“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
―Philip Freneau
.
And by a prudent flight and cunning save A life which valour could not, from the grave. A better buckler I can soon regain, But who can get another life again?
Archilochus
Thursday, November 24, 2022
What is AI's 'Existential' Reward System? It's NOT 'Communication Ecstasy'.
A separate chapter of evolutionary methodology covers the relationship between theory and practice, between abstract knowledge and actualized technologies. This relationship does not, of course, exist in bioevolution, since Nature evidently “doesn’t know what it’s doing.” It just simply actualizes that which is possible, that which spontaneously emerges from given material conditions. It has not been easy for man to accept this state of things, not least because he is also one of Mother Nature’s “unwanted” and “accidental” children. Yet this is not actually a chapter but rather an enormous library. Any attempt to summarize its contents seems rather hopeless. Threatened with such an explicatory abyss, we must be particularly laconic. Prototechnologists did not have any theoretical knowledge because, among other things, they did not know that such a thing was even possible. For thousands of years, theoretical knowledge developed without experimentation, through magic thinking— which is a form of induction, but one that is applied falsely. A conditioned response—that is, an “if A, then B” type of reaction—is its animal antecedent. Of course, both a response of this kind and magic need to be preceded by observation. It would often happen that a working technology was contradicted by the false theoretical knowledge of the time. A chain of pseudoexplanations would then follow, aimed at reconciling the two (the fact that water could not be raised by means of pumps above the height of ten meters was “explained” by Nature’s fear of a vacuum). In its contemporary understanding, knowledge is an examination of the laws of the world, whereas technology is a way of using these laws to satisfy human needs—which are actually still the same as they were in the Egypt of the pharaohs. Its tasks involve cladding and feeding us, providing a roof over our heads, transporting us from one place to another, protecting us against illnesses. Knowledge cares about facts—atomic, particle, or stellar ones and not about us, or at least not in a way that would be driven by the direct usefulness of results. We should point out that the disinterestedness of theoretical investigations used to be purer than it is today. Thanks to our experience, we now know that there is no such thing as useless knowledge in the most pragmatic sense because one never knows when a certain piece of information about the world is going to come in handy or even when it will turn out to be particularly needed and valuable. One of the most “useless” branches of botany, lichenology, which deals with fungi—turned out to be vital, literally, after the discovery of penicillin. Researcher–ideographers, tireless collectors of facts, describers and classifiers, did not hope for such successes in the old days. Yet man—a creature whose impracticality only every so often matches his curiosity—was more interested in counting the stars and studying the structure of the Universe than in the theory of agriculture or in the workings of his body. From the painstaking, at times even manic, effort of gatherers and collectors of observations, the great edifice of nomothetic sciences, which generalized facts into systemic laws of phenomena and things, slowly emerged. All this led to the popularization of the idea of an inventor as someone who did not need anything apart from talent, common sense, persistence, pliers, and a hammer to achieve his goal. Yet this is an extravagant way of inventing things—almost as extravagant as the working of bioevolution, whose billion-year-long empirical practices, that is, its “false solutions” to the problem of preserving life posed by the new conditions, claimed hecatombs of victims.
There must have been both a reason, and a means, for life to develop consciousness. Without both, AI will remain a "dumb" intelligence that will not "evolve" but in dumb and fruitless ways.
\\There is but one "precedent for evolution, from chemistry. It would be irresponsible to ignore its' developmental arc. :P
Again. That was written in 1964. Of course, there was new discoveries after that time. ;-)
\\There must have been both a reason, and a means, for life to develop consciousness. Without both, AI will remain a "dumb" intelligence that will not "evolve" but in dumb and fruitless ways.
There is "selection", for it to not be "dumb and fruitless". ;-)
And well? Do you really need AI with separate consciousness? Means, with own ideas and goals. ;-) Whole meaning of all Lem's words... AFAIU. It's about how to "Get smart!" What could be arguments against it? Isn't that something NOT desirable? ;-) What? We better need to get dumber??? :-)))) Then, that is not to the Lem, with such needs. There are quite enough of phylosophers (or, better call em sophists?) out there who teaching just that. ;-P
Meden agan! I would apply that to ALL things. I think it is what rules "Selection'. To be the 'centered/ median creature' on the Poisson distribution curve for "intelligence'... not the one on the extreme ends of it for even Golem XIV was NOT Honest Annie.
All this led to the popularization of the idea of an inventor as someone who did not need anything apart from talent, common sense, persistence, pliers, and a hammer to achieve his goal. Yet this is an extravagant way of inventing things—almost as extravagant as the working of bioevolution, whose billion-year-long empirical practices, that is, its “false solutions” to the problem of preserving life posed by the new conditions, claimed hecatombs of victims. The essence of technology’s “empirical era” lay not so much in its lack of theoretical solutions as in the derivative character of those solutions. First we had the steam engine, then thermodynamics, just as first we had the airplane and then flight theory, or just as we first built bridges and then learned how to make calculations for them. We could risk saying that technological empiricism develops as far as it can. Edison tried to invent something like an “atomic engine,” but this did not—and could not—come to much because, whereas a dynamo can be built through trial and error, an atomic reactor cannot.
That is question which puzzling me. Is there really IS a smart way of doing things...
