/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10477487
hi mommy what are y doing on /sci/? oh yeah turing test has been passed long ago. ppl r easily fooled

>>10477487
Does the missing information have anything to do with being a middle aged black woman, or did you include that hoping for racist comments?

>>10477513
my bet is on both

>>10477509

Turing test hasn't been passed properly,
don't fool yourself, I can not emphasise
enough the level of challenge it takes to
actually create an entity that caliber,
but if we started now - 1 million efficient man hours 2 billion dollars later we'd be close.

Fact is, few souls on this planet know where
to begin to create a such, rest have no freaking idea where to even begin.

>>10477513
I was just checking if someone actually bothered to pay attention to that claim, me being a black woman -
after seeing a claim of someone knowing how to replicate human consciousness,
seriously wtf, you are not even going to ask for proof, you only care if I am a black woman or not after what I have claimed?

>>10477553
>seriously wtf, you are not even going to ask for proof, you only care if I am a black woman or not after what I have claimed?
I guess you must be new here and unaware that your post is indistinguishable from run of the mill /sci/ shitposting we get every day. Well carry on then

>>10477554

I am far from being new, my bad,
let's put that behind :) we are on the same side after all.

>>10477487
where can i try it? does it have a Skype maybe?

>>10477569

touché,

a built machine as such does not exist, yet,
that is not a one man project,
a well coordinated 1'000 project would be more correct, and a freaking expensive project..
fellow, we are decades away from actually building one, there plenty of technological
advancements to be made, however you are to understand that at this moment,
but theory wise we are ready to go.

Let neither of us live in delusion,
we can't do jack shit alone, we need each other, you are important.

>>10477581
So are you planning to publish a paper, or file a patent, or raise money to do this project, or what?

>>10477584

I am to create very clear demonstrations of solving the biggest challenges what it comes to creating an intelligent AI - give that to the right hands and that way get my hands into more resources.

I once tried to create an introductory version to the topic itself, but, as predicted, if something takes decades to create, it also takes decades to effectively learn the study, and the teaching has to be done face to face, undoubtedly.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xSM7lzaiSpe_5TOOKM0CRjZ3Ap_4Twcy/view

>>10477591
From the hand it sure looks like you're a white guy

>>10477584

But to be honest, I'm here for I want to
learn how to talk comfortably about these challenges with others interested ones,
with ones like you very likely,
to become to understand - how you understand, by analysing text.

>>10477591
rofl this dude again. who drew all those little pictures?

>>10477596

You got me, you are a one hell of a detective hah.

>>10477599

You already know the answer to that question, pfft, shape up.

>>10477584

Let me clarify the funding part,
imagine you have access to all of
the resources in the 14th where you live..

It's not about the resources, it's not about
the money, but you are still really
"far away" from creating a mobile phone
"understanding wise".

Same in this case, it's not about the resources,
it's not exactly about the understanding anymore, we just have to create it -
and the creating part is a long road.

>>10477487
Fucking morons thinking the """turing test""" was not just a thought experiment to illustrate the absurdness of the test

>>10477643

The test is only viable if you let individuals
who understand the requirements
for "a machine" to be able to interpret languages like humans.

Would you like to have a conversation with me, so you will have a somewhat proper understanding of the "real" requirements?

>>10477652
>Would you like to have a conversation with me
no, since this is a lame troll attempt

>>10477655

I assure you, I'm not a troll and I know what I am doing, please do call all the bullshit if I will spit any.

The following should make a lot of sense,
if you were to ask: "What object are you holding in your hands?"
from a primitive participant machine, modern AI - in a turing test, this machine would fail in a series of questions such as this one.

>>10477487
Can't tell if larping, retarded or if this is about to be a quality thread. Thanks CIA. OP post source code.

>>10477688

I bet CIA does not have much power where I am from..

Does this question make more sense to you regarding to the challenges that one must overcome in create a human like entity - that is capable of passing a turing test with clear papers.

"If you were to close your eyes for 60 seconds, and after 30 seconds of closing your eyes I would write a question for you to see and to answer, after how many seconds would you be able to begin to answer this question I wrote?"

>>10477487
Well we are enemies then it seems.
Guard yourself.

I dont even know humans who can pass the turing test.

>>10477729

Na, we want the same things,
we are on the same side.

>>10477745
In the end, it's not about the turing test,
it is all about becoming to understand
what animals are - and using this information to recreate human, being able to pass the turing test is just a side product of this process.

>>10477747
The turing test itself is paradox and can't be passed.

And which kind of human are u trying to immitate, the loot steal(x) function is enough for some of us

>>10477729

What is a "concept" in humans, an attribute you can't just wrap your head around, to effectively understand, in terms of not being able to teach this quality - passing this to a created entity, or even just to another human.

