18 Jan
2025
18 Jan
'25
7:36 a.m.
A little humor for the group.
Among my other "legacy" systems I also have and still fool around
with a bunch of TRS-80's. Believe it or not, the Z80 based TRS-80's
were among the systems for which a version of STVOS was available.
Thought I would look to see if any of it was still floating around.
Asked Google
"TRS-80 Software Tools Virtual Operating System"
Got this result at the top of my response generated by whatever AI
engine they use.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A "TRS-80 Software Tools Virtual Operating System" refers to a software
program that allows a modern computer to emulate a vintage TRS-80
computer, essentially creating a virtual environment where you can run
old TRS-80 software, including operating systems like TRSDOS, by
simulating the hardware and functionality of the original machine,
letting you access and use programs designed for the TRS-80 on your
current computer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the biggest pile of steaming poo I have ever seen come out of
any of the various AI engines I have run into. Not one piece of it is
accurate other than the mention of TRSDOS.
I also have a bunch of iRobot Roombas in my house. Based on my
experience with AI and robots I think there is no chance we will
have to worry about any Terminators in the future.
bill
18 Jan
18 Jan
8:53 a.m.
On 18/01/2025 15:36, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
A little humor for the group.
Among my other "legacy" systems I also have and still fool around
with a bunch of TRS-80's. Believe it or not, the Z80 based TRS-80's
were among the systems for which a version of STVOS was available.
Thought I would look to see if any of it was still floating around.
Asked Google
"TRS-80 Software Tools Virtual Operating System"
Got this result at the top of my response generated by whatever AI
engine they use.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A "TRS-80 Software Tools Virtual Operating System" refers to a
software program that allows a modern computer to emulate a vintage
TRS-80 computer, essentially creating a virtual environment where you
can run old TRS-80 software, including operating systems like TRSDOS,
by simulating the hardware and functionality of the original machine,
letting you access and use programs designed for the TRS-80 on your
current computer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the biggest pile of steaming poo I have ever seen come out of
any of the various AI engines I have run into. Not one piece of it is
accurate other than the mention of TRSDOS.
This is what ChatGPT said about me:
----------------
Frank Leonhardt is known for his work as a programmer in the early days
of personal computing. He began programming on the Apple II in the late
1970s and later moved on to the Atari 8-bit computer platform. He was
involved in the development of several popular software titles for these
platforms, including games and utilities.
One of his most notable contributions was the development of the
"Assemblotron" programming tool, which was a popular assembly language
development environment for the Atari 8-bit computers. The tool was
widely used by Atari programmers in the 1980s and is still used by some
enthusiasts today.
Leonhardt's early work as a programmer helped pave the way for the
personal computing revolution and laid the foundation for the modern
computing industry that we know today.
----------------
Started off okay-ish. Then Atari 8-bit? Nope - never even owned one,
never mind writing a 6502 assembler for anything. Oh well, I guess it
confused me with the real author of "Assemblotron, so I looked it up.
The product is completely imaginary AFAIK, but perhaps someone here
knows different?
The last paragraph is over-stating things a bit. It clearly has no
knowledge of what happened before the WWW - presumably it scraped a load
of Personal Computer World articles while smoking e-pot.
9:08 a.m.
On 1/18/25 08:53, Frank Leonhardt via cctalk wrote:
Started off okay-ish. Then Atari 8-bit? Nope - never even owned one,
never mind writing a 6502 assembler for anything. Oh well, I guess it
confused me with the real author of "Assemblotron, so I looked it up.
The product is completely imaginary AFAIK, but perhaps someone here
knows different?
The last paragraph is over-stating things a bit. It clearly has no
knowledge of what happened before the WWW - presumably it scraped a load
of Personal Computer World articles while smoking e-pot.
Oh wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! Oh brave new world,
That has such AI in’t.’
I fear that before long, the WWW will be hopelessly polluted by
AI-generated content. "Facts" will become irrelevant.
--Chuck
10:13 a.m.
On 18/01/2025 17:08, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
I fear that before long, the WWW will be hopelessly
polluted by
AI-generated content. "Facts" will become irrelevant.
I think this has already started and is progressing at pace, but AI is a
late to the party.
We haven't noticed because neither Space Karen nor Zuck care about old
computers (and let's hope it stays that way).
Antonio
--
Antonio Carlini
antonio(a)acarlini.com
10:53 a.m.
I fear that before long, the WWW will be hopelessly
polluted by
AI-generated content. "Facts" will become irrelevant.
We call this "politics."
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser(a)floodgap.com
-- FOOLS! I WILL DESTROY YOU ALL! ASK ME HOW! -- "Girl Genius" 8/29/07 --------
3:10 p.m.
From: Cameron Kaiser via cctalk [mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2025 10:54 AM
To: Chuck Guzis via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Cc: Cameron Kaiser <spectre(a)floodgap.com>
Subject: [cctalk] Re: AI? Really?
Chuck G. wrote:
> I fear that before long, the WWW will be
hopelessly polluted by
> AI-generated content. "Facts" will become irrelevant.
To which Cameron K. replied:
We call this "politics."
I am compelled to say "Here, here!!!"
It could not have been defined any better or more succinctly, although I think you are
discrediting AI (tongue in cheek!)
-Rick
---
Rick Bensene
The Old Calculator Museum (and some old computers too) - Not AI generated!
https://oldcalculatormuseum.com
3:37 p.m.
Humans can defecate in a river and make it toxic, but the effect is
temporary.
It takes Technology and PROGRESS to create POPs
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_organic_pollutant> that will last
forever.
AI is to political discourse as POPs are to drinking water. But that's
fine, as long as you own a lot of tech stocks, either liquid or in your
401(k).
"Other people's problems, They overwhelm my mind
They say compassion is a virtue, But I don't have the time"
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 3:19 PM Rick Bensene via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
From: Cameron Kaiser via cctalk [mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2025 10:54 AM
To: Chuck Guzis via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Cc: Cameron Kaiser <spectre(a)floodgap.com>
Subject: [cctalk] Re: AI? Really?
Chuck G. wrote:
> I fear that before long, the WWW will be
hopelessly polluted by
> AI-generated content. "Facts" will become irrelevant.
To which Cameron K. replied:
We call this "politics."
I am compelled to say "Here, here!!!"
It could not have been defined any better or more succinctly, although I
think you are discrediting AI (tongue in cheek!)
-Rick
---
Rick Bensene
The Old Calculator Museum (and some old computers too) - Not AI generated!
https://oldcalculatormuseum.com
10:51 a.m.
