Art Imitates Life

16 responses to “Art Imitates Life”

1. 

   angry shock

   May 11, 2006 at 4:08 am

   Wasn´t that super computer ‘who’ (not which 😉 ) won in chess against Kasparov called "Blue something" too?

   What´s up with Blue and -artificial- Intelligence?

   Some sort of fixation this IBM do have!

   Reply
2. 

   jurvetson

   May 11, 2006 at 4:12 am

   Big Blue…. having a ball….

   Reply
3. 

   angry shock

   May 11, 2006 at 4:31 am

   let me in!

   Reply
4. 

   TroyWorks

   May 11, 2006 at 7:30 am

   There are definately certain ‘high’s from many common iterative structures. I’ve wondered if this stems intially from the inner eye’s working, or at a higher more abstract level when our meta pattern recognitions detect self-similarity at different granularities.

   when I did AI visualization of a mere 10K nodes and 100K connections (most changing at the same time both in activatino and in structure) the bandwidth of the visualization routines consumed about 30-80% of th e CPU, coupling such massive infomration to the perceptual system of the viewer is actually yet another AI, that occured to me later on, is probably analogous to how conciousness utilizes emotions as an introspective tool for the gross firing of the entire brain, into a few units it can actually manipulate.

   Reply
5. 

   JKaljundi

   May 11, 2006 at 1:00 pm

   Kasparov’s oponent was Deep Blue and that name was based on Deep Thought from Hitchhiker’s Guide. There have been other similarly named chess computers like Deep Junior and Deep Fritz.

   Deep Blue was tiny and slow compared to Blue Gene.

   Reply
6. 

   angry shock

   May 11, 2006 at 2:02 pm

   hi J, thanks for the input on Deep Blue. You are right, that was its name. I was making a bit of a pun (playing silly) when saying that it was "blue something"… For the origin of the name, I did not know. Very interesting. Thank you. I knew that in fact the version of this computer which actually won, was called Deeper Blue due to some enhancements it has compared to the original Deep Blue.

   Now I found that "Deep blue is the predecessor of BlueGene" [sic] at wikipedia, but nothing else I could find in regard to the story or reason for the "Blue" labelling. Perhaps it began casually and for BlueGene they had to preserve the "blue" label to remark that its blood is:

   

   Blue too. 😉

   Reply
7. 

   benjiman

   May 11, 2006 at 6:56 pm

   I LOVE THIS THREAD!!!

   Yay Steve, thanks for sharing.

   Our love of emerging constructs always gets back to the golden mean.

   Reply
8. 

   jurvetson

   May 11, 2006 at 9:45 pm

   very interesting point TroyWorks…. I think goes beyond the sensors to the cortex itself. The world has hierarchical structure to it, and so do our memory constructs (Hawkins), so there is an efficient, resonant and harmonious physical mapping… with less low-level cognitive dissonance in the grok.

   Also, I just posted a video on Revver. The poor video quality is because of my camera. It was remarkably sharp on screen.

   Reply
9. 

   amitp

   May 12, 2006 at 12:54 am

   I suspect the reason we like we like emergent/fractal constructs is that they fall between order and disorder. Complete order (0) — like a solid wall of white — is boring. Complete disorder (1) — random pixels — is boring. In between is where the interesting stuff lies.

   When your brain has no activity (0), it’s dead. When your brain has too much activity (1), it has a seizure. In between is where normal interesting activity lies.

   Where is the range of interestingness? Per Bak and the self-criticality work might tell us something; I’m not sure.

   I suspect emergent/fractal constructs are beautiful to us because they’re in the right place between order and disorder.

   Reply
10. 

    angry shock

    May 12, 2006 at 1:16 am

    

    This is natural ‘fractal’ image -unexpected, not posted as such- which arouse some interesting debate -to be or not to be fractal- and its consecuent discussion you may find it interesting in this context.

    btw… frankly, I am still so reticent to that concept of "emergence". Don´t like it a bit. Sounds to me like a joker word which certainly explains nothing, for it comes to fill a conceptual gap we can´t yet fill with genuine understanding of the phenomena we have in front of us. Sorry. I really hate when I don´t get on well with a concept for I doubt its intrinsic true value – whether I agree or not with it-.

    I am open to anybody interested in convincing me, explaining me or confounding me more on this. =)

    Reply
11. 

    jurvetson

    Jun 12, 2006 at 8:27 pm

    i think emergence reflects a gulf of computational richness, such that it is easier to look at higher levels of emergent abstraction (e.g., phases of water) than reductionist underpinnings (atomistic modelling of H2O).

    Also, fyi, videos and PPTs are now available from the conference:
    http://www.almaden.ibm.com/institute/agenda.shtml

    Reply
12. 

    benjiman

    Jun 13, 2006 at 12:16 am

    Yes, we see the forest before the trees and apprehend it on that level first… Then dig to discover the nested worlds that imply the existance of the whole.

    Everything reflects everything else, we just have to have the right "lens" to see a given level.

    Part of me agrees with Alieness; "emergence" doesn’t have the gravitas that it’s meaning seems to demand.

    Reply
13. 

    angry shock

    Jun 14, 2006 at 6:42 am

    thank you both j and b (hey "J&B"… mmmmm… scotch…. mmmmmm)… 😀

    I was saying… thank you for the words. I admit that I still think the same about the concept (like benjiman says, like it doesn´t have the gravitas it seems to demand), but your explanations have served me fairly fine in my understanding -trying to accommodate this idea in my mind-…

    Today is the 20th anniversary of Borges death – one of my cherished universal masters- and I made a little tribute. While finding quotes -in english, so I could share- I found this, and I remembered this recent update on the conversation on emergence… as if this could be another way of saying what you are saying… could be?

    It may be that universal history is the history of the different intonations given a handful of metaphors.
    – JL Borges, essay: "The Fearful Sphere of Pascal"

    different intonations —> different levels of emergent abstraction

    Reply
14. 

    angry shock

    Jun 26, 2006 at 10:30 pm

    how fun… I´ve just read this quote in a newsletter and thought of this conversation immediately…

    “Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed.”
    – Blaise Pascal

    Now here I regard in awe that the quote I paraphrased form Borges in the comment below is from the essay: "The Fearful Sphere of Pascal"!!!

    …this Pascal must have been into something… uhm… interesting.

    wow.

    Reply
15. 

    …robert joseph…

    Aug 31, 2007 at 1:41 am

    nipple pierced!

    Reply
16. 

    schoschie

    Feb 21, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    I can’t recall how many hours I’ve spent looking at jurvetson photos and comment threads… I keep coming back to most of these posts…

    Reply