I have no crystal ball, but I believe that computers will far surpass the
ability to simulate humans. The hardware, for sure, will be accommodating.
>From the latest issue of the Rapidly Changing Face of Computing
(www.compaq.com/rcfoc):
...consider National Medal of Technology recipient Ray Kurzweil's analysis
(http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1) of how much
computing power a three-dimensional matrix of carbon nanotubes transistors
should represent:
"One cubic inch of nanotube circuitry would be a million times more powerful
than the human brain."
Kurzweil goes on, with quite a bit of supporting detail that is well worth
reading, to extrapolate where future computing capabilities, by carbon
nanotube transistors or by any of several other technologies, might lead:
"Already, IBM's "Blue Gene" supercomputer, now being built and scheduled to
be completed by 2005, is projected to provide 1 million billion calculations
per second (i.e., one billion megaflops).
This is already one twentieth of the capacity of [one] human brain, which I
estimate at a conservatively high 20 million billion calculations per second
(100 billion neurons, times 1,000 connections per neuron, times 200
calculations per second per connection). [2*10^16 calculations per second.]
In line with my earlier predictions, supercomputers will achieve one human
brain capacity by 2010, and personal computers will do so by around 2020. By
2030, it will take a village of human brains (around a thousand) to match
$1,000 of computing. By 2050, $1,000 of computing will equal the processing
power of all human brains on Earth."
If this, or some other similar technology, does become so powerful, will we
be victims of our own creations?
Doug
On Monday 07 May 2001 03:14, you wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 12:10:41AM -0400, edoc wrote:
> > Anyone aware of a Linux-based Avatar-interface?
> >
> > I was just watching the TV show Andromeda (the particular one was a bit
> > melodramatic)
>
> I agree. A little sappy.
>
> > but it raised an interesting point -- humans react more
> > completely with human-like interfaces than non-human.
>
> Here's the problem. The more human-like a computer interface is, the
> more people tend to believe that the computer "thinks". That's a very
> dangerous thing. It leads people to trust computers too much, and forego
> the checking of the computer's results and actions. "Garbage In, Garbage
> Out" is true of people and computers.
>
> > Perhaps a key element of the future of user computing is via avatar-based
> > interfaces. Such may open more doors of opportunity?
>
> Here's an example of a task a human considers simple: Your wife says,
> "Honey, we need some milk for dinner." It's 3pm on a Sunday afternoon.
>
> On the surface, that statement requires no action at all. It's just a
> statement of a supposed fact. Is it a fact? What if she were to cook
> something else for dinner that didn't need milk? Are we actually out of
> milk, or did she miss that extra half-gallon in the back of the
> refrigerator? And so what if we do need milk? What does that mean to
> you? Why did she make that statement? Does it mean she's about to leave
> to go get some? Does it mean you have to go get some? If you have to go
> get it, when does she need it by? Must you go right now? Is there
> something else you are/want to/should be doing right now? Do you have
> time to do that and get milk before dinner? How important is what you're
> doing right now? And where do you get milk? And if you have to leave to
> get it, how do you get there? What requirements are there for getting
> milk? If you go somewhere, will they just give it to you? Do you need
> money? How much? And what kind of milk is needed? Are there different
> kinds? If it requires money, do you have it? Where? Must you go get
> money as well? What happens if you don't go get the milk? What happens
> if you tell her to go get the milk herself( >:-{ )? If you need to get
> there and getting there requires that you drive an automobile, what's
> needed to do that? Do you need keys? Where are they? Do you need gas?
> What kind of gas? How much? Where do you get it? Do you have to pay for
> it?
>
> We haven't even gotten out the door yet. And each one of these questions
> requires a type of reasoning that's far more than three-dimensional.
> Even the act of asking the questions requires deep reasoning, completely
> aside from actually answering them. And the solution to each question
> requires an understanding of _concepts_ and has its own weight. And
> really, I've oversimplified the whole problem. And this is a very simple
> human problem.
>
> Multiply that by the millions of problems just like that, which we solve
> daily (going to the bathroom, making coffee, driving, discussing TV
> shows, working at a job, flirting, drinking water, eating, throwing away
> trash, etc.).
>
> I predict that computers will _never_ do this. Not even Linux computers.
> ;-}
>
> And if they did, some idiot would put them in charge of a missile
> defense system. And then we'd have "War Games" and "Colossus: The
> Forbin Project" for real.
>
> Not to be a Luddite, but I'm with Ed on this one. Let computers be
> computers.
>
> Paul
-- Douglas W Koobs MCSE Network Engineer Dimension Networks, Inc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:37:22 EDT