Shit man, you don't even need to read the book, you should already have it in your head. IIRC, Kurzweil's guess as to a reasonably priced PC that would contain all knowledge mankind has generated in its entire history to this point is like, 2035, maybe 2040.
Granted, he could be wrong, but think about that. Think about the degree to which the entire nature of human life would be altered by having that much information simply available, inside your head, able to be accessed, looked at, processed, and used to solve a problem in nanoseconds.
The dangers of misinformation.
Not necessarily, this level of availability of information would make it really easy and efficient to check information against multiple sources. Granted misinformation is always something to worry about, fact-checking would be a much faster and simpler process.
Sure, in theory.
But when a person consistantly triple checks sources over and over and always find the information is correct, he will begin to trust the system.. Until one day it fails him, and horribly wrong information is used.
But unless the planters of the misinformation can effectively infiltrate every source available there will be conflicting stories which should produce reasonable doubt for anybody looking into it.
If you want a modernist box and not a building, let alone a piece of architecture, sure. That practically exists right now, but it's hardly an ideal for your client and is actively worsening his company and its location.
So what does a super computer powered human architect bring to the table that a super computer straight up doesn't?
Inspiration, beauty, innovation, meaningful interaction with the owner. You know, humanity.
So then whats the point of giving computer implants to the architect in the first place?
Because he fucking wants them? What the hell kind of question is this? There is/will be a clear fucking advantage to merging human ingenuity and pattern recognition with the speed of computation and access to information of computers, so I'd wager a great number of people will seek to do so.
No there fucking isn't, because that isn't any different from a fucking human using a computer to generate fucking buildings and modify them however he pleases. Where the fuck have you been for the past 20 years?
Keyboard and Mouse vs Thought
I think implants win in the efficiency department.
If you want a modernist box and not a building, let alone a piece of architecture, sure. That practically exists right now, but it's hardly an ideal for your client and is actively worsening his company and its location.
So what does a super computer powered human architect bring to the table that a super computer straight up doesn't?
Inspiration, beauty, innovation, meaningful interaction with the owner. You know, humanity.
So then whats the point of giving computer implants to the architect in the first place?
...to be used by them as a tool.
If I had a photographic memory so that I knew the IBC, LEED, local building codes, ADA, etc. by heart and never had to look in any of the tens of thousands of pages that line a firm's library, and not nice looking buildings for inspiration type library but a 'I don't want to get sued for breaking the law' library, I would be a much more effective designer because I'd have all the answers to all the details tucked away in my head somewhere. That isn't going to come up with the overarching concept that a piece of architecture encompasses, but it does help come up with all the interim parts between the sketch and the ribbon cutting.
I am not convinced.
I am almost certain it should be very possible to someday in the future have a computer program that can generate many drafts of a core building with creative modification and restructuring within bounds by an architect. Because if we can't even do that, then fuck having the technology to merge computers and brains together.
No there fucking isn't, because that isn't any different from a fucking human using a computer to generate fucking buildings and modify them however he pleases. Where the fuck have you been for the past 20 years?
Where the fuck have you? Do you not realize even the most obvious difference between simply remembering something and having to go and look it up?
Yes, I think Crossfire's question is that why does this need to be implanted? Are clients really going to chose who comes up with the best design on the spot? Won't they give teams a window in which to come up with a good design and then decide? If that's the case, the implanted guy doesn't have any advantage over the team using ArchDatabase2050.
If you want a modernist box and not a building, let alone a piece of architecture, sure. That practically exists right now, but it's hardly an ideal for your client and is actively worsening his company and its location.
So what does a super computer powered human architect bring to the table that a super computer straight up doesn't?
Inspiration, beauty, innovation, meaningful interaction with the owner. You know, humanity.
So then whats the point of giving computer implants to the architect in the first place?
