|
Post by End Zone on Jun 1, 2022 9:59:31 GMT -7
I have something similar to Alexa Here are a few examples of what she can and cannot do FLCF Good morning Please turn on the lights Wifey I will as soon as you get up and turn them on FLCF Wifey, will you please make some coffee Wifey You know where it is in the frig and you know I don't drink coffee FLCF I want to get Alexa in our home Wifey As soon as she can make the beds and do the wash cook & clean then you can get her. FLCF What about mowing the lawn? Wifey Thats your job! Uh-oh, FLCF. Be careful bringing a woman named Alexa into the home for any reason. No wifey allows their turf to be invaded by another female without wifiey's explicit permission in writing up front. Violators can be shot, chopped, and macerated. About that lawn mowing task, it seems you are stuck with it. Are you doing penance for something else?
|
|
|
Post by Drachir on Jun 1, 2022 11:59:17 GMT -7
I have something similar to Alexa Here are a few examples of what she can and cannot do FLCF Good morning Please turn on the lights Wifey I will as soon as you get up and turn them on FLCF Wifey, will you please make some coffee Wifey You know where it is in the frig and you know I don't drink coffee FLCF I want to get Alexa in our home Wifey As soon as she can make the beds and do the wash cook & clean then you can get her. FLCF What about mowing the lawn? Wifey Thats your job! Uh-oh, FLCF. Be careful bringing a woman named Alexa into the home for any reason. No wifey allows their turf to be invaded by another female without wifiey's explicit permission in writing up front. Violators can be shot, chopped, and macerated. About that lawn mowing task, it seems you are stuck with it. Are you doing penance for something else? Funny but true story. When my wife calls someone on their phone and it has caller ID it shows up as “Wifey - main”. Try to figure out how to change it but for some reason can’t. Anyways she calls our mechanic to have one of our cars looked over before our final destination in Ohio. It shows up on his cellphone and his wife sees that and says, he gots some ‘splaining to do. LOL. Needless to say our mechanic is someone you don’t want to mess with as he looks like a buff John Goodman. It was funny when we took our car in and he told us this story.
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Jun 1, 2022 14:38:24 GMT -7
Uh-oh, FLCF. Be careful bringing a woman named Alexa into the home for any reason. No wifey allows their turf to be invaded by another female without wifiey's explicit permission in writing up front. Violators can be shot, chopped, and macerated. About that lawn mowing task, it seems you are stuck with it. Are you doing penance for something else? Funny but true story. When my wife calls someone on their phone and it has caller ID it shows up as “Wifey - main”. Try to figure out how to change it but for some reason can’t. Anyways she calls our mechanic to have one of our cars looked over before our final destination in Ohio. It shows up on his cellphone and his wife sees that and says, he gots some ‘splaining to do. LOL. Needless to say our mechanic is someone you don’t want to mess with as he looks like a buff John Goodman. It was funny when we took our car in and he told us this story. That is an odd one for sure. I'd be sleeping in the garage if my wife's phone did that on the other end. She would suspect me of course. I have no idea why your wife's phone sends "Wifey - main" or how to fix it. Is your family account set up with you as the account holder and the Missus is listed as spouse? Maybe check with your carrier.
