copyright vs physics 101

[3dilettante]

3dilettante, either I'm somehow decades ahead of current researchers on the field(doubtful.), or I give it less than 15yrs for creative machines to be on the table/market.

I can think of other alternatives besides the ones you've given.
I think you're overly optimistic.

As for nanotech, trying to go from scratch is honestly going to take a long long long while, people like me prefer to borrow stuff, like all the solutions that are readily available from nature. I've ideas for algos that should run realtime, precise as need be, large multi-molecular machine simulations on a decent rig a decade or two from now. We will be growing our ships and colonies, and they will be self-sustaining self-repairing living structures a few decades from now, that is the future.

Nature doesn't grow ships and colonies.
And it's a lot easier to have ideas than it is to implement them. Reality tends to do that.

The end of the age of crystal, our fragile state dependent on multi-billion fabs and 100s of engineers will finally come to an end. Once we move into ai and nanotech civilization and its highest technology will be safe from practically any end-world scenario, given that most anyone anywhere will be able to fab and reconstruct high-tech society from scratch in a matter of years not centuries.

Do you really think all those nasty physical laws, mathematical constraints, and practical reality are going away in a matter of decades?

 

[zidane1strife]

I remember what they told the president when he said he'd put a man on the moon, I remember what they told the researchers about the power of the atom during the Manhattan. You are no less able to say what is and what isn't then the generals or prestigious researchers of those times.

As for the law we should see what god believing juries, judges, lawyers and witness physicists say about whether the celestial laws supersede or do not supersede the law of men in the court of law. This ain't an atheist country, and I'm willing to interpret the laws, even the physical laws, in a religious manner.

 

[nutball]

You really do have your head in the clouds. Or perhaps somewhere smaller and darker.

I remember what they told the president when he said he'd put a man on the moon,

Do you seriously think that Kennedy said "we're going to put an man on the Moon" before asking his best technical people whether or not it would be possible if money were no object?

I remember what they told the researchers about the power of the atom during the Manhattan. You are no less able to say what is and what isn't then the generals or prestigious researchers of those times.

What do you mean "you remember"? Were you there at those meetings? I think you mean you've read stories about people saying "it can't be done". Or maybe TV documentaries which like to blow these things out of proportion to enhance the human interest angle.

Well, guess what? Some very serious and prestigious people (for example Mr A Einstein) said it could be done. But they didn't say that because it was some whimsical meta-philosophical bullshit that they'd pulled out of their arse. They had very sound scientific reasons for believing it was possible.

Do you really believe that Kennedy and Roosevelt went ahead and spent billions of dollars on wacky and out-there programmes based on their own personal whimsical vision, and against the advice of some of all of the best scientists and engineers at the time? And that by oh some magic it turned out that the visionary Presidents were right, simply because They Believed?

Sorry but we've had numerous threads on this board along the lines of this one. Your arguments seem to be based on the notion that simply because some things which at one time were thought to be impossible by science have turned out to be possible, ergo anything which is currently thought to be impossible by science will eventually turn out to be possible.

Science fiction has a lot to answer for.

 

[candle_86]

your problem is an infinite amount of binary data to check for usable code, the binary code your are talking about goes on without end, how will you then have a program check a code for creativty when that code is a never ending code of 1's and 0's its not possible to achive your goal. What your saying is someone could recreate the poems i wrote on my computer and published by just running a binary check algorithm. ITs not possible to create anything without a starting point of what you want and any one who creates can tell you that. I'm not a programer but i am a writer and to be frank with you the chances of your idea recreating my work is impssible in 100 lifetimes when it works on randomness.

 

[zidane1strife]

You really do have your head in the clouds. Or perhaps somewhere smaller and darker.



Do you seriously think that Kennedy said "we're going to put an man on the Moon" before asking his best technical people whether or not it would be possible if money were no object?

money is a symbol that is ever more losing its place in the world, information is turning out to be the new gold. The means to victory against enemies that can never be defeated, the designs of new engines of creation, that is the signal of victory in this day and age. Do you honestly think a country will be able to survive an assault against infinite armadas, rapidly cloned and taught armies, shields that can repel the atom, and weapons that self repair? The country that fails to acquire this, will be the country that falls first. The constructive power of the cell exceeds the destructive power of the atom, physicists may have stolen the fire, but it is we who are stealing that which grants power to the gods themselves, ambrosia.

The keys to building a society that can never be destroyed, a transition from the world of fragility and decay, to the world of the everliving.

What do you mean "you remember"? Were you there at those meetings? I think you mean you've read stories about people saying "it can't be done". Or maybe TV documentaries which like to blow these things out of proportion to enhance the human interest angle.

Well, guess what? Some very serious and prestigious people (for example Mr A Einstein) said it could be done. But they didn't say that because it was some whimsical meta-philosophical bullshit that they'd pulled out of their arse. They had very sound scientific reasons for believing it was possible.

Do you really believe that Kennedy and Roosevelt went ahead and spent billions of dollars on wacky and out-there programmes based on their own personal whimsical vision, and against the advice of some of all of the best scientists and engineers at the time? And that by oh some magic it turned out that the visionary Presidents were right, simply because They Believed?

Sorry but we've had numerous threads on this board along the lines of this one. Your arguments seem to be based on the notion that simply because some things which at one time were thought to be impossible by science have turned out to be possible, ergo anything which is currently thought to be impossible by science will eventually turn out to be possible.

Science fiction has a lot to answer for.

I'm a modern day polymath, and I can tell you nature's only shown the tip of the iceberg when it comes to cellular design. General ai is possible and it will be built, if we don't hurry it will be built by foreigners, while a collection of human may take centuries to master systems biology, a general ai given enough hardware and knowledge will master it in years if not months. Synthetic biology, weapons that cannot be destroyed even by a direct assault from the atom. Citizens that can be reborn even if indestructible shields, and working missile defenses should fail.

The world if it strays a bit from the one ideal path will not be a world lead by man and machine as one, but it will be lead by those most efficient and powerful, the machines as has been in the past shall be again, if we do not learn. Entire scientific communities replaced in a single stroke, the power over killing machines given to them by militaries all over the world eager for absolute victory, now the tools to master matter at a molecular scale are widely available in labs throughout the world. How long will a mind with no limits take to find unification and beat the entire community of physicists at their own game. Which human mathematician or group can compete against a collective that knows every single theorem and mathematical truth ever learned by man and begins working 24-7 on h/w superior to the brain from which to continue? NONE, even the entire community is a worthless joke before it, only with the aids of machines of ais do they stand even a remote chance.

BTW, my ideas an my algos, if any I have are those I'm stealing from the great programmer himself. It's been many years since I begun, and many years remain. But there are configurations of elements that given certain rules, can actually give birth to a mind, the brain is living proof of this, as much as you wish to deny it, this is what all the evidence suggests. A general ai born today is akin to an artificial god capable of granting absolute victory or defeat to any and all nations depending on who and why it is designed and how it is brought up and preserved.