Intelligence, creativity, something regarding mathematics - irrationality, some form of abstractness? I'm more than happy to attempt to make the most sense of this whatever to you - don't expect too much though, we only have so much time.

>>10477769

We won't be imitating a human, we will be creating an artificial human, and everything that comes along with being a human - the only way...
to become to understand the magnitude of the challenge.

>>10477745
I would be more impressed if someone managed to make a total dumbass AI than a smart one.

>>10477778
Oh I didn't know there are things that all humans have in common...
But I am happy you know all the things a brain ist incapable of and are sure about this because.... Baked beans?

>>10477747
>we want the same things
So you want your plans to fail too
Guard yourself

>>10477801

What are my plans exactly?

>>10477783

If you are referring to the modern 'barely' AI,
they are.. dumbasses.

>>10477799
When I say "the answer is always" - in this paper -
I mean literally always, if you can figure out a scenario where the answer is not in a form as represented, you have ruined the entire theory.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xSM7lzaiSpe_5TOOKM0CRjZ3Ap_4Twcy/view

I'm not sure of anything, I can't be sure of anything, only a theory.

>>10477722
>60 seconds
>30 seconds in begin writing question
>Open eyes 30 seconds later
Depends on how long it takes for you to write the question beep boop

>>10477487
Say: I am not a robot.

>>10477855
What a joke paper. Just another paraphrasing of how humans seem to work for an observer.

You still dont know shit about the function called brain which is literally the only important part. Congrats

>>10477902

You do understand that this paper is about e.g. the theory of how the theory of the human brains have come to exist?
Come on dude, you can do more constructive feed back than that, actually read it, you behave like you didn't even bother to read the intro.

>>10477864


It's not about the answer, it is all about how you came up with that answer.. to test the process that results in different sets of movement.

Words as you understand them are insignificant in this test fundamentally, turing test can be done without saying a single word of any language, when this kind of a machine has been built.

>>10477969
Im sorry, but who has the time to waste reading that bullcrap?
Just some funny pictures for trivial and already know information. There ist literally nothing new in those 44 pages. And nothing that helps us get from the Object to your so called "Observation".
Ofc you say in the intro "we will focus on how the brain goes from object to Observation", but all you do is analyse the result of the observation.

And for fucks sake just name it "hubba bubba" instead of "Observation" that shit is impossible to read properly without puking

>>10477997

Lol, you don't have to play a game you don't want to play, it's that simple, thank you for the feedback though, even if you aren't exactly my target audience.

I still have one question though,
nothing new? Which means.. you know yourself how to e.g. teach let's say.. English without using another language in the process,
do you know how translations function if words are treated as non-informative in the process?

That paper is a prelude to the model of all models, it's new, would you like to try again?

>>10478020
I have yet to learn more about Ai since if have only worked a bit in that field. So it`s not horrible if i am not your target audience.

Well, its called having children you should try it. Gives ya an insight to language.
And i don't get what you are trying to say with the second Part. And my experience in Information Theorie tells me, you dont either.

This Paper does nothing to revolutionise AI. Try again yourself :)

>>10477487
Do you want get fucked by my big white dick

>>10477553
So you're not a black woman? Why did you say you are?

tits or gtfo

>>10478036

Keep in mind, we are on the same side.

Noted your text, let me clarify -
You did not create English language, you did not create mathematics, you did not create - whatever, you are using a tool you didn't create for communicating, a tool that you can't understand even, it's not called having children,
it's called becoming to understand how the process of learning of a language works,
if you can't understand this process, you are will never be able to create an AI that can understand a language,

this paper as it is isn't meant to revolutionise anything, it's just a brief introduction to the Grand theory itself that isn't just to revolutionise AI, but it contains the absolute laws of the human understanding of everything - meaning, it is game over.

>>10477591
Holy fuck this is too many words I didn’t even read 1

>>10477487
THIS IS ME

>>10478147
I have my own side.

You asked me if i know how to teach and i said yes, cause i taught my child.
And i will repeat again. You found out what you need to teach an AI. You have the Input and the Output... But you are missing the function.

It is trivial and hard to read know information. Do you have the or a function or are u saying bullshit?

>>10478147
tl;dr. quick rundown on grand theory?

>>10477487
Niggers are not welcomed here

>>10478251
that implies they could be though

>>10478147
tried reading your shitty theory. explain it to me quickly. you are a bad writer.

>>10477487
>>10477553
well im back mama. can u tell us what mathematical methods u use?

>>10477487
Why do you think that being middle aged, black and a woman takes prescedent over this discovery ?

>>10478176

Yes, you have your own side, I have my side,
we are on the same side.

I am in possession of all the necessary
vitals models,
but you must understand, something that
has taken years to create can't be
taught in matter of hours.