Because he fucking wants them? What the hell kind of question is this? There is/will be a clear fucking advantage to merging human ingenuity and pattern recognition with the speed of computation and access to information of computers, so I'd wager a great number of people will seek to do so.
No there fucking isn't, because that isn't any different from a fucking human using a computer to generate fucking buildings and modify them however he pleases. Where the fuck have you been for the past 20 years?
Keyboard and Mouse vs Thought
I think implants win in the efficiency department.
No they don't, you know how hard it can be to focus thinking on some shit without thinking about something else?
I am almost certain it should be very possible to someday in the future have a computer program that can generate many drafts of a core building with creative modification and restructuring within bounds by an architect. Because if we can't even do that, then fuck having the technology to merge computers and brains together.
Thank you for letting me know that you don't have the slightest idea of how many different kinds of structures exist. There's more out there than posts and beams. Even if you were to restrict yourself to those there's a hell of a large number of ways to implement it depending on what you want to do.
I am almost certain it should be very possible to someday in the future have a computer program that can generate many drafts of a core building with creative modification and restructuring within bounds by an architect. Because if we can't even do that, then fuck having the technology to merge computers and brains together.
Thank you for letting me know that you don't have the slightest idea of how many different kinds of structures exist. There's more out there than posts and beams. Even if you were to restrict yourself to those there's a hell of a large number of ways to implement it depending on what you want to do.
I'm talking about software so dynamic that if you drag parts of a building it can completely reshape the skeletons and fire alarms and pipes and all that crap on the fly, so that at any one point in the design process, the building is always entirely functional.
If you want a modernist box and not a building, let alone a piece of architecture, sure. That practically exists right now, but it's hardly an ideal for your client and is actively worsening his company and its location.
So what does a super computer powered human architect bring to the table that a super computer straight up doesn't?
Inspiration, beauty, innovation, meaningful interaction with the owner. You know, humanity.
So then whats the point of giving computer implants to the architect in the first place?
Because he fucking wants them? What the hell kind of question is this? There is/will be a clear fucking advantage to merging human ingenuity and pattern recognition with the speed of computation and access to information of computers, so I'd wager a great number of people will seek to do so.
No there fucking isn't, because that isn't any different from a fucking human using a computer to generate fucking buildings and modify them however he pleases. Where the fuck have you been for the past 20 years?
Keyboard and Mouse vs Thought
I think implants win in the efficiency department.
No they don't, you know how hard it can be to focus thinking on some shit without thinking about something else?
Christ boy, were you born this retarded or did it have to implanted in you?
No there fucking isn't, because that isn't any different from a fucking human using a computer to generate fucking buildings and modify them however he pleases. Where the fuck have you been for the past 20 years?
Where the fuck have you? Do you not realize even the most obvious difference between simply remembering something and having to go and look it up?
I don't think you understand the magnitude, nor even the implications of the power in the computer software I have suggested.
Software so powerful, that even a 2 year old could design a sky scraper. Fortified even.
That, is more amazing than even 10 human brains on digital crack.
Yes, I think Crossfire's question is that why does this need to be implanted? Are clients really going to chose who comes up with the best design on the spot? Won't they give teams a window in which to come up with a good design and then decide? If that's the case, the implanted guy doesn't have any advantage over the team using ArchDatabase2050.
Clients rarely do design competitions, they mainly hire a single firm and ask them to build it. That firm is composed of many different architects working in it. The more each architect can get done in a day the more profitable that company becomes due to a higher turnover rate. Now, who are they going to staff themselves with, the guy who doesn't need to do anything more than think in order to come up with perfect technical drawings, or the guy who has to cross reference everything in order to make sure he didn't fuck anything up?
If you want a modernist box and not a building, let alone a piece of architecture, sure. That practically exists right now, but it's hardly an ideal for your client and is actively worsening his company and its location.
So what does a super computer powered human architect bring to the table that a super computer straight up doesn't?
Inspiration, beauty, innovation, meaningful interaction with the owner. You know, humanity.