|
|
|
Post by thomas cat on Jun 2, 2022 19:07:12 GMT -7
Its kind of funny that AI has been brought up. Why do I say that? Just today, I had the most realistic experience with a form of AI that I have ever had. I had a minor issue with something that I ordered from Amazon. I was trying to contact customer service. After going through a few sub menus, I got to one where I could talk and it would talk back ( not type but talk )....it was not a human and it even said so. The thing is, you did not have to use specific phrases for it to understand. I'm sure you could easily trip it up and confuse it, but if stuck to the facts and asked pertinent questions it would understand and was as close as I have ever come to talking to human even though it wasn't. It was very close to talking with a real life human. I don't know how good Alexa is....I don't have it. Maybe this is not that much better. The point is, this stuff is getting better everyday. It won't be long when we will have trouble distinguishing AI from human TC, funny that you mention communicating by voice with an Amazon bot. After you were trained to use exact voice phrases, then I assume that you got the the service you needed. Did you have an opportunity to rate the bot service? 10 = Great. 1 = Awful. Industry is indeed pushing hard to develop AI tools to do many things done by humans. Although, I want to think of bots as aides or partners, but not bosses or owners. Here is mine and my wife's recent experiences with AI: Two weeks ago, I was online at about 730am and perusing the pickup truck inventory at a local auto dealership, when a 'chat' window popped up in the lower right corner and the person on the other end asked if I had any questions. I use chat windows all the time while shopping at numerous sites, so I am familiar with remoted workers, cube farms, and switchboards. This was a text-only chat window with a woman named Bianca. Her portrait photo was provided in the chat window -- head and shoulders type shot, long brunette hair, youngish appearance, and smiling. I typed to Bianca that I hoped her day was going well. I was interested in a specific new 2022 F150. I provided the truck's VIN from the window sticker provided online at the dealer's website. Bianca acknowledged my request and advised that I stand by. A few seconds went by, and then Bianca typed back that the truck was at the dealership, and do I have any other questions. I typed back that I wanted to see the truck and that I would arrive at the dealership at 10am. I wanted to look at the truck and maybe take a short test drive. I also asked that the truck be brought into the customer service area so that I could first do a walk-around. It was raining that morning. Bianca typed back that the truck would be ready for me at 10am. I thanked her and logged off. About 30 minutes passed and my cell phone rang. A man on the line asked for me by name, and then introduced himself. He was a sales manager at the dealership, saw the chat with Bianca, and had pulled up my customer file. He told me that the Ford company monitors chat windows. He saw my conversation with Bianca after he arrived at his office and logged on to his computer. He saw that Bianca had agreed to the 10am appointment. Here's the shocker for me -- the manager advised me that Bianca was not real. She was a bot. I was dumbfounded. He recognized that I did not know she was a bot, had made an appointment, and he (human) had to step in. The man apologized for the bot misrepresentation. We both laughed. I said that was a first time for me. I usual know the difference between bots and people. Finally, he said the truck was not at the dealership. The truck actually was still in transit from Dearborn, MI, and will arrive in the near future. The bot could only see the VIN and matched it to the dealer's inventory. Because the bot wanted me to be a satisfied customer, the bot said the truck was available for me at 10am. Bots are not perfect, but man, they are good enough to fool us sometimes. They are going to get better and better at imitating humans. Surpassing humans is next. A week ago, my wife was fiddling around with the voice commands in her new German car. My wife is not savvy with new tech and sometimes gets frustrated with change. While finger-poking at the SiriusXM screen icons to select the music genre and a station, the voice command instead requested that she just say what station she wanted. My wife was caught off guard by the car's voice request. She just sat still and said nothing, thinking what to do next. Then after a few seconds, the voice command said, "Hello, are you still there? Please say what station you want. I cannot read minds." That last phrase was the red star cluster, or warning shot over the bow. Machines reading human minds is next. When we become predictable and controllable by machines, that's when we are all burnt toast. Good luck with Alexa. She's a sweetie. Thats a funny story about how that chat window went. I have seen that pop up at many sites. While I wanted to use it at times, I did not. I too thought it would be a real person. Unfortunately I type so slow and my spelling and grammar is poor, I did not want to embarrass myself with long waits for my response with a real person. Now I will have no fear, who cares what a bot thinks....lol. As too if my bot solved my problem....it did not.....well in the end it did. As said, the bot declared it was a bot. Every thing I said to it, it gave a very human type response. Basically I got an E-mail from Amazon wanting me to update my payment method for my order....for me that was a big red flag....perhaps a phishing email. After I started to get into the details, it quickly realized it didn't have the information that I needed. This is what I loved about the whole experience...I'm paraphrasing here, but it said something like this...." I'm sorry that I cannot help you with that, so I'm going to connect you to a representative"...5 seconds later, I was talking to a real person. BINGO....getting a real person in any customer service these days can be a real challenge. Wait times can often be so long, you just give up.......and no, it was not a phishing email....and the real person understood my concerns. The bot didn't have all the answers, but it knew what to do when it didn't. AI can be both scary and your friend. The Amazon bot still needs work, but in time most if not all concerns when dealing with businesses might be solved by them.....if so, no long waits for a real person will be needed. A win for the customers and a win for the businesses. Back to the whole sci-fi thing and AI in general.....will it get out of control... This is not one of my favorite movies.....still it gives a vision of what might happen if you give it or it just develops it itself....free will. Here is another example of what if.... This is a series that comes from the BBC I believe that got shown on American TV a few years ago. The first two seasons was really good. After that, it kind of lost its focus. We are facing a brave new world. Given enough time, this stuff will happen.
