On 6/7/2011 8:45, Invisible wrote:
> I'm not sure how you can claim that
> simple pattern matching would find such a complex similarity.

I'm not saying it would. I'm saying it *did*.

>> Why are you using the subjunctive, as if this is a fictional story?
> Damnit, now I have to go look up what a "subjunctive" is...

Yep.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 07/06/2011 04:28 PM, Aydan wrote:
>
> > Walking
> > across a room is not a precalculated series of movements like it would be for
> > most robots.
>
> ...which is why the robot is wrong. The *correct* way to navigate
> unknown terrain is to constantly monitor and adapt to your surroundings.
>
> > Whenever anything happens that's not quite as it was "planned" it will just
> > change the movement slightly without your conciousness even noticing.
>
> Yes. And these changes are very, very precise. If they weren't, you'd
> fall over. The fact that it does this in a feedback loop doesn't negate
> the need for very exact, very fine controls.

I'd say the changes are NOT precise but they are minute and the update rate is
fast. So fast that an error in an update will be negated with the next update
and the control loop is adapted constantly to minimize errors. It's still not
what I would call precise.

If the human body would be capable of precice movement then you should be able
to repeat movements exactly every time you do them. But that's not how it turns
out.
Try throwing a ball at something. You won't be able to hit the same spot twice
in a row. If you practice very very hard, you might get close but you still
won't hit the same spot every time.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 07/06/2011 04:41 PM, Darren New wrote:
> > On 6/7/2011 8:39, Invisible wrote:
> >> This would be a rather stunning result for AI.
> >
> > It wasn't even what you'd call AI nowadays. It was just pattern matching.
>
> Given that two different, unrelated recordings of the same piece of
> music have entirely unrelated waveforms, I'm not sure how you can claim
> that simple pattern matching would find such a complex similarity.
>
> > Why are you using the subjunctive, as if this is a fictional story?
>
> Damnit, now I have to go look up what a "subjunctive" is...

You're not matching the waveform but the spectrum.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/7/2011 8:57, Aydan wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> On 07/06/2011 04:41 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2011 8:39, Invisible wrote:
>>>> This would be a rather stunning result for AI.
>>>
>>> It wasn't even what you'd call AI nowadays. It was just pattern matching.
>>
>> Given that two different, unrelated recordings of the same piece of
>> music have entirely unrelated waveforms, I'm not sure how you can claim
>> that simple pattern matching would find such a complex similarity.
>>
>>> Why are you using the subjunctive, as if this is a fictional story?
>>
>> Damnit, now I have to go look up what a "subjunctive" is...
>
> You're not matching the waveform but the spectrum.

Or, in this case, "I went to the store yesterday" followed by "that would be 
cool if it were possible."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

>> Yes. And these changes are very, very precise. If they weren't, you'd
>> fall over. The fact that it does this in a feedback loop doesn't negate
>> the need for very exact, very fine controls.
>
> I'd say the changes are NOT precise but they are minute and the update rate is
> fast.

That's one valid way to control error, yes. But I still don't think 
that's how the human brain achieves precision, for the most part.

> If the human body would be capable of precice movement then you should be able
> to repeat movements exactly every time you do them.

Yes.

> But that's not how it turns out.

Really?

> Try throwing a ball at something. You won't be able to hit the same spot twice
> in a row. If you practice very very hard, you might get close but you still
> won't hit the same spot every time.

Or how about this: Try pressing the same keys on a keyboard in the same 
complex sequence, with your eyes closed.

Oh, wait... I can actually do that. And I frequently do. On a daily 
basis, in fact. Obviously my brain lacks the "precision" necessary to 
position my fingers to exactly align with the notes even though there's 
no tactile feedback until I actually touch the key...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 07/06/2011 04:58 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 6/7/2011 8:45, Invisible wrote:
>> I'm not sure how you can claim that
>> simple pattern matching would find such a complex similarity.
>
> I'm not saying it would. I'm saying it *did*.

And if I told you that scientists have come up with a computer program 
that can accurately estimate a person's intelligence from an analysis of 
their DNA, you'd call BS. Even though you don't have a shred of proof 
that it's not true, and there's no logical reason why it's impossible. 
You wouldn't believe it.

And that's why when somebody says "one time I did <insert very unlikely 
thing here>", people tend not to believe it.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 6/7/2011 10:44, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> And that's why when somebody says "one time I did <insert very unlikely
> thing here>", people tend not to believe it.

So, you're saying I'm lying?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Or how about this: Try pressing the same keys on a keyboard in the same
> complex sequence, with your eyes closed.
>
> Oh, wait... I can actually do that. And I frequently do. On a daily
> basis, in fact. Obviously my brain lacks the "precision" necessary to
> position my fingers to exactly align with the notes even though there's
> no tactile feedback until I actually touch the key...

Every time you touch a key you get the feedback you need to compensate for
drift, because you feel if you were to the right or to the left of the key
center or you hit the wrong key entirely.
The same for touch typing on a computer keyboard. You wouldn't be able to do
that on a touchscreen without tactile feedback where the keys actually are.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Or how about this: Try pressing the same keys on a keyboard in the same
> complex sequence, with your eyes closed.
>
> Oh, wait... I can actually do that. And I frequently do. On a daily
> basis, in fact. Obviously my brain lacks the "precision" necessary to
> position my fingers to exactly align with the notes even though there's
> no tactile feedback until I actually touch the key...

As for precision, try the following experiment:
1. Sit in front of your computer and put your finger on a key.
2. Close your eyes
3. wave aroud wildly with your arms
4. put the finger back on the key from step one.
5. open your eyes
Did you hit the same key? I doubt it.
If you can do that than that's what I'd call precice.
Moving youf finger a few centimeters without watching and hitting a key that is
more than a finger wide is not precise.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/7/2011 10:22 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Or how about this: Try pressing the same keys on a keyboard in the same
> complex sequence, with your eyes closed.
>
> Oh, wait... I can actually do that. And I frequently do. On a daily
> basis, in fact. Obviously my brain lacks the "precision" necessary to
> position my fingers to exactly align with the notes even though there's
> no tactile feedback until I actually touch the key...
>
Betting that, sans mechanical failure, or vibration, a robot would wear 
down a very "tiny" spot on each keyboard, following such a complex 
pattern, while humans would have a wider area of wearing. That said, the 
hands, being a high use part, with specific adaptations *may* include 
additional feedback, or more precise control, specifically due to the 
fact that using them *requires* it. Throwing a ball is a bit different, 
it requires larger muscles, more motion, usually doesn't imply/require 
as much precision, and is more dependent on anomalies in the position of 
other limbs, this means a much *larger* number of inputs, more variance, 
and probably less precise control, since you would have to be processing 
feedback for nearly every muscle in the body, to get anything close to 
the same level of precision as your hands, which can remain in a fixed 
position, or resting against something, which minimizes secondary movements.

Post a reply to this message