Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #159663 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-18 13:33 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-02-22 07:38 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 56 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
The True Aficionado? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-18 13:33 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-19 20:42 -0800
Re: The True Aficionado? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-20 11:11 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-20 05:06 -0800
Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-20 15:11 -0800
Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-21 15:48 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-21 13:43 -0800
Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-23 13:13 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 06:06 -0800
Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 04:40 +1100
Re: The True Aficionado? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-23 09:50 -0800
Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-24 13:40 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 03:14 +1100
Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-01 13:55 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 01:30 +1100
Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-02 14:19 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 03:51 +1100
Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 13:39 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-03 16:18 +0100
Re: The True Aficionado? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 03:52 +1100
Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-04 13:22 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-04 16:33 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-04 15:47 -0600
Re: The True Aficionado? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:04 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-05 13:57 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 11:40 -0800
Re: The True Aficionado? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-06 23:18 -0600
Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-04 17:18 +0100
Re: The True Aficionado? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-04 22:09 -0500
Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-05 13:57 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-05 14:36 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-06 14:08 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 02:03 +1100
Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-06 17:28 +0100
Re: The True Aficionado? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 11:54 -0800
Re: The True Aficionado? "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 07:39 +1100
Re: The True Aficionado? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 17:24 -0700
Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-05 18:43 +0100
Re: The True Aficionado? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 11:34 -0800
Re: The True Aficionado? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-07 16:24 -0600
Re: The True Aficionado? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 03:45 +1100
Re: The True Aficionado? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-03 16:01 -0600
Re: The True Aficionado? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-20 20:59 -0800
Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-20 23:14 -0800
Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 16:33 +0100
Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:19 +1100
Re: The True Aficionado? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-21 08:56 -0800
Re: The True Aficionado? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-21 12:22 -0600
Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:50 +1100
Re: The True Aficionado? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-21 22:49 -0800
Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 19:32 +1100
Re: The True Aficionado? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-22 09:23 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-22 17:17 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-22 11:30 +0000
Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:38 +1100
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 13:33 +0000 |
| Subject | The True Aficionado? |
| Message-ID | <na4h2j$kvc$1@dont-email.me> |
The True Aficionad is interested in the computer itself as a wonderful machine and not in any uses to which it might be put. Discuss (10 marks)
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mentificium@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 20:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7b1b2b26-e594-433c-b2bf-963bd4324c24@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159663 |
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 5:33:57 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: > The True Aficionad is interested in the computer itself as a wonderful > machine and not in any uses to which it might be put. > > Discuss > > (10 marks) The True Afficionado is interested in the ultimate apotheosis of the computer which is AI. http://ai.neocities.org/P6AI_FAQ.html Mentifex -- Prediction: In 2017 the next president will be Jeb Bush. Anyone who gets in the way of the Bush Family Mafia will be eliminated. If Donald Trump begins to succeed, he is subject to "an unfortunate accident" and Jeb Bush wins.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 11:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <na9hg0$d1c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #159906 |
<mentificium@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7b1b2b26-e594-433c-b2bf-963bd4324c24@googlegroups.com... > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 5:33:57 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: >> The True Aficionad is interested in the computer itself as a wonderful >> machine and not in any uses to which it might be put. > The True Afficionado is interested in the ultimate > apotheosis of the computer which is AI. Encapsulating your own thinking into a machine is not AI, but merely a repository of your own thoughts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mentificium@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 05:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3f5f7f8a-7a58-4589-88c4-7f5e2ec6c80e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159917 |