On 18/01/2025 16:53, Frank Leonhardt via cctalk wrote:
> This is what ChatGPT said about me:
I learned a bit about the near-worthlessness of AI supplied web query results when I asked
Google about international book mail rates. I asked twice -- the first time it told me it
exists and pointed me to a USPS webpage, the second time it told me (correctly) that it
does not exist.
When AI can come up with "yes" and "no" for the same query, it
obviously is worthless.
paul
10:56 a.m.
AI is useful for getting funding, but nothing else.
Always has been.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 6:51 PM Paul Koning via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 16:53, Frank Leonhardt via cctalk wrote:
> This is what ChatGPT said about me:
I learned a bit about the near-worthlessness of AI supplied web query
results when I asked Google about international book mail rates. I asked
twice -- the first time it told me it exists and pointed me to a USPS
webpage, the second time it told me (correctly) that it does not exist.
When AI can come up with "yes" and "no" for the same query, it
obviously
is worthless.
paul
11:13 a.m.
On 1/18/25 10:56, Adrian Godwin via cctalk wrote:
AI is useful for getting funding, but nothing else.
Always has been.
The problem is the chum bucket that everything related to expert systems
and genetic algorithms is tossed into along with real LLM programs.
For example, yesterday, while informing me that I needed a root canal
procedure, my dentist was marveling at the "AI" of dental x-ray
processing techniques (he's taking classes).
He said, that the computerized version was more adroit at spotting decay
and could perform periodontal charting from radiographs without the
necessity of a hygienist poking at your gums with a probe.
I'd call that more in the realm of image processing and expert systems
rather than real AI.
--Chuck
11:17 a.m.
On Jan 18, 2025, at 2:13 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
He said, that the computerized version was more adroit at spotting decay
and could perform periodontal charting from radiographs without the
necessity of a hygienist poking at your gums with a probe.
I'd call that more in the realm of image processing and expert systems
rather than real AI.
Expert systems have always been considered a kind of AI system. What makes them somewhat
different is that they actually have a decades-long track record of working. I remember
learning these back in 1976, from visiting prof. Donald Mickie at the University of
Illinois. We used it to build a chess endgame machine.
paul
11:27 a.m.
And DEC used one to help configure systems. It would tell you if your configuration would
work or if you left anything out. We wanted a Vax 785 with 6 massbuss adapters but it told
us the buss was too long and would intermittently time out.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 18, 2025, at 11:17, Paul Koning via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Jan 18, 2025, at 2:13 PM, Chuck Guzis via
cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
He said, that the computerized version was more adroit at spotting decay
and could perform periodontal charting from radiographs without the
necessity of a hygienist poking at your gums with a probe.
I'd call that more in the realm of image processing and expert systems
rather than real AI.
Expert systems have always been considered a kind of AI system. What makes them somewhat
different is that they actually have a decades-long track record of working. I remember
learning these back in 1976, from visiting prof. Donald Mickie at the University of
Illinois. We used it to build a chess endgame machine.
paul
11:35 a.m.
On 1/18/25 11:17, Paul Koning wrote:
> Expert systems have always been considered a kind of AI system. What makes them
somewhat different is that they actually have a decades-long track record of working. I
remember learning these back in 1976, from visiting prof. Donald Mickie at the University
of Illinois. We used it to build a chess endgame machine.
...and we have decades of LLM-generated trash
before they develop a
similar reputation of working.
By the way, whatever happened to discussion of "fuzzy logic" and
"genetic algorithms"?
--Chuck
11:49 a.m.
They both died when Dr. Jones Journal stopped publication, as did many other topics.
I miss that Magazine.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 18, 2025, at 11:40, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 1/18/25 11:17, Paul Koning wrote:
> Expert systems have always been considered a kind of AI system. What makes them
somewhat different is that they actually have a decades-long track record of working. I
remember learning these back in 1976, from visiting prof. Donald Mickie at the University
of Illinois. We used it to build a chess endgame machine.
...and we have decades of LLM-generated trash before they develop a
similar reputation of working.
By the way, whatever happened to discussion of "fuzzy logic" and
"genetic algorithms"?
--Chuck
12:07 p.m.
Make that Dr. DOBBS …
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 18, 2025, at 11:49, Wayne S
<wayne.sudol(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
They both died when Dr. Jones Journal stopped publication, as did many other topics.
I miss that Magazine.
Sent from my iPhone
>> On Jan 18, 2025, at 11:40, Chuck Guzis via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
>>
>> On 1/18/25 11:17, Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>
>> Expert systems have always been considered a kind of AI system. What makes them
somewhat different is that they actually have a decades-long track record of working. I
remember learning these back in 1976, from visiting prof. Donald Mickie at the University
of Illinois. We used it to build a chess endgame machine.
>>
> ...and we have decades of LLM-generated trash before they develop a
> similar reputation of working.
>
> By the way, whatever happened to discussion of "fuzzy logic" and
> "genetic algorithms"?
>
> --Chuck
>
>
19 Jan
19 Jan
9:39 a.m.
Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 1/18/25 11:17, Paul Koning wrote:
What happened to them? They're everywhere in academic papers.
They've
become an easy way to get published. Nowadays they make up so many
bio-inspired variations of these algorithms that I think that they are
going to run out of animal names to assign to them. Most of these
publications are thrash, but there are a handful of genuine applications.
Fuzzy logic is still out there too, and in fact there are mature
applications in the field.
I usually refuse to review such papers for IEEE. Some links about the
diversity of bio-inspired stuff:
https://www.mdpi.com/2313-7673/8/3/278
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341594685_Review_and_Classificatio…
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352340920306867
carlos.
Expert systems have always been considered a kind
of AI system. What makes them somewhat different is that they actually have a
decades-long track record of working. I remember learning these back in 1976, from
visiting prof. Donald Mickie at the University of Illinois. We used it to build a chess
endgame machine.
...and we have decades of LLM-generated trash before they develop a
similar reputation of working.
By the way, whatever happened to discussion of "fuzzy logic" and
"genetic algorithms"?
--Chuck
10:03 a.m.
On 1/19/25 09:39, Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk wrote:
What happened to them? They're everywhere in
academic papers. They've
become an easy way to get published. Nowadays they make up so many bio-
inspired variations of these algorithms that I think that they are going
to run out of animal names to assign to them. Most of these publications
are thrash, but there are a handful of genuine applications.
I recall reading that behavior predictions made by genetic algorithms
would enable one to corner the US stock market. Of course, that was
before 2008.
--Chuck
10:24 a.m.
As you get more ai systems running you just run into the xeroxgraphoc effect and it all
falls down
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 19, 2025, at 1:11 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 1/19/25 09:39, Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk wrote:
What happened to them? They're everywhere in
academic papers. They've
become an easy way to get published. Nowadays they make up so many bio-
inspired variations of these algorithms that I think that they are going
to run out of animal names to assign to them. Most of these publications
are thrash, but there are a handful of genuine applications.