So then whats the point of giving computer implants to the architect in the first place?
Because he fucking wants them? What the hell kind of question is this? There is/will be a clear fucking advantage to merging human ingenuity and pattern recognition with the speed of computation and access to information of computers, so I'd wager a great number of people will seek to do so.
No there fucking isn't, because that isn't any different from a fucking human using a computer to generate fucking buildings and modify them however he pleases. Where the fuck have you been for the past 20 years?
Keyboard and Mouse vs Thought
I think implants win in the efficiency department.
No they don't, you know how hard it can be to focus thinking on some shit without thinking about something else?
Christ boy, were you born this retarded or did it have to implanted in you?
Seriously, try to sit down and purely imagine the construction of a building in your head for the next 8 hours. Your mind will wander after like, 15 minutes.
Crossfire on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I'm talking about software so dynamic that if you drag parts of a building it can completely reshape the skeletons and fire alarms and pipes and all that crap on the fly, so that at any one point in the design process, the building is always entirely functional.
There's still much more to it than that.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm talking about software so dynamic that if you drag parts of a building it can completely reshape the skeletons and fire alarms and pipes and all that crap on the fly, so that at any one point in the design process, the building is always entirely functional.
There's still much more to it than that.
And theres till a lot more to the software than meets the eye.
If you want a modernist box and not a building, let alone a piece of architecture, sure. That practically exists right now, but it's hardly an ideal for your client and is actively worsening his company and its location.
So what does a super computer powered human architect bring to the table that a super computer straight up doesn't?
Inspiration, beauty, innovation, meaningful interaction with the owner. You know, humanity.
So then whats the point of giving computer implants to the architect in the first place?
Because he fucking wants them? What the hell kind of question is this? There is/will be a clear fucking advantage to merging human ingenuity and pattern recognition with the speed of computation and access to information of computers, so I'd wager a great number of people will seek to do so.
No there fucking isn't, because that isn't any different from a fucking human using a computer to generate fucking buildings and modify them however he pleases. Where the fuck have you been for the past 20 years?
Keyboard and Mouse vs Thought
I think implants win in the efficiency department.
No they don't, you know how hard it can be to focus thinking on some shit without thinking about something else?
This is a good point but I still think that it could prove to be more efficient if implemented well. We don't know what types of interactions an implant like this would have with the brain. For instance, there is a difference between thinking about blinking and actually blinking. Turrets Syndrome would be an example of someone who is unable to differentiate normally. Perhaps an implant could be set up to decipher the difference between the two in much the same way. (I'm making this assertion with only a general knowledge of Turrets so if anyone sees something wrong with it feel free to correct me.)
I'm talking about software so dynamic that if you drag parts of a building it can completely reshape the skeletons and fire alarms and pipes and all that crap on the fly, so that at any one point in the design process, the building is always entirely functional.
There's still much more to it than that.
And like architecture, there is still a lot more to the software than meets the eye.
I am almost certain it should be very possible to someday in the future have a computer program that can generate many drafts of a core building with creative modification and restructuring within bounds by an architect. Because if we can't even do that, then fuck having the technology to merge computers and brains together.
Thank you for letting me know that you don't have the slightest idea of how many different kinds of structures exist. There's more out there than posts and beams. Even if you were to restrict yourself to those there's a hell of a large number of ways to implement it depending on what you want to do.
I'm talking about software so dynamic that if you drag parts of a building it can completely reshape the skeletons and fire alarms and pipes and all that crap on the fly, so that at any one point in the design process, the building is always entirely functional.
Yeah, we quit using the steel box skeleton in the 40's. Even the current vogue of core + curtain is starting to be rethought. If you're just plugging and chugging Wal~Marts to make sure they can work on a slightly altered site in comparison to the one up the road this would work great, though.
moniker on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Seriously, try to sit down and purely imagine the construction of a building in your head for the next 8 hours. Your mind will wander after like, 15 minutes.
