Being kind of obsessed with all that technological progress stuff, from time to time I try to find any breakthrough or even just great inventions around. Without any success, really.
For TLDR crowd - read last paragraph.
In the mid-50s, there was created so-called "Theory of Inventive Problem Solving" (Теория Решения Изобретательских Задач - ТРИЗ/TRIZ) by Genrih Altshuller who was more widely known in USSR as an SciFi author under name of Genrih Altov. He was Jewish origin.
Interesting fact from his biography is that during his work on that theory he wrote a letter to Stalin about severe problems in inventions area and how to fix them. Not long after that he was arrested and sentenced tolong jail time for some antisoviet activity. But after few years in jail, in 1954 he was freed and completely cleared from any charges by highest USSR authorities and it was found that he was sentenced by slander by another Jewish person. In turn this person got Altshuller's sentece and disappeared in history.
Looks like Altshuller's letter finally reached Stalin, who was at the time obsessed with growing technological potential of his Soviet Empire.
In any case, it is already highly suspicious, that as soon as some interesting idea popped up, there immediately appeared somebody who tried to exterminate it at any cost.
That "Theory of Soving Invention Problems" get serious attention and was noticeably popular in engineering and science circles of USSR. However, Altshuller for some reason didn't turn to scientific approach in further development of his theory, and limit himself only to popularisation of it. There was regular seminars and classes on that theory, but it didn't have any serious development.
Shortly, theory declared that in order to make an invention, first a problem should be formulated in a way where all umimportant things are cut out. Then, you divide problem into tiniest possible parts and began to combine anything known to find solution.
It is a very simplified description, but hope you get the point. After USSR fall that theory become little known abroad, and even giants like Samsung, Ford Motors, Mitsubishi and other used it to some extent for innovations.
Those who want to dig deeper could start f.e. here - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166361517300027 with other articles by links below.
One of basic thing in TRIZ was that checking of combinations of known inventions to find a new one. Pretty logical approach, since nearly all inventions was done by combining known things. Since invention of wheel, literally, when some person combined a stick with a disk.
At the time, performance of computers do not allow store and check millions of known things in trillions combinations.
Today it is perfectly possible. And it is nearly perfect, most obvious and insanely profitable task for all that ANN based things that posed as AI today. But you will not find anything except silly toys like "Inventions generator" like https://glitch.com/~invention-idea-generator
All similar "serious" commercial "AI-driven" (they are not) tools are not any different from that toys, they just pasted all over with marketing bullshit, nothing more, completely ignoring the core of theory.
So we have more or less working theory for making inventions, we have resources to practically use that theory, we have demand for new inventions, and even few samples of real use. But this obviously highly profitable and simple approach is completely ignored by all that "AI" crowd.
And to make modern "AI" useful for such usage, tiny addition in form of rudimentary expert system is needed. But such move will open a way to real AI, that understands what it process.
I could not find anything that could be a sign of development in that directions.
I think it is a good proof that scientific and technical progress is artificially stopped by elites and corporations. And any real moves to the real AI will inevitably open that box of endless inventions. And this is unacceptable for TPTB.
That is why there could not be anything that even distantly resemble any AI, while TPTB in power. Only "AI" mockup in a form of dumb artificial neural networks (ANN) or their incarnations in one or another form that could not produce anything useful by design.
Great write up. Thank you for sharing.
Hear me out though, what if the 'intelligence' is not from this dimension? What if there's been a tear or 'portal' to access information, based on language, from somewhere not of our plane.
You pretty able to create new things without any language or external influence at all.
IDK, imagine, you need to invent something to prevent your charger cable from cracking near connectors. You could easily do that just imagining (does such word exist in English?:)) what exactly happening with cable during use that make cable break and localize problem. Then imagine different possible solutions and see in your imagination are they solve problem. Choose one that solve problem in simpliest way possible. You don't need to use any language, word or whatever to do that. Only visual images of already known things.
Phenomenon you speak about is more like intuition or flash of revelation or inspiration, when solution or idea just appear in your mind without any effort. There you have a wide range of thing to theoretize about, including your theory.
Both cases is act of creation and obviously intelligence, but one you do by yourself and other just happens.
So intelligence is definitely is a human property. And possibly, there could be influence of some external intelligence, but it is not obligatory thing.
