Trek once.
And another thing, your brain is just a machine. There is no difference between it and any other lump of matter except the manner in which the atoms are organized. Therefore it is perfectly possible to create a machine, whether it is a computer in the definition of today's sense or something more exotic like a quantum computer, doesn't make any difference. The algorithmic and quantum processes that go on inside your brain can be functionally replicated using artifical means. There is no reason why they can't.
I'll talk more on this later but I have math class to get to ;)
[ October 14, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]
-
ITM