I recall reading that behavior predictions made by genetic algorithms
would enable one to corner the US stock market. Of course, that was
before 2008.
--Chuck
20 Jan
20 Jan
1:49 a.m.
They guard against that now by using outdated training data. Not an
approach that will work more than once.
I think we'd all be happier if AI output had to be marked as such.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 7:02 AM Christopher Zach via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
As you get more ai systems running you just run into
the xeroxgraphoc
effect and it all falls down
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 19, 2025, at 1:11 PM, Chuck Guzis via
cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 1/19/25 09:39, Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk wrote:
What happened to them? They're everywhere in
academic papers. They've
become an easy way to get published. Nowadays they make up so many bio-
inspired variations of these algorithms that I think that they are going
to run out of animal names to assign to them. Most of these publications
are thrash, but there are a handful of genuine applications.
I recall reading that behavior predictions made by genetic algorithms
would enable one to corner the US stock market. Of course, that was
before 2008.
--Chuck
6:41 a.m.
That is not a solution either: It just locks the AI into a 2015 or so
time period where they can't adapt to changing writing or speaking
styles. All the output is going to sound like an outdated person.
I'm already seeing this in "appliance repair" articles that are just AI
bots reading other AI bots info and making the results into complete
garbage. When you have one site that is a human and 100 sites that are
AI copies guess what the probability is that your new "repair site" is
going to get accurate data or garbage.
What's needed is to enslave humans to write new content to feed the AI
systems. :-)
On 1/20/2025 4:49 AM, Adrian Godwin via cctalk wrote:
They guard against that now by using outdated training
data. Not an
approach that will work more than once.
I think we'd all be happier if AI output had to be marked as such.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 7:02 AM Christopher Zach via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
> As you get more ai systems running you just run into the xeroxgraphoc
> effect and it all falls down
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jan 19, 2025, at 1:11 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk <
> cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/19/25 09:39, Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk wrote:
>>
>>> What happened to them? They're everywhere in academic papers.
They've
>>> become an easy way to get published. Nowadays they make up so many bio-
>>> inspired variations of these algorithms that I think that they are going
>>> to run out of animal names to assign to them. Most of these publications
>>> are thrash, but there are a handful of genuine applications.
>>
>> I recall reading that behavior predictions made by genetic algorithms
>> would enable one to corner the US stock market. Of course, that was
>> before 2008.
>>
>> --Chuck
>>
>
7:23 a.m.
On 2025-01-20 7:41 a.m., cz via cctalk wrote:
That is not a solution either: It just locks the AI
into a 2015 or so
time period where they can't adapt to changing writing or speaking
styles. All the output is going to sound like an outdated person.
I'm already seeing this in "appliance repair" articles that are just AI
bots reading other AI bots info and making the results into complete
garbage. When you have one site that is a human and 100 sites that are
AI copies guess what the probability is that your new "repair site" is
going to get accurate data or garbage.
What's needed is to enslave humans to write new content to feed the AI
systems. :-)
That was back with the early internet, when search engines worked, and the
internet still had user content.
19 Jan
19 Jan
10:49 a.m.
On 2025-01-19 11:03 a.m., Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 1/19/25 09:39, Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk
wrote:
I have no idea what happened 2008, but now everybody plays BITCOIN.
As for neural net software, the brain is in 3D not 2D. Flat chips don't
cut it.
I think the only real way to have AI evolve, is to have a cellular life
form with real DNA, and start as worm in a primeval ocean. Stop when you
get Trilobites. :)
What happened to them? They're everywhere in
academic papers. They've
become an easy way to get published. Nowadays they make up so many bio-
inspired variations of these algorithms that I think that they are going
to run out of animal names to assign to them. Most of these publications
are thrash, but there are a handful of genuine applications.
I recall reading that behavior predictions made by genetic algorithms
would enable one to corner the US stock market. Of course, that was
before 2008. --Chuck
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/05/how-to-mine-bitcoin-…
11:50 a.m.
On 1/19/25 10:49, ben via cctalk wrote:
I have no idea what happened 2008, but now everybody
plays BITCOIN.
As for neural net software, the brain is in 3D not 2D. Flat chips don't
cut it.
In 2008, the US stock market crashed, mostly due to human stupidity
(NINJA mortgages, which were then bundled and securitized). Treasury
spent billions of dollars buying up the bad mortgages and engaging in
Quantitative Easing so that cash-strapped banks could write new loans.
Some of the banks bailed out with government/taxpayer money, instead of
writing new loans, bought up bad mortgages which were then sold to the
US government at a profit.
Nobody went to prison for this.
I don't think that any genetic algorithm can predict the depths to which
human scheming can descend, particularly when it comes to finance.
--Chuck
11:45 a.m.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 10:11 AM Chuck Guzis via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 1/19/25 09:39, Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk
wrote:
Got any links to stories?
Sellam
What happened to them? They're everywhere in
academic papers. They've
become an easy way to get published. Nowadays they make up so many bio-
inspired variations of these algorithms that I think that they are going
to run out of animal names to assign to them. Most of these publications
are thrash, but there are a handful of genuine applications.
I recall reading that behavior predictions made by genetic algorithms
would enable one to corner the US stock market. Of course, that was
before 2008.
--Chuck
20 Jan
20 Jan
1:43 p.m.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 06:03:49PM +0000, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 1/19/25 09:39, Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk
wrote:
That, of course, includes the bold assumption that the stock market is
entirely rational. As the saying goes: Bold strategy, that.
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
What happened to them? They're everywhere in
academic papers. They've
become an easy way to get published. Nowadays they make up so many bio-
inspired variations of these algorithms that I think that they are going
to run out of animal names to assign to them. Most of these publications
are thrash, but there are a handful of genuine applications.
I recall reading that behavior predictions made by genetic algorithms
would enable one to corner the US stock market. Of course, that was
before 2008. 
1:21 p.m.
> Fuzzy logic is still out there too, and in fact
there are mature
> applications in the field.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025, Frank Leonhardt via cctalk wrote:
I'm not sure that I wouldn't describe neural
networks as fuzzy logic
with a fancy name.
35? years ago, one of my grad-school profs was at a seminar with Lofti
Zadeh ("Fuzzy Logic") After discussing combinatorial Fuzzy Logic, my prof
asked, "Isn't that just probability?"
Zadeh responded, "Probably."
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
3:47 p.m.
On 1/19/25 13:21, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
I recall that Bob Pease was not a fan of fuzzy logic. A bit from the ED
archives:
https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/embedded/digital-ics/article/…
--Chuck
> Fuzzy
logic is still out there too, and in fact there are mature
> applications in the field.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025, Frank Leonhardt via cctalk wrote:
I'm not sure that I wouldn't describe
neural networks as fuzzy logic
with a fancy name.
