Since sequoia, I have the distinct impression that anything I read or write is being analyzed (but it's not just an impression…)
I mean, how stupid is that?
I saw how AIs work and they are STUPID, but that's not their fault; the real STUPID is who thinks that harvesting tons of data can make him smarter by querying his STUPID spies…
AIs
Re: AIs
It's not stupid. Most of these AI's are scraping places such as github because Microsoft thinks that's okay.
I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft is using Windows to help train these chat bots.
I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft is using Windows to help train these chat bots.
▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░
Re: AIs
@Piero (Grok and God)
I'm not sure, (while also not stating anything).
Our recent knowledge predicts that the universe is flat in global shape (not bending into itself as a sphere or donut or whatever), homogeneous (on large scale), isotropic and infinite. The cosmology finds the "evidence" to these in 3 major (and independent) measurements:
We on Earth hit the jackpot 4 times in a row, so we can be here to ask the question, how was that even possible.
Also, if these are true, we don't need the theory of multiverse, there must be an infinite amount of exact copy of Earth with an exact copy of Piero in our universe, we just don't have enough time and speed to find it in the infinite universe.
I'm not sure, (while also not stating anything).
Our recent knowledge predicts that the universe is flat in global shape (not bending into itself as a sphere or donut or whatever), homogeneous (on large scale), isotropic and infinite. The cosmology finds the "evidence" to these in 3 major (and independent) measurements:
- - the completed map of the cosmic background radiaton
- the Baryon Acoustic Oscillation measurements from the galaxies
- the distribution of galaxies
We on Earth hit the jackpot 4 times in a row, so we can be here to ask the question, how was that even possible.
Also, if these are true, we don't need the theory of multiverse, there must be an infinite amount of exact copy of Earth with an exact copy of Piero in our universe, we just don't have enough time and speed to find it in the infinite universe.
Re: AIs
@miso (infinite Pieros)
This seems to be a VERY good book to support the creationist Grok and one Piero:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062349597
This seems to be a VERY good book to support the creationist Grok and one Piero:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062349597
Re: AIs
I will look at it. I'm just saying, if you have infinite number of dice throws, you will have all the possible sequencies somewhere in any finite scale.
This alone does not prove the existence or nonexistence of a Creator.
This alone does not prove the existence or nonexistence of a Creator.
Re: AIs
@miso
your "we don't need the theory of multiverse", "infinite number of dice throws/earths…" may explain life forms (but see that book amazon page; reviews etc…)
"multiverse" is often used to explain why it's so incredibly fine-tuned (physics constants etc.) to support life (so instead of infinite earths, you need infinite universes)………
your "we don't need the theory of multiverse", "infinite number of dice throws/earths…" may explain life forms (but see that book amazon page; reviews etc…)
"multiverse" is often used to explain why it's so incredibly fine-tuned (physics constants etc.) to support life (so instead of infinite earths, you need infinite universes)………
Re: AIs
Thats true for the physics constants/values of the fundamental forces. Liveable universe is a miracle in its own.(so instead of infinite earths, you need infinite universes)
Purely for life in a liveable infinite and homogeneous flat universe, the infinite Earth theory is fine and possible.
My problem with the multiverse theory is that math allows it, but we wont be able to measure anything that is outside our universe.
Probably always be a theory wether it is real or not.
Re: AIs
Hello piero,
it would be cool not to come with religion (immediate or link).
For the subject of AIs, I coded it near 30 years ago, and there is everything to code an AI on this forum, obviously thank to a chinese friend which appeared here, shared here and disappeared here.
On the basis, you can see, an AI uses an exponential function, floating point variables, and arrays (memory).
We could note that 30 years ago, my hardware was not advanced for the time, so I used integers and simulated based-2 log function. Note that, today, any AIs suggest to their engineers a very simpler hardwared template to build future AIs. I guess this new template does not use floats number, but integers.
And I also guess, this new template does not use trigonometry, but a simulated log function.
And I guess again, this new template has chosen the numeric base to simulate the log function is... two.
It won't be a level of AI which will be out of the mastering of the humankind. But there will any human authors, exactly as, in coding, the problem is and stays between the chair and the computer.
1) flat, I do not think so. But our retinas, to observe the sky, are flat. It is our brain which gives more than 2 dimensions.
There also is an astrophysical expression which describes a geometry of our universe : "flat universe", this means, that globally the universe, has 3 spatial dimensions which are perpendicular as the 3 adjacent edges of a cube. "Flat universe" is opposite to "curve universe". And this "flat universe" is proven by the science which removes everything in this space. It is more a referency, than a reality. Because the humankind has never seen the empty universe. It is a referency to imagine deeper and more complex characterics of the universe.
Note that if the universe turns around a bigger object, from the outside of this system, the universe won't be "flat", it won't be cubic, it won't be in a static and "solid" cube of vacuum. And however, we will get all the physical details which proves the opposite : if everything was removed, a rock cast to a direction won't go out of a rectilinear way, won't gain or loose speedness, thank to the empty space, even if a very big and far object, attracts this rock. This because in these very big scales, it is not the rock which is attracted by a big object, but it is the whole space itself which is attracted, as a fish in an aquarium, in a car, on a horizontal and rectilinear road, in a constant speedness.
2) "homogeneous" : no. If it was real, we would not exist, and all the matter of our universe would be iron. A circle is never perfect, so a sphere is never perfect, so the universe is born with differences, and these difference has grown. So there are very big areas of vaccum inside our universe where there is nothing, no star, nothing, between areas where there are millions of galaxies. "homogeneous" is also a referency, like sociologists who measure the number of demonstrators in a crowd: they agree that the crowd is homogeneous, because their census capabilities are too limited to grasp the real weightings.
