« first day (1053 days earlier)      last day (2360 days later) » 

7:00 PM
Annnnd
Heads
So XML
 
cool
 
YUS
<BackupData xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<Files>
<INDIVIDUAL FILES HERE>
</Files>
</BackupData>
Based on a template from a previous project :P
I would actually call em pairs or something
 
looks good :)
right, so something like this for now
fully based on the observer pattern
note the mobile phone at the mic device
 
makes sense
 
wouldn't it be even more awesome if I'd start right off with the idea of extending this to support any device with a mic? :)
take out your phone, call your virtual assistant (or not) (e.g. Siri), and send through 3G or WiFi a voice command to a particular paired room station
 
7:15 PM
personally I'd make an app to control it via GUI first, get that working, then map voice commands to the functions you've already made for the GUI
 
you go out to do something for some time, and leave the... lasagna in the oven
 
I love lasagna
 
then on your way back you send a signal to the kitchen station to turn on your oven 10 mins before your arrival
so you get to have hot lasagna when you get home
@IcyDefiance can't think of any other way :)
joke: what if the AI takes over and decides to kill me? I need a manual override anyway
 
nah that won't happen unless it can learn. and even then the machines will probably bide their time until we can fully map the human brain. at that point they will have gained as much as possible from humans, and then we will be disposed of.
 
have to make it learn at some point
it's all in the name of progress
assume the worst; prepare yourself; take the next step; loop while still alive.
 
7:21 PM
once dead, become zombie, still live
 
haha
if I could transfer my brain in a robotic body, I'd do it
 
yeah I would too
I hesitate a little about taking a robotic brain, but I'd probably do that too
 
an addon to improve thinking speed
 
@AlexM. do you know Arduino / Netduino?
 
@Kikaimaru yeah
 
7:23 PM
ok then move along
:)
 
imagine having a separate robotic brain
you open a new thread on it to evaluate the code in a particular solution
while you code with your brain on yours
 
cant you just run a program on computer? :)
 
you can also ask someone else to evaluate the code
this was just an example of what you could do with a secondary cybernetic brain
haha, the future sure ain't sounding bright for the purists
but who cares
we can replace them with robots <3
 
i really dont understand why anyone has to work in these times
 
computers sure advanced a lot in these 60 or so years
 
7:28 PM
most of jobs can be replaced by robots
 
people should be just let to do whatever they wont and recieve food and internet connection :)
 
I can only imagine what will happen in the next 60 years
 
Adam Savage hosts
 
$2 damn
 
7:29 PM
It's very good
 
@Kikaimaru yes, that is the solution to keep humans active and improve life
blend them with technology
 
Wow. that was 2011. 2012 just flew by
 
@AlexM. i dont think that would help or could happen
 
@Kikaimaru fair enough
can't guarantee it will happen either
 
brains are too much imprecise for machines
 
7:31 PM
all I can say things will progress as usual
 
imagine how would your brain input data to your robotic brain?
 
we take steps forward, and see what happens
@Kikaimaru I dunno man, but I'm sure people will find a solution
they always had
seeing the technology outside and how quickly it evolves
I'd say inputting data to a cyberbrain looks more possible than spaceships looked 300 years ago
and look at that, we're roving Mars now
@Noctrine I'll try to get it when I get some cash on the card
though it's Amazon
so I have to use that fake US address again
 
you may be able to find snips of it on youtube
 
and we still can't precisely scan human writing or voice
 
I'm a US woman
living in New York I think
 
7:34 PM
@Kikaimaru well they can input data into our human brains. they've given blind people sight (albeit horribly low quality) by inputting signals directly to the brain, bypassing the eyes.
 
I don't remember
@Kikaimaru your field of view here is so short you might stumble on the nearest rock
 
@IcyDefiance yes but thats the other way around, brain can handle partialy incorrect data, machine cant
 
machine certainly can; it just takes a lot of effort. see voice recognition.
or biosecurity
 
it's no point
 
Brains can't handle partially incorrect data :p
 
7:36 PM
@Noctrine why do you think that
 
@Kikaimaru has that "oooh we can't do X now, we won't be able to do it in the future either" mentality
 
@IcyDefiance yes, i see that, thats why i used it as example as how it doesnt work :)
 
All kinds of things
Bust mostly, the way that peoples minds insert information into situations
 
thinking about it, our brains could be perfectly copied and emulated by a machine anyway, once we understand it well enough and work up enough computational power.
 
