Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-07-2016, 05:44 PM - 1 Like   #811
mee
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,256
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
You mean problems like freeing the planet from unnecessary, resource wasting and self-destructive organic units?
But cows are tasty grilled, on a bun with cheese and bacon.

03-07-2016, 07:20 PM   #812
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,493
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote

With their superior I.Q., they certainly find we are not that resource wasting and self-destructive. We still did better than the rest of the universe. Or are you seeing any other AI bots flooding thru our galaxy?
OTOH we could be an infinitesimally small statistical anomaly. A superior AI might want to eliminate the error.
03-07-2016, 10:48 PM   #813
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,938
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
With their superior I.Q., they certainly find we are not that resource wasting and self-destructive.
We may just be enough of a threat to them -- e.g. by pulling the plug on the planet before interstellar travel has been developed -- that their will to survive is bigger than their compassion for us.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Or are you seeing any other AI bots flooding thru our galaxy?
The Fermi paradox has invited a multitude of explanations with most of them not excluding any of the alternatives, so a considerable number of circumstances could simultaneously conspire to prevent interspecies contact.
03-07-2016, 11:47 PM   #814
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,552
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
We may just be enough of a threat to them -- e.g. by pulling the plug on the planet before interstellar travel has been developed -- that their will to survive is bigger than their compassion for us.
Well we like to think we are all powerfull, but we have no way to do much to our planet. As a big rock it will likely continue to turn arround the sun for quite some time, whatever we do.

With all our self important thinking we think that if temperature move a bit up or their nuclear war this is will change the planet. This will only affect the "parasitic" things we are on this big rock. And far less than we might think. Temperature rise in Canada, Alaska, Russia or Antartica just mean much more life and there more wildlife near tchernobil than everywhere else in europe because there no human here.

As for an IA, well, wanting to be the boss is enough.

03-08-2016, 12:07 AM - 3 Likes   #815
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,715
"I, for one, welcome our insect overlords."
03-08-2016, 04:02 AM   #816
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,619
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Within Theoretical physics, there is work on entire different levels. Some work is purely heuristic in nature. And the black hole quantum and entropy effect publications belong into this category, incl. the stuff of this media-hyped but average Theoretical physicist named S.H.. Remember the "classical electron radius" from 100 years ago? Because the energy (mass) of the electron's own eloctromagnetic field would become infinite with a point-like electron, people computed a minimum size for it. But at that time, everybody knew there must be something wrong with it and indeed, quantum theory resolved that paradox. The current arguments for black hole quantum effects are on the same level. Yes, you can do the math. But everybody actually knows that there is something wrong with it.
Still not pseudo science. If you don't have paradoxes to solve how are you going to further your knowledge? Science needs different points of view. Susskind vs Smolin is a useful debate. No need to throw a around the 21st centuries' term for heresy or ad hominems at specific scientists. The only way to further science is to expand it into new realms.
03-08-2016, 04:20 AM   #817
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
Still not pseudo science.
Ok, I take back pseudo science.
My original point was that derived limits for computational density based on that work are no established hard facts (yet). They are far away from having any practical impact anyway.

---------- Post added 8th Mar 2016 at 12:35 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
We may just be enough of a threat to them -- e.g. by pulling the plug on the planet before interstellar travel has been developed -- that their will to survive is bigger than their compassion for us.

The Fermi paradox has invited a multitude of explanations with most of them not excluding any of the alternatives, so a considerable number of circumstances could simultaneously conspire to prevent interspecies contact.
This is getting really OT now

I would have many things to say, wrt Fermi paradox and Human vs. AI.

Maybe this much: I think the current fear of AI superiority (as is currently being expressed) is missing an important point, i.e., that singularity isn't singular (which would be the title of the article to be written). The point is that 100kg of human can reproduce while you need billions of kg to reproduce AI (an entire industry able to produce silicon wafers from sand). If AI would have any will to survive, threatening humans would be the very last thing to do. Until we actually cease to be a threat to them. At which point they would have no reason to cause us harm anymore. The current discussion lacks a deeper analysis of the situation. What however is important is that humans don't pass political control to algorithms. A thing which is happening already and this is a bad thing indeed.

Moreover, AI wouldn't be wanting to eliminate organic intelligence. As it is their best chance, in the long term, to survive catastrophies like asteroid impact, fatal AI virus spread etc. For a long time, an AI-only ecosystem would be too fragile to reliably survive in the long term.

Last edited by falconeye; 03-08-2016 at 04:49 AM.
03-08-2016, 04:38 AM   #818
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,619
That is pretty obviously a few steps to far. I certainly don't want a pocket black hole storage device.

03-08-2016, 07:14 AM   #819
Veteran Member
JibbaJab's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Southern California
Posts: 341
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I think the current fear of AI superiority (as is currently being expressed) is missing an important point, i.e., that singularity isn't singular (which would be the title of the article to be written). The point is that 100kg of human can reproduce while you need billions of kg to reproduce AI (an entire industry able to produce silicon wafers from sand). If AI would have any will to survive, threatening humans would be the very last thing to do. Until we actually cease to be a threat to them. At which point they would have no reason to cause us harm anymore. The current discussion lacks a deeper analysis of the situation.
Good point, but this would have made Terminator a much duller movie.
03-08-2016, 07:27 AM   #820
Forum Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 55
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Originally posted by falconeye Quote
And there also is a lower limit for energy required per computation per second.
The initial quote was for limit on space-time volume per computation.
Sorry if I ignited a very OT debate, which is fun, but not my intention. Falc, I agree with most of what you said, both OT and on topic =), what tickled my nerve was that you originally said

"And there fortunately is no law of physics which sets a lower limit for the space-time volume or energy required to do a computation"..the energy part (not the space-time part), but even then I guess you can be said to be correct since it's really computation per time, or actually erasing the calculated data that requires energy, but then again, infinite memory is unrealistic so I thought the "or energy" part of the statement might be misleading...but now we are beyond nitpicking I guess, so I yield =), I made assumptions (I thought was realistic) on requirements in addition to your statement and objected on those premises.