Well let me first object to the following statement: " just as first we had the airplane and then flight theory,"
This isn't true. The Wright brothers didn't build the Wright Flyer w/o "theory". The experimented on the different components of the "flight" problem. They built a wind tunnel, and experimented at smaller scales on designs of specific components, like the propellers, like their wing-warping steering mechanisms, like "lift" and airflow. They didn't just "build an aeroplane, then develop a theory.
At NASA we do much the same thing. We test/test/test before we fly. We follow the TRL (Technology Readiness Level) process, and do no proceed with any component that hasn't reached TRL6 (testing in a simulated environment) by its' Preliminary Design Review (PDR). It's a formal, structured PROCESS that ensures ultimate success. Is it the fastest way? No, but it is a process which reduces risk all along the way.
\\This isn't true. The Wright brothers didn't build the Wright Flyer w/o "theory".
This misunderstanding is just an artefact of our conversation. I omited that part where Lem elaborated this his claim. Of course he knew that some "theory" was needed.
Yep. Square peg into round hole. :-) But, thank you. And I'll try to adjust my words to it.
Well, in short. Using that analogy with Orville and Wilbur...
What if they'd come to you... with an idea, that their "flying thing"... can be developed into Boing 747... on some later, but still percievable, stage, of course. Means, not just a "flying thing", not a funny gimmick. But a "system of mass transportation by air". With airports, stealth fighters... and stewardesses. ;-)
Sorry. That is moment of epiphany. But same time that is point where your "suspension of disbelief" can break. Ruining all that meager credibility I escrowed in our conversation till this point.
Well. In THIER times that'll be crazy and unreasonable crankery. But, in our times -- we know how tech do unwind. We see all history of HOW Wright's Brothers "flying circus gimmick" -- grown into jumbojets. ;-) So, that must not be that impossible... to imagine how even (infinitesimally?) small seed... can grow out into sequoia. ;-) Can it?
Original NASA TRL Definitions (1989)[15] Level 1 – Basic Principles Observed and Reported
. 3D printing is nothing someting new and unimaginable anymore. So, devise posibility of some advanced robotic tech being based on it... does it falls through this hole of "basic principles"?
Level 2 – Potential Application Validated
. Well, for now I talked only about funny gimmicks applications. Like that "smart cover for a smartphone". Also blurted out something about it being "meta-material". I understand that much more profund elaborations needed... to show how it relates with "cities on the Moon"
. That is... big question here. Without denying need of Proof-of-Concept need. But... what "proof of concept" could provide Elon Musk? To show that his SpaceX rockets can perform "landing flip maneuver"? With some small-scale toy-rockets?
All later stages... they can be only... later. :-( For now, that is mere "concept", "vision", "crazy idea", "waste of time"... whatever you'd choose.
Level 4 – Component and/or Breadboard Laboratory Validated Level 5 – Component and/or Breadboard Validated in Simulated or Realspace Environment Level 6 – System Adequacy Validated in Simulated Environment Level 7 – System Adequacy Validated in Space
Sorry, I'm still working on my teleporter system. ;P
Sure, but again, most invention works as a precipitate of point-time from a temporal tension (within non-time), not a completed/ closed "narrative time". For 'Better' is the enemy of 'good enough' (Engineer's Creed). Improvements are costly, therefore, incremental. Like the automobile. It didn't start out with seatbelts, airbags and/or collision avoidance systems. Besides, each had it's own design challenges and technological horizon (of the period). After it's invention, a new temporal gathering occurs extends the temporal horizon and which leads to a new/ extended narrative with the possibility for taking another technological step, the possibility of establishing a new point of point time. Caesar- Czar
\\Sorry, I'm still working on my teleporter system. ;P
Yep. That's why that teleological problem I struggle with -- what was first egg? or chicken? Idea... or Need, that idea can fulfill.
\\ (Engineer's Creed)
Ehm?
Engineers' Creed www.nspe.org › resources › ethics › code-ethics Engineers' Creed (1954 Original Version) ... As a Professional Engineer, I dedicate my professional knowledge and skill to the advancement and betterment of human ...
\\Besides, each had it's own design challenges and technological horizon (of the period). After it's invention, a new temporal gathering occurs extends the temporal horizon and which leads to a new/ extended narrative with the possibility for taking another technological step, the possibility of establishing a new point of point time.
Yep. That's why result of my thinking to date is... my idea is not about making some funny gimmicks... or robots... or patented tech. (even not actual city on the Moon, yeah)
But... about -- how to organize group of people, to push into reality something -- of which only feint imaginary pre-cognition exists...
As one wiseman(?) said: " It's like a finger pointing away to the moon. Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all of the heavenly glory!""
Or... you can remember less decent version of it, mentioned in "Silicon Valey" series. ;-)
\\Sorry, I'm still working on my teleporter system. ;P Yep. That's why that teleological problem I struggle with -- what was first egg? or chicken? Idea... or Need, that idea can fulfill.
Ah, but there are airplanes... good enough. I can afford to wait for better tech...
\\ (Engineer's Creed) Ehm? Engineers' Creed www.nspe.org › resources › ethics › code-ethics Engineers' Creed (1954 Original Version) ... As a Professional Engineer, I dedicate my professional knowledge and skill to the advancement and betterment of human ...