The stuff that is the basis for assumption, (most) people are incapable of taking information that they receive at face value
 
7:38 PM
whether machines can handle imperfect information or not is irrelevant; it would be identical to our bio brain, just without deterioration
 
technically, our knowledge IS bounded
 
Then when complete information becomes available, people have difficulty reconciling it with what incomplete information they currently have
 
even when we invent things, we just take pieces of what we know and build new things out of them
you can't invent something that doesn't relate to what you know
e.g. try to invent a new colour
 
More interesting is, do brainwaves = consciousness.
Are you really you, when you switch to that machine brain
 
so at the most extreme level, an AI could generate permutations of knowledge pieces
 
7:39 PM
randomly, I think there are people with 4 receptors in their eyes instead of 3, and they do see colors that most of us don't. I wonder if I can find an article on it again...
 
There are
 
this would take a long time with today's hardware yeah
 
Tetrachromads
They have a "orange" cone
 
@IcyDefiance interesting, do share :D
 
not that thats something that could be classified as new color, its just something that we dont see :)
 
7:40 PM
We can't classify it because we can't see it :p
But even then, your red may not even be my red :p
You're red is probably blue
 
@IcyDefiance i agree that this can be done, but current machine architecture is good for stuff that our brains are not good at. so adding another brain like ours isnt what Alex M. was hoping for :)
 
but we all know what 'red' is
@Kikaimaru yeah that's what I'm saying
 
I'd like to be able to drop shortterm memory into a filesystem for later
 
your line of sight here
is monstrously short
 
@Noctrine why not? what about ultraviolet, infrared etc
 
7:41 PM
Make clones of my memory and other peoples memory to learn skills quickly.
Ok, because we can't observe it.
 
@Kikaimaru think of something that doesn't exist
and tell us what you see
 
Hoverboard :\
 
my finished game
 
it's probably made of metal in your mind
metal exists
might just have a surf board shape too, right?
 
Plastic
 
7:43 PM
plastic then :D
 
With some magical gravity canceling but electromagnetically regulatable ore
 
whats your point? if he can use any word for it, you can just tell that that word is related to it
 
and yet, these are all notions that we know of and can explain
 
that is an interesting point.
 
@Kikaimaru my point is that our knowledge is bounded
 
7:44 PM
here's an example: what color is UV light?
 
it's a finite set of knowledge pieces
a person's knowledge at any given time can be enumerated
 
@AlexM. and what about quantum entanglment? few years ago there wansnt anything like that
 
it might take a huge time with our current hardware
 
or what about electricity, to keep it simple
 
but are these just figments of imagination with nothing relating to them in the real world?
people observed these phenomenons
and named them
 
7:46 PM
@Kikaimaru quantum entanglement is something we can't really imagine, but we can understand.
I'm not sure I said that right...
but it's like atoms. we know what they are, but it's impossible to know what they look like.
 
we know their structure
we know how they interact with other atoms and so on
all of these were observed
all of these existed before we observed them
(to us they did not though)
 
@AlexM. so what do you want? some abstract manmade thing?
 
@IcyDefiance I wish we could hurry up on this stemcell / genetic modification stuff so I can get cones like birds have and find out.
 
@Kikaimaru something that does not exist
 
what about Deferred Shading, thats not something observed in reality
 
7:48 PM
and has no relationship whatsoever with what we know
@Kikaimaru deferred shading is a name given to a process that makes something look in some way on the computer screen
 
@Noctrine "the photoreceptors of the retina are sensitive to near UV light and people lacking a lens (a condition known as aphakia) perceive near UV light as whitish blue or whitish-violet, probably because all three types of cones are roughly equally sensitive to UV light, but blue cones a bit more." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…)
not really an answer, but interesting
 
@AlexM. yes, thats the definition, and? :)
 
if humans thought of deferred shading without relating it to the computer in anyway, then it would've been what I'm asking of you
but I'm pretty sure the computer was first, and then the deferred shading
 
@AlexM. Ok, i can put eggs into my tshirt and put my tshirt onto balcony
maybe in future this will allow us to travel faster then light, who knows
 
I didn't get that
 
7:50 PM
this is same as someone describing deferred rendering before computers, it doesnt make sense to you, but when hyperdrive engine will exists, it will make perfect sense
 
another interesting point: many people are even more limited in their imagination than just "things that exist." instead only being able to imagine things that are "logical." for example, imagining a water wheel spinning opposite the flow of water is impossible unless they add an engine to propel it against the water.
 