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:11:47 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: > <mentificium@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:7b1b2b26-e594-433c-b2bf-963bd4324c24@googlegroups.com... > > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 5:33:57 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: > >> The True Aficionad is interested in the computer itself as a wonderful > >> machine and not in any uses to which it might be put. > > The True Afficionado is interested in the ultimate > > apotheosis of the computer which is AI. > > Encapsulating your own thinking into a machine is not AI, but > merely a repository of your own thoughts. Very true -- but creating a machine that can think its own thoughts is Strong AI and a branching of psychological evolution. -- http://ai.neocities.org/AiSteps.html http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FKJY1WY http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Mind.Forth http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=307824.307853
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052C342E7E049D@aca405fb.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #159920 |
mentificium@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:11:47 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: >> <mentificium@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:7b1b2b26-e594-433c-b2bf-963bd4324c24@googlegroups.com... >> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 5:33:57 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: >> >> The True Aficionad is interested in the computer itself as a wonderful >> >> machine and not in any uses to which it might be put. >> > The True Afficionado is interested in the ultimate >> > apotheosis of the computer which is AI. >> >> Encapsulating your own thinking into a machine is not AI, but >> merely a repository of your own thoughts. > > Very true -- but creating a machine that can think its own thoughts > is Strong AI and a branching of psychological evolution. > So your idea of an AI machine is one whose processes are not reproducible? That's not a machine which "thinks" well. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mentificium@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 15:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6d94aca2-d218-4e17-a24e-fc0219c6f4a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159926 |
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:18:27 AM UTC-8, jmfbahciv wrote: > mentificium@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:11:47 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: > >> <mentificium@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:7b1b2b26-e594-433c-b2bf-963bd4324c24@googlegroups.com... > >> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 5:33:57 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: > >> >> The True Aficionad is interested in the computer itself as a wonderful > >> >> machine and not in any uses to which it might be put. > >> > The True Afficionado is interested in the ultimate > >> > apotheosis of the computer which is AI. > >> > >> Encapsulating your own thinking into a machine is not AI, but > >> merely a repository of your own thoughts. > > > > Very true -- but creating a machine that can think its own thoughts > > is Strong AI and a branching of psychological evolution. > > > So your idea of an AI machine is one > whose processes are not reproducible? ^^^^^ If "whose" applies here (and it does :-) thank you for conceding that the AI machine is a "who" -- a person. > > That's not a machine which "thinks" well. > > /BAH ATM -- http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007ZI66FS -- The Art of the Meme; http://www.linkedin.com/in/mentifex -- updated today 20feb2016; http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=307824.307853 = Mind.Forth https://groups.google.com/d/msg/net.ai/IJpSNRGEE7w/70BtsqcpRDoJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 15:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052C491492A67D@aca432a0.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #159990 |
mentificium@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:18:27 AM UTC-8, jmfbahciv wrote: >> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: >> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:11:47 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: >> >> <mentificium@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:7b1b2b26-e594-433c-b2bf-963bd4324c24@googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 5:33:57 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: >> >> >> The True Aficionad is interested in the computer itself as a wonderful >> >> >> machine and not in any uses to which it might be put. >> >> > The True Afficionado is interested in the ultimate >> >> > apotheosis of the computer which is AI. >> >> >> >> Encapsulating your own thinking into a machine is not AI, but >> >> merely a repository of your own thoughts. >> > >> > Very true -- but creating a machine that can think its own thoughts >> > is Strong AI and a branching of psychological evolution. >> > >> So your idea of an AI machine is one >> whose processes are not reproducible? > ^^^^^ > If "whose" applies here (and it does :-) > thank you for conceding that the AI machine > is a "who" -- a person. You are the one with that premise. Now answer the question. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mentificium@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 13:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c9c02d21-cd06-4ad8-ad41-83bd28addd6f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160038 |
On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 7:47:17 AM UTC-8, jmfbahciv wrote: > mentificium@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:18:27 AM UTC-8, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: > >> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:11:47 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: > >> >> <mentificium@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:7b1b2b26-e594-433c-b2bf-963bd4324c24@googlegroups.com... > >> >> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 5:33:57 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: > >> >> >> The True Aficionad is interested in the computer itself as a > wonderful > >> >> >> machine and not in any uses to which it might be put. > >> >> > The True Afficionado is interested in the ultimate > >> >> > apotheosis of the computer which is AI. > >> >> > >> >> Encapsulating your own thinking into a machine is not AI, but > >> >> merely a repository of your own thoughts. > >> > > >> > Very true -- but creating a machine that can think its own thoughts > >> > is Strong AI and a branching of psychological