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Jun 3, 2022 2:07:21 GMT -7
If you haven't watched it, check out this sequel to the original Blade Runner released in 1982. "Blade Runner 2049" stars Ryan Gosling who plays K, a Nexus-9 replicant "blade runner" who uncovers a secret that threatens to destabilize society and the course of civilization. The movie Blade Runner 2049 is beyond dark. The earth is a dry cinder. Food and shelter are scarce. Suspicion and fear are abundant. Only a few humans get to be masters. Inferior humans are subordinated to superior AI processes. I really liked the original "Blade Runner" with Harrison Ford. The 2049 sequel was depressing for me. I still watched 2049 twice in order to better appreciate the director's and screen writer's imaginations.
I am writing a mystery/sci-fi novel with precursor-type Nexus-9 replicants. My novel's antagonists are called "Applicants." AI Darwinism is in play as machines and humans sort out things. No one has yet written about AI Darwinism. I am first. I plan to publish my novel by December 2022. Watch for it on Amazon Books.
|
|
|
Post by thomas cat on Jun 5, 2022 19:33:59 GMT -7
I have seen both movies. I'll be honest, neither are in my top ten. Still, they were both better than most Sci-Fi. They didn't depend on grand special effects to tell a story. "I still watched 2049 twice in order to better appreciate the director's and screen writer's imaginations."I'm going to do the same with both. I think now that I have seen the sequel, I will understand the original better and that might well help me better appreciate the sequel. I'm looking forward to it. One thing I have learned about watching certain complicated movies....if you miss, forget or misunderstand a particular line, it can change the whole meaning. "AI Darwinism"I have never heard that term before...still its self explanatory. Survival of the fittest. I have read several articles about that, it just didn't call it that. I once saw a video of a screen saver program that had stick figures that would flop around trying to achieve some goal. The ones that did got to reproduce passing along the traits that made them successful, and on in on. Also...I wont ask if your antagonists wins or losses....lol. I'm just impressed we have an author among us. If I buy the novel, I may send it to you for an autograph....
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Jun 8, 2022 12:22:18 GMT -7
I have seen both movies. I'll be honest, neither are in my top ten. Still, they were both better than most Sci-Fi. They didn't depend on grand special effects to tell a story. "I still watched 2049 twice in order to better appreciate the director's and screen writer's imaginations."I'm going to do the same with both. I think now that I have seen the sequel, I will understand the original better and that might well help me better appreciate the sequel. I'm looking forward to it. One thing I have learned about watching certain complicated movies....if you miss, forget or misunderstand a particular line, it can change the whole meaning. "AI Darwinism"I have never heard that term before...still its self explanatory. Survival of the fittest. I have read several articles about that, it just didn't call it that. I once saw a video of a screen saver program that had stick figures that would flop around trying to achieve some goal. The ones that did got to reproduce passing along the traits that made them successful, and on in on. Also...I wont ask if your antagonists wins or losses....lol. I'm just impressed we have an author among us. If I buy the novel, I may send it to you for an autograph.... The two movies are so far apart in script time that I'm not sure there is a need to watch both of them to understand either's plot. But go for it anyway if you have the time. The writers sure did have great imaginations. That is what attracted me. I am not an official author yet. But a writer? Yes. I wrote for the US government and published a couple scholastic pieces starting in the early 1980 timeframe until July 2021. I am now retired from all that and have my days and my keyboard to myself, less whatever jobs the missus assigns me for the morning hours. My goal is to publish the first novel with Amazon's help by December. The Amazon process is straightforward and fast. kdp.amazon.com/en_US/ . Everyone on the Forum should try publishing something, even if it is a birthday card design, for personal legacy. Everyone has a funny bone and something to say. BTW, I will soon end life as he knows it for one of the novel's antagonists. I think his transition counts the same as a loss -- if anyone in the story is keeping a tally. He knows the transition is coming. Actually, he schedules the transition for personal reasons, none that I can divulge here. I would be honored to autograph a novel for you anytime. I first need to finish one novel ;-).