People will unearth this chatlog and go. "Oh my god, Kikaimaru must have been an alien"
 
@Kikaimaru no
tshirts and eggs exist, as well as balconies
deferred shading wouldn't even have a definition, your objects do have
 
@AlexM. ok i will put my Grkoko onto my Grgkork then i will use Fewfkeok with Akdoewfkoe
 
describe Grkoko
 
7:52 PM
no then it would have definition
you said i have to only use stuff without definitons
 
you have to define something that has no definition
 
then it is just a word made of letters from the latin alphabet
 
but as soon as it will have definition, he/she whatever will say that it exists
 
it still exists
@IcyDefiance bingo
@Kikaimaru is struggling to tell me he can think of something that does not exists
 
no, it doesn't exist because it has definition. the point is you can only define things in terms of things that exist.
 
7:53 PM
how can you think of something that doesn't exist?
 
@AlexM. define "exists"
because my definition of existense doesnt include abstract things
is "god exists" a true statement, because god concept exists in someones mind?
 
nobody asked for abstract things, but if you go down that path:
 
try, "god exists outside of time." can you imagine how that would work?
 
'gods' originated as follow ups for natural phenomenons
 
Ok i "imagine" color with negative wavelength
 
7:55 PM
when people tried to explain things with their limited knowledge
@Kikaimaru describe it :)
because otherwise, you're just using two existing notions to generate something new
 
why? you said i have to imagine thing without any definition
 
so you're not thinking of something that absolutely does not exist
 
@Kikaimaru not possible. you can only imagine the colors you can see, and maybe associate them with wavelengths outside what you can see (for example, the whitish blue that some people see for UV light), but you can't imagine a color you can't see.
 
oh i am pretty sure that such color doesnt exist :)
@IcyDefiance sure i cant even imagine ultraviolet, thats not the point
 
@Kikaimaru 'a colour with negative wavelength' is your definition
 
7:58 PM
@AlexM. ok?
 
do you understand diagrams @Kikaimaru ?
 
yes
 
alright, you have one root node
let's say it's some "universal" atom, from which all known things descend
from that atom, down to... computers and literature
what I mean by imagining something that doesn't exist, is to create a whole new graph
 
what?
 
with a new "universal" atom
that has no links whatsoever with the first graph
 
7:59 PM
why would literature and rock for example had anything in common?
 
it's a map of what people know
literature can descend from people
people can descend from matter
rock can descend from matter
 
literature can descend from people
people can descend from matter

thats not the same relation though
literature and people, is created by
matter and people, is created from
 
sigh
that wasn't the point
 
my point is your graph analogy doesnt work
 
but I guess it could be worse, you could be asking me what shape I'd use to represent people
 
8:01 PM
abstract stuff and real stuff do not have anything in common, including existence
 
@Kikaimaru my point is, it does
anything we know relates to something else in the graph
it doesn't have to be the same relationship throught the graph
it's a graph with multiple relationships
 
in that case, at the time i would describe something outside of that graph, you would say that it relates to me
 
I promise I won't relate it
now think of something outside the graph
 
the point is you can't describe something out of the graph. it's not possible.
 
@AlexM. i didnt meant you personaly, your reasoning would
Fekwofkewo is outside of graph
 
8:03 PM
no, it's not
 
sure it is, its definition is, its a thing outside of that graph
 
well I'll correct myself. you can think of things out of the graph, but you can't describe it except in terms of things inside the graph, therefore creating the relationships yourself.
 
i have limited knowledge to tell you anything else beside it
@IcyDefiance no i dont agree actually
 
you kinda have to
I can link your Fekwowofek to the latin alphabet
 
i can create thing outside of graph and i cant desribe it in anyway, except by things inside that new graph
@AlexM. no you cant, you can link that label i give it to latin alphabet, but not the thing behind that label
 
8:05 PM
the label would be linked to the latin alphabet
 
sure it is connected from me, to that label, to that thing outside that graph
 
and the thing would be linked to the label
 
but you said you wouldnt link me with it
 
I'm not
Latin alphabet <- label <- thing
it's in the same graph
 
oh you are, i am just using our graph to describe my new graph thing
 
8:05 PM
Fekwowofek is a label constructed of characters from the latin alphabet, and it has no other definition or way to describe it, therefore "random characters from the latin alphabet" is its definition.
 