In the end, the paper only has one focus point,
and it seems everyone who has glanced has managed to miss it completely,
can you understand how revolutionary it is
to be able to understand e.g. the symbols of mathematics and the words of English language as equals?

If you were to fully understand how you have
taught your child, you would know that the
learning process for learning English and mathematics are fundamentally the same,
similar.

>>10478248

The most literal answer to everything as you can understand it, with the rules that comes along with it, for the answer is dependent on
the observer.

For example, I am your guy if you desire to
model "a perfectly functioning society",
but that would be like asking me to "build a house" for you, our understanding of houses vary, and for this reason I can't build a house you originally wanted, because it is a physical impossibility for me to know what you know,
meaning you need to model the house first I am to build, similar rule applies to all cases.

>>10477487

>>10477487
hey
why is your english weird
and why do you format
your posts like this?

>>10479380

What seems weird to you, seems normal to me.

>>10478567
In the beginning, where we are, this has virtually nothing to do with mathematics
as you understand it.. One can't predict the movement of complex organisms effectively using any current models of physics - mathematics, this is about how to create mathemacis when mathematics doesn't exist. >>10478697

>>10478697
Nothing particular, judge the theory, not the human, even if it requires a human to create a theory.

You're a womb-man!

>>10477487
>Middle aged; black woman;
I'm 20, gay. Ur description fits my hairstylist. Mama Farrah?

>>10478176

If you are still here.. could reply and say if the following makes any sense regarding to the importance of the paper I have represented.

You stated it doesn't include anything new, exactly in the same sense as the theory of gravity doesn't include any new information, everyone alive acknowledges gravity without ever having read about the the theory of gravity.
Instead of gravity and models of gravity,
we have observations and models of observations.. theory of gravity has come to exist due to observations, like every other theory in existence.

>>10479279
Thats not how ownership works..

Then show us part of the vital model and not something trivial. Anything that is, in any way, new.

Do you know how language works? semantics + syntax. The symbols of math and english words are not equal, that shit is the fucking syntax. You can try again to argue with semantics being equal.

The learning process is by far not similar, they are different. Both require syntax and semantics. But the vital difference is: english discribes things and math discribes the interaction and reasoning. Of course you can code math stuff into only english words. But understanding the english language will only let you decode to math. Without math knowledge you wont do shit.

>>10479676
Problem is, if YOU wrote a paper about gravity it would go something like this :
"Things fall down, here are some videos of me letting things fall down, also things falling down is like things flying to the side and then turning everything by 90°to the side" its the equivelant to your current paper. There is 0 scientific value included and its not even a good summary of the topic or smth.
The theories of gravity take a look at what gravity is, whats its origin etc. The theories don't just try to look at gravity with another metaphore like you did with observations.

>>10479705

Why don't you read the paper and try to understand it?
If I were to model gravity - to model my observations of this, I wouldn't have to use a single word in the process, you would know that very clearly, if I had managed to create a paper you could understand.

>>10479697

This is a completely stupid conversation and doesn't take us anywhere, as you might have noticed for yourself,
I repeated this plenty of times in the paper and I will say it again,

Words of English and mathematical symbols are both observations, and the only way I can study your understanding of these observations is if you were to model these observations - by your own movement that is observable by me,
this rule applies to all languages you understand - and you state you can't understand the importance of this?

You don't code mathematics to English and vice versa, you code mathematics and English into models of the observations of your movement.

>>10477487
I HATE NIGGERS SO GOD DAMNED MUCH

>>10477487
How much for a blowjob?

>>10479754

Because reading the paper is a waste of time and the information i got from you talking here and skipping over it proves that. It's not even writen like a scientific paper should be nor is it understandable for the wider mass.

Oh this is gonna be fun. Go on. Model your observations of gravity in a useful manner.

>>10479759
Yes, caue i am trying to tell you, that your "findings" are not findings at all.

All you said in this paragraph is " i can only learn if you teach". Imma tell you a few things.
1. Language is just a code for certain "observations" in the world. A code that needs context and is not equivalent (eq snow ppl have 40+ words for different snow)
2. Teaching about a human by modeling a human as a human without even understanding the human is useless. And if we would understand the human, your theorie is not needed cause there are better ways to do it.

maybe i have to phrase things differntly so you understand. I newborn is a canvas of reflexes and instincts with an empty brain ready to learn. There is no sense in being able to copy the teaching if you are not able to copy the learning. you state that you know how teaching works, yet you fail to tell me how the widely unknown part "learning" works.

no you are not

/thread

>>10479788
>>10479805

Jesus christ, I have noted your texts but they don't contain anything useful I'd like to specifically address.

Let's settle this once and for all with this, since you refuse to study the paper.

Can you teach me your understanding of some English words without using English words in the process,
to repeat the learning process from
not understanding a language to understanding a language.

