From xod@xxxx.xxxx Fri Feb 19 15:16:55 1999 X-Digest-Num: 66 Message-ID: <44114.66.291.959273824@eGroups.com> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 18:16:55 -0500 (EST) From: xod From: Christopher Palmer > > On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, xod wrote: > > > If you follow Moore's Law, and count the number of neurons it enables us > > to simulate, you'll see that my prediction, though not certain, is > > respectable. > > The problem is not one of hardware inadequacy, which is all Moore's Law > refers to. An 8088 is probably *fast* enough. :P The problem is that we > don't understand the problem (human language). Who cares? Little kids don't understand the problem either. Just throw enough neurons at the problem, and you're good. > > Extend us off silicon into optical/protein/full nanotech computers, and > > you'll agree that real-time better-than-human language translation of bad > > handwriting and drunken accented speech is inevitable. > > ? I can do that already without biomechanical augmentation. :^) Adding > human brains to hardware is not solving the problem, and would probably > kill the human anyway. :^) I wasn't suggesting cyborgs, just really good computer systems that are better than humans at deciphering text, handwriting, or speech. > > "English is hard" is meaningless, but "English is harder than Spanish" > > is both meaningful and measurable. > > What, exactly, does it mean? And how are you measuring 'meaning' and > 'difficulty' and 'Spanish' and 'English'? Take a random sample, divide them up, teach them different languages and compare their abilities to read a newspaper, follow a soap opera on TV, discuss their sex lives, etc, after a certain duration of education. ----- How's my typing? 1 (800) 243-6624