User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 6:55:54 PM EDT
[#1]
I'm guessing that what was done was a lot less advanced as far as what is does compared to how it does it. I guarantee there is no complex thought processes going on. All it is, is a simple "stimulus, response!". Straight and level flight? Wow. How do you think this "brain" knows where the plane is going? I'm sure there is a simple input to it that indicates the plane is pitching left, and the super duper brain responds with "pitch right" and vice versa.
And even still, it's only "relatively stable straight and level flight." What is interesting though are the implications. They are still trying to figure out how this all works, and this is a testbed to do that. The wierd thing is, knowing what I know about computers, it seems pretty far fetched for a program to become "self aware". If we're building computers from neurons, the same ones that run real actual brains, hmm I'm not so sure!! ETA: Why is my post always the one that bumps over to the next page? It's uncanny! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 7:01:56 PM EDT
[#2]
And why would it WANT to fly an F-22? Was it bored or something? Or is it a patriotic rat brain cell colony and just wants to do its bit for national security? Does it rate flight pay? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 7:09:25 PM EDT
[#3]
Conditioning. They taught it to fly by imposing some sort of penalty or pain assosiated with crashing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 7:38:04 PM EDT
[#4]
What they did with the "software" was not so impressive. Formal models of control mechanisms have existed since the 1930s. Even as far as neural networks go, this was not that impressive a feat. The techniques have been around since the 1960s. The onboard computers in the aircraft certainly do a better job with more reliability.
What they did with the "hardware" was the big deal. They took neurons, and "trained" them to perform a task. Essentially, they built a computer out of rat brain cells and programmed it. According to the article, they still don't understand quite how it works. They are still in the "press this button, and cheese comes out!", to use an appropriate analogy, stage as far as understanding how the brain works. It's a baby step, but one in the right direction and maybe a bit of a bigger one than usual. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 7:45:04 PM EDT
[#5]
And how do you justify the "right direction" nothing but bad can come of these "scientist" playing God. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 7:46:16 PM EDT
[#6]
 HAL, is that you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 7:48:21 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 7:48:32 PM EDT
[#8]
Wait a minute. How in the heck is the brain supposed to know that it's supposed to keep the plane level?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 7:50:57 PM EDT
[#9]
Would you put that brain in a robot body?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 7:52:19 PM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 7:56:24 PM EDT
[#11]
Umm.... this is very scary and shouldn't be allowed to happen or continue. We are opening up a can or worms that should NOT be touched. Dangerous consequences, morally, ethically and maybe physically in the years to come.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 7:58:40 PM EDT
[#12]
DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!!! DANGER!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 8:02:31 PM EDT
[#13]
No one is playing God. The people that are screaming "Cyberdyne Industries" are a bit off the mark. It's a grid of cells in a dish. It's not a brain, it's not a new form of life, and it's certainly not self-aware. All they did was construct a simple computer out of rat brain cells, as opposed to silicon chips, and program it to do a simple task (respond to electrical input from the simulator). They did this to try to learn how neurons work together to function as a computer. Whatever technology develops from this is purely hypothetical, and probably fifty years or more in the future. And when that technology does get out of the development stage, it won't be a brain, any kind of lifeform, or self-aware either. EDIT: They could have, and probably did, do this in the early 1970s using conventional computer hardware. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 8:02:31 PM EDT
[#14]
This is BS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 8:02:56 PM EDT
[#15]
I hate to stand in the way with scientific progress, but I have to agree with you on this one. Playing god is acceptable to a certain point, but this crosses the line. Maybe I just have my tinfoil hat on too tight, but I think the possibilities for something like this to be abused and grow out of control outweighs any good it might do. I hope this is BS, or I have misunderstood something, but if not, I'd just rather they keep Pandora's box closed this time around. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 8:08:20 PM EDT
[#16]
you use the term "playing god" loosley. You made 2 mistakes. You assume that there is a god(1) and assume that he wouldnt want you to create life(2). How do you know either of these two things? The answer is, is that you dont. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 8:13:41 PM EDT
[#17]
Good points. Not to mention that no one is even remotely close to creating life. Neural nets have been around since the 1960s. They were quite popular in the 70s. Creating a computer out of rat brain cells is new and interesting; nothing else about that article is. Scientists will get some nice data to salivate over out of this, and nothing more. The problems involved in creating a self-aware anything out of any material are so large as to be incomprehensible. Granted, this takes people a bit closer to being able to do that, but it is about the same as saying scuffling your foot an inch forward takes you closer to the finish line in a 10K race. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 8:16:28 PM EDT
[#18]
well moving a mountain starts with picking up small stones
skynet begins with little rat braincells controlling a simulator. aside from a 40 megawatt range phased plasma rifle, what will stop a T101? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 8:21:30 PM EDT
[#19]
Correct, I do not. I believe God exists, I do not know for sure, but I believe he does. I also do not know if he objects to us playing his role or not, but my gut feeling says "this is wrong." |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 8:24:23 PM EDT
[#20]
Neural nets in general have their own problems, rat brain cells or no. Any T101 that uses them would probably be significantly dumber than your average Kerry supporter. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 9:02:45 PM EDT
[#21]
I don't want to spoil them too much, but in S.M. Stirling's T2 series (really good books) they use a Barrett M82 and a Carl Gustav among other heavy small arms
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2004 10:24:32 PM EDT
[#22]
IF WE DID THIS, IMAGINE WHAT THEY ARE MAKING IN RED CHINA! I BET THEY ARENT LIMITED TO RAT BRAINS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2004 4:10:07 AM EDT
[#23]
I can't believe that nobody has pointed out the obvious . . . that this shows how intelligent the average fighter pilot is.
   
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2004 6:22:49 AM EDT
[#24]
I was thinking the same fKing thing 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2004 6:26:28 AM EDT
[#25]
After reading all that, I still don't have a clue as to what they are talking about or how it works.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2004 6:29:05 AM EDT
[#26]
Skynet!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2004 7:57:40 AM EDT
[#27]
And just WHY would we get Skynet?
Why wouldn't we be just as likely to get cute little Perscoms instead?  The constant fearmongering over new technology is why the Asian countries led by Japan constantly kill us mass producing technology WE discover or invent... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2004 8:04:36 AM EDT
[#28]
Well, the cells have to harvested from living organisms. The only ones dumb enough to allow that would be Democrats. However, since Democrats are anti-military, they would refuse to fly the plane. Damn Catch 22. Woody |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2004 8:11:14 AM EDT
[#29]
If you got brain cells from a democrat, you would have a hippy Terminator! Like in the movie "Young Frankenstien." "Abby. Uh, Abby Normal." |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2004 8:23:40 AM EDT
[#30]
This also works in reverse. It also shows how we can wire a human brain to inteface with machines, and then once we have mapped the human brain.
This is far more akin to Ghost in the Shell than Terminator |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2004 8:30:12 AM EDT
[#31]
I'm creeped out too. Way too wierd. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2004 8:41:31 AM EDT
[#32]
 ........whoa.......dude.......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2004 2:49:20 PM EDT
[#33]
OK, I love science, but that is f-ing scary. We as a species really are to smart for our own good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2004 3:08:31 PM EDT
[#34]
One thing to keep in mind about all living organisms is that they're self-organizing, and given the opportunity, will develop abilities they didn't previously have.
I'd always worry about using a cultured brain to control anything that has ANY potential to be used as a weapon of any sort. And that could be almost anything. The technology is fascinating and I want to see it pursued, but with extreme care only. CJ |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