Indeed. I just wonder because they don't have to do a lot of things but what they are choosing seem suspicious to me when we take into account unified language and quantum computing. Just looking at worse case scenario because that's what I do apparently. I appreciate your knowledge and perspective.
Well, worst case scenario is a valid target, but to get a meaningful result you should carefully separate facts from bullshit. Only then your worst case scenario will be useful.
Overestimating enemy abilities is as dangerous as underestimating them.
I could surprise you, but quantum computing does not exist today. There is a fundamental problem appear - to do something minimally useful you need many thousands of qbits in one processor. But more qbits you have in processor, less reliable result you have. You could build large quantum processor, but the usefulness wii be at the level of flipping coin to decide result. :) And most interesting thing that, by some scientists opinion proper solution to this problem will open a pandora box of unconventional energy sources and all such stuff, since it is connected with all that negative entropy and zero point energy things.
This is true about estimations and I should probably recalibrate on the whole thing so as not to completely go mad ahahaha. I just know they're trying real hard on quantum stuff and yeah, I don't think people 'in charge' fully understand the implications or if they do they don't care and are willing to risk it.
Unified language and quantum computing were suggested by few aka the ACCOUNT (a registry of a debt or credit) holders of all those who gave creed/belief/faith/consent aka those who pay into the account of others.
a) Can you show me anything "created new" without being shaped within; out of, and in response to perceivable reality?
b) Consider being (perception) enabled (perception) before being able to shape suggestions towards others.
I think language is more like 'idea' at the root of reality....not just sound and 'vocalizations'
I think this idea has merit.
Cheers
You know, I’m no longer religious but the Pastor Stephen Darby gave a truly excellent sermon on CERN.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iRVE0VMMKW8&pp=ygUac3RlcGhlbiBkYXJieSBjZXJuIHRoZSBlbmQ%3D
Cheers, thanks for the resource, I'll check it out. Side comment cause you brought it up, religion is overrated, a relationship with God though, now that's something else altogether fren.
Really, I estimate most "sci-fi" fantasies was pretty precise, just was made without taking in account evil forces that don't want technological development.
That's what they want us to think. Really, there is whole areas of physics that are ostracised despite reproducible results of basic proof-of-concept experiments. Examples: Casimir cavity, Gunter Nimz FTL signal transmission through tunneling, energy driven space-time warping as in White-Juday experiments and so on.
Being validated, all that stuff just ignored because "there is no theoretical explanation" or "this contradicts relativity". Something like what happened with first LEDs discovered by Losev in 1920s. LEDs then was proved huge thing, but only 50 years later. Could you imagine if LEDs get proper attention 50 years earlier?
I agree with him. I wrote a lot about some hidden event around 1970 that stopped technological development. Also agree with him on his sentence about "we got fucking 160 chars in twitter instead of flying cars". Interesting, that flying cars are perfectly technologically possible today. It's purely TPTB artificial taboo that keep us from them. Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQK9m_OBVgY And that dudes made it just for fun, they just like to make vehicles from bathtubs. There is no any technical problems to design and do mass-produce of average driver useable flying car for decent price if any current automotive industry giant had a desire to do it.
I confirmed this within my own circles in 2008 in various ways. They deliberately stifle any attempt to leap forward.
I don't think they necessarily stop it as much as they stop private sector development and further expand investigation in a controlled and limited environment.
Your thesis doesn't discuss your question.
Anyway, if we take AI as an artificial conciousness, then I don't beleive it is even possible. Adding more and more clockwork to the clock will not make it think.
I believe conciousness involves the non-computable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_number
Weasel words are involved, as to be expected, when OpenAI say AGI they use their own definition: "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work".
I show real example that there exist many useful effects of AI that make it unwanted and even dangerous for TPTB, and I suggest that this is the main reason real AI will be never allowed.
That's excellent description of what they do with "AI" hype. Have to save it somwhere. :)
As for AI possibility, IDK if it is possible or not at all. But I know that a lot of things that could make it possible and crucial for its creation is cancelled, ostracised or abandoned in both comuter science and areas of its application. One of my thoughts on that topic - https://conspiracies.win/p/17rSnsKbhI/yet-another-thing-critical-for-c/
Shure. And other things like fortuity, undefined behaviour and a lot of other stuff that today completely cancelled from computer science. And modern development of computer science drive it exactly to the direction opposite to anything close to AI.
