Londoners: PM 'not ruling out' Tube strike ban

[Glaucus]

I think the point is that Machines are not actually skilled..their operators and designers are the skilled..a machine can only do what it is designed or programmed to do.

And I made the point of stating that there is a place for both and that some fine work is unsuitable for a machine and vice versa....

The only thing they dont fill in the menaing of the word skilled is the learning part and some machines actually do learn, for the rest of the description about accuracy etc, macines are far better. So wrong word perhaps. But comparing it to low qaulity furniture.

Machines can and do far surpass humans in qaulity.

Somone buying cheap cnc stuff isnt indective of high qaulity cnc eork, used in racing, aerospace, miliatry, industry etc, all require tolerences far higher than humans can achieve on our own.

Of course both are suitable and fill different markets, who siad otherwise?

 

[Tefal]

didnt they strike a while ago over two guys getting fired, and it later came out one of them had reguarly disabled certain safety features of the train he was driving?

 

[dowie]

I think the point is that Machines are not actually skilled..their operators and designers are the skilled..a machine can only do what it is designed or programmed to do.

It depends how you define skill - does it have to have some inherent creative aspect?

 

[Castiel]

The only thing they dont fill in the menaing of the word skilled is the learning part and some machines actually do learn, for the rest of the description about accuracy etc, macines are far better. So wrong word perhaps. But comparing it to low qaulity furniture.

I wasn't comparing it to low quality furniture, I was illustrating that machines are not suitable for every job and that traditional work can be superior to machined items....you are making the assumption that machines are superior in all things, I disagree with this..the reality doesn't show that machines always produce a greater quality of product than a master craftsman for example....mass production, the machine is the better..in other things the human element has the edge, a machine cannot react to the materials or design like a craftsman can for example...our abstract reasoning skills and ability to react gives us the edge in the design and fabrication processes of many high quality examples of engineering and craftmanship. Each has their place, but to say Machines are superior to Humans, I simply disagree..mainly on the basis that without an operator and designer..the machine is just a another machine doing nothing.

 

[Glaucus]

Now your comparing low qaulity machines to proffsionla craftsman.
A machine can get higher tolerences machining than any craftsman.
Nocraftsman can do tolerences as tight as machnie. So for indivudal parts, no craftsmans will never be better, the fact that those industrys cant afford the best machines isnt here nor there, in that argument.

Its not arguable, for tolerneces machines are better, there is no argument, they are.

 

[Castiel]

It depends how you define skill - does it have to have some inherent creative aspect?

Expertise..machines do not have expertise, they have programming and/or an operator. A machine has no ability of it's own..it is designed for a purpose and can only operate within the parameters set within that purpose to which it is designed.

 

[Castiel]

Now your comparing low qaulity machines to proffsionla craftsman.
A machine can get higher tolerences machining than any craftsman.
Nocraftsman can do tolerences as tight as machnie. So for indivudal parts, no craftsmans will never be better, the fact that those industrys cant afford the best machines isnt here nor there, in that argument

You are missing the point...the machine cannot do anything on it's own initiative..nothing. Those tolerances must de designed into the machine by a man...a craftsman if you will....

You are anthropomorphising machines.

And I wasn't comparing low quality machines with craftsmen..I was pointing out that machines cannot do everyting for the reasons I gave..no matter how high quality a machine is, it cannot act on its own initiative or react to the medium it is manipulating, or detect and correct design flaws a machine doesn't have the flexibility or reasoning skills to do this. The ability to produce a cog to within a micron notwithstanding, a machine programmed by a human to create a cog, it could not create anything with that cog, just spit out more cogs, high quality cogs, but just cogs, and if the material reacted differently than specification...the machine would just carry on creating more cogs within its micron specification until a human came along and noticed that the cogs were all useless because the material reacted differently.

 

[Glaucus]

Expertise..machines do not have expertise, they have programming and/or an operator. A machine has no ability of it's own..it is designed for a purpose and can only operate within the parameters set within that purpose to which it is designed.

So how about learning programs/robots?
Do they not learn.

So if i give you two cogs, one within a 1000th of a micron of spec and one within a micron, which one had the most expertise applied?

 

[Glaucus]

You are missing the point...the machine cannot do anything on it's own initiative..nothing. Those tolerances must de designed into the machine by a man...a craftsman if you will....

You are anthropomorphising machines.

And this matters to the original point?
A point i actually said. That mass producing through machines, creates new higher skilled jobs to build and maintain them, whilst the lower skilled workforce can go into other expanding sectors which need lower skilled workers.

 

[Castiel]

So how about learning programs/robots?
Do they not learn.

So if i give you two cogs, one within a 1000th of a micron of spec and one within a micron, which one had the most expertise applied?

neither has any expertise applied by the machine..it is simply doing what it was designed to do. The expertise came from the designer, programmer and operator of the machine.

And learning robots can only operate within their programmed parameters...perhaps you could give me a real world example?

 

[Glaucus]

neither has any expertise applied by the machine..it is simply doing what it was designed to do. The expertise came from the designer, programmer and operator of the machine.

And learning robots can only operate within their programmed parameters...perhaps you could give me a real world example?

Are we not programmed? Im pretty sure we come pre programmed and then learn off others, there are lots of computers that can learn. One of the humanoid robots can learn object and apply those parameters to identify new objects.
Millions of years of evolution have given us an extremely good pre programmed basis that we are then taught new stuff through parent figures.

