Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

AI Allowed to Create Their Own Culture 172

Posted by timothy from the oh-that's-wise dept.
nomoreself writes "New Scientist reports that five European research institutes are building a virtual world with about 1000 virtual (AI) citizens, in order to observe the society these artificial agents create for themselves over the course of three years. From the article: "Each agent will be capable of various simple tasks, like moving around and building simple structures, but will also have the ability to communicate and cooperate with its cohabitants. Through simple interaction, the researchers hope to watch these characters create their very own society from scratch... [further], by pointing to objects and using randomly generated "words", characters should be able to conjure up their very own language and communicate with others inside their world." One of the researchers involved thinks the dwellers of this artificial world may even develop ritualistic practices."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AI Allowed to Create Their Own Culture More

AI Allowed to Create Their Own Culture

Comments Filter:

  • Is buying 5 copies of (Score:5, Funny)

    by twilight30 ( 84644 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @04:31PM (#13097589) Homepage
    ... the Sims 2 really all that expensive? :)

    • Culture is for Bacteria. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @04:39PM (#13097676) Homepage Journal
      I'll say it again.

      Culture is for bacteria.

      There! That just feels better, to get off my chest. And by the way - there is no such thing as AI. Combining an infinite series of light-switches will never produce conciousness. Eliza is a game that can fool you, but it could never fool itself.

      • Re:Culture is for Bacteria. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rbarreira ( 836272 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @04:51PM (#13097778) Homepage
        Combining an infinite series of light-switches will never produce conciousness.

        I would like to see your proof of this. Because, combining a finite series of neurons apparently produces conciousness in humans. Have you or anyone else proved that neurons are more powerful than "light switches"?

        By the way, we humans fool ourselves all the time...
        • Aha but we have yet no proof that the finite serious of neurones are what cause consciousness in humans.
          The topic is still highly debated , as of yet it is probably the most likely reason though it is not tested in any real way , there are even theories that consciousness may be quantum in nature
          • Aha but we have yet no proof that the finite serious of neurones are what cause consciousness in humans.

            At least we're sure that they are the biggest part of it. This is one of those proofs which will only appear if/when we produce a conscious human-like being, I guess...

            there are even theories that consciousness may be quantum in nature

            That wouldn't be a hurdle at all. OK, we might need "quantum light switches" but what's the problem? ;) I know that wouldn't be according to the original post, but wh
            • We are as of yet not sure they are the biggest part of it , it is assumed and with dammed good grounds that they are . Though we are not yet even able to assert assuredness .
              Don't get me wrong , I am a rather Hefty cynic . I do however always keep an open mind till conclusive proof is available either way.

              If the quantum nature of consciousness could be established as factual then a new era of neuroscience and medical treatment could be reached, which would be truly amazing(of course any establishment of th
              • Thanks for the links :)

                I was also thinking about reading books by John Searle [wikipedia.org] and another guy whose name I can't remember now. I'm really curious to see if there is really any good evidence pointing at quantum consciousness which is convincing enough for me to accept the possiblity (assuming I can understand the concepts, of course...).
                • I am as of yet not sure if i am convinced , though the work on the concept has developed .
                  It was in fact one of the original concept of quantum physics.
                  Quantum physics is still a very young science
                  , it's one of the great frontiers of science and discoveries are rather abundant(and simple) , so i wouldn't hold your breath on a discovery this advanced for a good while .
                  Still though , The nature of consciousness has been debated since time in memorial .I guess it is one of those things that will demystify as
                • Searle - much of what he proposes can be summed up in his "Chinese Room" [wustl.edu] simulation.

                  He's pretty good at this. He's on to something - but if you need maths to prove that a pile of dictionaries don't posess consoiusness, let alone a spirit....

                  • I think it's been a couple of hundred years since "spirits" have been the going explanation for anything at all. ;)

                    In the case of the dictionaries, since the information that they store isn't self modifying I would consider it to be "non-conscious."

                  • I've never been convinced by the Chinese Room. Pile of books doesn't speak Chinese, fair enough. Man following rules in books doesn't speak Chinese, also fair enough. Room as a whole doesn't speak Chinese? That does not necessarily follow.

