'What is your name?' 'Zero Powers.' 'Do you deny having written the
> ><sigh> YES. REALLY. Take my word for it for chrissake. :) A list of
> >enemies will not suffice: you have to figure out how to write down the
> >function that takes grids of numbers and spits out a 1 if it's a picture
> >of one of the enemies on your list and a 0 otherwise. This is a very
> >complicated function which nobody can write down today.
> >Using AIs here is the application of a magic genie that will solve all
> >your computational problems. A genie like that might not WANT to solve
> >all our problems; it might just decide to do its own thing or figure out
> >the meaning of life or what have you.
> Tell me it is *impossible* and I will shut up. The mere fact that its
> not easy does not make a hill of beans difference to me. It wasn't
> *easy* going to the moon. If it can be done, at some point or another
> somebody will throw enough money and enough programmers at the problem
> to get it done. The fact that nobody has done it yet, or that *you*
> don't see a way to do it does not matter.
Again, I don't think it's impossible. I think it's hard. Which means
that it's easier for the more powerful.
> But even a hugely massive problem becomes manageable when tasks are broken
> up and distributed. The bigger the problem, the more hardware and software
> you throw at it. If you have every machine on the planet working to break
> it there is no such thing yet as an unbreakable code. You have to admit
> that at *some* level of computational power the problem can be solved. I
> think you'll also have to admit that at some point in the future that level
> of computation will be reached.
Sure. And it will be more accessible to the powerful than the weak.
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:47 MDT