Man, that tetris thing gave me chills, not sure why.
[QUOTE=Ardosos;47277758]Man, that tetris thing gave me chills, not sure why.[/QUOTE]
we need to find the pause button
how do i pause pls
[Quote]The only winning move is not to play[/Quote]
[URL="http://youtu.be/NHWjlCaIrQo?t=3m36s"]War Games[/URL], anyone?
The Doomsday Argument. You could make that argument at literally every single point in the past or the future and it would always result in the probability that the end is neigh.
printing anthrax? i would like to know more.
[QUOTE=Mad.Hatter;47279238]printing anthrax? i would like to know more.[/QUOTE]
congratulations, you've been chosen to participate in the NSA watchlist program. for more details, inquire as to how you can obtain nuclear materials.
[QUOTE=Robber;47278754]The Doomsday Argument. You could make that argument at literally every single point in the past or the future and it would always result in the probability that the end is neigh.[/QUOTE]
It's a pretty dumb argument really; for it to work, we'd have to assume that every human, past and present, exists simultaneously. There has to be someone around in the first 100 billion people, before you can get to 200 billion, or 10 trillion.
Plus, his ball example only picks a single number, but the criteria for your number being "picked" is just the fact that you're alive, so with that logic every single person could say the same thing at any point, making the odds of picking a number below 100 billion a certainty, rather than an improbability.
[QUOTE='Poesidan [GAG];47278307'][URL="http://youtu.be/NHWjlCaIrQo?t=3m36s"]War Games[/URL], anyone?[/QUOTE]
First thing that came to my mind. :v:
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47277903]we need to find the pause button[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Scizor;47278135]how do i pause pls[/QUOTE]
Pausing means stopping time itself, and thus we wouldn't be able to "live" anymore.
We can't control time anyways, so that's out of the question.
[QUOTE=Nabile13;47279554]Pausing means stopping time itself, and thus we wouldn't be able to "live" anymore.
We can't control time anyways, so that's out of the question.[/QUOTE]
What if the server owner is pausing the game and we don't even know it
[QUOTE=Mikemaximum;47279564]What if the server owner is pausing the game and we don't even know it[/QUOTE]
When you pause a game, nothing is animated. Nothing can live. Everything is stuck in a certain state, so life is definitly not possible.
You wouldn't be able to reply to my post if the server owner paused the game after I posted, for instance.
[QUOTE=Nabile13;47279572]When you pause a game, nothing is animated. Nothing can live. Everything is stuck in a certain state, so life is definitly not possible.
You wouldn't be able to reply to my post if the server owner paused the game after I posted, for instance.[/QUOTE]
That's deep
also I meant we wouldn't be able to tell because we can't tell it was paused in the first place
[QUOTE=Mikemaximum;47279581]That's deep
also I meant we wouldn't be able to tell because we can't tell it was paused in the first place[/QUOTE]
Maybe we can't perceive pauses, but living means that we have no choice but going forward with time, therefore pauses do not affect our lives at all, they won't save us.
[QUOTE=Mikemaximum;47279581]That's deep
also I meant we wouldn't be able to tell because we can't tell it was paused in the first place[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
Time could have stopped six billion times just while I was writing this post. But we would never know.
[QUOTE=Nabile13;47279554]Pausing means stopping time itself, and thus we wouldn't be able to "live" anymore.
We can't control time anyways, so that's out of the question.[/QUOTE]
What if we achieved a less literal pause?
Imagine we invent a machine that provides nourishment to all living humans without need for physical action, and humanity collectively decided to all go inside and become vegetables, for the sake of the environment, essentially pausing our time on Earth? Maybe we could throw in a simulated reality so we'd at least be occupying ourselves.
[sp]Holy shit, I just described the premise of the Matrix...[/sp]
The Tetris thing actually hit really deep. Like it struck some sort of hidden terror instinct in me.
Can someone explain this phenomenon???
[editline]7th March 2015[/editline]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOCurBYI_gY[/media]
Rest of the computer playing video games video.
Still very unsettling to watch.
That cheeky fucking computer.
'yeah uh i don't lose. i just sit here forever lol #rekd'
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;47279626]What if we achieved a less literal pause?
Imagine we invent a machine that provides nourishment to all living humans without need for physical action, and humanity collectively decided to all go inside and become vegetables, for the sake of the environment, essentially pausing our time on Earth? Maybe we could throw in a simulated reality so we'd at least be occupying ourselves.
[sp]Holy shit, I just described the premise of the Matrix...[/sp][/QUOTE]
In this case, I guess that we (everyone inside this machine) would all be in this pause, but the external environment would still be subject to time.
What if something happens and everything is wiped out ? I guess our lives would simply end, meaning that no matter what, we depend on time. :v:
[QUOTE=onebit;47277966]It's probably programmed to use its options, so it used an option.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say that the AI is programmed to "use options". What I got from the documentaries is that the AI is literally just mashing random buttons, but with knowing the near-future (via simulating the game with the actual input), and having a performance curve it's trying to optimize. Random inputs that cause the performance curve to go down are thrown out, while random inputs that make the performance go up are actually pressed.