Well, I'll call bullshit, since hardly bankers or politicians or something from their kind will allow something to outperform them in their most economically valuable (especially for themselves) work. :)
Modern ANNs posed as "AI", in the best case targeted at least economically valuable work, with very questionable results that could be achieved without any ANNs. And most of that is useless work, like writing marketing articles or making mock illustrations.
Self modifying code - I don't think that's so important. I'm a fan of Harvard Architecture Computers e.g. early Burroughs machines but I first encountered it on AVR Microcontrollers. The program is stored in a different memory space to the RAM. In the AVR the program is written to non-volatile EPROM and runs at power up with blank RAM.
You can have the ANN engine in ROM which runs the ANN but the layers and weights can be loaded and modified at runtime.
Python can be self modifying, it is a virtual machine running Python bytecode, Java runs on the Java Virtual Machine but Scala too can run on the JVM.
Any JIT like javascript, lua is self modifying.
There is also genetic programming.
A lot of languages could be used to write self-modifying code one way or another with different efficiency and haemorrhoids. Mostly it will be like brushing teeth through anus, but anyway. The problem is that it is declared "inapropriate", "bad practice", and all bad things possible. Also, self-modifying code is not in any language standard except LISP and hardly any modern programmer will even know that it is possible.
As for importance of that feature for AI, I don't think it is most important thing, but shure it is absolutely necessary for real AI.
Meanwhile about architectures. We all perfectly know about Harward and Neumann architectures, but other are pushed out, like stack machines, transport triggered, not even talking about ternary processors and other pretty interesting stuff.
The reason self modifying code isn't used is because the game is not worth the candle.
You very much can self modify Python at runtime, and all the tools are there
ChatGPT can generate Python code and run it, which combines both of your subjects
What do you think Monkey Patching is?
JavaScript and Ruby can do it too
In Forth you can create new Words that don't mask the old Words but will be used in new definitions going forwards. Forth really is the ultimate, I recommend at least learning it.
The book that coveres the class of languages of Forth is
R. G. Loeliger Threaded Interpretive Languages Their Design And Implementation Byte Books ( 1981)
https://archive.org/details/R.G.LoeligerThreadedInterpretiveLanguagesTheirDesignAndImplementationByteBooks1981
(I have a physical copy)
One of the more interesting architectures I've come across is Content Addressable Parallel Processors
The original text Foster, Caxton C. (1976)
https://archive.org/details/contentaddressab0000fost
(again I have a physical copy)
and a book review of it from 1978
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2995261_Content_addressable_parallel_processors
I'm going to stop there but I am enjoying this discussion
You could do the same - generate some source code, and compile/run it from same program - even in C or whatever language you choose. But it is nearly unuseable in context of some real runtime because creation of code in this way is highly uneffective and limited. And the main thing is that this is declared "bad programming practice" and condemned. Immutability is encouraged and forced in modern programming.
As for Forth - this language, as LISP is one of rare exceptions, but it is old and abandoned now. Meanwhile in USSR Forth was default language of first mass produced and popular personal computer BK0010. It was like Sinclair ZX or Commodore 64, but had 16-bit PDP-11 architecture. And it had Forth in ROM instead of Basic. So I played with it a lot at the time and may be that's why I get a clue about alternative programming approaches unknown to nowdays mainstream.
I also ejoyed discussion a lot, thank you!
But under the hood so many of the frameworks do this anyways.
They just know the power of it, and don't want us to look into self modifying code for more than simple VMs
Not really. The whole idea of self-modifying code is changing preprogrammed algorithm to something new. The whole idea of any JIT compilation is to preserve preprogrammed algorithm intact. You don't get program you never wrote using JIT compilation based language (well, sometimes you do, but this accounted as bug, not as intended behaviour). Also you will never get a code that executes differently on subsequent calls because it was changed in between. Same piece of code will always give same result with same input data. That's not the case with self-modifying code.
To illustrate what I mean, imagine funtion, say func(a,b){return a+b;}. Self-modifying approach could make same function be func(a,b){return a+b+2;} at one monent and func(a,b){return 3*a+b;} at another moment. Add to that conditions, cycles calling other functions and all that stuff.