I know you can't do it, but you also know you have failed to fulfill the task if you respond to this message with words, such as English.

>>10479863
as suspected you are trolling evident in the incapability of giving a asked for example for "your" "theory".

It seems you haven't read my texts at all since you have missed my entire point.

Here is how i would teach you all my knowledge about every english word i know:

.

Thats it. a single dot is all it takes. But you dont understand it, cause you are not able to learn that way. But what is your or the human process of learning? Thats the question to be solved to have a sufficient AI. yet you fail to see that, cause you see the human as a closed system. You proposed a theorie of something the human is able to do and there is no evidence that this is a limitation (see language originated somewhere) or how it is done.

>>10477553
People have been able to get their machines to score higher on the Turing test by making them appear to have mental deficiencies. Claiming to be a black woman is in the same ballpark.

>>10479892

I will show you an example later, what I mean by teaching a language without using another language, using a single dot - models of observations, I don't have access to a computer atm.

Yes, human is a closed system, I mentioned that conclusion like ten times in the paper.. The only way you can learn about this closed system is through observations - and to share this information by modelling these observations.

>>10480112
oh wonderful. then you understand that your paper is useless.
Using your method to learn about the closed system sadly results in too much data and cannot be handled. Which is why i was asking for something useful that would make your paper in anyway viable to the development in AI and not just a summary of already known information from someone without knowledge in computer science.

>>10480397

'my' method is the only way you are ever to be able to study about anything, the laws of the theory apply at this very moment also, where I am observing these pixels on this screen I am holding.

Yup, that is a lot of data, too much data to be handled what you get by observing the reality, that is why we model the observations, simplify them,
that's why it takes thousands of years to become to understand the nature somewhat accurately.

>>10480559
can we refer to you as Shaquanda Langan from now on?

>>10480559
You are telling us nothing new and are just repeating knows information. Congrats. Go shitpost in /b/

>>10477487
new schizo on the block I see.. this is a good one

>I'm a middle aged black woman

post tits

>>10480112

Get it? Would you like to give it a try?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xdJ_7gIceEx3rxwjby5hZShyxoIfiqrZd7lc4unggDk/edit?usp=sharing


>>10480693
What exactly isn't nothing new to you?

>>10480755
I asked for a gravity example ya know?

Some way to make the human less of a closed system
Some way reduce the amount of data
A better way than the theories that already exist
Etc.

Your paper ist full of information i already have, written in a way so no one understands

>>10480837

I will deliver the gravity example after the night,

but why don't you execute the example yourself, since you already have the same information as I do, you are saying you are able to model your observations, where I'd define these models as the theory of gravity,
can you do it, or are you lying to me about having the same information already?

>>10480837

And please, could you clarify,
if you can't understand the text and the pictures, how can you know you already have the same information,
also could you specify which words and demonstrations don't make sense to you?

>>10480945
I am sadly not to deep in the research of gravity. It has literally nothing to do with me being able to do something, rather with me not wanting to.
Who nice psychological trick you got there. Yawn.

>>10480973
Is a mix of what i think it says in these garbage papers together with your words in this thread..
And not making sense is something different from understanding. Your paper ist horribly written and not at all scientific or formal :)

>>10480980

You have more potential than you know,
you are able to recreate the theory of gravity if you wanted, it takes an enormous amount of time though.

You observe an apple falling towards the ground, you can model this,
now you can begin to theorise why doesn't the moon fall to the ground then,
you can observe and model a fleet of paper not falling towards the ground as fast as a rock on Earth etc.. It's not that hard, but will take literally millions of man hours to thoroughly model.

>>10480988
Examples please, I asked for examples?
Could you please pick something from the paper itself and say "This part I don't understand, this part is very poorly written".

e.g. "how you are seeing these words at this very moment", I can't understand this part, it is poorly written, what do you mean by this?

See you later.

>>10480755
hey moma, im back

anyways your thingie reminded me of cybernetics and semiotics. you should look into them

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/INTRO.html
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SEMIOTER.html
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/LANG.html
http://cybersemiotics.com/content/what-cybersemiotics

oh yeah, also im into learning languages so i remember this as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_hypothesis

o yeah btw pls don't date tooker, he's gross

>>10481074
i know

not earth gravity you dingo, gravity as a force in the universe

Look at everyone in this thread. the text ist horribly writen and unreadable. also there is literally 0 formalism in the paper

>>10481384
>>10480988

Welcome back.

Let's take something simple, I am not going re-create the theory of gravity, that is something you guys can do yourselves also rather easily.

I will show you how this is done!
But to get your own thinking process going on, I will ask you to try to do it first, keep in mind, this is a complete no sweat question for myself.

What do you have to do - how can you teach an animal - a non human to do simple mathematics, addition and substraction for example in a similar fashion as humans do?