evolution. > >> > > >> So your idea of an AI machine is one > >> whose processes are not reproducible? > > ^^^^^ > > If "whose" applies here (and it does :-) > > thank you for conceding that the AI machine > > is a "who" -- a person. > > You are the one with that premise. Now answer the question. > > /BAH The AI that I am creating in Perl at http://ai.neocities.org/perlmind.txt is a combination of my four previous AI Minds: http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Mind.Forth in English; http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Wotan in German; http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Mind in English; http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Dushka in Russian. The processes of the AI Mind are "reproducible" only up to a point. If no user input is entered into the AI Mind, its processes are deterministic and therefore reproducible. But user input is a jumble of randomness, and so an AI life is not reproducible any more than a human life is. Btw (by the way) I hope to provide an orignal "prior art" AI that leads to a kind of "pre-Cambrian explosion" of AI life-forms. By calling the Perl AI "Ghost", I hint at the idea of "The Ghost in the Machine" and at "The Soul of a New Machine" by T. Kidder. By one estimate, there are ca. 477,000 Perl programmers out there, many of them making good money coding in Perl: "the glue of the Internet." Here is my annotation of today: **** Sun.21.FEB.2016 7:03 a.m. Logging in to NeoCities. "ai" has 19.5K views. Uploading ghost082.pl as "perlmind.txt" "stable for English and German" **** My Perl AI webpages receive about one hundred pageviews per day in recent weeks of 2016, but not so many on weekends as on weekdays. From the scarcity of visits on weekends, I am happy to conclude that well-paid Perl coders check into my Perl AI progress on weekdays when they are at work, not on weekends. Since the perlmind.txt webpage has no hit-counter on it, I like to think that most accesses are being made to the code, not to the various ".html" pages. I dream on further that in corporate boardrooms the tech VP is saying... ah, well, never mind. Bye BAH for now. ATM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 13:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052C5C2FA4288E@aca40f57.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #160069 |
mentificium@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 7:47:17 AM UTC-8, jmfbahciv wrote: >> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: >> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:18:27 AM UTC-8, jmfbahciv wrote: >> >> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: >> >> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:11:47 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: >> >> >> <mentificium@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:7b1b2b26-e594-433c-b2bf-963bd4324c24@googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 5:33:57 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: >> >> >> >> The True Aficionad is interested in the computer itself as a >> wonderful >> >> >> >> machine and not in any uses to which it might be put. >> >> >> > The True Afficionado is interested in the ultimate >> >> >> > apotheosis of the computer which is AI. >> >> >> >> >> >> Encapsulating your own thinking into a machine is not AI, but >> >> >> merely a repository of your own thoughts. >> >> > >> >> > Very true -- but creating a machine that can think its own thoughts >> >> > is Strong AI and a branching of psychological evolution. >> >> > >> >> So your idea of an AI machine is one >> >> whose processes are not reproducible? >> > ^^^^^ >> > If "whose" applies here (and it does :-) >> > thank you for conceding that the AI machine >> > is a "who" -- a person. >> >> You are the one with that premise. Now answer the question. >> >> /BAH > > The AI that I am creating in Perl at > > http://ai.neocities.org/perlmind.txt > > is a combination of my four previous AI Minds: > > http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Mind.Forth in English; > > http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Wotan in German; > > http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Mind in English; > > http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Dushka in Russian. > > The processes of the AI Mind are "reproducible" > only up to a point. If no user input is entered > into the AI Mind, its processes are deterministic > and therefore reproducible. But user input is a > jumble of randomness, and so an AI life is not > reproducible any more than a human life is. So how do you debug a problem? How do you determine that a fix really fixes the bug if you can't reproduce it? > > Btw (by the way) I hope to provide an orignal > "prior art" AI that leads to a kind of > "pre-Cambrian explosion" of AI life-forms. > > By calling the Perl AI "Ghost", I hint at > the idea of "The Ghost in the Machine" and > at "The Soul of a New Machine" by T. Kidder. I can tell you that the soul of a machine is a conglomerate of the developers and other workers who did the work to produce the hard/software. > > By one estimate, there are ca. 477,000 Perl > programmers out there, many of them making > good money coding in Perl: "the glue of the > Internet." Here is my annotation of today: > > **** Sun.21.FEB.2016 > > 7:03 a.m. Logging in to NeoCities. "ai" has 19.5K views. > Uploading ghost082.pl as "perlmind.txt" "stable for English and German" > > **** > > My Perl AI webpages receive about one hundred > pageviews per day in recent weeks of 2016, > but not so many on weekends as on weekdays. > From the scarcity of visits on weekends, I > am happy to conclude that well-paid Perl coders > check into my Perl AI progress on weekdays > when they are at work, not on weekends. > > Since the perlmind.txt webpage has no > hit-counter on it, I like to think that > most accesses are being made to the code, > not to the various ".html" pages. > > I dream on further that in corporate > boardrooms the tech VP is saying... > ah, well, never mind. Bye BAH for now. 'ta. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mentificium@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 06:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c53024e4-2808-497a-8e66-61a357e3b47b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160152 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 5:14:47 AM UTC-8, jmfbahciv wrote: > mentificium@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 7:47:17 AM UTC-8, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: > >> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:18:27 AM UTC-8, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> >> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:11:47 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: > >> >> >> <mentificium@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> >> news:7b1b2b26-e594-433c-b2bf-963bd4324c24@googlegroups.com... > >> >> >> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 5:33:57 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: > >> >> >> >> The True Aficionad is interested in the computer itself as a > >> wonderful > >> >> >> >> machine and not in any uses to which it might be put. > >> >> >> > The True Afficionado is interested in the ultimate > >> >> >> > apotheosis of the computer which is AI. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Encapsulating your own thinking into a machine is not AI, but > >> >> >> merely a repository of your own thoughts. > >> >> > > >> >> > Very true -- but creating a machine that can think its own thoughts > >> >> > is Strong AI and a branching of psychological evolution. > >> >> > > >> >> So your idea of an AI machine is one > >> >> whose processes are not reproducible? > >> > ^^^^^ > >> > If "whose" applies here (and it does :-) > >> > thank you for conceding that the AI machine > >> > is a "who" -- a person. > >> > >> You are the one with that premise. Now answer the question. > >> > >> /BAH > > > > The AI that I am creating in Perl at > > > > http://ai.neocities.org/perlmind.txt > > > > is a combination of my four previous AI Minds: > > > > http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Mind.Forth in English; > > > > http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Wotan in German; > > > > http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Mind in English; > > > > http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Dushka in Russian. > > > > The processes of the AI Mind are "reproducible" > > only up to a point. If no user input is entered > > into the AI Mind, its processes are deterministic > > and therefore reproducible. But user input is a > > jumble of randomness, and so an AI life is not > > reproducible any more than a human life is. > > So how do you debug a problem? How do you determine > that a fix really fixes the bug if you can't reproduce it? > During the early 2016 current Perl AI debugging phase, we use the deterministic nature of the software to reproduce any emerging bug that needs fixing. We are not Grace Hopper finding a moth among the vacuum tubes and exclaiming, "Ah, a bug!" We are not Bill Gates grinning sheepily at the interviewer and claiming, "It's not a bug; it's a feature!" We are not Larry Ellison oracling to CEO's, "Our software has no bugs; it only has _issues_. We are the Mad Scientists raised on the eponymous Magazine put out by the Usual Gang of Idiots, and we are Mad as Hell, Paddy, and we're not going to take it any more. We got a BRAINIAC Computer for Christmas when we were twelve years old and now we are (+death -12). "Fürchterlich ist einer, der nichts zu verlieren hat." We hear, you, Barbara, and we hear Janice Joplin singing, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." Right now your avid AI enthusiast is debugging the AI Perlmind by alternating between English input and Russian input, to determine deterministically why English words are being recognmized but not Russian. But we have to stop coding this morning and hie oursleves to the scenes of our hippie-day youth, le Quartier Universitaire where we are re-living our sophomore year but, Alice, it's not 1966 any more, and next year is not the Summer of Love like it was back then. O tempora, o mores! But I digress/regress/confess. > > > > Btw (by the way) I hope to provide an orignal > > "prior art" AI that leads to a kind of > > "pre-Cambrian explosion" of AI life-forms. > > > > By calling the Perl AI "Ghost", I hint at > > the idea of "The Ghost in the Machine" and > > at "The Soul of a New Machine" by T. Kidder. > > I can tell you that the soul of a machine is a conglomerate > of the developers and other workers who did the work > to produce the hard/software. > A grateful nation owes its livelihood to thee and thine, its unparalleled prosperity to your unstinting sacrifice. > > > > > By one estimate, there are ca. 477,000 Perl > > programmers out there, many of them making > > good money coding in Perl: "the glue of the > > Internet." Here is my annotation of today: > > > > **** Sun.21.FEB.2016 > > > > 7:03 a.m. Logging in to NeoCities. "ai" has 19.5K views. > > Uploading ghost082.pl as "perlmind.txt" "stable for English and German" > > > > **** > > > > My Perl AI webpages receive about one hundred > > pageviews per day in recent weeks of 2016, > > but not so many on weekends as on weekdays. > > From the scarcity of visits on weekends, I > > am happy to conclude that well-paid Perl coders > > check into my Perl AI progress on weekdays > > when they are at work, not on weekends. > > > > Since the perlmind.txt webpage has no > > hit-counter on it, I like to think that > > most accesses are being made to the code, > > not to the various ".html" pages. > > > > I dream on further that in corporate > > boardrooms the tech VP is saying... > > ah, well, never mind. Bye BAH for now. > > 'ta. > > /BAH (Omer)ta also to you and the other made members of Our Thing. /ATM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 04:40 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dj3jt5Fk3r9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160152 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052C5C2FA4288E@aca40f57.ipt.aol.com... > mentificium@gmail.com wrote: >> On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 7:47:17 AM UTC-8, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: >>> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:18:27 AM UTC-8, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> >> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: >>> >> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:11:47 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: >>> >> >> <mentificium@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> >> >> news:7b1b2b26-e594-433c-b2bf-963bd4324c24@googlegroups.com... >>> >> >> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 5:33:57 AM UTC-8, gareth >>> >> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >> The True Aficionad is interested in the computer itself as a >>> wonderful >>> >> >> >> machine and not in any uses to which it might be put. >>> >> >> > The True Afficionado is interested in the ultimate >>> >> >> > apotheosis of the computer which is AI. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Encapsulating your own thinking into a machine is not AI, but >>> >> >> merely a repository of your own thoughts. >>> >> > >>> >> > Very true -- but creating a machine that can think its own thoughts >>> >> > is Strong AI and a branching of psychological evolution. >>> >> > >>> >> So your idea of an AI machine is one >>> >> whose processes are not reproducible? >>> > ^^^^^ >>> > If "whose" applies here (and it does :-) >>> > thank you for conceding that the AI machine >>> > is a "who" -- a person. >>> >>> You are the one with that premise. Now answer the question. >>> >>> /BAH >> >> The AI that I am creating in Perl at >> >> http://ai.neocities.org/perlmind.txt >> >> is a combination of my four previous AI Minds: >> >> http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Mind.Forth in English; >> >> http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Wotan in German; >> >> http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Mind in English; >> >> http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Dushka in Russian. >> >> The processes of the AI Mind are "reproducible" >> only up to a point. If no user input is entered >> into the AI Mind, its processes are deterministic >> and therefore reproducible. But user input is a >> jumble of randomness, and so an AI life is not >> reproducible any more than a human life is. > > So how do you debug a problem? How do you determine > that a fix really fixes the bug if you can't reproduce it? > >> >> Btw (by the way) I hope to provide an orignal >> "prior art" AI that leads to a kind of >> "pre-Cambrian explosion" of AI life-forms. >> >> By calling the Perl AI "Ghost", I hint at >> the idea of "The Ghost in the Machine" and >> at "The Soul of a New Machine" by T. Kidder. > > I can tell you that the soul of a machine is a conglomerate > of the developers and other workers who did the work > to produce the hard/software. That's not really true of those who do the donkey work like say wire wrapping the backplane with stuff of your generation. >> By one estimate, there are ca. 477,000 Perl >> programmers out there, many of them making >> good money coding in Perl: "the glue of the >> Internet." Here is my annotation of today: >> >> **** Sun.21.FEB.2016 >> >> 7:03 a.m. Logging in to NeoCities. "ai" has 19.5K views. >> Uploading ghost082.pl as "perlmind.txt" "stable for English and >> German" >> >> **** >> >> My Perl AI webpages receive about one hundred >> pageviews per day in recent weeks of 2016, >> but not so many on weekends as on weekdays. >> From the scarcity of visits on weekends, I >> am happy to conclude that well-paid Perl coders >> check into my Perl AI progress on weekdays >> when they are at work, not on weekends. >> >> Since the perlmind.txt webpage has no >> hit-counter on it, I like to think that >> most accesses are being made to the code, >> not to the various ".html" pages. >> >> I dream on further that in corporate >> boardrooms the tech VP is saying... >> ah, well, never mind. Bye BAH for now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 09:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <02569537-a645-41e6-8878-4f410c41ab31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160157 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 10:40:56 AM UTC-7, hgww wrote: > That's not really true of those who do the donkey > work like say wire wrapping the backplane with > stuff of your generation. Machines from a firm named Gardner-Denver had actually already freed humans from that sort of toil even in her era. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 13:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052C8429A98276@aca2d65f.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #160157 |
hgww wrote: > > > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM00052C5C2FA4288E@aca40f57.ipt.aol.com... >> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 7:47:17 AM UTC-8, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: >>>> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:18:27 AM UTC-8, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>> >> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:11:47 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: >>>> >> >> <mentificium@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> >> >> news:7b1b2b26-e594-433c-b2bf-963bd4324c24@googlegroups.com... >>>> >> >> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 5:33:57 AM UTC-8, gareth >>>> >> >> > wrote: >>>> >> >> >> The True Aficionad is interested in the computer itself as a >>>> wonderful >>>> >> >> >> machine and not in any uses to which it might be put. >>>> >> >> > The True Afficionado is interested in the ultimate >>>> >> >> > apotheosis of the computer which is AI. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Encapsulating your own thinking into a machine is not AI, but >>>> >> >> merely a repository of your own thoughts. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Very true -- but creating a machine that can think its own thoughts >>>> >> > is Strong AI and a branching of psychological evolution. >>>> >> > >>>> >> So your idea of an AI machine is one >>>> >> whose processes are not reproducible? >>>> > ^^^^^ >>>> > If "whose" applies here (and it does :-) >>>> > thank you for conceding that the AI machine >>>> > is a "who" -- a person. >>>> >>>> You are the one with that premise. Now answer the question. >>>> >>>> /BAH >>> >>> The AI that I am creating in Perl at >>> >>> http://ai.neocities.org/perlmind.txt >>> >>> is a combination of my four previous AI Minds: >>> >>> http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Mind.Forth in English; >>> >>> http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Wotan in German; >>> >>> http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Mind in English; >>> >>> http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Dushka in Russian. >>> >>> The processes of the AI Mind are "reproducible" >>> only up to a point. If no user input is entered >>> into the AI Mind, its processes are deterministic >>> and therefore reproducible. But user input is a >>> jumble of randomness, and so an AI life is not >>> reproducible any more than a human life is. >> >> So how do you debug a problem? How do you determine >> that a fix really fixes the bug if you can't reproduce it? >> >>> >>> Btw (by the way) I hope to provide an orignal >>> "prior art" AI that leads to a kind of >>> "pre-Cambrian explosion" of AI life-forms. >>> >>> By calling the Perl AI "Ghost", I hint at >>> the idea of "The Ghost in the Machine" and >>> at "The Soul of a New Machine" by T. Kidder. >> >> I can tell you that the soul of a machine is a conglomerate >> of the developers and other workers who did the work >> to produce the hard/software. > > That's not really true of those who do the donkey > work like say wire wrapping the backplane with > stuff of your generation. It's especially true in this case. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 03:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dj636mF8rkkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160164 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052C8429A98276@aca2d65f.ipt.aol.com... > hgww wrote: >> >> >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:PM00052C5C2FA4288E@aca40f57.ipt.aol.com... >>> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 7:47:17 AM UTC-8, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>>> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:18:27 AM UTC-8, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>>> >> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> >> > On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:11:47 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote: >>>>> >> >> <mentificium@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> >> >> news:7b1b2b26-e594-433c-b2bf-963bd4324c24@googlegroups.com... >>>>> >> >> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 5:33:57 AM UTC-8, gareth >>>>> >> >> > wrote: >>>>> >> >> >> The True Aficionad is interested in the computer itself as a >>>>> wonderful >>>>> >> >> >> machine and not in any uses to which it might be put. >>>>> >> >> > The True Afficionado is interested in the ultimate >>>>> >> >> > apotheosis of the computer which is AI. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> Encapsulating your own thinking into a machine is not AI, but >>>>> >> >> merely a repository of your own thoughts. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > Very true -- but creating a machine that can think its own >>>>> >> > thoughts >>>>> >> > is Strong AI and a branching of psychological evolution. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> So your idea of an AI machine is one >>>>> >> whose processes are not reproducible? >>>>> > ^^^^^ >>>>> > If "whose" applies here (and it does :-) >>>>> > thank you for conceding that the AI machine >>>>> > is a "who" -- a person. >>>>> >>>>> You are the one with that premise. Now answer the question. >>>>> >>>>> /BAH >>>> >>>> The AI that I am creating in Perl at >>>> >>>> http://ai.neocities.org/perlmind.txt >>>> >>>> is a combination of my four previous AI Minds: >>>> >>>> http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Mind.Forth in English; >>>> >>>> http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Wotan in German; >>>> >>>> http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Mind in English; >>>> >>>> http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Dushka in Russian. >>>> >>>> The processes of the AI Mind are "reproducible" >>>> only up to a point. If no user input is entered >>>> into the AI Mind, its processes are deterministic >>>> and therefore reproducible. But user input is a >>>> jumble of randomness, and so an AI life is not >>>> reproducible any more than a human life is. >>> >>> So how do you debug a problem? How do you determine >>> that a fix really fixes the bug if you can't reproduce it? >>> >>>> >>>> Btw (by the way) I hope to provide an orignal >>>> "prior art" AI that leads to a kind of >>>> "pre-Cambrian explosion" of AI life-forms. >>>> >>>> By calling the Perl AI "Ghost", I hint at >>>> the idea of "The Ghost in the Machine" and >>>> at "The Soul of a New Machine" by T. Kidder. >>> >>> I can tell you that the soul of a machine is a conglomerate >>> of the developers and other workers who did the work >>> to produce the hard/software. >> >> That's not really true of those who do the donkey >> work like say wire wrapping the backplane with >> stuff of your generation. > > It's especially true in this case. Bullshit. Those are no different to the machines that replaced them later.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-01 13:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052C976DF0A4D2@aca2d6f2.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #160170 |
hgww wrote: > > > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM00052C8429A98276@aca2d65f.ipt.aol.com... >> hgww wrote: >>> >>> >>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:PM00052C5C2FA4288E@aca40f57.ipt.aol.com... >>>> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> <snip> >>>>> Btw (by the way) I hope to provide an orignal >>>>> "prior art" AI that leads to a kind of >>>>> "pre-Cambrian explosion" of AI life-forms. >>>>> >>>>> By calling the Perl AI "Ghost", I hint at >>>>> the idea of "The Ghost in the Machine" and >>>>> at "The Soul of a New Machine" by T. Kidder. >>>> >>>> I can tell you that the soul of a machine is a conglomerate >>>> of the developers and other workers who did the work >>>> to produce the hard/software. >>> >>> That's not really true of those who do the donkey >>> work like say wire wrapping the backplane with >>> stuff of your generation. >> >> It's especially true in this case. > > Bullshit. Those are no different to the machines that replaced them later. > I don't think you would recognize a machine soul. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 01:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <djlnc5F93ihU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160397 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052C976DF0A4D2@aca2d6f2.ipt.aol.com... > hgww wrote: >> >> >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:PM00052C8429A98276@aca2d65f.ipt.aol.com... >>> hgww wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>> news:PM00052C5C2FA4288E@aca40f57.ipt.aol.com... >>>>> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> > <snip> > >>>>>> Btw (by the way) I hope to provide an orignal >>>>>> "prior art" AI that leads to a kind of >>>>>> "pre-Cambrian explosion" of AI life-forms. >>>>>> >>>>>> By calling the Perl AI "Ghost", I hint at >>>>>> the idea of "The Ghost in the Machine" and >>>>>> at "The Soul of a New Machine" by T. Kidder. >>>>> >>>>> I can tell you that the soul of a machine is a conglomerate >>>>> of the developers and other workers who did the work >>>>> to produce the hard/software. >>>> >>>> That's not really true of those who do the donkey >>>> work like say wire wrapping the backplane with >>>> stuff of your generation. >>> >>> It's especially true in this case. >> >> Bullshit. Those are no different to the machines that replaced them >> later. >> > I don't think you would recognize a machine soul. There is no such animal and even if there was, those human robots are no part of it anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-02 14:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052D115027C687@aca43c61.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #160404 |