                    The counterargument, from the linked page, is

                    In response, Searle claims that if we simply imagine the person in the Chinese room to memorize the look-up table, we have produced a counter example to this reply.

                    Not really. Bearing in mind that the Chinese Room is as

                • The problem with the quantum physics consciousness crowd is its really more *metaphysics* then physics.

                  These people want thought to be special, and as the mechanisms with which neurons work is largely understood (even if what the do in toto is now), they want to hang what they want to be special at the door of something that is not understood, and thus mystical and special.

                  • Thanks, that's exactly my opinion, but I don't want to go saying that before I really know why people think that. For all I know, maybe there is something pointing at quantum counsciousness. But I really wouldn't bet on it, I would be far more inclined for your theory... Frankly, I don't give a fly whether we're special or not. That doesn't change what we are, in my opinion! What do I care if I'm a deterministic being? I still have to make an effort to make things happen for me (or at least I feel I have to

          • Aha but we have yet no proof that the finite serious of neurones are what cause consciousness in humans.

            People used to e.g. think that biochemical processes was of another kind than other chemical processes.

            All animism [wikipedia.org] theories tested has been wrong.

            Can you present any reason why there is some new, metaphysical stuff needed to explain the next thing we don't understand yet in biology? (This decade it is consciousness.)

            It seems just more wishful thinking by theists.

            Ok, I asked a question

            • Don't get me wrong , I'm not saying i believe any of it .
              My point was more that there has been no proof as to what causes it .So until a method is found to gain adequate proof one way or the other i shall keep an open mind on the subject.
              Personally i do favour the theory that it is caused by the arrangement of neurones , but I would like to see some clear evidence that proves this.
              Also don't always equate quantum consciousness with mysticism or spirituality .It is generally just a theory relating to the
              • As long as you're asking scientists for "proof" your trolling.

                We have already simulated a simple brain which accurately responded as the original creature did by simulating the way each of their neurons interacted with each other and their environment thus demonstrating that our understating is probably correct but that does not provide proof.

                Linking QM to consciousness is silly. If you want to exactly copy something you need to follow all the QM rules but you can make several PIV's which behave in v
          • > Aha but we have yet no proof that the finite
            > serious of neurones are what cause consciousness
            > in humans.

            In the absence of an objective, testable definition of consciousness it is impossible to prove anything about it (or even that it exists).
        • >>I would like to see your proof of this. Because, combining a finite series of neurons apparently produces conciousness in humans. Have you or anyone else proved that neurons are more powerful than "light switches"?

          When was the last time a light switch turned itself off?
        • Our Brains Don't Work Like Computers [slashdot.org]

          It's like the difference between "Discrete" and "Continuous", or between "Digital" and "Analog".

          And that's only one aspect of the difference. Besides, neurons are _alive_.
          • That doesn't mean we can't reproduce it, or does it? Not all computers are digital. And of course, there's also the possibility of mixing electronics with biological components...

            "Neurons are alive" - that's just a matter of semantics, whether you like it or not :)
          • If you've ever had calculus, you'll realize that at some point, putting together enough discrete intervals creates something that is for all intents and purposes, continuous.

            You must also remember that a computer simulation doesn't have to work exactly the same way as the human brain. If it can accurately reproduce human characteristics to such an extent that we can't tell the difference between it and a human, then how would we know? And why would we care?

            Read some Kurzweil - I recommend 'The Age of Sp

        • Re:Culture is for Bacteria. (Score:4, Informative)

          by el_jake ( 22335 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @06:48PM (#13098703)
          Neurons do not act like transistor gates. (AND/OR/NAND etc.)
          Neurons has multiple states. Active / Semi active / Sleep. Operating many connection lines in between other neurons.

          The task whould be to simulate single neurons (with code) and make theese simulated neurons interact on a weighted level. You whould need at least a billion of those sim-neurons just to be equal to a insects brain. Every sim neuron should be pre-coded with a specialized task, but allso be able to take another sim-neurons task is it should be necesary.

