Yeah, Patrick Henry Winston was a great AI professor at MIT pre-neural net. He's in my library. I used his then-era textbook (and others) before the Norvig and Russell book.
These books though are more about general symbolic processing in AI than about synthesizing minds / mind systems. The works of John Sowa have been very helpful because they analyze the nature of conceptual knowledge and that is the core of mind synthesis.
Amazingly, (of all people!) Ayn Rand actually wrote a book useful for AI back in her era! It was about her Objectivist philosophy and it codified the nature of knowledge! Before I discovered it I had written a book on theory of knowledge and I found she matched many main points! Also today's vector representations of knowledge (arrays of attributes) use the same elements.
I've been writing a 10 volume series on how to synthesize cognitive systems using both symbolic and NN processing. I acknowledge Winston in it as a pioneer of mid-stage modern AI.
You are correct, and it exists and is in use. They use such AIs to both model society and analyze how to control it. Trump plays 5D chess but he is up against some stiff synthetic minds competition.
As for your curiosity on what is possible, I'm on the leading edge in research and both creating advanced AIs and writing books on how to do it. For example, I have AI that genuinely can understand humor and create genuine humor. The chatbots have no real mind or soul; an advanced AGI has to have ability to understand people both individually and in mass. I design advanced AGIs that match or exceed the current darlings of the market. AMA about such systems.
One major distinguishing characteristic in data is that good data comes from and identifies genuine existing human cultural rules and values. Bad data does not come from that. For example, a left-wing opinion is not always grounded in reality. So if you capture a left-wing comment, you will be training an AI on fake reality.
Be aware there is some fakery and lies currently about the chatbot technology, and the big players are definitely withholding some information about what they are doing and have built into the bots.
By the way, .win has been a testing ground for both corporate and private individual's bots. But before that, Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, and other sites were used both for development and deployment of bots to alter public opinion. The government paid Facebook to work on that and it has not yet been disclosed about Twitter in that.
'well-suited'. That's insulting, it gets a well-deserved 'fuck off laddie'.
Technology, big technology, requires a suitable organization supporting it being done. Joe's Garage can't put satellites into space and especially men into space. If you haven't worked for NASA don't knock how it works and don't knock the people dedicated to their work and don't knock our results. I have had enough of moon hoaxers and flat earthers and occult numerologists and fringies.
AIs are trained on modern styles - everything gets taken off the Internet and chat in this era. Today's speech and writing differs a lot from that of two centuries ago. So an AI style analyst will tag old writing as anomalous. One AI designer said they trained it including on the Constitution. I doubt that is true.
I'm in AI, and in what the article discussed I saw things that show the AI designers are using the wrong approach, one with errors. For example, they mention " the system uses properties like "perplexity" and burstiness". These are used to relate the analyzed material to what the system was trained on. But that is a very weak and mislead way to analyze content. The right approach is to treat material as input to a situational model, then analyze meaning and style of expression in that context. Since the LLM training knows NOTHING about the culture of revolutionary times, it inherently will get statements about it wrong. LLMs look at surface features but not deep meaning. That is why they currently hallucinate - they are not attached to reality. Also, chatbots have no ability to understand a philosophy. So a bot analyzing the Constitution does NOT know why they wrote it, and cannot understand a particular statement properly in context.
Another thing is, the explanations given by the bot creators have some lies in them, I won't go into detail but I think these are in order to mislead competition.
Sometimes I get so pissed about the bogosity currently present in the AI field - there are lots of ambitious people who take shortcuts then present horseshit as gold.
I'm both a scientist and an electrical engineer. I am proud to have worked on space programs, and it was motivating and exciting. it kind of burns me a little to see stupid people on media making idiot claims, but I believe in freedom of speech. At the same time, that allows me to contradict them.
NASA is technology, not government building dams. It exists to gain and gather knowledge. I will defend that in the face of idiocracy.
A newborn's immune system is pretty fragile. It depends on colostrum from the mother's milk in fact. So if you tamper with the mother, you mess up the kid by that route. Then if you add in giving today's kinds of jabs to the kid, you further screw him up.
You're making the logical argument fallacy that if a piece of something is bad, all rest of the thing is bad.
Ah, the retard herd strikes with downvotes. I am so scared I just pissed in my pants. My favorite pants. You're going down for this, I sweasr.
Also, it may be deeper than a mere scam. It looks like an organized attempt to damage faith in our space program. Now who would try to do that? I'd like the chicken fuk-yu and some steamed rice and a couple of spring rolls, waiter.
"heliocentrism is pseudoscience!" lolol. Yeah yeah yeah, bring on the flat earth while you're at it. Pretty clear you have little physics, optics, or photography knowledge but you wanna be an Internet expert.
So, can you recommend any good truck stops to eat at? Those long drives can be tough without amphetamines.
Very interesting. A Hasselblad 500EL is then not really a Hasselblad 500 series, as it was so extensively modified. It is purely a custom camera on a Hasselblad frame.
Now, if according to your assertion that the moon landing was filmed in a studio, why the F would NASA bother to charter an expensive camera project if they didn't have to? They could have put a dummy camera on the actors. This is no proof of a studio simulation.
And some of the claims of hoax made in the sterileeye comments section are so plain stupid, showing misunderstanding of vacuum and heat transfer.
All Hasselblads have top-mounted viewfinder. Always had. Part of the design. You focus by looking down onto the top and adjusting the lens by a barrel ring.
Second, lack of atmosphere IMPROVES photography because there are no molecules to add diffraction between target and camera.
It is bad, but today's no-stick coatings and ceramic pans are bad in their own way. Most people don't know the newest coatings release particles and chemicals into their food. Beware of Chinese-made non-stick ceramics and coatings.
The non-stick may be convenient but it is setting us up for later problems. Metal pans may be more work but are healthier. However copper does release heavy metal into food too.
No, it's all Uni-party bad.