Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 3056-3060 (5-9 Oct 2015)
snubnose:
--- Quote from: BenRG on 07 Oct 2015, 01:18 --- FWIW, we know very little about the QC-verse AIs other than they are seemingly software rather than hardware-based.
--- End quote ---
Yes, but so what ? There still needs to be a neural network, no matter if its hardware or software. Or some other structure that can actually learn and dynamically change. If you actually have to program the "AI" its static and cannot learn.
BenRG:
--- Quote from: snubnose on 07 Oct 2015, 23:31 ---
--- Quote from: BenRG on 07 Oct 2015, 01:18 --- FWIW, we know very little about the QC-verse AIs other than they are seemingly software rather than hardware-based.
--- End quote ---
Yes, but so what ? There still needs to be a neural network, no matter if its hardware or software. Or some other structure that can actually learn and dynamically change. If you actually have to program the "AI" its static and cannot learn.
--- End quote ---
Not at all. If the software is self-modifying (rewriting itself for greater efficiency) then it doesn't automatically need a neural network. All it needs is a vast active memory and a powerful processor as all parts of the algorithm need to be actively processed at all times. This, by the way, may be the 'unique hardware' that Momo referred to - a new generation of CPUs and RAM memory systems that are orders of magnitude greater in capacity and more powerful than the current silicon/gallium semi-conductors.
Neural networks were an attempt to recreate the architecture of biological brains as hardware. The technology slammed into an upper limit at about cockroach-equivalent due to the difficulty of building the physical interlinks between the 'neurons'. Polymorphic code has apparently solved this problem because it was a paradigm shift away from thinking that an AI must necessarily physically resemble a primate brain.
Scarblac:
--- Quote from: snubnose on 07 Oct 2015, 23:31 ---
--- Quote from: BenRG on 07 Oct 2015, 01:18 --- FWIW, we know very little about the QC-verse AIs other than they are seemingly software rather than hardware-based.
--- End quote ---
Yes, but so what ? There still needs to be a neural network, no matter if its hardware or software. Or some other structure that can actually learn and dynamically change. If you actually have to program the "AI" its static and cannot learn.
--- End quote ---
There have been lots and lots of different ways to try to make "AI", neural networks are just one of them, not particularly more successful than others. Nowadays "General AI", actually trying to make something with generic human-style intelligence, is pretty much a scientific backwater, but now and then I read some papers and they don't really have a focus on neural networks.
Computers have RAM, that is where they can change. Computers that are programmed can change because they can change the contents of their memory. It's also possible that they have been programmed so that they can re-program parts of themselves.
There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the first QC AIs weren't carefully programmed.
amykathleen:
--- Quote from: Tova on 07 Oct 2015, 19:48 ---
--- Quote from: amykathleen on 07 Oct 2015, 18:51 ---I almost never feel bad for Pintsize, but... aww, poor Pintsize. :(
--- End quote ---
Are you now feeling badly for Pintsize because you've suddenly decided that Pintsize is a lovable rogue after all, or because you dislike Bubbles, enemy of my enemy and all that?
Okay, yes, Pintsize is a lovable rogue, but I can never feel badly for him when this happens, hilarious as his "pickup lines" may be.
--- End quote ---
I feel bad for him mostly because I doubt that whatever he said was severe enough to warrant a full dismemberment. (Yes, I know, magnetic limbs, he's not hurt, but still he looks pretty sad about it.) He's certainly done worse things. And we've seen throughout the past few strips that Bubbles has sort of overreacted to the awkwardness of every other person at the party, so it's likely that she overreacted to Pintsize too. I don't dislike her. I think she should not have come to the party (even just to prove a point) if she was not prepared to be a bit more tolerant of others' faults, but I don't dislike her. I think it will be fascinating to see where Jeph takes her character.
I still feel bad for Pintsize, though.
Tova:
--- Quote from: amykathleen on 08 Oct 2015, 02:11 --- I think she should not have come to the party (even just to prove a point) if she was not prepared to be a bit more tolerant of others' faults, but I don't dislike her.
--- End quote ---
I don't think she is being intolerant of others' faults, because what she's reacting to isn't their faults (or even their perceived faults) at all. She is simply painfully aware that the others are very uncomfortable in her prescence, scared even. And that makes her unhappy. It certainly doesn't make her want to force herself on them. I honestly can't blame her for that reaction, even though the unhappy reaction itself is perpetuating the discomfort.
Obviously her decision to go was prompted by a desire to prove a point, but maybe a little part of her hoped it would be different this time.
If anyone is to "blame" (and I really never feel that way with QC, because I do feel that everyone tries their best in spite of their flaws), I think that it lies with Faye - the only way the party was ever going to work would have been if she had given the gang fair warning of what Bubbles is like, and reassured them that they had nothing to fear. But she doesn't seem to have told them anything except "a friend is coming over." I'm not saying it would have made things flawless, but it would have given her a sporting chance.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version