35? years ago, one of my grad-school profs was at a seminar with Lofti
Zadeh ("Fuzzy Logic") After discussing combinatorial Fuzzy Logic, my
prof asked, "Isn't that just probability?"
Zadeh responded, "Probably." 
18 Jan
18 Jan
12:42 p.m.
On 18/01/2025 19:17, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
Expert systems have always been considered a kind of
AI system. What
makes them somewhat different is that they actually have a
decades-long track record of working. I remember learning these back
in 1976, from visiting prof. Donald Mickie at the University of
Illinois. We used it to build a chess endgame machine.
paul
I'd say yes and no to that. But then I don't consider generative AI to
be anything to do with actual Artificial Intelligence either. I wrote
about this stuff in the 1990s and called these things Simulated
Intelligence, a term which never took off but which I stand by to this day!
Around 1981 I wrote what would now be called chatbot in 6502 (on an OSI
500 board - obligatory old computer content) that was placed in our
local library for the public to have a go on. Because most people hadn't
seen a computer, never mind interacted with one, it seemed intelligent
to them. (Think Eliza in 16K - it really wasn't that smart).
I'm not sure who started calling this generative stuff "AI" but it was
great marketing!
19 Jan
19 Jan
1:35 a.m.
On 2025-01-18 1:42 p.m., Frank Leonhardt via cctalk wrote:
Around 1981 I wrote what would now be called chatbot
in 6502 (on an OSI
500 board - obligatory old computer content) that was placed in our
local library for the public to have a go on. Because most people hadn't
seen a computer, never mind interacted with one, it seemed intelligent
to them. (Think Eliza in 16K - it really wasn't that smart).
I think it was this guy that started it.
https://sites.google.com/view/elizagen-org/original-eliza
And yes SOURCE.
4:32 a.m.
On 19/01/2025 09:35, ben via cctalk wrote:
On 2025-01-18 1:42 p.m., Frank Leonhardt via cctalk
wrote:
Wow! Thanks. My effort was more like the original than I thought. I was
expanding on ideas in a Creative Computing(?) article, which said it was
taking a different approach from the "original LISP" version. (IIRC - it
was a long time ago).
I noticed that people would ask questions, to which variations of "I
don't know" were the only possible answer so my implementation would
respond with something like "I don't know, [original question]?", which
it would then store because they always tested it by asking again.
Surely this was machine learning and therefore Artificial Intelligence! :-)
Incidentally, this is when I realised the Imitation Game (Turing Test)
was no more a proof of AI than winning at chess. Whether you can fool a
human depends on the discretion of the said human, and still does.
Somewhere, I have an early Eliza written in EMACS ;-)
Around 1981 I wrote what would now be called
chatbot in 6502 (on an
OSI 500 board - obligatory old computer content) that was placed in
our local library for the public to have a go on. Because most people
hadn't seen a computer, never mind interacted with one, it seemed
intelligent to them. (Think Eliza in 16K - it really wasn't that smart).
I think it was this guy that started it.
https://sites.google.com/view/elizagen-org/original-eliza
And yes SOURCE.
4:33 a.m.
On 18/01/2025 19:17, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
Expert systems have always been considered a kind of
AI system. What
makes them somewhat different is that they actually have a
decades-long track record of working. I remember learning these back
in 1976, from visiting prof. Donald Mickie at the University of
Illinois. We used it to build a chess endgame machine.
paul
I'd say yes and no to that. But then I don't consider generative AI to
be anything to do with actual Artificial Intelligence either. I wrote
about this stuff in the 1990s and called these things Simulated
Intelligence, a term which never took off but which I stand by to this day!
Around 1981 I wrote what would now be called chatbot in 6502 (on an OSI
500 board - obligatory old computer content) that was placed in our
local library for the public to have a go on. Because most people hadn't
seen a computer, never mind interacted with one, it seemed intelligent
to them. (Think Eliza in 16K - it really wasn't that smart).
I'm not sure who started calling this generative stuff "AI" but it was
great marketing!
5:12 a.m.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 12:42 PM Frank Leonhardt via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
I'd say yes and no to that. But then I don't consider generative AI to
be anything to do with actual Artificial Intelligence either. I wrote
about this stuff in the 1990s and called these things Simulated
Intelligence, a term which never took off but which I stand by to this day!
It's a good description.
I like to parse the 'artificial' differently. It's not AN artificial
intelligence - a manufactured entity that exhibits intelligence - it's JUST
artificial intelligence - something that appears to be intelligence but
isn't, like artificial turf.
I hope that one day we will have machine intelligences. But I'm unsure that
merely imitating how they might look is a path to that.
7:37 a.m.
On 2025-01-19 6:12 a.m., Adrian Godwin via cctalk wrote:
I like to parse the 'artificial' differently.
It's not AN artificial
intelligence - a manufactured entity that exhibits intelligence - it's JUST
artificial intelligence - something that appears to be intelligence but
isn't, like artificial turf.
I hope that one day we will have machine intelligences. But I'm unsure that
merely imitating how they might look is a path to that.
I thought that all was covered on the movie, Metropolis.
Ask HAL 9000 for real answers. I think self aware is needed 1st
and a body, other wise it all just text word games.
1:12 p.m.
On 19/01/2025 15:37, ben via cctalk wrote:
On 2025-01-19 6:12 a.m., Adrian Godwin via cctalk
wrote:
Now define "self-awareness"! But we're absolutely seeing word games and
probability right now. Like the mechanical Turk, there's nothing
intelligent in the machine.
While we're at it, biological science had clearly been unable to create
life. Not even a single cell. And I've no reason to believe we're about
to see a breakthrough it that either.
I like to parse the 'artificial'
differently. It's not AN artificial
intelligence - a manufactured entity that exhibits intelligence -
it's JUST
artificial intelligence - something that appears to be intelligence but
isn't, like artificial turf.
I hope that one day we will have machine intelligences. But I'm
unsure that
merely imitating how they might look is a path to that.
I thought that all was covered on the movie, Metropolis.
Ask HAL 9000 for real answers. I think self aware is needed 1st
and a body, other wise it all just text word games.
1:15 p.m.
On 19/01/2025 15:37, ben via cctalk wrote:
On 2025-01-19 6:12 a.m., Adrian Godwin via cctalk
wrote:
Now define "self-awareness"! But we're absolutely seeing word games and
probability right now. Like the mechanical Turk, there's nothing
intelligent in the machine.
While we're at it, biological science had clearly been unable to create
life. Not even a single cell. And I've no reason to believe we're about
to see a breakthrough it that either.
