Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Petee, post: 1377347, member: 36123&quot;]Well, the main reason I mentioned those two things in my previous thread was to show how computers are capable of doing things that we cant do, yet have trouble with common tasks that a human would take for granted. But thanks for the links, they were interesting, and brought me more up to date on things. They&#039;ve gotten further along than I would have thought from the last time I looked up on the state in current technology.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Well, not really. At least not like on a level like they can land a plane. That is that peoples lives aren&#039;t being entrusted to computers on a large scale in cars. Those cars are basically advanced prototypes, and I think its likely they will need a huge amount of real world testing and programming before they&#039;re near ready for production. But they&#039;re further along than I thought. Last I saw about it they had to use devices on the road to get them to come close to working right. </p><p><br /></p><p>That law, though, seems more like some kind of gimmick. Theres clearly not a need for laws governing automated cars, so I suspect there was some other motive involved. </p><p><br /></p><p><a href="http://gizmodo.com/5796690/this-ball+catching-robot-will-someday-play-baseball-better-than-you" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://gizmodo.com/5796690/this-ball+catching-robot-will-someday-play-baseball-better-than-you" rel="nofollow"></a></p><p><br /></p><p>In my defense thats a pretty recent development.<img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> Thats pretty cool. I know that physics type stuff was an example of something that they were having problems with last I checked up on things. But I&#039;m still not impressed with computer dexterity overall, they really can&#039;t pick themselves up off the ground if the fall when they run.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>The ball catch robot does show a very good example of current limits in computers with the coffee machine, and the type of problems computer advancement faces, IMO. It can make coffee from a very simple coffee maker when set in a certain position relative to the coffee maker. The robots makers say in the video that its a good example of a robot dealing with a complex situation. This wasn&#039;t explicitly stated, but I&#039;m pretty sure if it were put in a different position to the maker it wouldn&#039;t succeed in its task. And I very seriously doubt it could even recognize a coffee machine from another manufacturer. To clarify the idiot savant thing, it cant cope with things that it isnt specifically programmed for, it has to be told what to do in practically every single situation, and has limited abilities to cope with a changing environment, but its very good within the parameters set for in the environment its programmed for. At least that&#039;s my understanding of the current technological situation. As I said, I&#039;m in no way an expert in these things. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>This actually brings things around to to the topic of the thread. Humans do these things pretty well. True, there are subjective disagreements, but there is usually a general consensus with something is aesthetically pleasing. I&#039;m sure that you could find someone who&#039;d say Mila Kunis isnt hot.... but that would just be some bad programming. Programming an aesthetic sense into a computer is something that I couldn&#039;t even imagine trying to do. In some cases it might be doable, for instance I believe human beauty has been quantified, but we&#039;re a long way off from the first computer movie critic. However, a current computer could prolly write better movies than some that are being put out... </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Dont disagree. I actually still find the fact that airplanes are computer controlled on landing pretty amazing. My point was more that there are areas where it is very difficult or close to impossible for computers to make inroads&nbsp; with the current and probable near generations of technology. At least not without a huge budget and staff. Even then its more &quot;forced&quot; I guess you could say. For example, to my understanding, for coffee/ball catch robot to be able to roll into your house and make a cup of coffee on your maker you&#039;d have to program an incredible amount of information, much more than would be practical. And thats just for one house. I think the AI that can expertly grade coins and make your coffee while simultaneously plotting the death of humanity is pretty far down the road... hopefully. But I do think that it will exist one day. As far as AI goes I think were around the kittyhawk stage, maybe just getting into biplanes.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in