Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 9 submissions in the queue.
posted by Dopefish on Monday February 24 2014, @06:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the i-for-one-welcome-our-new-computer-overlords dept.

kef writes:

"By 2029, computers will be able to understand our language, learn from experience and outsmart even the most intelligent humans, according to Google's director of engineering Ray Kurzweil.

Kurzweil says:

Computers are on the threshold of reading and understanding the semantic content of a language, but not quite at human levels. But since they can read a million times more material than humans they can make up for that with quantity. So IBM's Watson is a pretty weak reader on each page, but it read the 200m pages of Wikipedia. And basically what I'm doing at Google is to try to go beyond what Watson could do. To do it at Google scale. Which is to say to have the computer read tens of billions of pages. Watson doesn't understand the implications of what it's reading. It's doing a sort of pattern matching. It doesn't understand that if John sold his red Volvo to Mary that involves a transaction or possession and ownership being transferred. It doesn't understand that kind of information and so we are going to actually encode that, really try to teach it to understand the meaning of what these documents are saying.

Skynet anyone?"

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Namarrgon on Thursday February 27 2014, @09:29AM

    by Namarrgon (1134) on Thursday February 27 2014, @09:29AM (#7861)

    the phenomena of consciousness itself (i.e. the capacity to subjectively experience reality)
    Not really the definition I had in mind - but that's part of the problem; nobody really knows.

    I would have said that in order to subjectively experience anything, one had to be aware of oneself first, and be aware of the effect that experience has on oneself - which to me implies a self-model.

    But I'll happily concede my opinion is no better than any other, and we won't really know anything much for sure until we try. Which I guess was the original point; it's an approach worth trying, and we'll see how it turns out. At the least, we'll learn something.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave Elbereth?