I like to parse the 'artificial'
differently. It's not AN artificial
intelligence - a manufactured entity that exhibits intelligence -
it's JUST
artificial intelligence - something that appears to be intelligence but
isn't, like artificial turf.
I hope that one day we will have machine intelligences. But I'm
unsure that
merely imitating how they might look is a path to that.
I thought that all was covered on the movie, Metropolis.
Ask HAL 9000 for real answers. I think self aware is needed 1st
and a body, other wise it all just text word games.
1:44 p.m.
On 2025-01-19 2:15 p.m., Frank Leonhardt via cctalk wrote:
While we're at it, biological science had clearly
been unable to create
life. Not even a single cell. And I've no reason to believe we're about
to see a breakthrough it that either.
You have not seen the stuff way behind in my fridge. :)
That is true, the source code for life was lost a few billion years ago.
Life is based on carbon compounds (sorry Horta) as mechanical machines.
FREE OXYGEN , I think kills any kind of retro life should it happen.
Lots of room for computer experimentation there.
2:36 p.m.
What I see now has several issues. One I fear is a thing called fidelity. Like humans
passing some massage on through a chain people only worse. No machine will recognize that
the message got lost, along the way. Right now, we have no way to determine how many AI
levels the information has gone through.
I'm also told that it occasionally hallucinates. Not all that surprizing. They say
they are working on it.
Another thing that is bad, is the enormous amount of power consumed in the learning
process. We already have a serious issue with finding less harmful ways of generating
power.
Then, what can we do with a high percentage of the current younger generation thinking the
earth is flat.
Computer generated AI should fit right in.
Dwight
20 Jan
20 Jan
1:53 p.m.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 02:44:52PM -0700, ben via cctalk wrote:
On 2025-01-19 2:15 p.m., Frank Leonhardt via cctalk
wrote:
I do suspect that the place behind your fridge didn't exactly start
as utterly sterizilied and guaranteed to be devoid of life ;-)
While we're at it, biological science had
clearly been unable to create
life. Not even a single cell. And I've no reason to believe we're about
to see a breakthrough it that either.
You have not seen the stuff way behind in my fridge. :) That is true, the source code for life was lost a few
billion years ago.
Life is based on carbon compounds (sorry Horta) as mechanical machines.
FREE OXYGEN , I think kills any kind of retro life should it happen.
Lots of room for computer experimentation there.
Well, it's called the "Oxygen Catastrophe" for reasons.
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
1:51 p.m.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 09:15:54PM +0000, Frank Leonhardt via cctalk wrote:
On 19/01/2025 15:37, ben via cctalk wrote:
There are theories which speculate that self-awareness is not needed for
intelligence, but that is diving into philosophy ...
On 2025-01-19 6:12 a.m., Adrian Godwin via cctalk
wrote:
Now define "self-awareness"! I like to parse the 'artificial'
differently. It's not AN artificial
intelligence - a manufactured entity that exhibits intelligence -
it's JUST
artificial intelligence - something that appears to be intelligence but
isn't, like artificial turf.
I hope that one day we will have machine intelligences. But I'm
unsure that
merely imitating how they might look is a path to that.
I thought that all was covered on the movie, Metropolis.
Ask HAL 9000 for real answers. I think self aware is needed 1st
and a body, other wise it all just text word games. But we're absolutely seeing word games and
probability right now. Like the mechanical Turk, there's nothing intelligent
in the machine.
But there sure is a lot clever marketing around it.
While we're at it, biological science had clearly
been unable to create
life. Not even a single cell. And I've no reason to believe we're about to
see a breakthrough it that either.
There have been various "simulate early (theoretical) earth conditions
in the lab to see what happens" and while at least some got all the way
to some interesting organic molecules, none of them reached even the most
primitive life forms - maybe they just need to refine their experiments
and run them for a billion years? ;-)
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
21 Jan
21 Jan
3:03 a.m.
On 2025-01-20 2:51 p.m., Alexander Schreiber via cctalk wrote:
ee a breakthrough it that either.
There have been various "simulate early (theoretical) earth conditions
in the lab to see what happens" and while at least some got all the way
to some interesting organic molecules, none of them reached even the most
primitive life forms - maybe they just need to refine their experiments
and run them for a billion years? ;-)
It still could be solved as puzzle.
You need enzymes to make enzymes or you just end up with primeval soup.
It just has to work say 10% in the positive direction of the time for
something useful start with. Use that as weird molecule zip and unzip
RNA segments.
One factor, gravity may have been .5 G back then.
Kind regards,
Alex.
Now that my PCB boards have shipped, I will go back to primeval
computing with 18 bits, when computers were just crawling onto land.
They just seem more interesting than today's RISC's. Byte addressing
may have been a step backwards do to the loss 1 bit the order code
and 1 bit in address ranges.
Ben.
9:54 a.m.
On Jan 21, 2025, at 6:03 AM, ben via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 2025-01-20 2:51 p.m., Alexander Schreiber via cctalk wrote:
ee a breakthrough it that either.
Uh, what? How would the earth surface gravity be that much different? "Citation
needed" as Wikipedia would say.
paul
There have been various "simulate early
(theoretical) earth conditions
in the lab to see what happens" and while at least some got all the way
to some interesting organic molecules, none of them reached even the most
primitive life forms - maybe they just need to refine their experiments
and run them for a billion years? ;-)
It still could be solved as puzzle.
You need enzymes to make enzymes or you just end up with primeval soup.
It just has to work say 10% in the positive direction of the time for something useful
start with. Use that as weird molecule zip and unzip RNA segments.
One factor, gravity may have been .5 G back then
11:52 a.m.
On 2025-01-21 10:54 a.m., Paul Koning wrote:
Uh, what? How would the earth surface gravity be that much different? "Citation
needed" as Wikipedia would say.
paul
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodynamics
11:59 a.m.
"rejected by mainstream science" ???
Now you might be on to something!
🙂
________________________________
From: ben via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 1:52 PM
To: Paul Koning <pa0pkg(a)gmail.com>om>; cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Cc: ben <bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca>
Subject: [cctalk] Re: AI? Really?
On 2025-01-21 10:54 a.m., Paul Koning wrote:
Uh, what? How would the earth surface gravity be that much different? "Citation
needed" as Wikipedia would say.
paul
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodynamics
12:04 p.m.
On Jan 21, 2025, at 2:52 PM, ben via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 2025-01-21 10:54 a.m., Paul Koning wrote:
Oh, ok. So it's fictional.
paul
Uh, what? How would the earth surface gravity be
that much different? "Citation needed" as Wikipedia would say.
paul
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodynamics
2:52 p.m.