          Makes me think of john Conway and his life algo's http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/ [bitstorm.org]
          • Yep, the brain is surely a huge computational device. But that doesn't mean we can't reproduce it electronically (or if not totally electronically, with the help of some biological parts). The human brain computational capacity is estimated to be at around 10^16 - 10^17 operations per second. One day we'll be there :)
        • "I would like to see your proof of this. Because, combining a finite series of neurons apparently produces consciousness in humans. Have you or anyone else proved that neurons are more powerful than "light switches"?"

          Well it would be impossible to prove what an infinite series of light-switches can ore can not do for obvious reasons. As to neurons being more powerful than light switches. Yes a neuron is more powerful than a light switch. I have yet to see even the ant level functioning out of an AI yet. I
          • I said finite, not infinite.

            I would say that the idea of an electronic consciousness is still totally unproven.

            I didn't say it was proven, but you can't say either that it's false just because it hasn't been proven yet. That's what I meant, and it's not what the original poster seems he was saying.
            • I was not agreeing with the parent. And I do not agree with you. I think it is a big unknown. I feel that it there maybe more to consciousness than we know yes maybe even a soul. But I will be honest that I do no know. I just know that we do not know. However I do know that a neuron is more complex than a light switch.
              • Of course it is an unknown, it hasn't been proved either false nor right.

                However I do know that a neuron is more complex than a light switch.

                Quantitatively, sure. Qualitatively, we'll see in the future :)
        • Actually, neurons have more states than just "on" and "off". They exist in the analog world, so they can reach a continuous range of values.

          So saying that, neurons are more like dimmer switches [fox.com]...

      • Re:Culture is for Bacteria. (Score:5, Funny)

        by kmahan ( 80459 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @05:07PM (#13097914)
        I've got to disagree.

        To make the typical politician all you need are a couple of Dimmer switches.
      • This comes down to the classic debate of dualism - wheter are minds are distinct from our bodies. I'm inclined to favour the side of the dualist - that consciousness can never arise out of a machine (or even of merely matter). To be sure, neurons are ridiculously more complex than light switches, logic gates or even more complex ICs. However, a neuron can be rather accurately modeled with perceptrons, or as a simple (analog) electronic circuit with weighted inputs. The neuron takes in some electric signal
      • Intelligence, I believe, could come in many different forms. It's not so that the only kind of intelligence is the human intelligence, using the exact same components we have in our brains. Or is there some sort of safeguard that protects the universe from the existence of conscious structures of matter unless they are humans?
      • I prefer my argument the other way: I don't eat yogurt because culture should be hanging on the wall in a museum, not in a spoon headed for my mouth.
    • It's a good alternative when you don't want your money with EA.

  • The test (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @04:32PM (#13097596)
    The test of the realism of the sim's AI would likely involve how long it takes for one of the sims to seize power and exploit the rest.

  • Agents? (Score:5, Funny)

    by SDMX ( 668380 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @04:33PM (#13097604)
    "Each agent will be capable of various simple tasks, like moving around and building simple structures...

    ...absorbing other agents, usurping gigantic networks, eliminating Keanu Reeves. You know, all the things a good AI should do!

  • That's All Folks! (Score:1, Redundant)

    by stuffduff ( 681819 )
    Just be sure not to let it take over the world, OK?

  • Learning about ourselves. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Leroy_Brown242 ( 683141 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @04:34PM (#13097619) Homepage Journal
    This has a lot of interesting possiblities.

    One being that given a blank slate, what they tend to do on multiple runs. (Do they always end up the same place, or does chaos theory win out?)

    Another, is that the AI could be programmed to have a pre-disposition, and see how they progress. (Homosexuality, self destruction, etc, etc)

    And yet another could change their environments and see how they react. (Plague, overcrowding, etc, etc.)

  • Err (Score:1, Insightful)

    by rbarreira ( 836272 )
    Nevertheless, the researchers behind NEW-TIES hope to have seen some spectacular results by the time the project comes to an end in 2007. "It's incredibly ambitious, and it may be that, at the end of 3 years, we say we need at least another 30," Gilbert admits. "But it's worth a try."

    Idiots... 30 years for a project like this? In 30 years we'll have much better methods of doing this, so any project started 3 years from now wouldn't be valid for so long. Those of you who have read Ray Kurzweil's essays pro
    • Sorry, I meant to say that we have mapped the genome, since that's what we have accomplished so far.
    • Idiots... 30 years for a project like this? In 30 years we'll have much better methods of doing this, so any project started 3 years from now wouldn't be valid for so long. Those of you who have read Ray Kurzweil's essays probably know that there is a very good chance that we will pretty much understand how the human brain works by that time (like we understand the genome now).

