• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
lomateron

human intelligence

84 posts in this topic

Obvious reaons. tongue.png

 

Nature already had to "invent" specialized cells that are contractile for multi-cell organisms, otherwise no blood circulation would be possible (this is the moment where creationists have to chime in and ask for who gave nature that ingenious "idea" -- no really, please don't).

Specialized muscle cells are only a minor modification of single-cell organisms that have a flagella. Building legs (or fins) from muscles and tendons is trivial.

Building wheels from cells is... super hard, especially when it comes to growing arteries and veins into the the ball bearings to nourish them. Rotating a wheel with muscles (which only have a notion of "contract in one way") is sheer impossible.

For an engineer, on the other hand, a wheel is the obvious thing to build, and motors that rotate a wheel any way you want are readily available. Making something that behaves like "muscle" is much, much harder and consumes a lot more power.

 

Same for cells that can depolarize upon request. Nature already needed to invent these to make the heart beat. Which, again, is a prerequisite to growing bigger than a few dozen cells.

It's only a minor modification of what some bacteria are already able to do, too. Given a cell that depolarizes itself upon stimulus and its neighbours is only a small step from a cell that grows dentrites and uses a slightly more advanced chemical (which isn't as likely to misfire) and a slightly more complicated thresholding.

 

For an engineer, such a thing is sheer impossible to build (at least in large quantities, and cheap, and in confined space) whereas millions of transistors are trivial to place on a silicon disc, and simulating what the thing that's sheer impossible to build does is a lot more feasible (once you have understood what it is that this thing does).

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think you can do better than Nature can do through billions years of evolution, this is your problem huh.png

 

Edit : and about wheels ...

 

The only thing you can do with wheels is to go ahead on a plane surface.

Legs are polyvalent. Why do you think nowadays research in robotic is about motion using legs ?

 

After that, I don't like being the target of sarcasm, because I don't think I'm mean in my commentssad.png

Edited by Tournicoti
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just scrolled through this thread and, after seeing the amount of derpage in it, I think the OP may be on to something. Perhaps computers can equal the intelligence of SOME people in a few years, but certainly not MOST people.

But computers only do what you program them to do so they cant possibly be more intelligent than the programmer.

 

And you cant program consciousness because it arises from quantum mechanics.

 

QED

 

My comment blew right past you, didn't it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I just scrolled through this thread and, after seeing the amount of derpage in it, I think the OP may be on to something. Perhaps computers can equal the intelligence of SOME people in a few years, but certainly not MOST people.

But computers only do what you program them to do so they cant possibly be more intelligent than the programmer.

 

And you cant program consciousness because it arises from quantum mechanics.

 

QED

 

My comment blew right past you, didn't it?

 

I was about to continue the post to make it clear that i was being sarcastic but i went on to do something else and not expand on the post ;_;

 

I think we have the tools and processing power to produce an intelligence because processing power and space requirements can be greatly reduced by

*Significantly dumbing down sensory processing requirements (Vision, touch, audio, leave out useless stuff, use 1D environment instead of 3D etc.)

*Not expecting human comparable reaction times (it should not be a problem to give the simulation 10x more thinking time)

*Teaching it only a small area of information (with efficient processes to get rid of unrelevent stuff)

 

The major problems i see are:

1) How to structure the brain in a way that will actually function properly (the human brain is very specifically structured and connected, presumably because otherwise development of the mind will go the wrong way and not work very well)

2) How to teach the thing (for same reasons as above, it needs to be taught such that the brain will develop in a somewhat correct way), this is kind of difficult seeing that the sensory input available will likely be far more simple and different too than ours.

3) What slower processes are required (whatever sleep does for us, and other such things)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Brain is to a CPU as bird wing is to a jet engine"

 

"human intelligence can be reduced to: given an input find the most repeated patterns related to reward and accommodate the output to it" (the input has reward data too)

 

what do you think about that?

Edited by lomateron
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


what do you think about that?

 

I think the first quote sounds pretty but is meaningless, and the second quote is far too simplistic to have any true meaning.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this one better:
 

The question of whether Machines Can Think... is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim.

 

smile.png

I don't think a computer can think, but a software will probably can, even if we will probably all be dead when this will happen ohmy.png

I think we should imitate the Nature, so using formal neural networks if we want to reproduce properly intelligence, without weak tricks ...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I don't think a computer can think, but a software will probably can [...]

