More Work On My AI--Great News!

 

I have done some more work on my AI idea.  In case current AI is not strong enough to propel my idea to work as well as I think it might be able to do, we would still be able to almost certainly (I think...I'll double check my work later) make it work if we had available quantum computers, since quantum computers can solve NP problems efficiently, as I showed in another post.


The cool thing is, if other techniques--such as genetic algorithms or use of existing AI bots--are sufficient to make my techniques work already, then it might be possible to build my AI idea very soon, and get it working, and cure cancer *before* quantum computers come out!  Most likely, it will not be possible to bring people back from the dead without QC...but it would still be really cool to cure cancer within the next few years!


I'll keep checking and re-checking my ideas over the next few days.  I can't promise for sure that I'm not wrong.  Nevertheless, I'll have fun looking at my notes.  I have only written it out informally at this time, but the ideas look very good, and non-trivial...Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg would not be able to guess my ideas, I don't think!


Also, maybe sometime soon I'll be able to stop mentioning Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg.  That'd be nice, too.



Update:


Also, I forgot to say...since Apple isn't that into QC, maybe I should try to sell to Google.  I don't dislike Sam Altman, but I'm concerned about his proximity to Peter Thiel, whom I see as untrustworthy and too close to Donald Trump.  (I read something on Wikipedia about PT having cheated on the SATs when younger.)


(Yes, I guess that was a little bit political.  But I'm not expressing any opinions or doing any "political work," I'm just explaining why I'm skeptical of selling work to OpenAI after having thought about it.)


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Math Update: My P != NP Proof Might Be Correct!!!!! -- (update, no it's not, see the note at the beginning and the updates near the bottom)

EDIT:  No, this proof is not correct.  See the updates at the bottom for details on why (based on Dr. Zelinsky's comment).  Fortunately, my GLL proof and MSR proofs still appear to be correct. It could be that Joshua Zelinsky's comment actually helps me to complete the proof. The GLL proof appears to be correct, AFAIK. The thing is, the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent --> P != NP" within PA and the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent" as a theorem of ZFC just shows that P != NP is a theorem of PA.  That isn't a contradiction, it's just another step in the proof. I think the striking idea is, P != NP is a theorem of PA, but not of ZFC.  That is what I worked to prove.  AFAIK it is possible for a proposition to be a theorem of PA but not of ZFC.  In particular, PA can be proved consistent from ZFC, so we would think it s possible and even likely that there are some non-theorems of ZFC that are theorems of PA. So this is great!  It l...
Read more

Hello, Texas - A Quick Monopoly Lesson

  So today, I thought I saw some people running around blurting code gestures at me.  One of the codes seemed to say, "Riot for a[buse] v[ictim] time -M".  Oh, M?  M as in Monolith, or M as in Monopoly fan who doesn't get it? Here, Houstonian code-talkers...let me teach you how to play Monopoly, since you are so hungry for free knowledge:  - Make deals with other players that benefit you.  - Offer deals to difficult players that are somewhat beneficial to them, knowing that they might reject.  - Watch which deals other players reject, and identify what *deal types* they are not likely to accept from you or anyone else.  - Be very very careful about your own deals--and behavior--lest you get figured out by your opponents and backed into a corner, with good, beneficial deals being made without you by cunning adversaries who know your every move. There's a poker lesson in there, too, but I don't want to get too educational right now.
Read more

Flash Non-Fiction: James Bond and Masculinity

  This was going to be a longer essay, but I decided to just blurt out my point rather than trying to write well. Basically, I think James Bond movies are good, and the songs are high-quality too, but it sends semi-dangerous messages to men in particular about what it means to be a man.  The Bond character is intransigent, aggressive, violent, and absolutely sure of himself in all cases.  He is portrayed as a big winner--able to date and have sex with beautiful women, almost impossible to kill, and lethal and elite at both armed and unarmed combat. I'm concerned that some men, including my estranged father ASW, have had their sense of morality warped by Bond movies.  They think that this dramatically presented way to be masculine is the only way.  I think that's unhealthy, and when people get the not-so-original idea to "try to be more Bond-like" in their personal lives, that leads to catastrophic conflicts with and major potential for deep pain for people that ...
Read more