3) "acoustic". I said before our retinas are flat (are a 2D surface). Some scientists like convert electromagnetic value to acoustic values. This can be artistic and pedagogic, but really there is "only" electromagnetic energy. Anyway, there is no sound in the universe, because there is no atmosphere to bring a sound. It is again a referency to help us to imagine a galaxy has waves like a swimming pool...
I am tired my friends... I wasted a strong time to edit my text. That is the reason I will concentrate my small brain to a text editor...
it would be cool not to come with religion (immediate or link).
For the subject of AIs, I coded it near 30 years ago, and there is everything to code an AI on this forum, obviously thank to a chinese friend which appeared here, shared here and disappeared here.
On the basis, you can see, an AI uses an exponential function, floating point variables, and arrays (memory).
We could note that 30 years ago, my hardware was not advanced for the time, so I used integers and simulated based-2 log function. Note that, today, any AIs suggest to their engineers a very simpler hardwared template to build future AIs. I guess this new template does not use floats number, but integers.
And I also guess, this new template does not use trigonometry, but a simulated log function.
And I guess again, this new template has chosen the numeric base to simulate the log function is... two.
It won't be a level of AI which will be out of the mastering of the humankind. But there will any human authors, exactly as, in coding, the problem is and stays between the chair and the computer.
I read "flat", "homogeneous" and "acoustic".miso wrote:I'm not sure, (while also not stating anything).
Our recent knowledge predicts that the universe is flat in global shape (not bending into itself as a sphere or donut or whatever), homogeneous (on large scale), isotropic and infinite. The cosmology finds the "evidence" to these in 3 major (and independent) measurements:
- the completed map of the cosmic background radiaton
- the Baryon Acoustic Oscillation measurements from the galaxies
- the distribution of galaxies
1) flat, I do not think so. But our retinas, to observe the sky, are flat. It is our brain which gives more than 2 dimensions.
There also is an astrophysical expression which describes a geometry of our universe : "flat universe", this means, that globally the universe, has 3 spatial dimensions which are perpendicular as the 3 adjacent edges of a cube. "Flat universe" is opposite to "curve universe". And this "flat universe" is proven by the science which removes everything in this space. It is more a referency, than a reality. Because the humankind has never seen the empty universe. It is a referency to imagine deeper and more complex characterics of the universe.
Note that if the universe turns around a bigger object, from the outside of this system, the universe won't be "flat", it won't be cubic, it won't be in a static and "solid" cube of vacuum. And however, we will get all the physical details which proves the opposite : if everything was removed, a rock cast to a direction won't go out of a rectilinear way, won't gain or loose speedness, thank to the empty space, even if a very big and far object, attracts this rock. This because in these very big scales, it is not the rock which is attracted by a big object, but it is the whole space itself which is attracted, as a fish in an aquarium, in a car, on a horizontal and rectilinear road, in a constant speedness.
2) "homogeneous" : no. If it was real, we would not exist, and all the matter of our universe would be iron. A circle is never perfect, so a sphere is never perfect, so the universe is born with differences, and these difference has grown. So there are very big areas of vaccum inside our universe where there is nothing, no star, nothing, between areas where there are millions of galaxies. "homogeneous" is also a referency, like sociologists who measure the number of demonstrators in a crowd: they agree that the crowd is homogeneous, because their census capabilities are too limited to grasp the real weightings.
3) "acoustic". I said before our retinas are flat (are a 2D surface). Some scientists like convert electromagnetic value to acoustic values. This can be artistic and pedagogic, but really there is "only" electromagnetic energy. Anyway, there is no sound in the universe, because there is no atmosphere to bring a sound. It is again a referency to help us to imagine a galaxy has waves like a swimming pool...
I am tired my friends... I wasted a strong time to edit my text. That is the reason I will concentrate my small brain to a text editor...
Re: AIs
@Ollie
I also want to drop the topic, though your insights were appreciated. We won't be the ones who solve these questions.
Just a few thoughts
-BAO : scientists tend to name things in a 'stupid' way, it's not the first time. Of course it's not sound, they just compare to it.
-homogeneous: the universe is not homogeneous in the small scale, but homogeneous on the large scale.
(the parts that are not visible has a similar distribution as the visible parts. This is the cornerstone of modern cosmology)
-flat universe: As you said, it's not 2d flatness, and if flat, its truely infinite from the inside. (you will never reach your startpoint just by going toward one direction as you would in a spherical shape. Its hard to point to a fourth dimension which around a 3d space can be shaped, I think saying flat is fine)
Cosmologist are pretty sure about these today, though all of these has minority reports that say otherwise. So, who knows?
-religious posts: I think this was not a violation of the rule. I can think of things I do not want to see here, but that was not one of those.
I also want to drop the topic, though your insights were appreciated. We won't be the ones who solve these questions.
Just a few thoughts
-BAO : scientists tend to name things in a 'stupid' way, it's not the first time. Of course it's not sound, they just compare to it.
-homogeneous: the universe is not homogeneous in the small scale, but homogeneous on the large scale.
(the parts that are not visible has a similar distribution as the visible parts. This is the cornerstone of modern cosmology)
-flat universe: As you said, it's not 2d flatness, and if flat, its truely infinite from the inside. (you will never reach your startpoint just by going toward one direction as you would in a spherical shape. Its hard to point to a fourth dimension which around a 3d space can be shaped, I think saying flat is fine)
Cosmologist are pretty sure about these today, though all of these has minority reports that say otherwise. So, who knows?
-religious posts: I think this was not a violation of the rule. I can think of things I do not want to see here, but that was not one of those.