 

You keep making a distinction that is irrelevant to this discussion: When we talk about what a computer can do, we are talking about the hardware and the software combined.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans are FAR more superior than computers,Ai.We Humans can learn new things by our own,we update ourselves unlike computers they need Human help so it can be updated and if a computer has bugs/glitches can it fix itself? When we have problems(bugs/glitches) we can fix ourselves our Brain is smaller than a computer yet it can still hold 100 times more information than a supercomputer can.But if someone can create a computer/robot/Ai as smarter or more smarter than a human being(I hope it doesn't happen)and can walk,talk and can do everything(or more)than a human then it will probably be more superior than us and if it goes against us then we will get obliterated.But there are many things us Humans can do that a machine can't for example:

1.When we get wounded we can heal our selves.(A machine will probably go back to the factory to get repaired)

2.We have emotions machines dont have.

 

Anyway in this time Humans are more superior than machines/computers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


I don't think a computer can think, but a software will probably can [...]

 

You keep making a distinction that is irrelevant to this discussion: When we talk about what a computer can do, we are talking about the hardware and the software combined.

 

Why are you so arrogant ?

A computer executes a software. A software is built by humans. These are completely different things. So I don't think it is irrelevant to this discussion

So my point is that, even a computer definitely can't think, a software that is executed on it could.

Edited by Tournicoti
-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I really should stop posting on this thread, because I am not getting many coherent arguments from the other side"

 

Maybe because you treat the "other side" as shit ?? 

-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tournicoti what matters here are arguments and his arguments are good.

Intelligence is this: receives input data(zeros and ones), and it predicts what the next input will be given a part of the input data or nothing.

What is wron with this?

Edited by lomateron
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly off-topic in the computers vs humans debate, but I'd like to mention that some animals with brains the size of hazelnuts have fucking awesome intelligence, too.

 

Ravens, for example. Not only do they do all the normal bird tricks such as flapping wings and dropping their excrements on your car, but they also have a fully functional language with several hundreds words (it only sounds like croaks to me, but if you can trust ornitologists, they do). Also they don't struggle at distinguishing similarly shaped items (like a gun barrel and a broomstick) and can differentiate human faces. They also pass abstract information such as who is an enemy and when food is available to their siblings and hatchlings. They're working in groups to drive away predators (such as eagles) that are several times their size, too.

 

Don't ask me how nature puts all that into such a small brain... but of course it isn't so much intent, but it boils down to how nature always works: the less stupid bird doesn't get killed so easily (well, most of the time), so it's going to pass on its genes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talking brain and computer size, consider: The important components of a computer are very small and most of a computer's space is taken up by the wires that connect each major component, cooling fans and empty space, and power management hardware (batteries, PSUs, capacitors, etc). Cell phones are obviously extremely small, yet have fairly powerful processors.

Recent laptop-class CPU dies are roughly 2-3 square centimeters and 1-2 mm thick, where most of the volume is structure not directly involved in processing. The packaging outside of the silicon is largely just making sure that heat dissipation and socket contacts are robust. RAM is a bit larger. Nonvolatile storage is often shockingly small (MicroSD as an example).

Now, without any considerations of actually powering it up or connecting the components in a meaningful way, pack a human skull full of nothing but the CPU, RAM, and MicroSD. You'd be able to pack tens of thousands of various combinations of them within an adult human skull. It's not that shocking that human brains would be more powerful than a few dozen square centimeters of silicon.

Biological brains grow as a single unit. They don't need to waste space with things like making the contacts in PCI slots far enough apart to allow for sloppy alignment. Everything can be as small as functionally possible. Everything is arranged in 3D, so you don't have to make your circuits planar, allowing you much more freedom in where you place connected pieces.

How big would cell phone hardware be without the antenna, battery, or screen? Edited by Nypyren
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if you think that way, you must add the size of the liver and the heart (as much as pretty much every other organ) to the size of a brain, too. A brain doesn't work without a complete human to support it. Remove one organ, and unless it's a paired organ the whole human including the brain encounters a permanent failure condition.

 

On the other hand, the skull is half-empty (filled with fluid) and a considerable part of neural tissue is collagen which does "nothing" for its compute power -- it only guarantees that the tissue resists reasonable force. Insofar, the comparison with filling the whole skull with silicon isn't 100% fair either.

