Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160514

Re: The True Aficionado?

Show all headers | View raw

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

Back to alt.folklore.computers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web