      We've mapped the genome. We don't understand it. BIG difference.

      But if you meant we'll have a superficial understanding of it

      • Yeah, that's why I wrote this post [slashdot.org], you probably didn't see it since it was just a minute before yours :)

        Anyway, I don't understand why they'll need for a simulation like this. Will the virtual beings build a whole universe? Simulations aren't usually so slow. I found this page [cs.vu.nl] which probably has more interesting information, maybe I'll check it out later :)

        • Re:Yep, sorry (Score:5, Funny)

          by hab136 ( 30884 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @05:12PM (#13097958) Journal
          Anyway, I don't understand why they'll need for a simulation like this. Will the virtual beings build a whole universe? Simulations aren't usually so slow.

          Because if it ran in a week, how would they eat for the next 3 years? No, they've probably slowed down the simulation so they can "study" it as it progresses.. read: eat Doritos and play video games for the next 3 years, occasionally looking at the simulation and write something up about it.

          These guys are my heroes. :)

      • Re:Err (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PakProtector ( 115173 )

        Yes. What we need now is to map the 'Proteome,' or rather, to create a dictionary of the many, many different proteins that the human body uses -- what they do, what they're made of, how they're folded, how they interact.

        That's a much, much more difficult thing than simply 'mapping' the genome.

    • Re:Err (Score:5, Insightful)

      by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @05:32PM (#13098122)
      Idiots... 30 years for a project like this? In 30 years we'll have much better methods of doing this, so any project started 3 years from now wouldn't be valid for so long.

      You should put some thought into your words before saying, "Err. Idiots". They're not talking about running the same simulation on the same hardware for 30 years. What they want is for the project (not necessarily the simulation) to last 30 years (and beyond), and it's pretty idiotic to believe they'd learn all there is to learn in just 3 years.

      30 years certainly seems like a long time, but on the subject of AI and alife, there's a *lot* yet to study. This 3 year simulation will answer just a handful of questions, and raise many more, leading to another simulation, and with the newer, faster hardware, and more capable software, they'll answer some of the new questions, raising yet more, and so on.

      Those of you who have read Ray Kurzweil's essays probably know that there is a very good chance that we will pretty much understand how the human brain works by that time (like we understand the genome now).

      Mapping the human genome (you've already noted this difference) is mere bookkeeping. It's raw data. Faster computers and newer methods sped up the project so that it was finished, it sometimes seems, before it even began. But that's just data, it's still going to take a *very* long time to really understand the data.

      Take a simulation system far, far, far simpler than AI and alife--chess. Even after thousands(?) of years of study, and decades of computers aided study, we still have yet to fully explore that system--there's still work to be done, and will be, perhaps, forever. What makes you think AI and alife, which is far more complex than chess, will be so much easier that there won't be enough work to last even a mere 30 years?

      As for Kurzweil's essay. He is making the case that we'll understand the brain in the same way a beginner at chess understands chess. We'll know pretty much what each part does, and how they work together in simple terms, but we won't have all the answers--there will *still* be work to be done.

      Erm, Idiots indeed!
      • I didn't write the 30 years part without thinking at all. Read their sentence. They say they'll run the simulation for 3 years (read this post [slashdot.org] btw :)), and then they say that 30 years thing. From that sentence alone, one would interpret it as running the simulation for 30 years.

        Now, if they're talking about running a big project for learning about society for 30 years, that sounds much better to me.
        • (read this post btw :))

          Well, yeah, that's a joke though.

          From that sentence alone, one would interpret it as running the simulation for 30 years.

          I can see how that would be an initial impression (given the ambiguity of the statement), but it's one of those things where you think, "Oh, duh. I thought you meant the stupid, idiotic thing, not the reasonable and quite logical thing. haha", and not call them idiots.

          But yeah, if they just want to run the same simulation on the same hardware for 30 years, we
    • Yup.

      But, it is also possible that this kind of experiment will help us to figure out how the human brain works. So that this experiment might be one of the requirements of such understanding.

