Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

  • Erstellt am 2021-04-23 10:46:58

i_b_n_a_n

2023-01-12 19:51:26
  • #1

I believe I know quite well the current limits of machines. But I was also asking about the (your) definition of intelligence. A well-made “expert system” already convincingly pretends to the user, as you said, that there is a real human being on the other end of the line. For example, in the area of automatically generated texts (newspaper, lyrics, etc.) atrocious things are currently happening in my opinion. Not everyone can use that yet (fortunately). But I actually mean the point in time when “artificial intelligences develop their own consciousness.” And many scientists and other experts largely agree that this will never happen (unfortunately I couldn’t find the definition of “never” in this context). Maybe I’m just reading the wrong books and magazines? But in 30 years I personally consider that impossible. I have now been working in IT for over 35 years. If I extrapolate the development over this period, I can’t help but put in at least 200 to 300 years for that.

Most likely I will no longer be able to verify that... too bad? If you turn out to be right, I might have the bad luck to experience it...
 

kati1337

2023-01-12 20:58:48
  • #2
The limitations of AI can be seen quite quickly with these newfangled AI art generators. At first glance, they are impressive, but basically, they can do nothing more than copy and mix together. Sometimes they produce quite nice results, but basically, this is not a creative process, it is plagiarism combined with big data. Without proper data to "learn" from, the generators can do nothing. And that data is man-made.

I am also skeptical about the consciousness thing. We don’t even really know what consciousness is in humans, or how it works. We can do brain surgery, but the percentage of the human brain that we truly understand is surprisingly low. I once saw a documentary with a brain surgeon from the Berlin Charité, it was very interesting. He basically said that we only know that we know nothing.
 

xMisterDx

2023-01-12 21:25:36
  • #3


You see. I am always skeptical whenever anyone says that will never happen. If you look at it… 150 years ago people thought the human body would explode if it moved at 25 km/h in a train. People also thought it was impossible to fly. For a long time, it was believed that atoms were built like dough with raisins. People thought the smallest particles were nucleons, people thought structural widths in the single-digit nm range were not achievable…

If I think back 30 years, phones still had cables and stood in the hallway.

The problem is you extrapolate linearly. But technological progress does not work that way; it runs exponentially in leaps.

If I were to extrapolate linearly from 1900 to today, we might have only just reached the jet engine yesterday.

Just my opinion, no matter what the experts say.

PS: By the way, if 2 machines are able to develop their own efficient language… already 5 years ago and that surprised all researchers. Then I consider the statement "machines will NEVER be able to attain consciousness" to be quite bold. Essentially, this development was already a primitive consciousness, an autonomous action of machines that had not been taught to them before.
 

WilderSueden

2023-01-12 21:32:04
  • #4
That’s obvious too. Either a program derives its actions from what someone once programmed. That’s the classic way, which by the way is still more justified more often than all the data evangelists believe. Or it runs statistics on steroids, mixed with brute force. That’s the modern approach, nicely packaged as machine learning. And even if we can’t foresee the future ... it’s unlikely that someone will find a completely different way. But when you ask it a question, it reminds me of various classmates back then. Not understanding the question and therefore spewing everything they somehow knew about the topic. That may be human, but it does not show particular intelligence ;)
 

kati1337

2023-01-12 22:01:47
  • #5
To get back to the topic, we will probably be ordering some of the sanitary fixtures that we already had in the first house for house no. 2. So exactly the same items, and probably from the same shop.
For our Villeroy & Boch Artis washbasin in white with CP we paid €285.17 in 2020. The same one costs €329.99 today.
Our "Metris" faucet from Hansgrohe (the high one), back then €187.56, today €249.99.

Wall tiles for the bathroom were included in the standard package from the general contractor at that time, therefore €35 / m² or less.
Today about €46.04 / m², offer dated October 2022.
 

i_b_n_a_n

2023-01-12 22:46:47
  • #6
No idea how you got the nonsense that I interpolated linearly. I said that I have 35 years in IT... The statement is not from me ... I assume you are just as much a layman in the field as I am. That’s why I trust the scientist(s) with the statement more than you ;-) THAT, on the other hand, I consider an extremely bold statement (consciousness in that context) But these are all just opinions we exchange. Reality will always turn out completely different than any of us even remotely think – that’s the beauty of life with its surprises ;-)
 

Similar topics
23.12.2015Villeroy & Boch O-Novo including WC seat experiences13
06.11.2017Villeroy & Boch Combipool Invisible26
07.06.2022Which wall toilet: Villeroy & Boch, Geberit, Duravit???39

Oben