Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2720 talk.philosophy.misc:1636 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!ukma!rutgers!soleil!peru From: peru@soleil.UUCP (Dave Peru) Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Artificial Intelligence and Brain Cancer Message-ID: <506@soleil.UUCP> Date: 28 Nov 88 17:08:23 GMT Organization: GE Solid State, Somerville, NJ Lines: 62 I know AI research is building smart-tools for smart-people, but for a moment, let's get back to the idea of TRUE Artificial Intelligence. Whatever your definition of intelligence, let's get back to the idea of building a "Terminator", or a "Commander Data". Assume the universe is deterministic, consider the following paragraph from "Beyond Einstein" by Kaku/Trainer 1987: "As an example, think of a cancer researcher using molecular biology to probe the interior of cell nuclei. If a physicist tells him, quite correctly, that the fundamental laws governing the atoms in a DNA molecule are completely understood, he will find this information true but useless in the quest to conquer cancer. The cure for cancer involves studying the laws of cell biology, which involve trillions upon trillions of atoms, too large a problem for any modern computer to solve. Quantum mechanics serves only to illuminate the larger rules governing molecular chemistry, but it would take a computer too long to solve the Schrodinger equation to make any useful statements about DNA molecules and cancer." Using this as an analogy, and assuming Kaku/Trainer were not talking about brain cancer, how big a computer is big enough for intelligence to evolve? Can someone give me references to any articles that make "intelligent" guesses about how much computing power is necessary for creating artificial intelligence? How many tera-bytes of memory? How many MIPS? Knowing the recent rates of technological development, how many years before we have machines powerful enough? Am I wasting my time on weekends trying to create artificial intelligence on my home computer? Should I buy another 2 mega-bytes of memory? :-) In a previous article someone made reference to what I meant by "know" in my statement "know how to solve problems". If you don't KNOW what KNOW "means", then you don't KNOW anything. I "mean", we have to start somewhere, or we can't have a science. Without duality, science has no meaning. Do you remember the scene from the movie "Terminator" when Arnold uses a razor blade to cut out his damaged eye, pretty good hand-eye coordination for a machine. How many of you out there were rooting for the Terminator? I love the affect of the idea "Artificial Intelligence" has on society. With an army of "Commander Data" androids, why would any corporation keep any human workers at all. Of course, after a few years, a bright hard-working bottom-line lean-and-mean android will become CEO. Irrational silly human beings are so inefficient, I like working seven days a week, 24 hrs/day. Does anyone have any references to any studies on myths and misconceptions the population may have about AI research? I'm sure I'm not the only one that watches sci-fi movies. Maybe teenagers think there's no point to studying since androids are just around the corner, maybe they're right! With all the money banks pump into AI research, I thought we would have an "intelligent" stockbroker last year. Please send responses to "talk.philosophy.misc" or send me email. P.S. In reference to "Assume the universe is deterministic", I think the universe is analog and cannot be described digitally.