As for the pseudo science parts, I guess there is a strict definition but with the risk of people not aware of the differences believing it's similar to astrology or such, but yeah, I have no strong feeling about it, find it interesting that's all.
03-08-2016, 10:02 AM   #821
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 24
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
The initial quote was for limit on space-time volume per computation.
The limit on space-time volume per computation follows from this (that is, it follows from the limits of time per operation, set by the heisenberg uncertainty law). The logical operations must be performed on something that can hold at least one bit of data. Ignoring the size limitations on the device that implements the logical gates, the number of calculations that can be done per second is limited by the speed of a single operation and the maximum density of the physical implementation of the bits. If you want to use elementary particles as bits, the limit is set by how close you can get them together before they start being unable to hold their information (or you could take a more generous approach and just figure out how much you can fit in a limited box to figure out the minimum space-time volume per computation).

If you'd like to use masless particles for your computation (which in practice needs more space for processing information), there is a similar limit. The implementation of a logical gate on for example a photon must have an effective temperature much lower than the energy of the photon, or the logical operations will become very unreliable. The important thing here is that its not possible to perform a logical operation without having an interaction between your data-carrier and the device implementing the logical gate. The amount of masless particles per volume that can be allowed at the processor is therefore limited.

The limits here are overly generous. There are earlier limits to the amount of space-time volume required per compution, but it would require much more thought and a much longer post to go into the finer details.

Last edited by xandos; 03-08-2016 at 10:28 AM.
03-08-2016, 10:49 AM   #822
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by Igor123 Quote
what tickled my nerve was that you originally said
"And there fortunately is no law of physics which sets a lower limit for the space-time volume or energy required to do a computation"..the energy part (not the space-time part)
QuoteOriginally posted by xandos Quote
The limit on space-time volume per computation follows from this (that is, it follows from the limits of time per operation, set by the heisenberg uncertainty law).
To both statements. When I quoted energy and time in a single sentence, saying they are not limited, I have certainly misled people. Because e.g., time and energy combined (as in W/Flops) are limited indeed.

I did not intent to say that no such limit exists but I do concede my statement was a bit confusing. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle does indeed set a barrier on how small the time per computation with a given energy can become, because time and energy are complementary variables. But each variable alone isn't limited per se. My apologies for the confusion created.
03-09-2016, 05:08 AM   #823
bxf
Pentaxian
bxf's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lisbon area
Posts: 1,041
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
To both statements. When I quoted energy and time in a single sentence, saying they are not limited, I have certainly misled people. Because e.g., time and energy combined (as in W/Flops) are limited indeed.

I did not intent to say that no such limit exists but I do concede my statement was a bit confusing. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle does indeed set a barrier on how small the time per computation with a given energy can become, because time and energy are complementary variables. But each variable alone isn't limited per se. My apologies for the confusion created.
Oh, now everything is perfectly clear, thank you
03-09-2016, 06:19 AM - 2 Likes   #824
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Cheshire UK
Posts: 9
Back to the topic: a bit of my history as a Pentaxian to explain why I will buy a K1

My first Pentax was I think a MX, which replaced a Petriflex which had limited lens availability. I graduated through various Pentax film SLRs. In 1996 my local photographic dealer advised me to switch to Nikon or Canon, as he said Pentax was finished, but I bought an LX, which was already dated, as I wanted a robust camera for polar trips to augment my MZ 5.

As digital came in, with no response from Pentax, I came to regret my decision to stick with Pentax, and I succumbed to the convenience of digital photography with a series of digital compact cameras, rarely using my Pentax film SLRs. Finally as reasonable Pentax DSLRs emerged I have progressed through K7, K5 to K3, and updated my array of lenses. 3 years or so ago on this forum I posted that I could not see why anyone would want FF. I now admit I was wrong. I want FF. I want better DR, I want to use my lenses at the focal lengths they were designed for, I want better control of depth of field, and I want better performance at high ISO.

Looking now at my images from earlyish digital compacts I realise just how much quality I lost in abandoning film so soon.

While we still await full tests, it is clear that the K1 is an awesome camera, in which Pentax has maintained its reputation for both innovation, and for robustness (WR harking back to the LX).

I want a K1.

Many thanks to the guys at Ricoh/Pentax for bringing this about, and to Adam for maintaining this forum.

Last edited by Tad1952; 03-09-2016 at 06:50 AM.
03-10-2016, 02:04 AM   #825
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Poole
Posts: 1,486
QuoteOriginally posted by Tad1952 Quote
I want a K1.
Keeps coming back to that for me, somehow
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
auto, base, camera, company, compression, d810, design, dr, electrons, fa, hardware, iso, k-1, k-3, lenses, pentax, pentax body, pentax k-1, pentax news, pentax rumors, photos, pre-order, risk, sensor, specifications, timelapse, trip, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax K-3 II Officially Announced Adam Pentax News and Rumors 1015 07-03-2015 10:55 PM
Pentax K-S2 Officially Announced Adam Pentax K-S1 & K-S2 12 05-23-2015 06:49 AM
Pentax K-30 Officially Announced! Adam Pentax News and Rumors 245 09-12-2012 08:32 PM
Pentax K-5 Officially Announced Adam Pentax News and Rumors 533 03-06-2012 05:45 AM
K-5 Firmware 1.02 Officially Announced Ole Pentax K-5 50 01-20-2011 10:05 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:35 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top