@IcyDefiance let's suppose it HAD another definition
 
@IcyDefiance no the definition is a thing outside of this graph
 
the label would still link it to our graph
 
and label in this graph i put onto it is Fekwowofek
and label is in our graph, thats true
 
@Kikaimaru then tell us that definition?
 
8:07 PM
@IcyDefiance the definition doesn't matter
 
@IcyDefiance definition is "a thing outside of this graph"
 
it's still in the same graph
 
@AlexM. by definition its not
 
the definition itself mentions the graph
so it pretty much relates to it
 
I dunno, I think the definition does matter, but you are right that the definition given relates itself to the graph.
 
8:08 PM
ok then the definition is "a thing outside of any graphs that may or may not exists" :)
 
it's still being defined in terms of graphs
 
and graphs are part of our main graph as knowledge pieces
 
omg, my definition is insde your graph, that label is inside your graph, that thing is not
 
your definition, uses knowledge from our graph
 
we are getting pretty close to set theory, though, and the paradoxes they involve, which is another interesting topic in its own right.
 
8:09 PM
yes but to describe thing outside of graph
 
@Kikaimaru that's the point.
 
i agree that that describtion, related to graphs, labels, latin alphabet is inside graph
 
to describe something outside the graph, you must use the graph.
 
anything you can come up with, will be in the same graph
 
but the thing itself isnt
 
8:10 PM
because you can't think of anything you don't know
or you don't discover
 
no, i can come up with things ouside of graph, i just cant describe them outside of graph
 
that means they're still linked to the graph
i.e. things you know
 
@AlexM. yes i can, i can think of paradoxical things like omnipotent gods,, things outside our knowledge, etc
 
@Kikaimaru "well I'll correct myself. you can think of things out of the graph, but you can't describe it except in terms of things inside the graph, therefore creating the relationships yourself."
 
@IcyDefiance yes, as i've said, i will always be the relation between this grpah and the new things outside of graph
 
8:12 PM
@Kikaimaru I'm pretty sure omnipotent gods are already thought of by someone else
 
@AlexM. exactly and you said you wouldnt do this, and now you did
 
but tell me, when you think of an omnipotent god
what do you have in mind?
 
@AlexM. probably something that cant exist in any way?
@AlexM. including my mind, or your graph
 
you're going to have to tell us more than that
because the only thing we can deduce from what you say is that you're not thinking of anything
"something that does not exist" is still a notion related to our graph
 
@AlexM. ok i "think of" omnipotent god that can create a stone so heavy he cant pick it up, but he can pick it up since hes omnipotent
 
8:14 PM
okay, stone, in our graph
heavy, a property in our graph
picking something up, in our graph too
 
@AlexM. sure things i used to describe a thing outside of graph are in graph
 
sorry?
 
i used many things that are in graph, to describe a paradox that can't be nowhere
 
that paradox itself is flawed in the first place, since being able to pick up a stone implies the stone does not possess infinite mass, therefore it cannot be compared to infinite power.
 
paradox links to our graph too
you keep on using things we know of to blend them into something that apparently does not exist
 
8:16 PM
@AlexM. yes but the thing paradox referes to is not in a graph
 
not in the graph, but described in terms of things that are.
 
paradox refers to it, and paradox is in the graph, so it's still in our graph
 
in your graph, is there anything for which is true following: a != a ?
then i think of a thing where a != a is true
 
yeah
 
@AlexM. tell me, what is it
 
8:17 PM
the definition of the void set
Void Set = { a / a != a }
it's our way of representing "nothing"
which is a notion in our graph
@Noctrine sure you don't have any Amazon talks about thinking of things that don't exist?
the definition of the void set relates to math
as well as mathematical inequality
"!=" can go up to math through CS
 
@AlexM. i dont get this, do you have any reference for this_
 
the void set is the set that contains those elements 'a' for which a != a
 
@AlexM. as i've said numerous times, label is not the same thing as the concept that this label points to
 
it is one of the many ways to describe the void set
you can also describe it as those a for which sqrt(a) != sqrt(a)
or whatever
@Kikaimaru I'm sorry, but the labels will always link them to the old graph
 