What? Then how is it people are able to sit down and work a full day at all? By your reasoning, after 15 minutes everyone would be thinking about grocery lists and that hot chick in the coffee shop and nothing would ever get done.
Here, try this: Think of the capital of the US.
Okay, now think of in what years the US Civil War happened.
Okay, now think of how many planets there are in our solar system.
Were you able to do all those? If not, you probably have some sort of disorder. If so, imagine that pretty much any time you needed to recall a fact, it was right there, just like those things. It's not about focusing with laser-like precision for 8 hours at a stretch, it's about being able to instantly access any bit of information you need.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
"Super" would be things like photographic memories, 40/20 vision, and a total lack of congenital diseases. Try and compete with another lawyer or architect for a job at some firm when you have to thumb through legal books, meanwhile he has the library of congress stuck in his noggin.
Why stick to just improving vision and memories, when you can reshape humanity into something slightly different that has a better metabolism, doesn't suffer from any back problems, and lives much longer or possibly doesn't even age at all?
Seriously, try to sit down and purely imagine the construction of a building in your head for the next 8 hours. Your mind will wander after like, 15 minutes.
If you want a modernist box and not a building, let alone a piece of architecture, sure. That practically exists right now, but it's hardly an ideal for your client and is actively worsening his company and its location.
So what does a super computer powered human architect bring to the table that a super computer straight up doesn't?
Inspiration, beauty, innovation, meaningful interaction with the owner. You know, humanity.
So then whats the point of giving computer implants to the architect in the first place?
Because he fucking wants them? What the hell kind of question is this? There is/will be a clear fucking advantage to merging human ingenuity and pattern recognition with the speed of computation and access to information of computers, so I'd wager a great number of people will seek to do so.
No there fucking isn't, because that isn't any different from a fucking human using a computer to generate fucking buildings and modify them however he pleases. Where the fuck have you been for the past 20 years?
Keyboard and Mouse vs Thought
I think implants win in the efficiency department.
No they don't, you know how hard it can be to focus thinking on some shit without thinking about something else?
This is a good point but I still think that it could prove to be more efficient if implemented well. We don't know what types of interactions an implant like this would have with the brain. For instance, there is a difference between thinking about blinking and actually blinking. Turrets Syndrome would be an example of someone who is unable to differentiate normally. Perhaps an implant could be set up to decipher the difference between the two in much the same way. (I'm making this assertion with only a general knowledge of Turrets so if anyone sees something wrong with it feel free to correct me.)
So basically, work in the future consists of going to a place or plugging in somewhere, and going into a deep coma like state where you participate in some distributed computing for about 8 hours, then you wake up and go home?
Crossfire on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I'm talking about software so dynamic that if you drag parts of a building it can completely reshape the skeletons and fire alarms and pipes and all that crap on the fly, so that at any one point in the design process, the building is always entirely functional.
There's still much more to it than that.
And like architecture, there is still a lot more to the software than meets the eye.
I'm well familiar with design software, given that I use it for a living.
Still a lot more to it.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
So basically, work in the future consists of going to a place or plugging in somewhere, and going into a deep coma like state where you participate in some distributed computing for about 8 hours, then you wake up and go home?
You know, it's very difficult to maintain civility when you seem to be going out of your way to miss the point. Have you even read a goddamned thing that's been said to you in the past page?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm talking about software so dynamic that if you drag parts of a building it can completely reshape the skeletons and fire alarms and pipes and all that crap on the fly, so that at any one point in the design process, the building is always entirely functional.
There's still much more to it than that.
And like architecture, there is still a lot more to the software than meets the eye.
I'm well familiar with design software, given that I use it for a living.
Still a lot more to it.
Look bro, I'm not a fucking architect, but if I was, I'd tear this argument to pieces.
There is no science that can't be automated, generated, and recirculated.
