superjudgebunny t1_ja7up3e wrote

:/ it’s not that simple. We still use the old factory sense. This is hard to represent digitally and does not translate well logically. How do you program drive? Also called will, the will to live. Pain? These things are all very interconnected, bio signals aren’t simple.

Where do you start? How would you give AI the idea of empathy? You still have to provide an input. WHAT would that be? This is the hard question.

Musk has hinted towards this with the brain implant. We would need an interface that can translate these things. Then your just imprinting the human response, might as well build an organic computer….

The reason it’s so hard is the same reason describing human emotions are difficult. What is love without using love as a description? What’s love vs infatuation? Philosophically speaking, we can not easily do this.


superjudgebunny t1_ja7mnsb wrote

I was going to post something similar, with a little more.

Some guys don’t like to initiate. I’m that way, I don’t like the standard way of dating. Most of my relationships were me being pursued. I don’t think that’s a problem at all. Different? Yes, doesn’t make the relationship any less.


superjudgebunny t1_ja7g32n wrote

Im curious as well. I could see sometime down the road, the Star Trek idea. Positronic brain, though with technology we have. I would think more of a quantum brain but that’s so far away it’s laughable. So with what we can do, I’m extremely curious as to what would become.

We assume it will have a motive, why? Our drive is organic, the need to further the species. What does a mind without ANY emotion need or want?

I’m not sure we can even comprehend what the singularity will be like. I feel like we are very close. Often wonder if we will even know when it happens. It’s a confusing idea personally.


superjudgebunny t1_j9iykt0 wrote

Instruction sets are just ways for us to allow it to do tasks faster. All those years using AI learning to get to facial recognition, voice recognition, patterning. We were creating shortcuts, a lot of them.

You don’t need instruction sets, it could all be done without them. It just makes this faster, need less overhead.

What we have been doing is creating those types of instructions and making them faster. What do you think instruction sets are? Task specific operations for a specific architecture.

We are living the cumulation of AI instruction sets to create an overlaying architecture. Learning to apply these different AI assisted learned skills into a more robust arch.

No it’s not really an arch, more like includes in C++. Eventually a lot of that work will become hardware. Think of encoding codecs, we started moving that to hardware and away from software.

The server farms are playing a huge role in this. The they are the uarch branches that currently are being formed. As we develop and merge these, eventually we will get to developing consciousness in some form.


superjudgebunny t1_j7eitwu wrote

I can see that, I just don’t see any funding for that small of a thing. While I haven’t known many civil war actors, used to know people who do medieval stuff. I know how in character they can become.

The problem i see is that there isn’t enough of a backing. Google glass, sure. A few others. The truth is, most of what the tek can offer is already offered. And outside of pure entertainment, then you need control devices. Extra gear to control what’s being displayed. That is a major problem, as most of not all the information can already be displayed on current technologies that are wide spread already.

It’s got no real momentum, I know more people with VR than with AR. That alone should be a major tell. Even the tech industry stopped pushing it. The HoloLens went? What has it done in the public eye? In the private sector?

The industries that it works for have already adopted it. I see no tangible proof of it getting much more momentum.


superjudgebunny t1_j7ehnls wrote

Right, but you already own a calculator. We used them in construction all the time. It’s a phone. Most of the things AR would bring are already in my phone. I would have to probably stop, get out a device to control my AR and input commands. Might as well just use my phone.

Which I should have brought up. Redundancy doesn’t make something good. If devices are already in public control. What EXTRA features does AR bring?

My argument assumes that one already has access to things in which we now consider basic technology. AR has to offer something that isn’t already in a professionals portfolio of instruments. What new does it bring to the table that would change things?

If you can’t give me examples, this is a one sided discussion. This tells me you have no arguments as a proponent of AR tek.

I’ve stated it has niche applications sure. Not enough to get the funding and research to make it public or mainstream.


superjudgebunny t1_j7eaoml wrote

I get that. Sure. I just don’t see it becoming a big thing. It’s been a technology for over 30 ish years. It was pioneered in the late 60s, fast forward today. It has limited military use, the rest of the government hasn’t adopted it. Despite the new technology advances.

So the CIA, FBI, and secret service hasn’t seen a good general use for the platforms. In all this time, you would think if it had massive capabilities at least those branches of government would use it. Or the medical world, the other big complex that tends to pioneer technology.

Now VR was also pioneered the at the same time. In the last decade we’ve seen it gain massive leaps. Major funding for public use, with not only games but media and other applications possible to the general public. With companies pushing massive amounts of money to fix the current issues with the platform.

Which one is getting the funding, applicational use and support?

I would rather watch the civil war in 3D, see the original battlefields. Feel the environment, get sucked into the reality those soldiers lived. That to me sounds like a much better experience.


superjudgebunny t1_j7brca1 wrote

Yea and I’ve expanded on the issues with AR down the comment chain. AR has niche markets, where VR could be a bigger branch of entertainment. Virtual plays, movies, not just games. Why see movies in 3D when you can experience them in full.

Ugh, basically it’s going to be more common that we want to have a distraction or escape from reality.


superjudgebunny t1_j7bbyca wrote

It’s not that it isn’t useful, any professional shouldn’t need a helper. Your a paid professional for a reason. The small amount of time you might look something up wouldn’t justify the cost.

So it needs to be in a field where it’s used a lot. Without much interaction, where it’s displaying pertinent information. Such as surgery, aviation, electrical engineering for maybe blueprints.

Anything that would require interaction and a professional field, you gotta know that information already. The military doesn’t like it for in the field. Neither will the police or first responders as it’s a distraction.

Sports could use it for the coaches, bout it.

The trades won’t use it, you don’t have time to look shit up. Especially when your being paid as much as you are. And residential construction is too fast paced. Same with manufacturing, unless your a technician who repairs a multitude of systems. Going back to the use of blueprints and specs.

It’s just unnecessary tech. The business world works, sure. The uses for it without advanced gesture technology is niche at best. Otherwise you sacrifice a hand at least to navigate a system with decent accuracy. We could pair that with neural stimuli but then the price per device goes way the fuck up.

It’s a limited technology, same with VR. VR however has a much better use in entertainment and therapy. You can travel the world from your own home. We are willing to spend money on entertainment while employers would rather higher a better worker.

It’s just not feasible tech.

Edit: grammar


superjudgebunny t1_j7avcou wrote

K just don’t see much professional use. Given that AR has been around for quite some time. Much longer than VR, where VR has progressed fairly fast.

Fighter pilots use AR heavily, so will Astronauts. It will probably boom in medical and science research.

Until we can get very good motion tracking, controlling what’s on screen is going to be difficult. I can’t think of many other fields which it would shine well. Mainly because in a profession you shouldn’t be using an aid like that. The goal and idea is to know the information already.

I’m not sold on a good use mainstream. Considering it’s been out since the 90s, we’ll before modern VR.

As for fine motor skills? We already are running hats that do neurological input. Sound patterns that trick the ear/balance system. Treadmills that allow 360 walking.

There is a reason you see a lot of people not wear safety glasses in construction. It’s just annoying, especially for those who don’t have to wear them.


superjudgebunny t1_j7asyj7 wrote

More than likely they will advance together. I don’t see AR being useful for many fields like we think. A big takeaway is how the military doesn’t push adoption. In fact augmented scopes aren’t all they are cracked up to be.

It’s going to boil down to how well wearable devices work in that aspect.


superjudgebunny t1_j7aqb9y wrote

The problem I see with AR, many use video games as a means to escape reality. AR doesn’t quite do that. I don’t want to play games in a modified reality, I want a complete and custom reality where fantasy is present.