One factor, gravity may have been .5 G back then
On 2025-01-21 10:54 a.m., Paul Koning wrote:
> Uh, what? How would the earth surface gravity be that much
> different? "Citation needed" as Wikipedia would say.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025, ben via cctalk wrote:
(-:
Well, increased gravity might account for why everything seems more
difficult now than when we were young.
We used to be able to walk to school in the snow, uphill in both
directions.
Has the earth's mass increased significantly?
If gravity itself has changed, then maybe speed of light has changed also!
Is there a substantial increase in the computron density in modern
computers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience
"Modern flat Earth beliefs propose that Earth is a flat, disc-shaped
planet that accelerates upward, producing the illusion of gravity.
Proposers of a flat Earth, such as the Flat Earth Research Society, do not
accept compelling evidence, such as photos of Earth from space.[13]"
An increase in acceleration (third derivative positive) would account for
increased gravity.
:-)
2:59 p.m.
On 01/21/2025 5:52 PM EST Fred Cisin via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
An increase in acceleration (third derivative positive) would account for
increased gravity.
:-)
Geez! All this pseudo science! All ya gotta do is follow the REAL science! Of course
gravity has increased since there was nothing here! Now we have all these plants, and
bugs, and animals, and 8 billion humans. All that increased mass increases the gravity.
And every time a baby is born it gets even stronger. Pretty soon we will all be crushed
under our own weight!
You're welcome ;-)
Will
3:09 p.m.
> An increase in acceleration (third derivative
positive) would account for
> increased gravity.
> :-)
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025, wrcooke(a)wrcooke.net wrote:
Geez! All this pseudo science! All ya gotta do is
follow the REAL science! Of course gravity has increased since there was nothing here!
Now we have all these plants, and bugs, and animals, and 8 billion humans. All that
increased mass increases the gravity. And every time a baby is born it gets even
stronger. Pretty soon we will all be crushed under our own weight!
You're welcome ;-)
Thank you,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience
and, rain and snow surely can't be adequately compensated for by simple
evaporation!
Note that I did specifically suggest the possibility of increased mass:
> Has the earth's mass increased significantly?
If a lower gravity is a significant factor in why life could be created
more easily in the past, then perhaps some orbital experiments?
3:11 p.m.
On 21/01/2025 22:59, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote:
My doctor didn't believe me when I said
that of course I was heavier
when she weighed me in basement clinic, rather than the first
floor(usa)/ground floor(UK)...
On 01/21/2025 5:52 PM EST Fred Cisin via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
An increase in acceleration (third derivative positive) would account for
increased gravity.
:-)
Geez! All this pseudo science! All ya gotta do is follow the REAL science!
Of course gravity has increased since there was nothing here! Now we have all these
plants, and bugs, and animals, and 8 billion humans. All that increased mass increases
the gravity. And every time a baby is born it gets even stronger. Pretty soon we will
all be crushed under our own weight!
You're welcome ;-)
Will
Dave
3:28 p.m.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025, David Wade via cctalk wrote:
My doctor didn't believe me when I said that of
course I was heavier when she
weighed me in basement clinic, rather than the first floor(usa)/ground
floor(UK)...
At least take your shoes off to reduce the weight.
But, hold them in your hand, so that they don't get misplaced.
10:56 p.m.
Best AI was Edgar in the movie Electric Dreams. Created by accidentally
spilling wine into the keyboard - Edgar spent its idle time figuring out
what shape of puzzles would help make earthquake proof buildings, while
flirting (musically) with the girl next door. In the end, Edgar
transcended into cyberspace.
I agree with most of the others here: we're doing advanced expert systems,
trained and tuned to do specific things. No general purpose intelligence.
I'd be ok calling it "augmented intelligence" as those expert systems
can
help assist in things. Or HIP: Hyper Information Processing - much faster
ways to process and present multiple dimensions of data, that can help make
decisions, but aren't inherently intelligent.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 5:28 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025, David Wade via cctalk wrote:
My doctor didn't believe me when I said that
of course I was heavier
when she
weighed me in basement clinic, rather than the
first floor(usa)/ground
floor(UK)...
At least take your shoes off to reduce the weight.
But, hold them in your hand, so that they don't get misplaced.
23 Jan
23 Jan
7:15 a.m.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 12:52:49PM -0700, ben via cctalk wrote:
On 2025-01-21 10:54 a.m., Paul Koning wrote:
Ah, crackpot nonsense: "mainstream physicists have considered autodynamics
a crackpot theory for decades" - which is right there on the Wikipedia
page.
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
Uh, what? How would the earth surface gravity be that much different? "Citation
needed" as Wikipedia would say.
paul
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodynamics
7:44 a.m.
On 2025-01-23 8:15 a.m., Alexander Schreiber wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 12:52:49PM -0700, ben via
cctalk wrote:
How lucky I am that I am not a "mainstream physicist".
A true scientist looks at the evidence, not what is discussed by others.
I also like the expanding earth theory, vs continental drift.
Where is all that energy to move the plates around.
On 2025-01-21 10:54 a.m., Paul Koning wrote:
Ah, crackpot nonsense: "mainstream physicists have considered autodynamics
a crackpot theory for decades" - which is right there on the Wikipedia
page.
Kind regards,
Alex.
Uh, what? How would the earth surface gravity be that much different? "Citation
needed" as Wikipedia would say.
paul
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodynamics
2:11 p.m.
On Jan 23, 2025, at 10:44 AM, ben via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 2025-01-23 8:15 a.m., Alexander Schreiber wrote:
Indeed, which is precisely the point. Relativity is extremely well supported by evidence
as far back as 1919.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 12:52:49PM -0700, ben via
cctalk wrote:
How lucky I am that I am not a "mainstream physicist".
A true scientist looks at the evidence, not what is discussed by others. On 2025-01-21 10:54 a.m., Paul Koning wrote:
Ah, crackpot nonsense: "mainstream
physicists have considered autodynamics
a crackpot theory for decades" - which is right there on the Wikipedia
page.
Kind regards,
Alex.
Uh, what? How would the earth surface gravity be that much different? "Citation
needed" as Wikipedia would say.
paul
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodynamics I also like the expanding earth theory, vs continental
drift.
Where is all that energy to move the plates around.
In the hot earth core. Ever looked at a volcanic eruption? Lots of energy there. Also,
"expanding earth" doesn't explain subducting plates. Also, continental
drift can be readily measured with modern precision surveying tools.
paul
25 Jan
25 Jan
3:23 p.m.
Whelp, it's time to mute cctalk for a few weeks. See you all in Feb!