His point is valid, people's minds wander throughout the day and with something that reads only thoughts this could potentially be more of a detriment than it would be helpful. The only reason it doesn't affect our every day work is because we can decide which thoughts to act on. Unless these implants can decipher between these types of thoughts then they might prove to be useless.
So basically, work in the future consists of going to a place or plugging in somewhere, and going into a deep coma like state where you participate in some distributed computing for about 8 hours, then you wake up and go home?
You know, it's very difficult to maintain civility when you seem to be going out of your way to miss the point. Have you even read a goddamned thing that's been said to you in the past page?
HAVE YOU?
After dodging the "why are the poor entitled to everything" question you start pushing down my hypotheticals by saying "olol theres more to architecture than THAT" everytime I try to explain that IF a computer could automate EVERY SINGLE process involved with the creation of a building, a human would no longer need to concentrate on those things and could focus exclusively on the creativity aspect.
Crossfire on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Look bro, I'm not a fucking architect, but if I was, I'd tear this argument to pieces.
There is no science that can't be automated, generated, and recirculated.
Sure, some day. When we can basically create computer AI indistinguishable from a human.
Until then - and that day is a long, long ways away - there are things that computer software simply cannot do. The creativity and dynamics that human beings contribute to artistic fields such as architecture, or to creative fields such as design, are things that no current or near-future design software can even begin to approach. Period.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm talking about software so dynamic that if you drag parts of a building it can completely reshape the skeletons and fire alarms and pipes and all that crap on the fly, so that at any one point in the design process, the building is always entirely functional.
There's still much more to it than that.
And like architecture, there is still a lot more to the software than meets the eye.
I'm well familiar with design software, given that I use it for a living.
Still a lot more to it.
Look bro, I'm not a fucking architect, but if I was, I'd tear this argument to pieces.
No you wouldn't, because I'm not doing it.
There's a lot more to technical drawings than making sure your door height's masonry opening is the proper 7'-4" and ensuring that the corridor widths are accessible under ADA. It's about doing all that while simultaneously making it work beautifully. A computer can currently generate a building. We've had stock plans like that since it was possible to photocopy something. Those are pieces of shit and don't require an architect in any but the most legalese aspect of 'they have to sign and stamp it proving it's up to snuff with current building code' though. You should try and check out some starchitect's websites and follow their thought process from pre-design to construction documents. It's a rather interesting path.
moniker on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
After dodging the "why are the poor entitled to everything" question...
Like, half a dozen people have explained why we should care about the effects of biological enhancements on the poor. If you wanted someone to specifically answer your stupid strawman question, go start a new thread.
...you start pushing down my hypotheticals by saying "olol theres more to architecture than THAT" everytime I try to explain that IF a computer could automate EVERY SINGLE process involved with the creation of a building, a human would no longer need to concentrate on those things and could focus exclusively on the creativity aspect.
What I'm trying to explain is that a computer that can automate EVERY SINGLE process involved in the creation of a building is so far away that it's sort of silly to talk about it. You're basically asserting that when the time comes that we can create digital people, they'll be able to design buildings. Beyond that, you seem to have very little idea of what design software actually does.
Have you ever seen Poser? It's a 3D person-crafting tool. It automates the process of creating 3D models of people. It's kinda nifty, but it sucks compared to anyone with a few months of training at creating something that doesn't suck. Because the technology is, like, decades upon decades away from being able to design things that even kinda-sorta compare with what a competent human can create.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm talking about software so dynamic that if you drag parts of a building it can completely reshape the skeletons and fire alarms and pipes and all that crap on the fly, so that at any one point in the design process, the building is always entirely functional.
There's still much more to it than that.
And like architecture, there is still a lot more to the software than meets the eye.
I'm well familiar with design software, given that I use it for a living.
Still a lot more to it.
Look bro, I'm not a fucking architect, but if I was, I'd tear this argument to pieces.
No you wouldn't, because I'm not doing it.