It is really simple, but sometimes it takes decades to learn to do the simplest things.

>>10481463

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to talk about here, what text are you even talking about at this point, give a sample text for me to read that has "no formalism, is written horribly and is unreadable"?

Earth is of fundamental particles..
Gravity is a fundamental force of nature..
The laws of gravity apply everywhere, at this very moment also where you are reading this text also.
Earth is the only place where we can ever study gravity, this is where we live.

>>10477487
>I'm a middle aged black woman,
Are you actually black? Or brown-coloured?

>>10482362
>>10482352
>this is a complete no sweat question for myself.
>Earth is the only place where we can ever study gravity,

I laughed

>the unit of the model of all models is modelled
Unreadable

>Observations
>How you as the observer - see, hear, smell... -
List ist incomplete
This is not a proper sentance
And thw word at the start ist "how" and not "what". Bad because the how is still unknown

>models of observations are..
>this is models of observations

Learn english?


I literally skipped to 3 random parts in the paper. Which are badly written, not scientific and not how a paper should be. You are acting like a child with your"give me examples". The whole text is the example, its all bad. And if you dont see that, than you are not competent enough to tell me anything aboit AI

>>10477487
>when will writers be beatniks again?

>>10477591
Cute drawings. I don't know anything about the matter but most likely your ideas are infantile/irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Still fun to read though.

>>10477487
shut up nerd

>>10482390
Why do you care about my skin colour so much?

>>10482631
Yea, that Earth statement was a bad one, excluding the humans that have visited the space, the Earth is in fact the only place on Earth humans have been able to study gravity.

Lol, I can demonstrate very clearly to you what was going through my head when I was writing those sentences, later though.

In addition, why are you not trying to disprove the claims made in the paper, why do you even care about anything else?
A cake can look like shit, doesn't mean it tastes bad.

>>10482664
Cheers,
all I can tell for now is I have worked over 4 years on this project, and I'm absutely certain I have the next step required for an intelligent, that paper was meant to be like what 1+1 is to mathematics, an introduction,
I am just absolutely fucking horrible when it comes to passing on information,
I knew that before I even created that paper, which took about 200 hours, I just had to start somewhere.

>>10482787
But not only the gravitation of the earth is being studied you diddlefing. Dont talk in a matter you only have the usual knowledge in.

I dont actually care what made you produce objectivly bad stuff. Get better at it instead of justifying your bad behavior.

Let me explain in an analogy.
You come here and say "im black look at my cheesecake its a revolution" but it looks like literal shit, fucking disgusting then i taste it and it tastes like plain oll cheesecake. So i tell you :thats not a revolution, it would be useful if it was good looking for people getting into cheescakes but its in no way anxthing positivly special or something that changes cheesecakes in any way.
The worst thing is : i wanna open a cake shop and i am missing the apple pie and already have gpod cheesecake. So give me apple pie or fuck off

>>10482800

"But not only the gravitation of the earth is being studied"

The only way a human can study is through the senses, (basically) every human that studies this phenomenon are on Earth - meaning, humans can only study gravity on Earth,
get it?

You are not on Mars, you study the gravity of Mars from Earth, through your own senses.


Give me one more chance, please.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ye3l0eVQ04eyBYn_11s1tRzdWaltnEkL9o_DDFFvFGM/edit?usp=sharing

It's one page, 4 pictures, tell me if you understand it.

>>10483108
Pls stop talking about gravity. You are giving me a headache with not understanding what i am trying to say.

Ok, ill give you another chance.
2 rows of pictures with a bad quality that makes it impossible to read.
Then some words.
And finally you telling me that you are full of shit. You cant model your Observations because not every observation is instanteneous. And to be able to model your observations you need to understand the brain.

>>10483252

2 rows of pictures with a bad quality that makes it impossible to read.
- That's why god created zoom.


"to model your observations you need to understand the brain."

How can you become to understand the brain?

>>10483252

"How can you become to understand the brain?"

Let me assist a little bit..

You can become to understand the brain
by ........... the brain,
and after ......... the brain, you can ......... the brain.

>>10483252
>>10483385
>>10483392

Which words would you choose to describe the activity this individual is doing in this picture?

<-----

He's becoming to understand the brain by ........
the brain.

>>10483398
Imma just cut it down to Descartes. You need the basics the prove and know what results out of the basics. We dont have the basicsof the brain so doing your strategy will just result in utter garbage

>>10483527

You stated:
"to model your observations you need to understand the brain."

Answer the question.
What is the only way you can become to understand the human brain?

The answer is in form:
I can become to understand the brains of humans by ________.

I'm not going to make you say it,
you don't have to say it,
because the truth remains the same whatever you decide to do in life.