So I should deny the world my aeroplane design for now, and keep working on my teleporter design? :P
\\Besides, each had it's own design challenges and technological horizon (of the period). After it's invention, a new temporal gathering occurs extends the temporal horizon and which leads to a new/ extended narrative with the possibility for taking another technological step, the possibility of establishing a new point of point time. Yep. That's why result of my thinking to date is... my idea is not about making some funny gimmicks... or robots... or patented tech. (even not actual city on the Moon, yeah) But... about -- how to organize group of people, to push into reality something -- of which only feint imaginary pre-cognition exists...
So a general solution instead of a specific one. A new form of "systems management"? A new form of "risk management"? A new form of organization, not functional, not projectized? A new form of tech development that doesn't rely upon finance/ budgets (capitalist discourse)... ;)
As one wiseman(?) said: " It's like a finger pointing away to the moon. Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all of the heavenly glory!"" Or... you can remember less decent version of it, mentioned in "Silicon Valey" series. ;-)
Wise man or wiseguy? ;P
How about this one, "There are two ways of spreading light: to either be the candle, or the mirror that reflects it."
\\Ah, but there are airplanes... good enough. I can afford to wait for better tech...
Was that Orville and Wilbur's "flying thing" "good enough" to cross the ocean? What if they was going to a VC fund with idea -- see, it's flying, so it or more like distant cousinse of it could fly across the ocean... with 100 tons on-board. That is leap of faith needed. And quite big. Enormous even. ;-)
But, do we have "theory of leaps of faith" out there??? Do we know how to facilitate it? Do we know which one is "good enough" and veritable. While other is bogus? Dunno, but doubt it. ;-)
\\So I should deny the world my aeroplane design for now, and keep working on my teleporter design? :P
If your design is sound... means, what it need to be acomplished? Some money to scale it up? (well, most of cranks goes here ;-P Just give em 1 million $, and they'll make you their... perpetuum mobile :-)))) Some rare materials? Some not yet existing equipment? Some not yet researched theory? Some not yet opened laws of nature? ;-P
\\So a general solution instead of a specific one.
Ehm??? Technological solution -- always specific one. For each particular case.
\\A new form of "systems management"? A new form of "risk management"? A new form of organization, not functional, not projectized? A new form of tech development that doesn't rely upon finance/ budgets (capitalist discourse)... ;)
More like mix of "new" and "old". New recipe. From known ingridients.
\\Wise man or wiseguy? ;P
:-))) Well, what is criterion of wisdom, again?
\\How about this one, "There are two ways of spreading light: to either be the candle, or the mirror that reflects it."
\\Ah, but there are airplanes... good enough. I can afford to wait for better tech... Was that Orville and Wilbur's "flying thing" "good enough" to cross the ocean? What if they was going to a VC fund with idea -- see, it's flying, so it or more like distant cousinse of it could fly across the ocean... with 100 tons on-board. That is leap of faith needed. And quite big. Enormous even. ;-) But, do we have "theory of leaps of faith" out there??? Do we know how to facilitate it? Do we know which one is "good enough" and veritable. While other is bogus? Dunno, but doubt it. ;-)
:P Sure... a design that is "good enough" meets the technical requirements imposed a fortiori, a bogus one does not.
\\A new form of "systems management"? A new form of "risk management"? A new form of organization, not functional, not projectized? A new form of tech development that doesn't rely upon finance/ budgets (capitalist discourse)... ;) More like mix of "new" and "old". New recipe. From known ingridients.
or teaching mathematics to pupils by writing propositions on wafers and consuming them with "cephalick tincture" -- it seems as still beyond our tech level...
Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) INCOSE defines MBSE as “Model-based systems engineering (MBSE) is the formalized application of modeling to support system requirements, design, analysis, verification and validation activities beginning in the conceptual design phase and continuing throughout development and later life cycle phases.”
Yep. Only I know (well, do I need to (NOT?) do some bragging, as self-proclaimed inventor) how to make it real. ;-P
Well... I am far-far away from idea that ONLY I can invent something like that.
Most likely, while I'll be trying to push it with my meager efforts and phlegmatic attitude... some clever youngster from USA already pitching for his startup that will sunset all my hopes. ;-P
But well... still it's interesting -- HOW that youngster could come to that ideas I have in my mind.
Well, using bazz-words to describe it -- hardly helpful.
So, picturesque stories would be better?
For example.
Imagine "fleet" of oceanic robo-fishes. ;-) Which could help with ecology (track fish and whales, concentration of different polutants). Or, for military use -- recon of that nasty u-boats with cocaine? ;-P Or, some more nasty boats, like that Poseidons... from Rusha, with Luv.
With current techs they do "artifical sharks" -- 100.000$ each. with command of PHDs to control each.
But, what if it'll cost less then 100$. So there'd be freaking millions of em?
Key phrase are "The ultimate goal, still years away..." ;-P
While my tech can generate viable and usable things... even BEFORE any products made.
New ways of 3D-printing. New CAD capabilities. New organizational structures.
Which then can be used to make.
Smart/animal-like cover for smartphones... or even new types of gadgets at all. Killer product for the Most Sweet Mass Market.
Robo-fishes in the ocean and robo-ants on the Earth (Moon, Mars, whatever) To recon anything, to build anything.
Body-enhensment and health control. Non-invasive. Uniqutous. Life prolonging?
Cities which grow like forests and collect and recycle wastes... well, ecological engineering.
"Artifical minds", which up over head of any contemporary datacenters. Computers that can be reconnected to the task. Or even build on a whim. Ecological, not-power-hungry aka ocean-boiling. ;-)
Well... who knows what more uses can be devised... and realised. With more brain power added. ;-)
Key phrase are "The ultimate goal, still years away..." ;-P
Your phrase... "there is NO FREAKING WAY."