There's a lot more to technical drawings than making sure your door height's masonry opening is the proper 7'-4" and ensuring that the corridor widths are accessible under ADA. It's about doing all that while simultaneously making it work beautifully. A computer can currently generate a building. We've had stock plans like that since it was possible to photocopy something. Those are pieces of shit and don't require an architect in any but the most legalese aspect of 'they have to sign and stamp it proving it's up to snuff with current building code' though. You should try and check out some starchitect's websites and follow their thought process from pre-design to construction documents. It's a rather interesting path.
Lets say you have to design a bucket. You tell the software "This bucket that I am about to create must hold a gallon of water." the computer says OK, I will remember this as you design. And as you design your bucket in super creative ways the computer works on it too, to ensure that it will always hold a gallon. You work on the creativity, and the computer is the utilitarian.
A building would be a similar process, but scaled to be much much more complex, handling all the parameters of the building on the fly.
Crossfire on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Until then - and that day is a long, long ways away - there are things that computer software simply cannot do.
Realize Jeffe, that if there is something that computer software cannot do it is simply because Humans have not yet made it so.
I'm not disagreeing that someday, in the far-flung future, it may be so.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Have you ever seen Poser? It's a 3D person-crafting tool. It automates the process of creating 3D models of people. It's kinda nifty, but it sucks compared to anyone with a few months of training at creating something that doesn't suck. Because the technology is, like, decades upon decades away from being able to design things that even kinda-sorta compare with what a competent human can create.
Hey, fuck you. My little poser people were great scale figures.
:P
Until then - and that day is a long, long ways away - there are things that computer software simply cannot do.
Realize Jeffe, that if there is something that computer software cannot do it is simply because Humans have not yet made it so.
I'm not disagreeing that someday, in the far-flung future, it may be so.
But do you disagree that it will be before computer implants in brains?
This thread wasn't restricted to implants but also entailed inutero gene manipulation in order to ensure someone had ____ properties at birth. From blonde hair to photographic memories.
Until then - and that day is a long, long ways away - there are things that computer software simply cannot do.
Realize Jeffe, that if there is something that computer software cannot do it is simply because Humans have not yet made it so.
I'm not disagreeing that someday, in the far-flung future, it may be so.
But do you disagree that it will be before computer implants in brains?
This thread wasn't restricted to implants but also entailed inutero gene manipulation in order to ensure someone had ____ properties at birth. From blonde hair to photographic memories.
How unfortunate that in this particular case we are talking about computer implants.
Crossfire on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
But do you disagree that it will be before computer implants in brains?
First off, what moniker said. Second, I don't know. My instinct tells me that computer implants are a lot simpler to implement than sentient AI, but I wouldn't stake money on it.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
But do you disagree that it will be before computer implants in brains?
First off, what moniker said. Second, I don't know. My instinct tells me that computer implants are a lot simpler to implement than sentient AI, but I wouldn't stake money on it.
Then it's over.
My entire argument was that if sentinent AI surfaced before computer implants, many implants would have been made obsolete by the sentinent AI, and would never be necessary.
Mental implants that are worth a damn will not happen for a far longer time than sentinent AI.
If you want a modernist box and not a building, let alone a piece of architecture, sure. That practically exists right now, but it's hardly an ideal for your client and is actively worsening his company and its location.
So what does a super computer powered human architect bring to the table that a super computer straight up doesn't?
Um. Hm. On the one hand, I want sentient AI. I want it so bad I'm foolishly considering going to grad school just to figure out if making one is possible.
On the other hand, modern pscyhological and neurological science has existed for all of 100 years, computer science in it's modern form something like 50. The odds that we'll be able to leverage this knowledge into the production of another sentient organism right now are really low.
You can hope for "emergence", true, but what that produces could very well be unrecognisably inhuman, and the odds of it happening are about the odds of Gaia calling us on the phone. Large and complex systems exist just fine without human-scale intelligence, the idea that we'll hit on one by accident just from making bigger and better internets is weird.