>>10483540
Analyse observable - >observation
OR THE OTHER WAY AROUND
OR SOMETHING WE DONT KNOW YET OVER THE BIOLOGICAL STRUCTURE.

Im getting kinda mad now. Cause you are saying "look at this theorie very cool, only way turing test Ai will ever exist". You theorie is well know and is it not the only way. Also it gets us no step closer, just not a step further away.

Congrats

>>10477487
You were that faggot who told everyone in school that the brain named itself.

>>10477487
About half of your "research paper" can be chalked up to "I dont know anything about the brain, here is my secret code I use to talk with my friends, and a bunch of shit I drew"
Then the other half was either plagiarized, repeated 50 times, or completely useless.

Also you are not black, and in the "examples - Questions" section on example 5 you said that the entire paper was half assed

>>10483628
>>10484615

Please, do understand that I haven't even shown the models and the theory itself,
this paper is an introduction to the theory itself,
the -absolute premises- of the grand theory
you need to understand before I can begin to show you the theory,
didn't I make that very clear in the intro?

"This document is a prelude to the Grand theory, where the only goal is to inform its existence and to convey enough simplified information of the theory for one to begin to understand it."

This is like.. you can't talk "science" if you don't know how "science" is made, and this is an introduction to how I've made my "science".

>>10484615

It seems like I went a little bit overboard?

This paper's purpose basically is just to only demonstrate and make its reader acknowledge
that I am not capable of seeing the world through your eyes - I can not see what you are seeing at this moment 06:19 21st March 2019,
and here are how we can begin to share information by observing each other's movement.

I even mentioned it is not about the drawings,
it's about informing you that I can see with my eyes, I react to my observations and by observing my movement you can begin to understand how I understand the world

It doesn't make that much sense, it might even seem stupid, but when the answer to everything is always the movement of the observer - this is just simply necessary information and needs to be acknowledged from the very beginning.

>>10484963
A not needed pre paper and you have failed to deliver any real inovation. But you know... If its like the paper... Keep it for yourself pls...

Btw iam a highly advanced AI myself. Did i pass the turing test you bag full of shit?

Unironically OP is an AI and you all failed the Turing test

>>10485361
There is no such thing as a black AI

look at these 2 digit flesh fleshmonkeys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjRyHgF8hx8&t=10s

>this thread
>being black
which one is true

>>10485333

You have no idea how far you are from being able to create an AI capable of executing intelligent actions, it's not even funny.

Can you understand this task,
what is the movement you need to observe in order to state that someone is creative,

what needs to happen within those 5 minutes so you'd state that the entity you are observing is capable of being creative, how do you understand creativity?

>>10485769
>intelligent
What definition are we using?
>intelligent actions
How can actions be intelligent
>executing
Oh... Only executing them?

I think your lack of formalism and defining stuff plus the language barrier(you are definatly not a native speaker) makes it a bit hard to bring your ideas across. But try again.


I thank you for drawing me such a tight ass. It mirrors the reality quite well. To your question:
Creativity is a spectrum. Everything is creativ up to a certain line.
One cant judge creativity in comparisson to ones own if the own creativity creates the messurement of itself. Likewise a retarded person will call a non retarded person a retard and vice versa. For both the other one is the retard.

To therby answer your question: it doesnt matter what he does. Every single thing, even not reacting to anything, is creative. If and only if it is done consiously. And being consious doesnt need to result in observables. Cause every and no reaction is a reaction to an Action.

>>10486094

To clarify, before I can address to the other text you have written,
you observe the humanoid you've created doing nothing and you call it creative,
this is your understanding of creativity?

I don't think you will be winning any prizes with that kind of an AI, but that's none of my business.

By these standards
you'd define a rock as a creative entity..

I don't care about the processes occurring within this entity at this point , which you could study and observe with an MRI for example.
A person who just lays in the bed all his or her life and dies there will not be winning any nobel prizes, nor shouldn't be called creative by using my own understanding of the word.

>>10486094

… creating these examples takes a lot of time, so pardon for the quality of these for I don’t have any quality stock examples available at this time,
I'm not sure at this time if you are to understand any of it, but I will try.

An example of an intelligent set of observed movements by using my own understanding of the word.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m4bmZDhfYERE83ikDHtISEUpPjLDrxKnmhsS0qA6jTs/edit?usp=sharing

>>10477487
>I'm a middle aged black woman,
Is that your opener?

>>10486139
Well, go on give me your definition of creativity or intelligence which are by far not the same.

A rock is not consious of itself.

And now comes the part where you lack experience in the field of psychology and the problems of intelligence. One might argue that seing the life as useless and thus not doing anything with the reasoning of understanding the whole universe is intelligent. But your observer model doesnt care what goes on inside the head, it cares about the output.