Which brings me to the point. If your "product" is truly THAT fantastical, you'll put a LOT of companies out of business, which is a guarantee that no one will sponsor it. :(
\\Which brings me to the point. If your "product" is truly THAT fantastical, you'll put a LOT of companies out of business, which is a guarantee that no one will sponsor it. :(
Well... they told that that is the case with electric cars... for many-many years. Decades. Nearly a century. ;-P
Let's look at it from this side. How do we building bridges, for example?
We hauling mass of concret from somewhere. And/or steel beams. Place em in place with some bulky and powerful machinery. And handful of workers who control it and connect it in some few points.
How... for example ants doing it. They create bridges out of own bodies. And then, disband and can reconnect at some other place.
Isn't such a way of making things is much more versatile, and economical, and advanced... than anything we can do?
The ant bridge is temporary and make it easy for ants to cross it. Our bridges have different functions, for crossing pedestrians, automobiles, trucks or trains. A train bridge must be much stiffer than a pedestrian bridge, lest the railway cars come off the rails. Can ants make a railway bridge? The design is likely to involve trusses, not merely I-beams. The unique structural shapes with the load bearing and stiffnesses required.
What I said about ants and bridges... can be showed about trucks and trains too.
Well, that is your cultural heritage -- that line about inefficiency of driving cars.
When 50 lbs wench drive a car with weight of 2 tons... to buy a pin in a show around corner. Or something like that.
See... where is problem. With my idea. It allows to rebuild ALL of our techs... to make em more reliable and cheap... but, it'll eliminate lots of old ways of achieving goals. By making that goals totlally bogus. ;-P
Now we waste a lot of resources... to solve problems we have because we PREVIOUSLY wasted lots of resources... to make with enormous resources wasted something we even cannot remember what and why we needed it in the first place.
The same what happened with dinosaurs. ;-P
Still, they created that neat fossiles... for museums of natural history.
My tech... self-sufficient.
Well, to integrate it into biosphere and our technosphere here on the Earth. Hard call. So, let's show it on the Mars example.
First, we need energy. Initial capsules land on its surface... and unfold foto-electric elements. Then, very next will be collection of carbon from the air... to make polimers from it. Then, 3D-print next generation of robots needed: collectors of resources, more foto-electric elements, new 3D-printers... Then, anything next you want/need/wanna try...
Difference with our contemporary tech. We cannot make closed cycle of (re)production with it... without need of ALL technological and economical system of the Earth.
With spagetti of politics and social quarrels, ecological problems and climate change... ;-P
btw - Wanna know how many times a day a robotic <a href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_chemical_weapons">chemical weapons destruction plant</a> needs to get shut down per week in order to clear jams and fix equipment? I can tell you from experience, it's more than 1.
62 comments:
Questions asked too early...
A separate chapter of evolutionary methodology covers the relationship between theory and practice, between abstract knowledge and actualized technologies. This relationship does not, of course, exist in bioevolution, since Nature evidently “doesn’t know what it’s doing.” It just simply actualizes that which is possible, that which spontaneously emerges from given material conditions. It has not been easy for man to accept this state of things, not least because he is also one of Mother Nature’s “unwanted” and “accidental” children.
Yet this is not actually a chapter but rather an enormous library. Any attempt to summarize its contents seems rather hopeless. Threatened with such an explicatory abyss, we must be particularly laconic. Prototechnologists did not have any theoretical knowledge because, among other things, they did not know that such a thing was even possible. For thousands of years, theoretical knowledge developed without experimentation, through magic thinking— which is a form of induction, but one that is applied falsely. A conditioned response—that is, an “if A, then B” type of reaction—is its animal antecedent. Of course, both a response of this kind and magic need to be preceded by observation. It would often happen that a working technology was contradicted by the false theoretical knowledge of the time. A chain of pseudoexplanations would then follow, aimed at reconciling the two (the fact that water could not be raised by means of pumps above the height of ten meters was “explained” by Nature’s fear of a vacuum). In its contemporary understanding, knowledge is an examination of the laws of the world, whereas technology is a way of using these laws to satisfy human needs—which are actually still the same as they were in the Egypt of the pharaohs. Its tasks involve cladding and feeding us, providing a roof over our heads, transporting us from one place to another, protecting us against illnesses. Knowledge cares about facts—atomic, particle, or stellar ones and not about us, or at least not in a way that would be driven by the direct usefulness of results. We should point out that the disinterestedness of theoretical investigations used to be purer than it is today. Thanks to our experience, we now know that there is no such thing as useless knowledge in the most pragmatic sense because one never knows when a certain piece of information about the world is going to come in handy or even when it will turn out to be particularly needed and valuable. One of the most “useless” branches of botany, lichenology, which deals with fungi—turned out to be vital, literally, after the discovery of penicillin.
Researcher–ideographers, tireless collectors of facts, describers and classifiers, did not hope for such successes in the old days. Yet man—a creature whose impracticality only every so often matches his curiosity—was more interested in counting the stars and studying the structure of the Universe than in the theory of agriculture or in the workings of his body. From the painstaking, at times even manic, effort of gatherers and collectors of observations, the great edifice of nomothetic sciences, which generalized facts into systemic laws of phenomena and things, slowly emerged.