Posts
But unless the planters of the misinformation can effectively infiltrate every source available there will be conflicting stories which should produce reasonable doubt for anybody looking into it.
Keyboard and Mouse vs Thought
I think implants win in the efficiency department.
I am not convinced.
I am almost certain it should be very possible to someday in the future have a computer program that can generate many drafts of a core building with creative modification and restructuring within bounds by an architect. Because if we can't even do that, then fuck having the technology to merge computers and brains together.
Where the fuck have you? Do you not realize even the most obvious difference between simply remembering something and having to go and look it up?
|daydalus.net|
==========
No they don't, you know how hard it can be to focus thinking on some shit without thinking about something else?
Thank you for letting me know that you don't have the slightest idea of how many different kinds of structures exist. There's more out there than posts and beams. Even if you were to restrict yourself to those there's a hell of a large number of ways to implement it depending on what you want to do.
I'm talking about software so dynamic that if you drag parts of a building it can completely reshape the skeletons and fire alarms and pipes and all that crap on the fly, so that at any one point in the design process, the building is always entirely functional.
Christ boy, were you born this retarded or did it have to implanted in you?
I don't think you understand the magnitude, nor even the implications of the power in the computer software I have suggested.
Software so powerful, that even a 2 year old could design a sky scraper. Fortified even.
That, is more amazing than even 10 human brains on digital crack.
Clients rarely do design competitions, they mainly hire a single firm and ask them to build it. That firm is composed of many different architects working in it. The more each architect can get done in a day the more profitable that company becomes due to a higher turnover rate. Now, who are they going to staff themselves with, the guy who doesn't need to do anything more than think in order to come up with perfect technical drawings, or the guy who has to cross reference everything in order to make sure he didn't fuck anything up?
This isn't a hard concept, people.
Seriously, try to sit down and purely imagine the construction of a building in your head for the next 8 hours. Your mind will wander after like, 15 minutes.
There's still much more to it than that.
And theres till a lot more to the software than meets the eye.
This is a good point but I still think that it could prove to be more efficient if implemented well. We don't know what types of interactions an implant like this would have with the brain. For instance, there is a difference between thinking about blinking and actually blinking. Turrets Syndrome would be an example of someone who is unable to differentiate normally. Perhaps an implant could be set up to decipher the difference between the two in much the same way. (I'm making this assertion with only a general knowledge of Turrets so if anyone sees something wrong with it feel free to correct me.)
And like architecture, there is still a lot more to the software than meets the eye.
Yeah, we quit using the steel box skeleton in the 40's. Even the current vogue of core + curtain is starting to be rethought. If you're just plugging and chugging Wal~Marts to make sure they can work on a slightly altered site in comparison to the one up the road this would work great, though.
What? Then how is it people are able to sit down and work a full day at all? By your reasoning, after 15 minutes everyone would be thinking about grocery lists and that hot chick in the coffee shop and nothing would ever get done.
Here, try this: Think of the capital of the US.
Okay, now think of in what years the US Civil War happened.
Okay, now think of how many planets there are in our solar system.
Were you able to do all those? If not, you probably have some sort of disorder. If so, imagine that pretty much any time you needed to recall a fact, it was right there, just like those things. It's not about focusing with laser-like precision for 8 hours at a stretch, it's about being able to instantly access any bit of information you need.
Why stick to just improving vision and memories, when you can reshape humanity into something slightly different that has a better metabolism, doesn't suffer from any back problems, and lives much longer or possibly doesn't even age at all?
So basically, work in the future consists of going to a place or plugging in somewhere, and going into a deep coma like state where you participate in some distributed computing for about 8 hours, then you wake up and go home?
I'm well familiar with design software, given that I use it for a living.
Still a lot more to it.