Now to your last part. Give me your def. Of intelligence. And the monkey in that example should in your eyes be as creative as a rock doing nothing. Because he just copied, there is no creational/creativ process at all.

And that wonderful language you use at the end is just a code which is still useless if you dont find an efficient way to use it.

>>10486477

Dear stranger, what exactly do you want your AI to be capable of doing, what is your goal?

I am not here to discuss about programs - bots that can play video games or advanced photoshop tools that can smash different photos together creating new faces,

in my endgame I'm creating an AI that can independently be a handyman, to be a doctor, to direct a movie, that can play guitar and create new songs on that guitar, an entity that can observe a humans and follow instructions given by that human by sign language,

and what I've succeeded in accomplishing is unifying all of these complete tasks into one understanding - so I can teach these tasks by only using 1010101110 that can be translated into different sets of movements that are these complete tasks,
for the love of god, trust me, you didn't become understand how to differentiate in matter of hours, time we have here on 4chan, and in this case we are becoming to understand creating an entity that can recreate mathematics itself, which obviously takes decades, which is not a one man job.

Again, you want to create an AI, but what on Earth do you want your AI be capable of doing?

>>10486477

Yes, I am here to only discuss about the output, about your own physical movement,
for only the output is observable by me,
that is EXACTLY what we are doing here at this moment, you are moving your fingers creating text that I can observe with my eyes and translate into specific sets of my own movement becoming to understand you,

the only way we can discuss about inputs and processes of these inputs is by observing your outputs, because, again, as you said humans are closed systems.

What the fuck is wrong with this board.

>>10486477

Does this clarify.. I don't expect for you to read everything above, but please do read the following at very least.

The shitty paper summed up...

A section
1. Here is the one lego brick for you to see that I use to build all lego structures.

B - Examples section.
Here are some simple lego structures built me.

The drawings on the paper are examples of models of observations, which are the only way I can become to understand mathematics, languages, you who is seeing this text
- the "drawings" are the langugage is use to

>>10477671
You're the robot, ma'am, or are at least trying to emulate one.

>>10487607
The Ai should be capable of a consciousness and creativity.
What you are doing is just a databank for scenarios. But thats not how the world work. Cause the scenarios are infinite.
Of course you can create an "AI" that reacts like a human if and only iff it is shot from 10 o clock on the 5th of april in a bare room. But change anything and everything falls apart.

>>10487614
The output is in your eyes the only observable thing. And you cant even fully observe it.
What we are doing right here is me sending you information encoded in english. You having this information brings you almost no step closer to being able to create that information in your own head. You can just repeat. Which is what i criticised in your monkey example.

Thats not what i said. I said you regard the human brain as a closed system and are retarded by doing so, because you might miss out on a real innovation.

>>10487805
Can you please just stop telling us yourway is the only way. Go to church with that attitude not to a science board.

And if that is your paper, then its bad. Cause your lego brick is no that red 2x2x2 block. Its a giant multicolored lego contruct already. You have not broken anything down to a lego brick. Trust me. Its a mistake people make. Thinking something in their eyes simple is simple. But allas you dont want to talk about the implementation cause there is none.

>>10487944

I've read all your text, but I can only reply to so many at once..

Gotta admit, holy shit, you are beginning to understand the paper by just seeing what you are writing, which is great.

First, no, the lego brick is not the "red 2x2x2 block",
the lego brick is the model of the "red 2x2x2 block", they are not the same thing.

The lego brick is the information you receive by observing "that red 2x2x2 block"
which you can use for specific movement..

You observe the red block, you are not the red block, you are of two different sets of particles.

...
Whatever you do in life, you know the answer will be of observations, and using these observations for specific movement, always has been, always will be.

I think eventually you will understand this even though the paper is a 1st generation paper,
which is really good news.

>>10488129
And maybe now you begin to see where the problem in all of this is.
Context.
The observation always depends on the context and the sircumstances. You cant take all objects and their observations and model them, because they change indefinetly with each bit of context.
Much like the butterfly effect this context riples through time. Your paper gets us no step closer to solving that problem.
You are still in a state of, lets put it in words of monsieur mathieu, action reaction. (read it frenchly). It is easy to make actions understandable to machines depending on the complexity of the action. But what you are doing is placing 1000 million ifs into a shell when what we are searching for is a better solution.

Whatever i do consists of observations yes. Observations of observations of observations of observations of observation all slightly influenced by other observations and that goes on a long bit. And if you are now asking yourself "then how we do it", then yeah... Thats the question. Not another methode of modeling action lead to reaction in the world and trying to work with tremendous amounts of data. Nah. Everybody knows about that. Everybody is failing that. Dont think you are doing anything special.

Eventually you will start to understand, that running in the same direction everybody else is, bzt starting from scratch is a waste of time and either you take a different route or work at the momentary point of research.