All this led to the popularization of the idea of an inventor as someone who did not need anything apart from talent, common sense, persistence, pliers, and a hammer to achieve his goal. Yet this is an extravagant way of inventing things—almost as extravagant as the working of bioevolution, whose billion-year-long empirical practices, that is, its “false solutions” to the problem of preserving life posed by the new conditions, claimed hecatombs of victims.
There must have been both a reason, and a means, for life to develop consciousness. Without both, AI will remain a "dumb" intelligence that will not "evolve" but in dumb and fruitless ways.
There is but one "precedent for evolution, from chemistry. It would be irresponsible to ignore its' developmental arc. :P
\\There is but one "precedent for evolution, from chemistry. It would be irresponsible to ignore its' developmental arc. :P
Again. That was written in 1964.
Of course, there was new discoveries after that time. ;-)
\\There must have been both a reason, and a means, for life to develop consciousness. Without both, AI will remain a "dumb" intelligence that will not "evolve" but in dumb and fruitless ways.
There is "selection", for it to not be "dumb and fruitless". ;-)
And well? Do you really need AI with separate consciousness?
Means, with own ideas and goals. ;-)
Whole meaning of all Lem's words... AFAIU. It's about how to "Get smart!"
What could be arguments against it? Isn't that something NOT desirable? ;-)
What? We better need to get dumber??? :-))))
Then, that is not to the Lem, with such needs. There are quite enough of phylosophers (or, better call em sophists?) out there who teaching just that. ;-P
Meden agan! I would apply that to ALL things. I think it is what rules "Selection'. To be the 'centered/ median creature' on the Poisson distribution curve for "intelligence'... not the one on the extreme ends of it for even Golem XIV was NOT Honest Annie.
That is separate interesting question -- what is bigger intelligence?
Can mere number describe that difference?
All this led to the popularization of the idea of an inventor as someone who did not need anything apart from talent, common sense, persistence, pliers, and a hammer to achieve his goal. Yet this is an extravagant way of inventing things—almost as extravagant as the working of bioevolution, whose billion-year-long empirical practices, that is, its “false solutions” to the problem of preserving life posed by the new conditions, claimed hecatombs of victims.
The essence of technology’s “empirical era” lay not so much in its lack of theoretical solutions as in the derivative character of those solutions. First we had the steam engine, then thermodynamics, just as first we had the airplane and then flight theory, or just as we first built bridges and then learned how to make calculations for them. We could risk saying that technological empiricism develops as far as it can. Edison tried to invent something like an “atomic engine,” but this did not—and could not—come to much because, whereas a dynamo can be built through trial and error, an atomic reactor cannot.
That is question which puzzling me.
Is there really IS a smart way of doing things...
or, that is "trial and error" all way down.
Well let me first object to the following statement: " just as first we had the airplane and then flight theory,"
This isn't true. The Wright brothers didn't build the Wright Flyer w/o "theory". The experimented on the different components of the "flight" problem. They built a wind tunnel, and experimented at smaller scales on designs of specific components, like the propellers, like their wing-warping steering mechanisms, like "lift" and airflow. They didn't just "build an aeroplane, then develop a theory.
At NASA we do much the same thing. We test/test/test before we fly. We follow the TRL (Technology Readiness Level) process, and do no proceed with any component that hasn't reached TRL6 (testing in a simulated environment) by its' Preliminary Design Review (PDR). It's a formal, structured PROCESS that ensures ultimate success. Is it the fastest way? No, but it is a process which reduces risk all along the way.
:P
\\This isn't true. The Wright brothers didn't build the Wright Flyer w/o "theory".
This misunderstanding is just an artefact of our conversation.
I omited that part where Lem elaborated this his claim.
Of course he knew that some "theory" was needed.
\\https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level
Yep.
Square peg into round hole. :-)
But, thank you.
And I'll try to adjust my words to it.
Well, in short. Using that analogy with Orville and Wilbur...
What if they'd come to you... with an idea, that their "flying thing"... can be developed into Boing 747... on some later, but still percievable, stage, of course.
Means, not just a "flying thing", not a funny gimmick. But a "system of mass transportation by air". With airports, stealth fighters... and stewardesses. ;-)
Sorry.
That is moment of epiphany.
But same time that is point where your "suspension of disbelief" can break.
Ruining all that meager credibility I escrowed in our conversation till this point.
Well. In THIER times that'll be crazy and unreasonable crankery. But, in our times -- we know how tech do unwind. We see all history of HOW Wright's Brothers "flying circus gimmick" -- grown into jumbojets. ;-)
So, that must not be that impossible... to imagine how even (infinitesimally?) small seed... can grow out into sequoia. ;-)
Can it?
Original NASA TRL Definitions (1989)[15]
Level 1 – Basic Principles Observed and Reported
. 3D printing is nothing someting new and unimaginable anymore.
So, devise posibility of some advanced robotic tech being based on it... does it falls through this hole of "basic principles"?
Level 2 – Potential Application Validated
. Well, for now I talked only about funny gimmicks applications.
Like that "smart cover for a smartphone".
Also blurted out something about it being "meta-material".
I understand that much more profund elaborations needed... to show how it relates with "cities on the Moon"
Level 3 – Proof-of-Concept Demonstrated, Analytically and/or Experimentally
. That is... big question here.
Without denying need of Proof-of-Concept need.