Apart from self-modifying code some other things is necessary for real AI - undefined behaviour, accidental "mutations", computed goto's and all that stuff.
Why all that things is importnant for AI? Because intelligence is unpredictable. You can't just calculate the outcome of intelligent entity decision. And you can't speak about intelligence when you could predict a result with 100% certainity which is a core and absolute must for modern computing paradigm. Computer science was dragged by all that "good practice"/"bad practice" narratives as far from any possible AI as possible.
Our perception of intelligence and life in whole is connected with unpredictability of both. Take a look at following analogy - you could easily found ones who account their car as alive among owners of old cars. But you will not find any among owners of new cars. The difference in unpredictability. New car works as expected, everything runs as designed and it behave same in same situations. Old car is weared, there are more randomness in its behaviour due to backlashes, working regimes shifted, something creak occasionally and so on. It could give different results in same circumstances. Of course that's all have exact reasons, sometimes very complex, but for the owner, who don't want to dig deep it's just alive. And if you fix everything, return predictability, this mistery of life in piece of metal will disappear.
Same with intelligence. We will never account something predictable as intelligent. We here make fun over sheeple, as human NPC's accounting them unintelligent. Why? because they are predictable, like some machines or preprogrammed algorithms. And so we will never accept any AI if it will be predictable. And with modern programming approaches nothing unpredictable could be created.
You're right but that's only a feature of the particular JIT, what I meant was if you can JIT you can modify at runtime
Very insightful. I'll need to follow up with the information you provided
Aka wanting to possess artificial progress, hence following it along, while ignoring that natural progress (inception towards death) needs one (life) to resist.
Being implies problems (life) within solution (inception towards death).
Aka how to tempt others to hold onto suggested (affixed), while ignoring perceivable (moving).
Aka growing techno (artifice) and logic (reason/conflict) through the potential of suggestion.
Aka suggesting others to solve (inception towards death) problems (life), while living his life apart from those killing each other. Popularization implies mass suggestion aka mediating information towards consent aka media propaganda machine developing theories within the minds of those consenting.
Aka erect center; cut off circumference...circumcision. What did he do? Limit himself (center) to popularization of theory towards others (circumference). How many millions of "unimportant things" where cut off from living during the USSR?
Yet; 2024 and a "crazy russian" suggests the importance of Genrih Altshuller (of jewish origin), hence making this one a "chosen one".
a) Combining anything known implies tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) aka fixing by mixing.
b) Meanwhile in perceivable reality...solution (inception towards death) divides into problems (life) aka whole dividing into the "tiniest possible parts" aka into each ONE, and being one implies apart from one another.
Why do you think its called a "combine harvester"?
a) What if tri-lion was already combined? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_England
b) What if -ation (action) divides into reactions?
c) If action implies motion produced, then what does combining action imply? More motion? Can there be more motion than fundamental velocity (inception towards death) for each resisting matter (life) within?
Sleight of hand: "terminal velocity". What if velocity implies boundary (terminal) for resistance within? What's the opposite of terminal? Healthy; reviving; life-giving...
TECHNOL'OGY, noun (Gr. art, and word or discourse) - "a description of arts; or a treatise on the arts" aka artificial (suggested) over natural (perceivable)... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Technology
Just block them, what's the problem?
Or may be you are suppose that somebody will create a perfect garden for you for free, to please your desire for seeking truth in perfect comfort?
No problem - you could use something like rapidshare where you completely independent from any owner or whatever and could create a perfect truth finding chatroom you totally control and do not allow any AI bots or whatever. Who knows, may be you will be able to make your place the best in the world and people will overcome their laziness and drop all that murky forums and stuff.
For me, as owners of this forum do not demand from me any info unnecessary for work of this forum and allow me to control my information flow, I'm perfectly fine with them.
I think that they originally inspired the average person to work labour to build the industrial revolution....then they inspired them to build the 'future' again and we got radio and electricity, and then they inspired us again and had us figure out computing and software, and now they have realised that they have a lot of power and rather than inspire the next movement....they want to use the tools to do it implicitly and remove the need to inspire the people ... We are now being turned into a cost savings optimization with AI....they only want select people again to train for the future...the rest are going to be distracted by the dumb AI and the fake culture that starts to show up from it