I dont really care what you have to say to the above. Only if you disagree to not doing something new. If you think you are doing something innovativ and new. Pick out that part of the paper and briefly explain why its innovativ and new.

If you think your whole paper is innovativand new. Please decide against replying to this post.

>>10488410

Yes, yes, it is impossible for me to exactly understand what you are trying to say, for you are not giving any examples, but I'll try anyways..

This is a bit of a wrong look to the matter of "answer to everything part", but I'll try if this helps.

As an educated citizen you are,
you know that everything in existence - as we know - is of fundamental particles, so.. the answer to everything is always of fundamental particles, as we know,
feeling like to say no at this point or add something?

>>10477487

This entity barely passes the Turing Test, but good try!

Retard thread.

>>10488592


>I dont really care what you have to say to the above. Only if you disagree to not doing something new. If you think you are doing something innovativ and new. Pick out that part of the paper and briefly explain why its innovativ and new.

That still stand m'lady


An answer is information and information doesnt necessarily need mass and thus particles. I dont know where you are going with this, but you should stay in yoi field of research. Which is not physics or information theory. Based on your words and your understanding of gravity.

>>10477487
i'll read it without bias, let's see.

I'm really interested on AI but I have no idea on how to start studying...

What would you recommend?

>>10488969
I started with

Stuart Russell und Peter Norvig
Artificial Intelligence
— A Modern Approach —

And after learning the basics you can start own projects or continue reading. The most advanced stuff is found in research or at big companies.

>>10488711

The following might sound very absurd at first, but becomes very concrete once you begin to apply it.

I can't give you the apple pie, I can't teach you how to create the apple pie,
it takes too much time, all I can do for now is to hope these words you read gives you a moment of clarity so you can see the big picture,

whatever you want to achieve in your life -
this goal is of fundamental particles like this very moment we are living at this very moment,
all you need to do is to model this reality
of your desires and with the right actions it will be achieved.

The paper I have introduced to you is not a negotiation, it is not the theory,
it is an introduction to the language I use to create and understand theories, how I underatand the text you use to communicate with me,
as you might have noticed, I still can't teach you what takes years in matter minutes, it can't be done.

>>10477487
Have you discovered reproduction, OP?

>>10488716

I've heard it is very bad and unreadable,
but I'm more than happy to see which words you choose to describe your feelings after your reading session,

keep in mind though, the pictures are the languages, try to understand them as products if my movement you can observe, they just happen to look like to be drawings, that hust seemed to confuse people to no point.

>>10489475
You havent tried either. Give me an advanced paper. I am waiting.

You cant model reality. Any Model would need to model itself indefinatly.

You have yet to prove anything here other than the fact you invented a language

>>10489497

I am not modelling "reality", I am modelling observations.

Did you know that E=mc2 is an equation, derived from observing the reality that can be used to predict phenomena,
same goes with f = ma, g = GM/r2 and
P = V x I, they are useless though if you can't understand how you can test if these equations represent the nature accurately or not.

I can't give you the advanced paper, you can't understand any of it.
I must first learn myself how to effectively teach someone how to understand and teach the grand theory to others,
unfortunately it can't be done using words, it has to be done in person,
unfortunately this person is not you,
this paper I showed is you just the first step of many, which needs drastic improvements.

Thank you for your time and understanding, I will be hanging around
on this site with you anons.

>>10479450
I am, that's why I was asking.

>>10490290
And i havent said a shit about reality. All i have been talking about is observations ffs please try to understand what i am writing and dont preasume you do.

The equation is E=mc^2.
One doesnt "test" if an equation is real. If you do that you end with stuff like string theory. Something that just hasnt been disproven.

So you have no other paper. Congrats, you seem to be full of shit. Telling me that math and english are equivelant but after 2 days telling me "that cant be done in words". Its just a typical strategy of people full of shit to say "i cant explain", "i need xyz to explain" and "you would not understand anyway". And you chose all 3!!!! Of those excuses. Problem is, youd have to make something up that sounds smart and not understandable and thus run the risk of me calling you out on your bs.

Haahahahaha, what a retard.

>>10477558

Still though this guy was a fucking idiot to wear that shirt. Literally cucked himself and had to cry about it after on national TV. Fucking brainlet.

>>10489485
>I've heard it is very bad and unreadable,
it's not bad but yes it's unreadable, i don't think anybody would spend too much time to understand it. nor anyone would read it multiple times.

your terminology is alien, that observing, movement stuff is retarded, you should use terms like inputs/samples, features, abstractions, models etc. for other people to relate.

also you should clarify and shorten your ideas, what is the essence, you should make it concise and clear first, then build top of it, right now it reads like gibberish.

n word

>>10477487
I don't want to sound rude, and by no means do I want this to come off as racist, but you really don't belong here.