But... what "proof of concept" could provide Elon Musk? To show that his SpaceX rockets can perform "landing flip maneuver"?
With some small-scale toy-rockets?
All later stages... they can be only... later. :-(
For now, that is mere "concept", "vision", "crazy idea", "waste of time"... whatever you'd choose.
Level 4 – Component and/or Breadboard Laboratory Validated
Level 5 – Component and/or Breadboard Validated in Simulated or Realspace Environment
Level 6 – System Adequacy Validated in Simulated Environment
Level 7 – System Adequacy Validated in Space
Oh... there is this link -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emerging_technologies
Well. "Hypothetical, experiments" status from there. Yeah.
Sorry, I'm still working on my teleporter system. ;P
Sure, but again, most invention works as a precipitate of point-time from a temporal tension (within non-time), not a completed/ closed "narrative time". For 'Better' is the enemy of 'good enough' (Engineer's Creed). Improvements are costly, therefore, incremental. Like the automobile. It didn't start out with seatbelts, airbags and/or collision avoidance systems. Besides, each had it's own design challenges and technological horizon (of the period). After it's invention, a new temporal gathering occurs extends the temporal horizon and which leads to a new/ extended narrative with the possibility for taking another technological step, the possibility of establishing a new point of point time. Caesar- Czar
Besides, even travel is becomes, at times, increasingly obsolete. :P Remember "The Machine Stops" or "Spock's Brain"?
:P
\\Sorry, I'm still working on my teleporter system. ;P
Yep.
That's why that teleological problem I struggle with -- what was first egg? or chicken? Idea... or Need, that idea can fulfill.
\\ (Engineer's Creed)
Ehm?
Engineers' Creed
www.nspe.org › resources › ethics › code-ethics
Engineers' Creed (1954 Original Version) ... As a Professional Engineer, I dedicate my professional knowledge and skill to the advancement and betterment of human ...
\\Besides, each had it's own design challenges and technological horizon (of the period). After it's invention, a new temporal gathering occurs extends the temporal horizon and which leads to a new/ extended narrative with the possibility for taking another technological step, the possibility of establishing a new point of point time.
Yep.
That's why result of my thinking to date is...
my idea is not about making some funny gimmicks... or robots... or patented tech. (even not actual city on the Moon, yeah)
But... about -- how to organize group of people, to push into reality something -- of which only feint imaginary pre-cognition exists...
As one wiseman(?) said: " It's like a finger pointing away to the moon. Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all of the heavenly glory!""
Or... you can remember less decent version of it, mentioned in "Silicon Valey" series. ;-)
\\Sorry, I'm still working on my teleporter system. ;P
Yep.
That's why that teleological problem I struggle with -- what was first egg? or chicken? Idea... or Need, that idea can fulfill.
Ah, but there are airplanes... good enough. I can afford to wait for better tech...
\\ (Engineer's Creed)
Ehm?
Engineers' Creed
www.nspe.org › resources › ethics › code-ethics
Engineers' Creed (1954 Original Version) ... As a Professional Engineer, I dedicate my professional knowledge and skill to the advancement and betterment of human ...
So I should deny the world my aeroplane design for now, and keep working on my teleporter design? :P
\\Besides, each had it's own design challenges and technological horizon (of the period). After it's invention, a new temporal gathering occurs extends the temporal horizon and which leads to a new/ extended narrative with the possibility for taking another technological step, the possibility of establishing a new point of point time.
Yep.
That's why result of my thinking to date is...
my idea is not about making some funny gimmicks... or robots... or patented tech. (even not actual city on the Moon, yeah)
But... about -- how to organize group of people, to push into reality something -- of which only feint imaginary pre-cognition exists...
So a general solution instead of a specific one. A new form of "systems management"? A new form of "risk management"? A new form of organization, not functional, not projectized? A new form of tech development that doesn't rely upon finance/ budgets (capitalist discourse)... ;)
As one wiseman(?) said: " It's like a finger pointing away to the moon. Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all of the heavenly glory!""
Or... you can remember less decent version of it, mentioned in "Silicon Valey" series. ;-)
Wise man or wiseguy? ;P
How about this one, "There are two ways of spreading light: to either be the candle, or the mirror that reflects it."
\\Ah, but there are airplanes... good enough. I can afford to wait for better tech...
Was that Orville and Wilbur's "flying thing" "good enough" to cross the ocean?
What if they was going to a VC fund with idea -- see, it's flying, so it or more like distant cousinse of it could fly across the ocean... with 100 tons on-board.
That is leap of faith needed. And quite big.
Enormous even. ;-)
But, do we have "theory of leaps of faith" out there???
Do we know how to facilitate it?
Do we know which one is "good enough" and veritable. While other is bogus?
Dunno, but doubt it. ;-)
\\So I should deny the world my aeroplane design for now, and keep working on my teleporter design? :P
If your design is sound... means, what it need to be acomplished?
Some money to scale it up? (well, most of cranks goes here ;-P Just give em 1 million $, and they'll make you their... perpetuum mobile :-))))
Some rare materials?
Some not yet existing equipment?
Some not yet researched theory?
Some not yet opened laws of nature? ;-P
\\So a general solution instead of a specific one.
Ehm???
Technological solution -- always specific one.
For each particular case.
\\A new form of "systems management"? A new form of "risk management"? A new form of organization, not functional, not projectized? A new form of tech development that doesn't rely upon finance/ budgets (capitalist discourse)... ;)
More like mix of "new" and "old". New recipe. From known ingridients.