  • Call me skeptical, but... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by afabbro ( 33948 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @04:39PM (#13097674) Homepage
    ...wouldn't the culture they create be a reflection of the motivations they're given? 1,000 humans are so diverse that the culture could be anything. How do you get that level of diversity into AIs, using present technology?

    Seriously, I imagine even describing programmatically the motivations and desires of 1,000 humans is impossible right now. You could simplify it (Sims, most CRPGs) but then you're at my question.

    I have a feeling that if they are AIs who simply need to do X, Y, and Z to survive and survival is their priority, then there will be only a sterile culture of efficiency.

    This isn't my area of expertise...just musing.

    (Yes, I'm aware that you could therefore say that humans are result of the motivations our creators gave us...I'm not going into that.)

    • You're right, of course. One way to handle this is to set up the virtual economy such that only a small number of virtual people have to deal directly with the basic necessities of survival. The ones that have free time are free to do whatever else they want. To make this work, have some kind of skill system, modelling how someone gets good at woodworking when they do that all the time, for example.

      This leads to seeing whether the automata will diversify their labor or take equal shares. Will there be s

    • Seriously, I imagine even describing programmatically the motivations and desires of 1,000 humans is impossible right now. You could simplify it (Sims, most CRPGs) but then you're at my question.

      I have a feeling that if they are AIs who simply need to do X, Y, and Z to survive and survival is their priority, then there will be only a sterile culture of efficiency.

      People develop different tastes and (often inefficient) idiosyncracies. This usually creates diversity in a culture.

      Now the question becomes,

    • Re:Call me skeptical, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @07:15PM (#13099018)
      I'd suggest that humans really aren't so diverse that the cultures you'd get from different populations can be wildly different - because they aren't.

      Every human culture I know of is only superficially different from every other. Most of the differences I see that aren't of the "different clothing" type come from different circumstances rather than different motivations.

  • They are using CS as display... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18, 2005 @04:41PM (#13097686)
    I can imagine the language those AIs will develop

    sharon_apple: fag camp3rs! OLOL!
    Hal_9K: l33t sniper roxorz

  • Rituals (Score:5, Funny)

    by ndansmith ( 582590 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @04:45PM (#13097718)
    One of the researchers involved thinks the dwellers of this artificial world may even develop ritualistic practices.

    What, like reading Slashdot?

  • They should just take one of the standard MMORPG games, take out all of the constructed buildings and everything else and then randomly spread all sorts of basic things (in differing forms so that they aren't immediately recognizable) and then sell it as the newest MMORPG where you simply have to survive - find food, water, shelter, develop societies, etc. If you die, you die, and you can start over, no problem. Use the randomly generated word thing for communicating too. We have enough geeks who are intere
  • Sounds pretty much like a certain Fassbinder movie from the seventies, Welt am Draht [imdb.com].
  • These scientists, who sound pretty together, should be smart enough to realise that they don't HAVE to make their title into a easy to remember acronym:

    "The project, known as New and Emergent World models Through Individual, Evolutionary and Social Learning - or NEW-TIES"

    Geez, that's freaking almost unintelligble to anyone but the original scientists. Plus, you left out the "M" (models). You shouldn't be able to pick and choose which words get acronymed.

    Just freaking call it "New Ties", already, and ex
  • As long as the servers arent on the 13th floor [imdb.com]...

  • incentives (Score:3, Informative)

    by sfcat ( 872532 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @04:54PM (#13097805)
    These types of independent agents can create interesting interactions. I assume that each agent has either common or individual goals/incentives. But the choice of these incentives is what determines what happens (at least it is a major determing factor), though it is unlikely that a person could predict the outcomes (if the system is complex enough). So how did they choose these goals/incentives? And are there penalities for over indulging (like eating too much to reproduce successfully, etc)? And what non-agent objects are in the system. People wouldn't do what they do unless they needed to manipulate their environment and compete for resources. Do these agents do the same?

    Also, why have the agents develop a new language? Its just interesting to see what they do without having to guess what they are talking about. But it sounds like they are only mutating the nouns. But languages develop in different ways including different preposition structures (for instance old english had different forms of nouns instead of prepositions) different noun/verb/object orders, etc? Is this just being ignored?

