fourfaces

OK. See you around.

The inconvenient but amazing truth about deep learning is that, unlike neural networks, the brain does not learn complex patterns. It can see new complex patterns and objects instantly without learning them. Besides, there are not enough neurons in the brain to learn every pattern we encounter in life. Not even close.

The brain does not model the world. It learns to see it.

Want better pay? Kill the intelligent robots or kill our current forms of capitalism.

What would it cost them to attach a friendly dog head and a wagging tail on this headless monster? It would make it more appealing to the public and improve PR. Imagine thousands of these things walking up and down the sidewalks of NYC. They would scare the crap out of everybody.

The next big thing will be unsupervised spiking neural networks. http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2017/09/unsupervised-machin...

"Nothing" is a stretch. It still has to be told what a bad outcome is.

"a-theism literally means "lack of belief""

This is nonsense, of course. It shows a definite predilection among atheists to deceive themselves and others. Atheism is definitely a belief. But go ahead and believe otherwise, if you know what I mean.

" religion requires faith without evidence, materialism and atheism do not."

This is dogma preached by materialists, of course. The fact is that opposites are of the same nature. Theism and its opposite, atheism, are both belief systems. Neither of them is scientific. Vociferous denials notwithstanding.

Nonsense. Both theism and atheism are belief systems. Neither is scientific.

"When I google "religion", I get: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.""

Modern atheists came up with that definition. The fact is that opposites are of the same nature. Theism and its opposite, atheism, are both belief systems. Neither of them is scientific. At least, not yet.

Materialism, theism and atheism are all religions.

This science of consciousness you speak of is nowhere to be found.

"Classical and operant conditioning are psychological concepts that aren't applicable to non-humans."

You're kidding?

We don't need a fire alarm for AGI. The problem is not AGI. Machines will be motivated to do exactly what we tell them to do. It's called classical and operant conditioning. The problem is not AGI for the same reason that the problem is not knives, nuclear power, dynamite or gunpowder. The problem is us. The problem has always been us.

Those who are running around screaming about the danger of AGI and why it should be regulated by the government before it is even here, are just scared that someone else may gain control of it before they do. This is too bad because anybody who is smart enough to figure out AGI is much smarter than they are.

>Humans evolved from immaterial matter to conscious carriers of information.

You know this how? Where is the science behind it?

I know where it will not come from. It will not come from the mainstream AI community. They are married to and madly in love with deep learning. Deep learning, the supervised kind, is a red herring.

AGI will require a revolutionary breakthrough, most likely from a maverick, probably a lone wolf rebel, who is used to thinking outside the box.