So where the line for you, when does learning become learning, when does programmed mean its programmed?

 

[Castiel]

Are we not programmed? Im pretty sure we come pre programmed and then learn off others, there are lots of computers that can learn. One of the humanoid robots can learn object and apply those parameters to identify new objects.
Millions of years of evolution have given us an extremely good pre programmed basis that we are then taught new stuff through parent figures.

So where the line for you, when does learning become learning, when does programmed mean its programmed?

We are not programmed...We are taught and We learn by own own initiative, expression and understanding and we can react to stimulae in ways a machine simply cannot...a machine can only react within it's programming, it cannot express its own individual reasoning, a machine cannot understand a situation and react accordingly, it must first be programmed to react...a learning machine only has the broadness of programming to allow it the appearance of seeming to react to stimulae of it's own accord using it's own reasoning..that is not the same as a human. the most telling difference is that a Human can do something original with what they have learned and from their own experience and perception...a machine can only do what it is build to do.

Give me a real world example of a machine that learns for itself outside of its programmed parameters and algorithms?

Because last time I looked AI was still in its infancy and true learning machines were still on the drawing board, and not working in industry.

 

[estebanrey]

So how about learning programs/robots?
Do they not learn.

A semantics debate over the word 'learn' is to ensue I fear.

 

[Glaucus]

Of course we're programmed, whats dna and what does that make. Than programming then makes us able to be taught. I suppose you taught your self reflex, chemical balances and everything else.
We are very much programmed.

So in your opinion a machine will always be a machine regardless of how much it can learn, reason and think for itself.

 

[Castiel]

Of course we're programmed, whats dna and what does that make. Than programming then makes us able to be taught. I suppose you taught your self reflex, chemical balances and everything else.
We are very much programmed.

So in your opinion a machine will always be a machine regardless of how much it can learn, reason and think for itself.

We will have to agree to disagree, because I do not accept that cognitively we are programmed in the same context as a machine is programmed by a human. You can make the analogy, but the simple truth is that the mechanisms are far different as you are assuming that man is simply an advanced machine, whereas I am differentiating between man and machine on a fundamental level.

Do I think that a machine will always be a machine? I do not know, I wasn't talking about a science fiction scenario or what may happen in the future regarding the advancement of robotics or AI...I was expressing a position based in the here and now....

I will ask you one question, If I am programmed..who, by definition, then is my programmer, designer and architect?

 

[Glaucus]

Nature, evolution has programmed us though random mutations and survival of the fitness.
The brain and body is pre programmed in so many was.
Just like current learning software is pre programmed then learns, humans are no different, just far more advanced, we sill have core pre programmed that allows us to function, live and learn.
If we weren't pre programmed you would instantly die and wouldn't be able to learn.

And machine made is machine made, its not referred to as hand crafted as a human designed and maintained the machines.
Machines simply make products with higher tolerences.

 

[Castiel]

Nature, evolution has programmed us though random mutations and survival of the fitness.

So we are the result of a random mutation through the mechanisms of Evolution...we are not then actually programmed in the same context as a machine is programmed..you are in fact simply using the term programmed analogously. It is not a direct comparison able to validate a coherent position that Human cognitive ability is equal to coded programming in a machine.

Programming is defined by a set of designed and planned objectives, not random events and therein lies the fundamental flaw in your analogy. A machine currently cannot evolve beyond it's programming or design...We have not as yet build SkyNet.

Anyway this is getting somewhat of the topic and is moving into the realms of speculation rather than the point that was being made..we clearly have different perspectives on the relative cognitive abilities of man and machine, so we will have to leave it there.

 

[Glaucus]

So as you don't agree its analogously . How can you have a program which we clearly have with out being programmed?
And we have not evolved above are programming either.
Are programming allows us to think and design.

Only going off topic as you disagree with the world calling things machined made. As those machines are made by us and maintained by us. The world still calls those items machined made and they have far tighter tolerences than we can manage, which was the initial point. Especially when you remember in. That post i also said it created higher skilled jobs to make those machine,s but you seem to have missed that part.

 

[Castiel]

So as you don't agree its analogously . How can you have a program which we clearly have with out being programmed?
And we have not evolved above are programming either.
Are programming allows us to think and design.

It isn't that I do not agree with the analogy, only that I do not think it equates to the same context. A machine is programmed in the literal sense, a human is only programmed in the abstract. (thus the analogy)

However, returning to what you have said now, If we have not evolved above our original programming...then who supplied the program and by definition it is an analogy you are using...unless you are seriously stating that we are simply machines in the same way as our own machines..in which case, where is the builder?

You cannot have it both ways...we are either evolved through random mutation and therefore each evolution is greater than the one that went before and thereby exceeding the programming of the former, or we have a specified and definitive original code within our DNA that has instructions on what path evolution takes, which means it is not random and requires a designer?

Do you not see the flaw in this?

Only going off topic as you disagree with the world calling things machined made.

I do not disagree with that at all...

 

[Glaucus]

You don't need a builder the purpose is life, the program evolves by mutations and with iterations get better and thus bigger chance of surviving.
We are absolutely pre programmed and if you look at what a computer program is and does we mirror it.
Of course i can have it both ways, you forget as an organism doesn't evolve your lifetime, the species as a whole does. You have not exceeded your programming.