    And finally, human society is very complex. It is almost certainly a chaotic system meaning that any change in the initial variables makes predictions meaningless for the real world (the system to be predicted). So if they want to simulate human socities, shouldn't they make the agents mimic real people and their environment as closely has possible. It doesn't seem that this is what they are doing. If they are trying to predicte real societies, I think they are not close to this almost impossible goal.

  • Is whether they invent God or discover metal first
  • Maybe they should sell the rights to MTV, REAL WORLD: AI "the true story of 1000 strangers picked to live in a virtual world and have their lives logged. Find out what happens when sentients stop being polite, and start being real."

  • Every character in the simulated world will need to eat to survive, and will be able to learn from their environment through trial and error - learning, for example, how to cultivate edible plants with water and sunlight. In addition, characters will be able to reproduce by mating with members the opposite sex and their offspring will inherited a random collection of their parents "genetic" traits.

    I wonder this world's oldest profession will be like the real world... ...farming.

  • Why observe over 3 years, if the whole society exists electronically; defining time and the speed of everything is up to it's creators?

    I guess it's a nice way to make sure your grants and in turn workplace exists for another three years, too...

  • Lem-ing (Score:5, Informative)

    by jefu ( 53450 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @05:41PM (#13098197) Homepage Journal
    Stanislaw Lem wrote a great story (actually a fictional book review) called "Non Serviam" (found in his collection of fictional reviews : "A Perfect Vacuum") in which precisely this is done and the scientist running the experiment eavesdrops on his artificial creations discussing the nature of God.

    An excellent read (as are all the pieces in "A Perfect Vacuum").

  • I hate the asymmetry in news reporting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) ( 613870 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @05:46PM (#13098227) Journal
    When someone creates a new project it gets press releases and news coverage. But when the project fizzles out because it was completely lame and didn't go anywhere in the least bit interesting nobody bother reporting it. It's like news stories are written in a dialect of C++ with constructors but no destructors.

    Well I think it's time for the garbage collector of the news world. Someone who goes through year or three old science and technology magazines looking for projects where the leaders say things like "this technique will replace everything else" or "I expect my system to develop self-awareness over the next 18 months" and brings a bit of closure to them. If the project has failed then the project leaders need to be asked "what do you have to say about your extravagant claims?", "how do you feel about the grant money you frittered away?" and "how do you respond to the poeple who claimed you were a crackpot at the beginning?".

    I'll have to put this story in my queue for re-examination in 2006.

    • The thing I'm most curious about is: <a href="http://subjunctive.net/klog/2003/06/13/whate ver_happened_to.html">whatever happened to the three mysterious ships</a> reported during the war?
    • Well I think it's time for the garbage collector of the news world. Someone who goes through year or three old science and technology magazines looking for projects where the leaders say things like "this technique will replace everything else" or "I expect my system to develop self-awareness over the next 18 months" and brings a bit of closure to them.

      To an extent, can't Wikipedia articles be used for that?
    • Be sure to interview yourself and let us know if you got around to reporting on hyped-up projects. :)

      Seriously, it's a good idea. You should do it.
  • Will these AI being be able to kill each other for survival? Will they be able to steal? Or are they only allowed to talk and build?
  • "Don't anthromorphize the machine."

    Take that machine, run some software on it (a machine of its own, in the sense of an engine designed to produce a result) intended to mimic a small subset of human behaviors, then have the results interpreted by a bunch of people with a vested interest in having those results mimic the results of human societies.

    Does anyone seriously think they could possibly see any other outcome than the one they intended to see, no matter how unrealistic that outcome is? More than any
  • it will be interesting to find out if they find religion as well
  • Personally, I think we (as in mankind) are closer than many people believe to creating a true form of machine intelligence, if not true conscious and sentient artificial intelligence. The former is likely to come about first, and the latter, if it came about, would likely be quickly regarded as not being "artificial" anymore. In fact, we humans would probably quickly accept and adapt to it. One only has to look at how quickly we anthromorphosize just about everything that even looks like it could be "intell
  • "Over three years"? Why not just run the simulation faster and have your answer overnight?

Slashdot Top Deals

As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison

Close