On 1/23/2025 5:11 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
On Jan 23, 2025, at 10:44 AM, ben via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 2025-01-23 8:15 a.m., Alexander Schreiber wrote:
Indeed, which is precisely the point. Relativity is extremely well supported by evidence
as far back as 1919.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 12:52:49PM -0700, ben via
cctalk wrote:
How lucky I am that I am not a "mainstream physicist".
A true scientist looks at the evidence, not what is discussed by others. On 2025-01-21 10:54 a.m., Paul Koning wrote:
>
> Uh, what? How would the earth surface gravity be that much different?
"Citation needed" as Wikipedia would say.
>
> paul
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodynamics
Ah, crackpot nonsense: "mainstream
physicists have considered autodynamics
a crackpot theory for decades" - which is right there on the Wikipedia
page.
Kind regards,
Alex. I also like the expanding earth theory, vs
continental drift.
Where is all that energy to move the plates around.
In the hot earth core. Ever looked at a volcanic eruption? Lots of energy there. Also,
"expanding earth" doesn't explain subducting plates. Also, continental
drift can be readily measured with modern precision surveying tools.
paul
2:24 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 08:44:29AM -0700, ben via cctalk wrote:
On 2025-01-23 8:15 a.m., Alexander Schreiber wrote:
Do you use any GNSS-based (e.g. GPS, Baidou, GLONASS, Galileo) services
such as dedicated navigation device (e.g. Garmin), navigation app on
your phone - or even flying commercially (yes, they primarily depend on
GNSS these days, but have backups for when the usual suspects (China and
Russia) play silly games). If yes, then you _rely_ on the theories of
special and general relativity to be correct - because GNSS service do
so to operate correctly.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 12:52:49PM -0700, ben via
cctalk wrote:
How lucky I am that I am not a "mainstream physicist".
A true scientist looks at the evidence, not what is discussed by others.
I also like the expanding earth theory, vs continental drift. On 2025-01-21 10:54 a.m., Paul Koning wrote:
Ah, crackpot nonsense: "mainstream physicists have considered autodynamics
a crackpot theory for decades" - which is right there on the Wikipedia
page.
Kind regards,
Alex.
Uh, what? How would the earth surface gravity be that much different? "Citation
needed" as Wikipedia would say.
paul
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodynamics Where is all that energy to move the plates around.
Two sources: remaining heat produced by compression heating from planetary
formation and radioaktive decay. Keeps the core and and the inner layers
of the planet nicely warm.
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
20 Jan
20 Jan
1:41 p.m.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 02:17:22PM -0500, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
On Jan 18, 2025, at 2:13 PM, Chuck Guzis via
cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
He said, that the computerized version was more adroit at spotting decay
and could perform periodontal charting from radiographs without the
necessity of a hygienist poking at your gums with a probe.
I'd call that more in the realm of image processing and expert systems
rather than real AI.
Expert systems have always been considered a kind of
AI system. What makes
them somewhat different is that they actually have a decades-long track
record of working. I remember learning these back in 1976, from visiting
prof. Donald Mickie at the University of Illinois. We used it to build a
chess endgame machine.
Plus, IIRC, the expert systems usually could dump their decision path
on request so one could debug them. With LLMs, if the bullshit gets too
bad, you toss out the model, twiddle the training parameters and train
again, hoping for the best.
Consequently, expert systems - when done well - are actually useful,
whereas the current crop of "AI" (LLMs essentially) is great for collecting
funding and dazzling the clueless, but not all that useful otherwise.
And those setups where neuronal networks are actually useful employ them
as powerful and specialized pattern matchers - which works well if done
carefully.
The next AI winter will surely arrive eventually ;-)
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
18 Jan
18 Jan
12:34 p.m.
On 18/01/2025 18:11, Antonio Carlini via cctalk wrote:
On 18/01/2025 16:53, Frank Leonhardt via cctalk
wrote:
In stack order:
It'll make something up about you shortly.
It was indeed - I wanted to know what it would say about me and whether
it was correct. At least I should know the right answer, although with
age my memory is fading. Perhaps I did write Assemblertron? Perhaps I
will in the future...
This is what ChatGPT said about me:
Is this the latest variation on goolging one's own name ? :-)
It doesn't know me at all. I'm assuming that means I'm safe ... for now.
9:12 a.m.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 10:36:57AM -0500, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
A little humor for the group.
Among my other "legacy" systems I also have and still fool around
with a bunch of TRS-80's. Believe it or not, the Z80 based TRS-80's
were among the systems for which a version of STVOS was available.
Thought I would look to see if any of it was still floating around.
Asked Google
"TRS-80 Software Tools Virtual Operating System"
Got this result at the top of my response generated by whatever AI
engine they use.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A "TRS-80 Software Tools Virtual Operating System" refers to a software
program that allows a modern computer to emulate a vintage TRS-80 computer,
essentially creating a virtual environment where you can run old TRS-80
software, including operating systems like TRSDOS, by simulating the
hardware and functionality of the original machine, letting you access and
use programs designed for the TRS-80 on your current computer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is the biggest pile of steaming poo I have ever seen come out of
any of the various AI engines I have run into. Not one piece of it is
accurate other than the mention of TRSDOS.
First off all, that which is being marketed as "AI" these days is
essentially pattern matching on drugs and industrial solvents. No matter
what the marketing tells you, these systems do not and cannot think or
reason. When queried (and both the queries and the answers tend to be
heavily filtered and reprocessed from I read), they are hilariously prone
to whats politely called "hallucinations" and what is actually "vomiting
bullshit"[0]. Second: There are echos of the OG AI boom here, except these
days the systems use _epic_ amounts of brute force because today we can and
back then, _nobody_ could even build systems with a fraction of the compute
that is being casually thrown around here.
LLMs are being called "Stochastic Parrots" for very good reasons.
I also have a bunch of iRobot Roombas in my house.
Based on my experience
with AI and robots I think there is no chance we will
have to worry about any Terminators in the future.
Oversized pattern matching systems do have their use in the appropriate
places - i.e. when the problem to be solved _is_ actually pattern matching.
For instance, Swiss Railways (SBB) uses acoustic detectors tied to rails
feeding into a well trained "AI" pattern matching system to detect and
classify damage to rolling stock wheels based on the acoustic signature
of the damage - and then matches against time tables and train data to
identify the damaged wheel so it can be fixed and doesn't further damage
the rails.
Kind regards,
Alex.
[0] See Harry Frankfurter: On Bullshit
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
12:27 p.m.
On 18/01/2025 15:36, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
A little humor for the group.
I also have a bunch of iRobot Roombas in my house.
Based on my
experience with AI and robots I think there is no chance we will
have to worry about any Terminators in the future.