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Jun 16, 2022 10:41:57 GMT -7
I think we all are aware of the 70-second WOW Signal heard many years ago on August 15, 1977 and not heard since then. See the attached Phys.org article. An astrophysics expert thinks he's narrowed down the area of the emitter source, a patch of the sky located about 1300 light years away and in our galaxy. New studies of that region are planned using better tools. Are we alone? Uh, not likely, per this fellow. Many professionals conclude the source of the WOW signal is not natural phenomena, e.g., a quasar or other sun-like emitter. The signal was clear and did not demonstrate typical sun-like scattering of the signal. 2020-11-amateur-astronomer-alberto-caballer....pdf (261.77 KB) "The Wow signal was recorded at OSU's radio telescope on 1977 August 15 (Kraus 1979; Ehman 2007; Gray 2012) and exhibited some of the characteristics expected of a radio-frequency interstellar communication signal—most notably a close match to the antenna's half-power beamwidth during transit in one of two feed horns used on the fixed-position telescope. Because natural emission lines in centimeter-wave astronomy usually have frequency bandwidths on the order of 100–1000 kHz due to Doppler shifts along the line of sight, the narrow <10 kHz bandwidth of the Wow signal suggests that it was generated by technology, i.e., an artificial transmitter. The signal was observed at a frequency (1420.3556 MHz) very close to the "magic" frequency of the hydrogen spin-flip transition suggested by Cocconi & Morrison. The signal flux versus time (Figure 1) indicated that the Wow source was above the telescope and apparently fixed with respect to the stars, because it matches the expected transit time and signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) profile for a celestial object passing through the beam of OSU's transit telescope. The telescope was outfitted with two feeds and receivers arranged such that any continuous extraterrestrial signal should appear with two peaks in its flux graph, and because the Wow signal appeared in only one of the two beams and it is unknown which one, the estimated position had 2m 50s of ambiguity in R.A. (Ehman 2007) as shown in Table 1. The fact that the signal was detected in only one beam indicates that it was not a persistent, constant-frequency, stationary transmitter. The signal might have come from an intermittent source or possibly from a source that was moving slowly along the equatorial axis, such that it drifted out of the telescope's second beam without being detected. For example, a man-made satellite with an orbit similar to a GPS satellite, only closer, could conceivably mimic the observed signal." (The US GPS project was started by the U.S. Department of Defense in 1973. The first prototype spacecraft was launched in 1978 and the full constellation of 24 satellites became operational in 1993.)More reading...WOW analysis. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aba58f/meta
|
|
|
Post by thomas cat on Jun 18, 2022 18:45:36 GMT -7
I think we all are aware of the 70-second WOW Signal heard many years ago on August 15, 1977 and not heard since then. See the attached Phys.org article. An astrophysics expert thinks he's narrowed down the area of the emitter source, a patch of the sky located about 1300 light years away and in our galaxy. New studies of that region are planned using better tools. Are we alone? Uh, not likely, per this fellow. Many professionals conclude the source of the WOW signal is not natural phenomena, e.g., a quasar or other sun-like emitter. The signal was clear and did not demonstrate typical sun-like scattering of the signal. <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> "The Wow signal was recorded at OSU's radio telescope on 1977 August 15 (Kraus 1979; Ehman 2007; Gray 2012) and exhibited some of the characteristics expected of a radio-frequency interstellar communication signal—most notably a close match to the antenna's half-power beamwidth during transit in one of two feed horns used on the fixed-position telescope. Because natural emission lines in centimeter-wave astronomy usually have frequency bandwidths on the order of 100–1000 kHz due to Doppler shifts along the line of sight, the narrow <10 kHz bandwidth of the Wow signal suggests that it was generated by technology, i.e., an artificial transmitter. The signal was observed at a frequency (1420.3556 MHz) very close to the "magic" frequency of the hydrogen spin-flip transition suggested by Cocconi & Morrison. The signal flux versus time (Figure 1) indicated that the Wow source was above the telescope and apparently fixed with respect to the stars, because it matches the expected transit time and signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) profile for a celestial object passing through the beam of OSU's transit telescope. The telescope was outfitted with two feeds and receivers arranged such that any continuous extraterrestrial signal should appear with two peaks in its flux graph, and because the Wow signal appeared in only one of the two beams and it is unknown which one, the estimated position had 2m 50s of ambiguity in R.A. (Ehman 2007) as shown in Table 1. The fact that the signal was detected in only one beam indicates that it was not a persistent, constant-frequency, stationary transmitter. The signal might have come from an intermittent source or possibly from a source that was moving slowly along the equatorial axis, such that it drifted out of the telescope's second beam without being detected. For example, a man-made satellite with an orbit similar to a GPS satellite, only closer, could conceivably mimic the observed signal." (The US GPS project was started by the U.S. Department of Defense in 1973. The first prototype spacecraft was launched in 1978 and the full constellation of 24 satellites became operational in 1993.)More reading...WOW analysis. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aba58f/meta<button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> lol...even for me, that is some pretty dry reading you offered up there. I have been aware of the "WOW " signal from almost the time when it was first detected. They did a entire show about it on " How The Universe Works". In that show, it offered up many speculations but no hard facts. There are a couple of things I wonder about when it comes to radio transmissions from far away. I'm pretty sure I have read somewhere that radio transmissions simply get garbled the further they travel. You might detect them, but they won't make any sense. Just like trying to pick up a distant AM radio signal here on Earth. Yes, "I love Lucy" episodes are about 70 light years out there, but how much have they degraded in that time. The other thing I wonder about....would an advanced civilization even use radio waves. Lest face it, radio waves suck when trying to communicate in a interstellar manor. It would take years/decades or more just to have a conversation with another solar system. The only solution I can think for of is the use of quantum mechanics and entangled particles. From what I understand, no matter how far apart entangled particles are, they react instantly. I how no idea if that could be used in some kind of communications device, but its the only way I can think of to talk with distant places in real time. I suppose what I'm saying is, looking for radio waves may be the wrong place to look. We need to get more imaginative....radio waves are old tech....lol
|
|
|
Post by knobby on Jun 19, 2022 19:24:05 GMT -7
lol...even for me, that is some pretty dry reading you offered up there. I have been aware of the "WOW" signal from almost the time when it was first detected. They did a entire show about it on "How The Universe Works". In that show, it offered up many speculations but no hard facts.
There are a couple of things I wonder about when it comes to radio transmissions from far away. I'm pretty sure I have read somewhere that radio transmissions simply get garbled the further they travel. You might detect them, but they won't make any sense. Just like trying to pick up a distant AM radio signal here on Earth. Yes, "I love Lucy" episodes are about 70 light years out there, but how much have they degraded in that time.
The other thing I wonder about....would an advanced civilization even use radio waves. Lest face it, radio waves suck when trying to communicate in a interstellar manor. It would take years/decades or more just to have a conversation with another solar system.The only solution I can think for of is the use of quantum mechanics and entangled particles. From what I understand, no matter how far apart entangled particles are, they react instantly. I how no idea if that could be used in some kind of communications device, but its the only way I can think of to talk with distant places in real time.
I suppose what I'm saying is, looking for radio waves may be the wrong place to look. We need to get more imaginative....radio waves are old tech....lol
That's food for thought.
Question: How can it be proven that those entangled particles (EP for short hereafter) react "instantly" or at all over immense distances? To prove that, the second particle would have to be on some far distant planet or similar location where such reaction time and possible interference could be compared to radio, for example. How would one arrange the two particles to be entangled if never seen nor even known to exist on the far end PRIOR to the test?
