Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

America Beat Australia, Germany And China To The Punch


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts

Posted 21 September 2019 - 08:22 PM

The four superpowers have been racing, and thanks to a google researcher who came across a dude who taught himself calculus America won the race to strong AI

 

https://www.cnet.com...ntum-supremacy/



#2 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1530 posts

Posted 21 September 2019 - 10:38 PM

Hold your horses, the article I read pointed out that it would take 10,000 years to verify that the calculation was correct.

 

That calculation would take 10,000 years on IBM's Summit, the world's most powerful commercial computer, Google reportedly said.

 



#3 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts

Posted 22 September 2019 - 12:06 PM

Hold your horses, the article I read pointed out that it would take 10,000 years to verify that the calculation was correct.

No, it's easy to write a large number, a number too large to be read by a computer. The issue actually seeing it. That's where the quantum computer comes in.



#4 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1530 posts

Posted 22 September 2019 - 10:39 PM

No, it's easy to write a large number, a number too large to be read by a computer. The issue actually seeing it. That's where the quantum computer comes in.

 

You are aware that the 10,000 years is how long our current fastest computer would take to simulate the quantum computers answer?



#5 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts

Posted 23 September 2019 - 07:40 AM

You are aware that the 10,000 years is how long our current fastest computer would take to simulate the quantum computers answer?

So you're insinuating that it computes gibberish simply because a second set of binary operations are added in parallel to the first?



#6 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts

Posted 23 September 2019 - 07:46 AM

No what I was saying, is that it can work with scientific notation that multiplies greater than google's limit

 

Other than google's limit it could count to graham 64:

 

 

Additionally, it could work with topologies of the entire universe with quantum scale precision in 3D modelling, the true histories and futures, etc



#7 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts

Posted 23 September 2019 - 07:52 AM

And as far as computing the collective synaptic patterns of humanity, Summit was about 10^12 bytes (3.2 mins), humans are 10^15 bytes, and a 3.2 minute gateway of quantum coherence time in a 52-qubit circuit offers 10^12 x 1642500000 (10,000 years divided by 3.2 mins), or 1.6 x 10^21 bytes.



#8 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts

Posted 23 September 2019 - 08:00 AM

We have ushered in an age called the "technological singularity", and it's all thanks to our new lord & savior for providing the definitive mathematics necessary for this kind of particle physics



#9 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1567 posts

Posted 23 September 2019 - 09:01 AM

We have ushered in an age called the "technological singularity", and it's all thanks to our new lord & savior for providing the definitive mathematics necessary for this kind of particle physics

Lol, that is total bullshit, numbers will never usher in the "Technological Singularity" that is a feat of Construction and Technological Research, that would be the equivalent to saying "Oh, the equation E = MC2 produced the 40,000 ish Nuclear Bombs we have today", meaning until you have produced physically a single self aware A.I. (https://en.wikipedia...al_intelligence) you cannot say you have entered "The Technological Singularity".


Edited by VictorMedvil, 23 September 2019 - 09:19 AM.


#10 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts

Posted 23 September 2019 - 09:05 AM

Lol, that is total bullshit, numbers will never usher in the "Technological Singularity" that is a feat of Construction and Technological Research, that would be the equivalent to saying "Oh the equation E = MC2 produced the 40,000 ish Nuclear Bombs we have today"

First of all, you used an intsy bitsy aspect of Einstein's theorems. We have had quantum computers since the Y2K scare, yet coherence time was piss poor until the math brought light.



#11 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts

Posted 23 September 2019 - 09:26 AM

The "technological singularity" is kapoot like Moore's law or a monetary value or price or cost it's word salad, it's gibberish. An artificial intelligence is simple an aspie on geodon or some other estrogen enhancer that gives someone with a fake diagnoses a copy and paste set of wants to suit another's needs. Artificial intelligence has been around since Ramses oppressed the Semites.

 

These terms evolve when some hidden variable is unleashed as whimsical as a paradigm shift. You wouldn't know a singularity from a hole in the ground.


Edited by OverUnityDeviceUAP, 23 September 2019 - 09:26 AM.


#12 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1567 posts

Posted 23 September 2019 - 09:26 AM

First of all, you used an intsy bitsy aspect of Einstein's theorems. We have had quantum computers since the Y2K scare, yet coherence time was piss poor until the math brought light.

 

My point being it is one thing to math a technological device it is another to actually create it physically.



#13 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1567 posts

Posted 23 September 2019 - 09:29 AM

The "technological singularity" is kapoot like Moore's law or a monetary value or price or cost it's word salad, it's gibberish. An artificial intelligence is simple an aspie on geodon or some other estrogen enhancer that gives someone with a fake diagnoses a copy and paste set of wants to suit another's needs. Artificial intelligence has been around since Ramses oppressed the Semites.

 

These terms evolve when some hidden variable is unleashed as whimsical as a paradigm shift. You wouldn't know a singularity from a hole in the ground.

 

You know what you have changed my opinion to "**** you Crank".



#14 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts

Posted 23 September 2019 - 10:20 AM

You know what you have changed my opinion to "**** you Crank".

4ceb6f83b53c66b249f93ee97a30ab1d.jpg



#15 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts

Posted 23 September 2019 - 10:21 AM

My point being it is one thing to math a technological device it is another to actually create it physically.

The engineers should be paying me, as they're the ones who paid the price for quantum computers not working all those years because the Feynman school of thought wasn't intuitive enough and was too unoriginal lacked the creativity to get the universe as it was, is, and forever will be. I mean JC got the numbers just right


Edited by OverUnityDeviceUAP, 23 September 2019 - 10:26 AM.


#16 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts

Posted 23 September 2019 - 11:56 AM

 meaning until you have produced physically a single self aware A.I. (https://en.wikipedia...al_intelligence) you cannot say you have entered "The Technological Singularity".

Well what secret calculation the researcher did was indeed for quantum-accurate chemistry moving topologies (computer graphics involving pre-determined particle states) but it also works for simulating with these parallel operations up to a million people down to the electrons in their synapses.

 

The higher qubit systems are harder maintain their coherence time but due to my I mean JC's maths we've what, the potential to simulate a lot more than a million souls. And not just stringing together qubits, but also adding additional layers of parallel operations.

 

https://www.theverge...acy-qubits-nasa


Edited by OverUnityDeviceUAP, 23 September 2019 - 11:57 AM.


#17 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts

Posted 23 September 2019 - 11:59 AM

https://gizmodo.com/...-a-s-1838357278