Rod Speed wrote: > > > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM00052C976DF0A4D2@aca2d6f2.ipt.aol.com... >> hgww wrote: >>> >>> >>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:PM00052C8429A98276@aca2d65f.ipt.aol.com... >>>> hgww wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:PM00052C5C2FA4288E@aca40f57.ipt.aol.com... >>>>>> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> >> <snip> >> >>>>>>> Btw (by the way) I hope to provide an orignal >>>>>>> "prior art" AI that leads to a kind of >>>>>>> "pre-Cambrian explosion" of AI life-forms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By calling the Perl AI "Ghost", I hint at >>>>>>> the idea of "The Ghost in the Machine" and >>>>>>> at "The Soul of a New Machine" by T. Kidder. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can tell you that the soul of a machine is a conglomerate >>>>>> of the developers and other workers who did the work >>>>>> to produce the hard/software. >>>>> >>>>> That's not really true of those who do the donkey >>>>> work like say wire wrapping the backplane with >>>>> stuff of your generation. >>>> >>>> It's especially true in this case. >>> >>> Bullshit. Those are no different to the machines that replaced them >>> later. >>> >> I don't think you would recognize a machine soul. > > There is no such animal and even if there was, > those human robots are no part of it anyway. Every machine had its own "personality". I have never figured out how to describe this other than using human attributes. Merging two machines together created a different personality. When they were split into two systems, they reverted back to their old personality. Each customer's machine was also different. Some of that had to do with the kind of care of the center and usage of the users. When one was sent to work on site, one of the first things a person did was learn about that personality. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 03:51 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <djok0sF1k31U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160450 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052D115027C687@aca43c61.ipt.aol.com... > Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:PM00052C976DF0A4D2@aca2d6f2.ipt.aol.com... >>> hgww wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>> news:PM00052C8429A98276@aca2d65f.ipt.aol.com... >>>>> hgww wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:PM00052C5C2FA4288E@aca40f57.ipt.aol.com... >>>>>>> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>>>>> Btw (by the way) I hope to provide an orignal >>>>>>>> "prior art" AI that leads to a kind of >>>>>>>> "pre-Cambrian explosion" of AI life-forms. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By calling the Perl AI "Ghost", I hint at >>>>>>>> the idea of "The Ghost in the Machine" and >>>>>>>> at "The Soul of a New Machine" by T. Kidder. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can tell you that the soul of a machine is a conglomerate >>>>>>> of the developers and other workers who did the work >>>>>>> to produce the hard/software. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's not really true of those who do the donkey >>>>>> work like say wire wrapping the backplane with >>>>>> stuff of your generation. >>>>> >>>>> It's especially true in this case. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. Those are no different to the machines that replaced them >>>> later. >>>> >>> I don't think you would recognize a machine soul. >> >> There is no such animal and even if there was, >> those human robots are no part of it anyway. > > Every machine had its own "personality". They still do. BUT that has nothing to do with stuff like the machines used to make the machine. And so when we had humans who were JUST doing what machines did later, the wire wrapping, THOSE people contributed nothing to the personality. > I have never figured out how to describe this other > than using human attributes. Merging two machines > together created a different personality. Using a machine to do part of the manufacture of a machine like with wire wrapping does not create a different machine and doing it with robot humans doesn’t either. > When they were split into two systems, > they reverted back to their old personality. Not when one of them is used for manufacture. > Each customer's machine was also different. That mangles the real story too, particularly when the customer has lots of the one machine. > Some of that had to do with the kind of > care of the center and usage of the users. > When one was sent to work on site, one of the first > things a person did was learn about that personality. BULLSHIT. In spades with modern smartphones. And that is all completely irrelevant to your original silly claim that the machine used in the manufacture of the machine is part of the personality of the machine that it is used in the manufacture of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 13:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052D2521DCF4E4@aca40c8f.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #160460 |
Rod Speed wrote: > > > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM00052D115027C687@aca43c61.ipt.aol.com... >> Rod Speed wrote: >>> >>> >>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:PM00052C976DF0A4D2@aca2d6f2.ipt.aol.com... >>>> hgww wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:PM00052C8429A98276@aca2d65f.ipt.aol.com... >>>>>> hgww wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:PM00052C5C2FA4288E@aca40f57.ipt.aol.com... >>>>>>>> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Btw (by the way) I hope to provide an orignal >>>>>>>>> "prior art" AI that leads to a kind of >>>>>>>>> "pre-Cambrian explosion" of AI life-forms. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> By calling the Perl AI "Ghost", I hint at >>>>>>>>> the idea of "The Ghost in the Machine" and >>>>>>>>> at "The Soul of a New Machine" by T. Kidder. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can tell you that the soul of a machine is a conglomerate >>>>>>>> of the developers and other workers who did the work >>>>>>>> to produce the hard/software. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's not really true of those who do the donkey >>>>>>> work like say wire wrapping the backplane with >>>>>>> stuff of your generation. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's especially true in this case. >>>>> >>>>> Bullshit. Those are no different to the machines that replaced them >>>>> later. >>>>> >>>> I don't think you would recognize a machine soul. >>> >>> There is no such animal and even if there was, >>> those human robots are no part of it anyway. >> >> Every machine had its own "personality". > > They still do. BUT that has nothing to do with > stuff like the machines used to make the machine. > And so when we had humans who were JUST doing > what machines did later, the wire wrapping, THOSE > people contributed nothing to the personality. Of course they did. Every wire-wrapped machine had it quirks. Fixing hardware bugs could cause more quirks. > >> I have never figured out how to describe this other >> than using human attributes. Merging two machines >> together created a different personality. > > Using a machine to do part of the manufacture of > a machine like with wire wrapping does not create > a different machine and doing it with robot humans > doesn’t either. When I talked about merging two machines, I meant going from a single-CPU system to a dual-CPU or triple-CPU system. > >> When they were split into two systems, >> they reverted back to their old personality. > > Not when one of them is used for manufacture. > >> Each customer's machine was also different. > > That mangles the real story too, particularly > when the customer has lots of the one machine. Not really. Each machine had its own user population. Those users did different things at different times. > >> Some of that had to do with the kind of >> care of the center and usage of the users. > >> When one was sent to work on site, one of the first >> things a person did was learn about that personality. > > BULLSHIT. In spades with modern smartphones. I'm NOT talking about todays machines. They have the personalities of a slug after it's been run over by a steam roller. > > And that is all completely irrelevant to your original > silly claim that the machine used in the manufacture > of the machine is part of the personality of the > machine that it is used in the manufacture of. > Boy, when you go off the deep end of misreading what I wrote, you create a Grand Canyon. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 16:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <p71mqc-ho4.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #160514 |
In article <PM00052D2521DCF4E4@aca40c8f.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >>> Every machine had its own "personality". >> >> They still do. BUT that has nothing to do with >> stuff like the machines used to make the machine. >> And so when we had humans who were JUST doing >> what machines did later, the wire wrapping, THOSE >> people contributed nothing to the personality. > >Of course they did. Every wire-wrapped machine had it >quirks. Fixing hardware bugs could cause more quirks. Yes, I have accounts on around 200 machines around the world. Most are just another collection of computing power, like the SIP and web farms we load balance calls to. But then we have machines like kirov. The original kirov was a sun/330 and got it's name because the colour was exactly like the USSR cruiser by the same name. Named by the guy who had the previous job of moving the markers on the screen in the NATO HQ showing where the USSR cruisers were at all times. (As far as they knew, anyway. Sometimes they just had circles for possible whereabouts that increased hour by hour). Kirov held our personal files, and all server-based employee stuff happened there. It was the machine with a rigorous backup scheme, and it NFS-exported a number of disks. Files left there was safe. Almost all other machines were provisioned by checking out configs etc from there. It was behind firewalls, but secure logins were allowed from the outside. And pings. When at a customer site we always did a "ping kirov" to see that we could reach home. The POE was an ISP, and we always were rearranging the network when we were out at customer sites. That ping also opened the firewall for a login for ~5 minutes. It had a distinct feel when logged on. It rearely had loads of below 6, but were always quite responsive, but "micro- sluggish" if that is a word. After it was assassinated[1] it rearose as "new kirov" as another sun, a 4/something. Not the correct colour, though. I still have a kirov in my POE, the reflex of "ping kirov" over the morning coffee is still there. The original kirov even got official uniform insigia from the real kirov, bought by me from a russian sailor at the tall ships race, where he was a crew on Sedov. (Cedob in cyrillian) It has a different personality, though. >>> I have never figured out how to describe this other >>> than using human attributes. Merging two machines >>> together created a different personality. >> >> Using a machine to do part of the manufacture of >> a machine like with wire wrapping does not create >> a different machine and doing it with robot humans >> doesn’t either. > >When I talked about merging two machines, I meant going >from a single-CPU system to a dual-CPU or triple-CPU >system. > >> >>> When they were split into two systems, >>> they reverted back to their old personality. >> >> Not when one of them is used for manufacture. >> >>> Each customer's machine was also different. >> >> That mangles the real story too, particularly >> when the customer has lots of the one machine. > > >Not really. Each machine had its own user population. Those >users did different things at different times. servers still have this "look and feel" thing to them if they have unique roles. But most servers today are just farms that provide standard services. >>> Some of that had to do with the kind of >>> care of the center and usage of the users. >> >>> When one was sent to work on site, one of the first >>> things a person did was learn about that personality. >> >> BULLSHIT. In spades with modern smartphones. > >I'm NOT talking about todays machines. They have the >personalities of a slug after it's been run over by >a steam roller. Not all of them. Some still have unique roles and have distinct user populations. >> And that is all completely irrelevant to your original >> silly claim that the machine used in the manufacture >> of the machine is part of the personality of the >> machine that it is used in the manufacture of. >> >Boy, when you go off the deep end of misreading what I wrote, >you create a Grand Canyon. I understand what Barb wrote, perfectly. Wide multiprocessor machines have especially distinct feels. Like the ones with 8 or more cores, and 3 or more spindles. -- mrr [1] historical reference. The building did assassinate the machine by letting a steel pipe come loose and dissect it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web