My robot vacuum has taken to asking "Please empty my dustbin and clean
my filter" about 5 minutes after I did that. More annoyingly, it
insists that "I'm stuck. Please move me so I can recover my position"
about 15 seconds after it's successfully docked with its charging station.
--
Pete
Pete Turnbull
1:29 p.m.
On 2025-01-18 1:27 p.m., Pete Turnbull via cctalk wrote:
On 18/01/2025 15:36, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
wrote:
Time to get a STEAM PUNK VERSION. :)
A little humor for the group.
I also have a bunch of iRobot Roombas in my
house. Based on my
experience with AI and robots I think there is no chance we will
have to worry about any Terminators in the future.
My robot vacuum has taken to asking "Please empty my dustbin and clean
my filter" about 5 minutes after I did that. More annoyingly, it
insists that "I'm stuck. Please move me so I can recover my position"
about 15 seconds after it's successfully docked with its charging station.
1:42 p.m.
There will be Terminators, but they will all have the same bug where they
point the gun at their own head while saying Pasta la VISA (brought to you
by Carl's Jr).
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 1:30 PM ben via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On 2025-01-18 1:27 p.m., Pete Turnbull via cctalk
wrote:
Time to get a STEAM PUNK VERSION. :)
On 18/01/2025 15:36, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
wrote:
station.
A little humor for the group.
I also have a bunch of iRobot Roombas in my
house. Based on my
experience with AI and robots I think there is no chance we will
have to worry about any Terminators in the future.
My robot vacuum has taken to asking "Please empty my dustbin and clean
my filter" about 5 minutes after I did that. More annoyingly, it
insists that "I'm stuck. Please move me so I can recover my position"
about 15 seconds after it's successfully docked with its charging
19 Jan
19 Jan
2:07 a.m.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 08:27:05PM +0000, Pete Turnbull via cctalk wrote:
[...]
My robot vacuum has taken to asking "Please empty
my dustbin and clean my
filter" about 5 minutes after I did that. More annoyingly, it insists that
"I'm stuck. Please move me so I can recover my position" about 15 seconds
after it's successfully docked with its charging station.
That's "smart" devices for you.
My robot vacuum is extremely dumb and after observing it bimbling around the
room, I decided that it had so few brains that it could be done with a
handful of 74-series chips. Indeed the only reasons that it couldn't have
been made in the 1970s is that it's powered by a high-density rechargable
battery and doesn't need constant feeding with expensive lantern batteries,
it has the obligatory searing-blue LED to tell me it's turned on because
apparently moving around and making a racket isn't a big enough clue, and
that it's not in that depressing cream and brown colour scheme which was
apparently a legal requirement for "white" goods back then.
4:50 a.m.
On 2025-01-19 3:07 a.m., Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 08:27:05PM +0000, Pete
Turnbull via cctalk wrote:
[...]
TTL???
Old relays work better!
Thinking of some sort of robot I read about from 1960's book.
My robot vacuum has taken to asking "Please
empty my dustbin and clean my
filter" about 5 minutes after I did that. More annoyingly, it insists that
"I'm stuck. Please move me so I can recover my position" about 15 seconds
after it's successfully docked with its charging station.
That's "smart" devices for you.
My robot vacuum is extremely dumb and after observing it bimbling around the
room, I decided that it had so few brains that it could be done with a
handful of 74-series chips. Indeed the only reasons that it couldn't have
been made in the 1970s is that it's powered by a high-density rechargable
battery and doesn't need constant feeding with expensive lantern batteries,
it has the obligatory searing-blue LED to tell me it's turned on because
apparently moving around and making a racket isn't a big enough clue, and
that it's not in that depressing cream and brown colour scheme which was
apparently a legal requirement for "white" goods back then.
5:49 a.m.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 12:51 PM ben via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Old relays work better!
Thinking of some sort of robot I read about from 1960's book.
Philips publshed a book called 'Practical Robot Circuits, I think in
the 1960s. Most of the book described a robot 'dog' that would respond
to light and sound, turn to and lick warm food ,and so on. I seem to
remember the electronics was based on D-series (1.5V filament) B7G
based (7 pin miniature) valves (tubes).
In the 1980s a UK magazine called 'Hobby Electronics' published the
designs for the HEbot. This had quite simple but ingenious electronics
using simple logic chips (4000 CMOS at least in part). Each sensor
system had an output to say it was active, these were fed to a
priority encoder, the output of which controlled a pair of analogue
multiplexers which routed the signal outputs of the highest-priority
active sensor to the motor drivers.
You can do an awful lot without microcontrollers.
-tony
9:29 a.m.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025, Tony Duell via cctalk wrote:
You can do an awful lot without microcontrollers.
A rabbit hole to wander down in this vein is BEAM Robotics...
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BEAM_robotics
Gordon
8:21 a.m.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025, ben via cctalk wrote:
TTL???
Old relays work better!
Thinking of some sort of robot I read about from 1960's book.
Marvin:
And then of course I've got this terrible pain in all the diodes down my
left side.
Arthur Dent:
Really.
Marvin:
Oh, yes. I mean, I've asked for them to be replaced, but no-one ever
listens.
20 Jan
20 Jan
3:36 p.m.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 at 16:21, Fred Cisin via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Marvin:
And then of course I've got this terrible pain in all the diodes down my
left side.
Arthur Dent:
Really.
Marvin:
Oh, yes. I mean, I've asked for them to be replaced, but no-one ever
listens.
It does strike me that the LLM bots are an effort at Genuine People
Personalities™... and are about as desirable...
--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven(a)cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven(a)gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 227612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
19 Jan
19 Jan
2:24 a.m.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 5:32 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
I also have a bunch of iRobot Roombas in my house.
Based on my
experience with AI and robots I think there is no chance we will
have to worry about any Terminators in the future.
I certainly have to bother with terminators. One at each end of the
Unibus, one in the last RK05, RL02 or RK07 on its cable, one in the
last floppy drive on the cable, one at each end of a thinwire ethernet
segment and so on.
[Well, this is classiccmp]
-tony
7
days inactive
14
days old
72 comments
29 participants
participants (29)
-
Adrian Godwin -
Alexander Schreiber -
Antonio Carlini -
ben -
Bill Gunshannon -
Cameron Kaiser -
Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez -
Christopher Zach -
Chuck Guzis -
cz -
David Wade -
dwight -
Frank Leonhardt -
Frank Leonhardt -
Fred Cisin -
Gordon Henderson -
Joseph S. Barrera III -
Liam Proven -
Paul Koning -
Paul Koning -
Pete Turnbull -
Peter Corlett -
Rick Bensene -
roger arrick -
Sellam Abraham -
Steve Lewis -
Tony Duell -
Wayne S -
wrcooke＠wrcooke.net