The AI lacks enough fore-sight to play correctly, but it can tell that if it presses start it can keep the performance curve from falling. It has no concept of if the game is running or not and believes that it is performing as well as possible due to being paused (flat curve > falling curve). From there if it unpaused the performance curve would fall; so it simply doesn't.
For me, knowing that makes it a little less depressing.
tl;dr: The AI didn't give up playing tetris really; it's just naïve enough to think that it's performing well while paused.
[QUOTE=Bo!;47277693][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXXZLoq2zFc[/media][/QUOTE]
I just paused before ending the video...
[QUOTE=Naelstrom;47279698]I wouldn't say that the AI is programmed to "use options". What I got from the documentaries is that the AI is literally just mashing random buttons, but with knowing the near-future (via simulating the game with the actual input), and having a performance curve it's trying to optimize. Random inputs that cause the performance curve to go down are thrown out, while random inputs that make the performance go up are actually pressed.
The AI lacks enough fore-sight to play correctly, but it can tell that if it presses start it can keep the performance curve from falling. It has no concept of if the game is running or not and believes that it is performing as well as possible due to being paused (flat curve > falling curve). From there if it unpaused the performance curve would fall; so it simply doesn't.
For me, knowing that makes it a little less depressing.
tl;dr: The AI didn't give up playing tetris really; it's just naïve enough to think that it's performing well while paused.[/QUOTE]
Yup that's more or less it. I'm studying in AI related fields, and we learned a bit about AI for different games such as Chess and Checkers.
The AI is usually written so that it attempts to simulate a number of moves into the future, it then analyzes the effect these moves have. Usually you have a score that it keeps track of. The simulated move that gives the best score will then be used as the actual move. So in the Tetris case none of the moves yielded a good score, except the move to Pause the game.
The computer playing Tetris reminded me of that Quake III creepypasta (that was actually real?) about someone who left their bot-filled free-for-all server open for years and returned to find all the bots standing entirely motionless against each other until a human player entered and they'd all team up to take him out.
[QUOTE=Nodon;47291788]The computer playing Tetris reminded me of that Quake III creepypasta (that was actually real?) about someone who left their bot-filled free-for-all server open for years and returned to find all the bots standing entirely motionless against each other until a human player entered and they'd all team up to take him out.[/QUOTE]
i think this:
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/dx7sVXj.jpg[/img_thumb]
[IMG]http://puu.sh/gukzc/f3fb85d1fa.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://puu.sh/gukDW/37b9a5f22f.jpg[/IMG]
that IS some creepypasta shit
[QUOTE=Pythagoras64;47279315]It's a pretty dumb argument really; for it to work, we'd have to assume that every human, past and present, exists simultaneously.[/QUOTE]
Could you explain why it requires that to work?
[QUOTE]There has to be someone around in the first 100 billion people, before you can get to 200 billion, or 10 trillion.
Plus, his ball example only picks a single number, but the criteria for your number being "picked" is just the fact that you're alive, so with that logic every single person could say the same thing at any point, making the odds of picking a number below 100 billion a certainty, rather than an improbability.[/QUOTE]
There are problems with the doomsday argument, but this isn't really one of them. It isn't about the probability of [i]anyone[/i] sampling their birth-order number and getting less that 100 billion, it's the probability of [i]you[/i] sampling your birth-order number and getting less than 100 billion. You take yourself to be a uniformly random sample of all observers in your reference class.
If everyone who is ever born does the experiment, only n% of people are in the first n% of people born in their reference class (0 <= n <= 100). You can therefore make conclusions like that there is a 5% chance of [i]you[/i] being in the first 5% of all observers in your reference class.
One of the actual problems with the argument is the one brought up in the video, that your reference class isn't well defined.
[QUOTE=Nabile13;47279666]In this case, I guess that we (everyone inside this machine) would all be in this pause, but the external environment would still be subject to time.
What if something happens and everything is wiped out ? I guess our lives would simply end, meaning that no matter what, we depend on time. :v:[/QUOTE]
Not as much if the simulation ran at a different pace, i.e the whole 5 years in the machine = 1 second on earth type thing that's the premise for thousands of sci-fi movies.
Of course after many, many, MANY years something could happen. But if it was a completely flawless simulation we could [I]maybe[/I] come out of the machine in minutes or hours with the knowledge to prevent whatever caused us to enter etc.
Although if we managed to create a perfect simulation of reality and had all that technology etc etc we would probably be able to do that anyway.
[QUOTE=Octopod;47292856]i think this:
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/dx7sVXj.jpg[/img_thumb]
[IMG]http://puu.sh/gukzc/f3fb85d1fa.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://puu.sh/gukDW/37b9a5f22f.jpg[/IMG]
that IS some creepypasta shit[/QUOTE]
well at least on the plus side is does prove that cooperation is how you get things done
Maybe life just needs a really long time to develop decent-quality spaceflight? Or maybe, like the Native Americans, some species just aren't going down the technology route at this moment in time? For all we know, one day we'll invent FTL travel, we'll find intelligent life, and they'll just... be small, primitive tribes, totally happy with their lot in life. They could have existed for 10 thousand years or 10 billion, but evolution of intelligent life isn't just what happens to us. It's what we do to ourselves.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