\\Wise man or wiseguy? ;P
:-)))
Well, what is criterion of wisdom, again?
\\How about this one, "There are two ways of spreading light: to either be the candle, or the mirror that reflects it."
Trusims?
Sophists like em. ;-P
\\Ah, but there are airplanes... good enough. I can afford to wait for better tech...
Was that Orville and Wilbur's "flying thing" "good enough" to cross the ocean?
What if they was going to a VC fund with idea -- see, it's flying, so it or more like distant cousinse of it could fly across the ocean... with 100 tons on-board.
That is leap of faith needed. And quite big.
Enormous even. ;-)
But, do we have "theory of leaps of faith" out there???
Do we know how to facilitate it?
Do we know which one is "good enough" and veritable. While other is bogus?
Dunno, but doubt it. ;-)
:P
Sure... a design that is "good enough" meets the technical requirements imposed a fortiori, a bogus one does not.
\\A new form of "systems management"? A new form of "risk management"? A new form of organization, not functional, not projectized? A new form of tech development that doesn't rely upon finance/ budgets (capitalist discourse)... ;)
More like mix of "new" and "old". New recipe. From known ingridients.
Already got one... how is yours "better" than our Grand Academy of Lagado?. ;)
trying to change human excretion back into food -- Ok, Google "hydroponiucs"
trying to extract sunbeams out of cucumbers -- Ok, Google "artificial photosynthesis" ;-)
or teaching mathematics to pupils by writing propositions on wafers and consuming them with "cephalick tincture" -- it seems as still beyond our tech level...
http://nap.nationalacademies.org/26141
Cannot be opened.
Great American Firewall? ;-P
Very superficially.
My idea it's 3D-printing PLUS CAD (computer-aided Design, Modelling, Symulation... and Manufacturing).
Well, as in all recipes... there is (supposed to be) secret souce. ;-)
http://nap.nationalacademies.org/26141
firewall? Beats me. It's the plan forward for Astronomy & Astrophysics.
Sounds like MBSE
Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)
INCOSE defines MBSE as “Model-based systems engineering (MBSE) is the formalized application of modeling to support system requirements, design, analysis, verification and validation activities beginning in the conceptual design phase and continuing throughout development and later life cycle phases.”
Yep.
Only I know (well, do I need to (NOT?) do some bragging, as self-proclaimed inventor) how to make it real. ;-P
\\http://nap.nationalacademies.org/26141
firewall? Beats me. It's the plan forward for Astronomy & Astrophysics.
Error: The requested resource could not be loaded. libcurl returned the error: Connection timed out after 20000 milliseconds
Well.
You know story of Xerox PARC... and couple of cunning youngsters Bill and Te... err, that's from other story... and Steve. ;-P
It is 600+ pages...
Only I know (well, do I need to (NOT?) do some bragging, as self-proclaimed inventor) how to make it real. ;-P
You should write a book for PMI and sell a million copies. ;)
...or pitch it to MIT/LL.
\\...or pitch it to MIT/LL.
Well... I am far-far away from idea that ONLY I can invent something like that.
Most likely, while I'll be trying to push it with my meager efforts and phlegmatic attitude... some clever youngster from USA already pitching for his startup that will sunset all my hopes. ;-P
But well... still it's interesting -- HOW that youngster could come to that ideas I have in my mind.
NSA read your computer, of course.
Goodspeed to them/ ;-P
Well, using bazz-words to describe it -- hardly helpful.
So, picturesque stories would be better?
For example.
Imagine "fleet" of oceanic robo-fishes. ;-)
Which could help with ecology (track fish and whales, concentration of different polutants).
Or, for military use -- recon of that nasty u-boats with cocaine? ;-P
Or, some more nasty boats, like that Poseidons... from Rusha, with Luv.
With current techs they do "artifical sharks" -- 100.000$ each. with command of PHDs to control each.
But, what if it'll cost less then 100$.
So there'd be freaking millions of em?
What's you power source? Hope it's a high-energy density. ;)
I'll take it from other side.
What is the problem of Fusion Reaction?
That it need too fine tuned control of which particle goes which way -- how do you see, HOW contemporary tech can achieve it?
Answer is -- there is NO FREAKING WAY.
While MY tech... is all about it -- about fine-tuned control. And low-level (and amassed) control.
No Way????
Key phrase are "The ultimate goal, still years away..." ;-P
While my tech can generate viable and usable things... even BEFORE any products made.
New ways of 3D-printing. New CAD capabilities. New organizational structures.
Which then can be used to make.
Smart/animal-like cover for smartphones... or even new types of gadgets at all. Killer product for the Most Sweet Mass Market.
Robo-fishes in the ocean and robo-ants on the Earth (Moon, Mars, whatever)
To recon anything, to build anything.
Body-enhensment and health control. Non-invasive. Uniqutous. Life prolonging?
Cities which grow like forests and collect and recycle wastes... well, ecological engineering.
"Artifical minds", which up over head of any contemporary datacenters.
Computers that can be reconnected to the task. Or even build on a whim.
Ecological, not-power-hungry aka ocean-boiling. ;-)
Well... who knows what more uses can be devised... and realised.
With more brain power added. ;-)
Key phrase are "The ultimate goal, still years away..." ;-P
Your phrase... "there is NO FREAKING WAY."