You know, it's very difficult to maintain civility when you seem to be going out of your way to miss the point. Have you even read a goddamned thing that's been said to you in the past page?
Look bro, I'm not a fucking architect, but if I was, I'd tear this argument to pieces.
There is no science that can't be automated, generated, and recirculated.
HAVE YOU?
After dodging the "why are the poor entitled to everything" question you start pushing down my hypotheticals by saying "olol theres more to architecture than THAT" everytime I try to explain that IF a computer could automate EVERY SINGLE process involved with the creation of a building, a human would no longer need to concentrate on those things and could focus exclusively on the creativity aspect.
Sure, some day. When we can basically create computer AI indistinguishable from a human.
Until then - and that day is a long, long ways away - there are things that computer software simply cannot do. The creativity and dynamics that human beings contribute to artistic fields such as architecture, or to creative fields such as design, are things that no current or near-future design software can even begin to approach. Period.
Realize Jeffe, that if there is something that computer software cannot do it is simply because Humans have not yet made it so.
No you wouldn't, because I'm not doing it.
There's a lot more to technical drawings than making sure your door height's masonry opening is the proper 7'-4" and ensuring that the corridor widths are accessible under ADA. It's about doing all that while simultaneously making it work beautifully. A computer can currently generate a building. We've had stock plans like that since it was possible to photocopy something. Those are pieces of shit and don't require an architect in any but the most legalese aspect of 'they have to sign and stamp it proving it's up to snuff with current building code' though. You should try and check out some starchitect's websites and follow their thought process from pre-design to construction documents. It's a rather interesting path.
Like, half a dozen people have explained why we should care about the effects of biological enhancements on the poor. If you wanted someone to specifically answer your stupid strawman question, go start a new thread.
What I'm trying to explain is that a computer that can automate EVERY SINGLE process involved in the creation of a building is so far away that it's sort of silly to talk about it. You're basically asserting that when the time comes that we can create digital people, they'll be able to design buildings. Beyond that, you seem to have very little idea of what design software actually does.
Have you ever seen Poser? It's a 3D person-crafting tool. It automates the process of creating 3D models of people. It's kinda nifty, but it sucks compared to anyone with a few months of training at creating something that doesn't suck. Because the technology is, like, decades upon decades away from being able to design things that even kinda-sorta compare with what a competent human can create.
Lets say you have to design a bucket. You tell the software "This bucket that I am about to create must hold a gallon of water." the computer says OK, I will remember this as you design. And as you design your bucket in super creative ways the computer works on it too, to ensure that it will always hold a gallon. You work on the creativity, and the computer is the utilitarian.
A building would be a similar process, but scaled to be much much more complex, handling all the parameters of the building on the fly.
I'm not disagreeing that someday, in the far-flung future, it may be so.
Hey, fuck you. My little poser people were great scale figures.
:P
But do you disagree that it will be before computer implants in brains?
This thread wasn't restricted to implants but also entailed inutero gene manipulation in order to ensure someone had ____ properties at birth. From blonde hair to photographic memories.
How unfortunate that in this particular case we are talking about computer implants.
First off, what moniker said. Second, I don't know. My instinct tells me that computer implants are a lot simpler to implement than sentient AI, but I wouldn't stake money on it.
Then it's over.
My entire argument was that if sentinent AI surfaced before computer implants, many implants would have been made obsolete by the sentinent AI, and would never be necessary.
Mental implants that are worth a damn will not happen for a far longer time than sentinent AI.
That's how it started.
On the other hand, modern pscyhological and neurological science has existed for all of 100 years, computer science in it's modern form something like 50. The odds that we'll be able to leverage this knowledge into the production of another sentient organism right now are really low.
You can hope for "emergence", true, but what that produces could very well be unrecognisably inhuman, and the odds of it happening are about the odds of Gaia calling us on the phone. Large and complex systems exist just fine without human-scale intelligence, the idea that we'll hit on one by accident just from making bigger and better internets is weird.