Lots of nebulous theory and conjecture involved there, seems to me. How do two distant particles entangle in the first place? Some prior lab work or what? Naturally? Does it
happen with all particles in existence, if physically similar particles exist elsewhere in the universe? Are we broadcasting every event happening on earth everywhere, but unknowingly?
Do ET's eavesdrop on our daily lives, hence know what idiots we are as we demonstrate it daily?
BUT - if it could be done, why couldn't something like the principle of piezoelectric function be used with the local EP?
In radio, quartz crystals are used to make microphones which generate a tiny electrical charge when stimulated by sound waves hitting a diaphragm attached to the crystal...
so, would not the EP be similarly stimulated enough that it's distant partner would react against a similar diaphragm to reproduce the sound wave on planet X or wherever?? (think of two tin cans and a connecting string, like kids used to make in "the old days". Same idea, except no string.)
Or liken it to radio, but with no radio needed. Call it "Ulticom". (I claim copyright on that!) Should work like a charm with little or no power needed.
OOPS, there's a snag: The distant EP would need to have a similar diaphragm attached by someone, somehow, to reproduce the sound wave being transmitted ... rats.
How could one tell the all the universe to make that simple receiver with exactly the single EP matching the Earthbound EP so they could communicate with us? Where are the kids with the
other tin cans in all the nooks and crannies of the universe?
It *might* take a larger and higher capacity brain to work that out. Meanwhile, Our Earth Based Guys could carry an earth made Ulticom with them for space convos using pre-matched EPs. Maybe it is possible to engangle more than one particle to mimic a single particle, thus making a more universal but "party line" comm setup? I can see it now: superglue an EP to eardrums and teeth for instant full-time communication. Problem: no off switch...
Or, maybe instant transfer of thought already exists but we are too primitive to be 'wired' for it? Is a little gene editing all that is needed? Whoa, Nellie !!
Enough. My head hurts.
Back to the drawing board.
|
|
|
Post by thomas cat on Jun 20, 2022 17:43:46 GMT -7
Thanks for your post. It was both interesting and funny. I think about this kind of stuff all the time, so when you say.... "Enough. My head hurts."....believe me I know what you mean. I love just about any science field that you can imagine. I want to know the how and why about everything. I'm the kind of person that will take apart something just to see how it works. A lot of science comes to me easily. Much of it is straight forward and easy to understand if explained properly. The one field that escape's my understanding is quantum mechanics/theory. For any that may not know, its the study of the properties of the very small...atoms and smaller. I find it very interesting but it sometimes defies logic and is difficult to understand. Even the experts have trouble explaining it....well at least in laymen's terms. Quantum mechanics is almost "Alice in Wonderland" stuff. It doesn't make sense. This is just a quote from a random article about this...taken from this web page.... Why is quantum theory so strange?PARTICLES that also act like waves; the “spooky action at a distance” of entanglement; those dead-and-alive cats. Small wonder people often trot out physicist Richard Feynman’s line that “nobody understands quantum mechanics”. With quantum theory, we have developed an exceedingly successful description of how fundamental reality works. It also amounts to a full-frontal assault on our intuitions about how reality should work.Or does it? “It only seems strange to us because our immediate everyday experience of the world is so very limited,” says Sean Carroll at the California Institute of Technology. Intuitive-feeling classical physics is largely devoted to describing macroscopic objects – the things we see and feel directly in the world around us. “It should not be surprising that this breaks down when we push it into domains that we never experience directly,” says Carroll.
"those dead-and-alive cats." If you want to know what's that about... here is a short video about Schrödinger's Cat... I still don't fully understand it, but here you go,,By the way. I liked your idea of using piezoelectric function as a way to make entangled particles work as a communications device. You should apply for a patent....lol. The last thing I would like to say is this. 300 years ago, no one could even conceive something as simple as a walkie talkie. They had no frame of mind to even imagine it. 300 years from now.... you tell me....what will be possible. I only wish I could live long enough to see it....
|
|