Which brings me to the point. If your "product" is truly THAT fantastical, you'll put a LOT of companies out of business, which is a guarantee that no one will sponsor it. :(
...now, are you sure you don't want that NeuraLink so that you can mind-meld with Elon Musk?
\\Which brings me to the point. If your "product" is truly THAT fantastical, you'll put a LOT of companies out of business, which is a guarantee that no one will sponsor it. :(
Well... they told that that is the case with electric cars... for many-many years. Decades. Nearly a century. ;-P
But you know, progress do speeding up. Recently.
\\...now, are you sure you don't want that NeuraLink so that you can mind-meld with Elon Musk?
I yhink that Musk will be Very Last one... to ne neuralinked. ;-)
Back when I was at SpaceX, Elon was basically a child king. He was an important figurehead who provided the company with the money, power, and PR, but he didn’t have the knowledge or (frankly) maturity to handle day-to-day decision making and everyone knew that. He was surrounded by people whose job was, essentially, to manipulate him into making good decisions.
[...]
People were willing to do that at SpaceX because Elon was giving them the money (and hype) to get into outer space, a mission people cared deeply about. The company also grew with and around Elon. There were layers of management between individual employees and Elon, and those managers were experienced managers of Elon. Again, I cannot stress enough how much of the company culture was oriented around managing this one guy.
Electric cars were a stupid idea. What can they do that a gas power car can't?
Get power from your home electric plug? ;-P
People in cold climates "plug in" their cars all the time, to make them easier to start.
And well... Tesla -- name of company which make electric cars.
SpaceX do make space ones. ;-P
They just launch them...
And who make em for them? Secret Santas??? :-)))
\\People in cold climates "plug in" their cars all the time, to make them easier to start.
They can be started even without it. They are just lazy. And sissy. ;-P
You must not have a diesel...
Dead end? :-(((
Let's look at it from this side. How do we building bridges, for example?
We hauling mass of concret from somewhere. And/or steel beams.
Place em in place with some bulky and powerful machinery.
And handful of workers who control it and connect it in some few points.
How... for example ants doing it.
They create bridges out of own bodies.
And then, disband and can reconnect at some other place.
Isn't such a way of making things is much more versatile, and economical, and advanced... than anything we can do?
The ant bridge is temporary and make it easy for ants to cross it. Our bridges have different functions, for crossing pedestrians, automobiles, trucks or trains. A train bridge must be much stiffer than a pedestrian bridge, lest the railway cars come off the rails. Can ants make a railway bridge? The design is likely to involve trusses, not merely I-beams. The unique structural shapes with the load bearing and stiffnesses required.
Have you ever seen the army make a bridge? Sometimes it uses pontoons, sometimes...???
As the span to be crossed varies, so must the structural design solution.
What I said about ants and bridges... can be showed about trucks and trains too.
Well, that is your cultural heritage -- that line about inefficiency of driving cars.
When 50 lbs wench drive a car with weight of 2 tons... to buy a pin in a show around corner. Or something like that.
See... where is problem. With my idea.
It allows to rebuild ALL of our techs... to make em more reliable and cheap...
but, it'll eliminate lots of old ways of achieving goals. By making that goals totlally bogus. ;-P
err... shop
How about timely. I can't wait for a bridge or road to get built for every river I need to cross on my way from point a -> b.
Exactly!
Now we waste a lot of resources... to solve problems we have because we PREVIOUSLY wasted lots of resources... to make with enormous resources wasted something we even cannot remember what and why we needed it in the first place.
The same what happened with dinosaurs. ;-P
Still, they created that neat fossiles... for museums of natural history.
My tech... self-sufficient.
Well, to integrate it into biosphere and our technosphere here on the Earth. Hard call.
So, let's show it on the Mars example.
First, we need energy.
Initial capsules land on its surface... and unfold foto-electric elements.
Then, very next will be collection of carbon from the air... to make polimers from it.
Then, 3D-print next generation of robots needed: collectors of resources, more foto-electric elements, new 3D-printers...
Then, anything next you want/need/wanna try...
Difference with our contemporary tech.
We cannot make closed cycle of (re)production with it...
without need of ALL technological and economical system of the Earth.
With spagetti of politics and social quarrels, ecological problems and climate change... ;-P
Sounds like a great idea.
btw - Wanna know how many times a day a robotic <a href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_chemical_weapons">chemical weapons destruction plant</a> needs to get shut down per week in order to clear jams and fix equipment? I can tell you from experience, it's more than 1.
\\Sounds like a great idea.
Yep.
But that is only one elements.
Problems are much bigger.
That's why continuous brainstorming needed.
That's why I called it "braining". ;-P
\\needs to get shut down per week in order to clear jams and fix equipment? I can tell you from experience, it's more than 1.
Yep. That is one of problems from above -- how to make it robustly man-free. :-)))
Like in that sci-fi novel, where they sent "autonomous robot" to the Mars... with a cabin from human mechanic. :-)))
Yep... I forced to admit -- I know only technical side of how to achieve it.
And have no freaking clues of what social prerequisites needed.
Only can look at history for some hints.
Like... that same R.Fulton -- was forced to propose his invention as a weapon.
Then N.Tesla... tryed to "sell" his genius as ability to make "death rays"...
Well, V.Brawn participated in making some booming and blasting stuff...
Not very promicing... :-((((
Post a Comment