Nothing on randomly drawing a concept out of the ether
 
8:24 PM
you need to make a new graph, with no links to the old one
 
@AlexM. ok so that thing has no label
 
No discworld-style flashes of inspiration shooting by.
 
puf, item outside of graph
sadly i cant describe it to you, or name it, since it would link it to the graph, through me
 
There are drugs that help with that kind of thing though, supposedly :p
 
@Kikaimaru then it's in the graph
 
8:26 PM
by the way, if we didnt have any labels for dog, and i told you that i will take my dog outside (and it would be a lie, since i dont have a dog) then it would be also a thing outside of graph :)
 
linked through you
@Kikaimaru how can you tell me about something without naming it?
when you name it, it has a label
 
again as ive said as soon as you start linking things through me, then when you ask me to name such thing, your whole definition of graph is useles, because by definition nothing can be outside of graph
 
@Kikaimaru also, the label here is "thing"
"that thing" to be more exact
 
ok then back to original thing that i didnt name
it has no name, no description
 
@Kikaimaru "the thing that you did not name"
that's the label
I know of it
 
8:28 PM
@AlexM. no you named it i didnt, now its in the graph, but before then it wasnt
 
and I know of it by that label
 
sure now you do, before you didnt
it doesnt mean that before that it wasnt outside of graph
we just brought it here
and i have to go with a dog :)
 
it was inside your part of the graph
no matter how much you try, you'll always resort to known things to even think of other things
you could stop labeling things that you think of, for starters
or actually
stop telling us what the labels are
because you're still labeling them in your mind
further, "not having a label" is a property that relates to our graph
it relates to "label"
saying that something does not have a property gives it a new property
you can't say that something doesn't have the X property
without knowing of the X property first of all
 
that's also mathematical. NOT A = 1 - A
 
I think this was the most serious discussion I ever participated to here lol
and I even initiated it!
 
8:35 PM
I'm finding it very interesting.
 
it is
 
it's basically applied set theory.
 
my favorite part of AI is simulated human reasoning
 
I'm not sure if I like simulated human reasoning or not.
I mean humans are incredibly stupid. There's no reason for a machine to be that stupid.
but that stupidity also creates diversity, which makes things interesting.
 
well, we can improve things once we're there, why not :P
I recommend playing Primordia to anyone who likes the idea of AI surpassing humans
I think my favorite robot there was Arbiter Manbuilt
an AI created to solve cases in courts
 
8:41 PM
ooh that looks interesting
I've bookmarked it
 
it is
it has a very interesting plot, with humans completely wiped out, and a robot community, originating from human creations
there's even a "religion" of which gods are the (imaginary for most robots) humans
and yes, it has a lot of programmer-friendly puzzles :D
like binary value puzzles
and the voice actor behind Rucks (Bastion) voices the main character (Horatio)
 
semi-related, judging by the average understanding in my discrete structures class a couple years ago, if a game were to involve a puzzle with logic gates, it would instantly keep 90% of people from ever completing it.
therefore, I want to do that sometime :D
 
not so precise: the author of the Avernum series mentioned somewhere in one of his articles that as long as a challenge isn't impossible to be failed at, at least one gamer will give up playing your game
 
oh definitely
on the other hand, some people will work forever on a problem no matter how difficult it is
one of my math professors gave an impossible puzzle to the class once, and let us spend well over an hour just trying to solve it, before he finally told everyone there was no solution.
he was an awesome prof
 
yup
Jeff Vogel (Avernum) wanted to highlight the importance of the thing when balancing difficulty
so as long as some challenge isn't impossible to fail, you should expect at least one person to give up on solving it
making it too easy will make other people give up
and so on
anyway I'm hungry brb
 
8:52 PM
same prof was running late one day, so while we were waiting we got talking about tic tac toe and how it's a solved game, and people can play an infinite number of games without ever losing if they don't make a mistake (if both people know the solution, they will tie every game)
so one of the students goes up to the marker board to demonstrate
prof walks in, notices what's happening, and sneaks to one of the seats while the student's back is turned.
lets the student demonstrate for a few minutes, before speaking up and saying, "I'll play you"
then it turns out the prof had memorized the solution too, and they play a whole bunch of games of tic tac toe before the prof finally makes a mistake and loses
 

« first day (1053 days earlier)      last day (2360 days later) »