Also, much like a brain, a processor simply won't work without the supportive hardware such as a power supply (though it is much more tolerant to being switched off and on).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When Louie said that we can hold more data than computers, I'd agree. The amount of sensory data that even an uneducated person takes in just by design is far more than computers will be able to take in. And we still have to process this data constantly.

To compare computer intelligence to human intelligence and to suggest a computer could be more intelligent is very dismissive of just how complex the human brain is.

We can't even make an algorithm that makes a robot as autonomous as a human. Far from doing it too.

Programs can't fix themselves, as we CAN.

They can't upgrade themselves, as we can. We can choose to learn or not to learn, and choose how to learn.

Grab the best doctors, most brilliant scientists, most skilled engineers, put them together to build a robot and you still won't get a "machine" that could ever be more brilliant than the creators themselves.

That company google bought has done something neat, but is so far from human intelligence.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


When Louie said that we can hold more data than computers, I'd agree. The amount of sensory data that even an uneducated person takes in just by design is far more than computers will be able to take in. And we still have to process this data constantly.

 

I repeat the challenge: Design a test of memory prowess where you think you can do better than a laptop.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I repeat the challenge: Design a test of memory prowess where you think you can do better than a laptop.
Ow darn you, now you are compelling me to prove something that's so obviously wrong on all accounts biggrin.png

 

But the way this challenge is worded, it actually works out:

 

I can remember events from my childhood. That's 40 years. My grandparents can remember things from theirs, that's 85 years.

 

A laptop battery doesn't live much longer than 3-4 years, nor does a laptop battery. Make that 10 years if you are very lucky. Few computers have an uptime of more than a few months (a few servers have 5-10 years), and few computers that are older than 20-30 years are still in service. No computer older than 85 years is in service.

 

---> beaten the machine on long-term memory prowess

 

Now of course one could argue "but M-Disc lasts 1000 years". Alas, that's the manufacturer's advertising gag, we will know in 1000 years (or rather, we will not). What we do know is that DVDs definitively don't last 1000 years, though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I repeat the challenge: Design a test of memory prowess where you think you can do better than a laptop.

Ow darn you, now you are compelling me to prove something that's so obviously wrong on all accounts biggrin.png
 
I can remember events from my childhood. That's 40 years. My grandparents can remember things from theirs, that's 85 years.


Both of you are oversimplifying the situation. If you only pick a *single* requirement, either human or computer can beat the other at anything! The reality though is that both humans and computers have to fulfill a LOT of requirements at the same time. Human requirements are dictated by nature. Computer requirements are dictated by Humans.

Just like a computer loses its data due to software bugs, media decay or hardware failures, Humans forget things naturally all the time: Do you remember everything you learned from every lesson in school? How long can you remember things that you never use?
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


I repeat the challenge: Design a test of memory prowess where you think you can do better than a laptop.
Ow darn you, now you are compelling me to prove something that's so obviously wrong on all accounts biggrin.png

 

But the way this challenge is worded, it actually works out:

 

I can remember events from my childhood. That's 40 years. My grandparents can remember things from theirs, that's 85 years.

 

A laptop battery doesn't live much longer than 3-4 years, nor does a laptop battery. Make that 10 years if you are very lucky. Few computers have an uptime of more than a few months (a few servers have 5-10 years), and few computers that are older than 20-30 years are still in service. No computer older than 85 years is in service.

 

---> beaten the machine on long-term memory prowess

 

Now of course one could argue "but M-Disc lasts 1000 years". Alas, that's the manufacturer's advertising gag, we will know in 1000 years (or rather, we will not). What we do know is that DVDs definitively don't last 1000 years, though.

 

Can you? That's impressive! Tell me, what was the exact shade of color exactly 1/8th from the top of your eyesight radius? What were the exact dimensions of the blades of grass around you?

 

What we "remember" as vivid isn't as vivid as you actually think.

 

Can you pick out 4 thousand events that have happened in your life in detail?

 

You remember listening to music? Neat, what were you doing with your right foot's big toe at the start of the guitar solo?

 

Just think about it this way. Try to think of about an hour of vivid memories from every year you've been born. Do you think a computer could store double what you can recall?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0