Second Generation OS with VR and AI...

[Chase]

>On 2001-12-14 15:02:41, weddy wrote:
>>On 2001-12-13 17:25:47, Chase wrote:

>>lol, We can't tell you our webiste location?-)
>Obviously because they don't have one. If they
>did, people would expect content and not just this
>kind of nebulous trash.

That's going to be my phase for the day, "nebulous trash"

>My guess is it's a twelve year old kid who knows
>how to write hello world in visual basic.

The even scarier thing is that I've seen pojects stating their
goals are about the same, AI, etc....

[Guest]

>On 2001-12-18 11:07:51, Chris Chance - CoreDesigns wrote:
>I would say that the MLE is taking the privacy a
>little to far and that you should give some
>information i will be emailing you soon for some
>information and post my analysis to the board.


Yes, I for one am very interested and could use
a good laugh.


>As for the impossibility of PURE AI that is a
>false statement and should be stricen. The word
>impossible should never be used in a programmers
>vocabulary.


On the contrary, it's used quite often! Take for
example the halting problem, or proof that P is
or is not equal to NP. Good programmers should
be computer scientists and should be aware of
these types of things.

I don't know what you mean by "pure AI", but I'd
guess it's not a very realistic goal ...

[weddy]

>On 2001-12-18 11:07:51, Chris Chance - CoreDesigns wrote:
>I would say that the MLE is taking the privacy a
>little to far and that you should give some
>information i will be emailing you soon for some
>information and post my analysis to the board.


Yes, I for one am very interested and could use
a good laugh.


>As for the impossibility of PURE AI that is a
>false statement and should be stricen. The word
>impossible should never be used in a programmers
>vocabulary.


On the contrary, it's used quite often! Take for
example the halting problem, or proof that P is
or is not equal to NP. Good programmers should
be computer scientists and should be aware of
these types of things.

I don't know what you mean by "pure AI", but I'd
guess it's not a very realistic goal ...

[MLE®]

MacroLabs will soon be releasing some of its INOX information publicly.

[An OS programmer, interes]

>On 2001-12-27 17:32:44, MLE® wrote:
>MacroLabs will soon be releasing some of its INOX information publicly.

This message is not only intended to MLE but
to every programmer and more generally to
humans.

It's great to have
such an OS but I don't think that just another
OS will change something. I have cruised
the Net and found hundreds of OS. Everyone
claimed it would be the best in a near future.
But appart from Linux I didn't see anything
becoming "the best".
And I've also seen many VR + AI projects.
I think VR is just a matter of computer speed
and I'm sure MLE will manage to make it.
It's another matter for AI. Since decades people
tried to achieve that goal. Since decades power
has been increasing. And noone managed to do
something really wonderful. So if someone
want to do it, he should
first think about a special device
like "AICPU". Software alone won't manage to
reach an intelligence coparable to the humain
brain (after all, the brain is a special device
powered by software i.e. the connexions between
neurones). But another question arises.
Won't it be too dangerous for the human kind
having such an OS ? Read the short story entitled
"Robot dreams", by Isaac Asimov and think.
It's up to you to decide...

Happy new year to everybody

[Schol-R-LEA]

>On 2001-12-22 00:39:38, weddy wrote:
>>On 2001-12-18 11:07:51, Chris Chance - CoreDesigns wrote:
>I don't know what you mean by "pure AI", but I'd
>guess it's not a very realistic goal ...

"Pure AI" is the difference between having a
sophont inside of the machine, and having a
sophist in front of it.

That is to say, "pure AI" would be a system that
solve the 'hard AI problem' - a sentient machine,
in other words.

This is opposed to 'soft' or 'conventional' AI -
heuristic tools like expert systems and so forth,
programs which seem to behave intelligently but
are in fact simply following a set of complex
rules and heuristics (a heuristic being, for most
purposes, defined as a rule or group of rules
that can be used to extrapolate from incomplete
or inaccurate data, to produce an adequately
accurate result on an adequately frequent basis -
and are used to reproduce the kinds of hunches,
rules of thumb, best guess answers, and so forth
that a human exper would use). This kind of AI is
fairly common, but it's hard to see how you would
apply it to an OS - the only thing that coms to
mind is some kind of adaptive UI, and every test
done so far shows that self-adaptivity in a user
interface is a Bad Thing (consider the sort of
crap that happens in W2K because of 'adaptation':
"Hey, where did the Foobar menu go?" "Oh, the
system detected that you were using it very
frequently, so it moved it to someplace easier to
reach." "But now I can't find it!" Just brillant,
right?).

Perhaps he should get together with our old pal Mentalcase - sorry, I meant 'Mentifex'. I'll bet that between the two of them, they could beat the Turing Test - and pass for human themselves.