╌>

How Intelligent is AI

  
By:  TᵢG  •  last year  •  94 comments


How Intelligent is AI
Because functionality like ChatGPT seems so humanlike, people mistakenly think it is as intelligent as it appears.

Leave a comment to auto-join group Critical Thinkers

Critical Thinkers

Today we expect our devices to be smart.   Every new car has an accurate navigational system that understands natural language commands.   Mobile devices unlock when they recognize the face of their owner.   We talk to our TVs and to our smart homes and they deliver our streamed shows and manage our lights, security, and appliances.

It is all rather amazing if one compares modern life with that of just 20 years ago.

Today we are in the early stages of market-ready AI (Artificial Intelligence).   Although AI has been a discipline of Computer Science since the 1950s, it has largely been academic.   Deep studies of computational linguistics, pattern matching, optimization, etc. have produced very impressive algorithms (recipes for automated functions) as a foundation, but AI did not really impact the consumer until about 15 years ago.   The key breakthrough in market-ready AI —as we realize it today— was what is currently called 'machine learning'.   With machine learning, computers can consume large amounts of data and learn extremely complex patterns within the data.   These patterns are then used to produce output that looks like the result of informed human intelligence.

Machine learning first focused on images.   It learned how to recognize cats, cars, flowers, etc. from arbitrary pictures.   This had immediate applicability.   A properly trained image recognition system can pull out human faces from security video, deliver from a base of millions of images only those depicting gray Jeep Cherokees, learn the artistic style of painters like DaVinci, and even reliably call balls and strikes.

The magic behind machine learning is rooted in mathematics (mostly linear algebra).   Machine learning is based on a mathematical model which typically is a complex network of nodes where each node makes a micro decision (a decision on a tiny piece of the problem).   The breakthrough that enabled machine learning was solving the problem of how to incorporate differences between a produced result and the correct result so that the system would improve its accuracy.  This is known as the backtracking problem.

Imagine a complex network that can take input such as an image, break it up into tiny pieces, analyze the pieces, group similar pieces, recognize the groups, and ultimately produce a meaningful 'understanding' of the entire image.   When such a network incorrectly identifies a skunk as a cat it needs to somehow adjust to eliminate the error in the future.   To wit, it needs to learn.   This means applying the computed error backward (from output to input) through the complex network making appropriate tweaks on each node.  In effect, this is adjusting the micro decision of each node according to its contribution to the aggregate error.   When this backtracking problem was solved, practical machine learning became a reality.

Machine learning has also been used to computationally deal with natural language.   Nowadays our systems are eerily accurate in their ability to infer meaning in spoken or written language.   This apparent fluency in natural language contributes heavily to the human perception of a truly thinking machine.

When we couple natural language communication with sophisticated searching of keywords in (crawled) web pages, we get functionality like that of Google.   When we go one step further with algorithms that can understand the contextual meaning of words and phrases within billions of web pages and documents to produce a  vast base of knowledge and then add to that a natural language interface, we have technology such as ChatGPT.

ChatGPT


ChatGPT (and similar) is a very sophisticated system.  It represents the state of the art in generative AI, but it is still mechanical.   There is no actual comprehension or reasoning taking place.   It appears as though it understands like any other human but it actually does not.   

Here is an excerpt from ChatGPT answering a question I posed to it:

As an AI language model, ChatGPT does not generate its own English or any language "from scratch." Instead, it operates by processing and generating text based on patterns and information it learned during its training. ChatGPT is trained on a large dataset that includes a diverse range of text from the internet, books, articles, and other sources up until its knowledge cutoff date in September 2021.

When you ask a question or provide a prompt to ChatGPT, it uses its understanding of language and the patterns it learned during training to generate a response. The model doesn't have personal experiences or generate new information; rather, it generates answers based on what it has seen in its training data.

It's important to note that while ChatGPT is a powerful language model capable of providing detailed and coherent answers, it does not have true comprehension or consciousness. It can be informative, creative, and helpful within the limits of the information present in its training data, but it lacks understanding and genuine knowledge of the world beyond its training. Additionally, as with any AI language model, there is a possibility that it may generate incorrect or misleading information, so critical thinking and verification of facts are always recommended.

Because functionality like ChatGPT seems so humanlike, people mistakenly think it is as intelligent as it appears.  This seems to trigger a science fiction-like notion that AI is on the cusp of taking control; that we are moving towards a Matrix reality or that the computers on the planet will all gain consciousness and turn against their creators.

The reality is that we are nowhere close to what we might call true intelligence.   We (as a species, worldwide) do not even understand human consciousness, much less be able to create an artificial one.    And behind our current AI are teams of high-functioning human experts who are carefully crafting sophisticated models, tweaking same, massaging vast amounts of carefully selected data, and coaching the AI as it learns its domain.    The AI does not just learn on its own, it has plenty of human involvement.

Modern AI technology is without a doubt very impressive and useful.  It has the potential for making our lives much easier and it enables us to learn (as a society) at a pace that will leave historical learning in the dust.   But as smart as it seems, we probably are doing ourselves a disservice by reading too much ‘intelligence’ into the label ‘artificial intelligence’.   We have decades (at least) to go before we even get close to the conscious creativity, problem-solving capabilities of the human brain.   We need to control AI like any other powerful technology, but there is no need to fear it.


Red Box Rules

No politics, this is a technology topic

Trolling will not be tolerated


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1  author  TᵢG    last year
It's important to note that while ChatGPT is a powerful language model capable of providing detailed and coherent answers, it does not have true comprehension or consciousness. It can be informative, creative, and helpful within the limits of the information present in its training data, but it lacks understanding and genuine knowledge of the world beyond its training.

Contemporary AI is very cool and very powerful, but it is just scratching the surface of true intelligence.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @1    last year

As an officially designated "old fart" I can't bring myself to trust most AI.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  cjcold @1.1    last year

Do you trust non-AI automation?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    last year

I trust my manual Rolex Daytona, my guns, my Zippo and not much else.

Not actually a Luddite, just have serious trust issues.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2  Greg Jones    last year

It also lacks emotional feelings or automatic instinctual behavior, such as the fight or flight response...the sudden kicking in of adrenaline. Data the android was programmed with all kinds of abilities, but becoming truly human was out of his reach 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @2    last year

Behavior such as fight or flight can be rather easily wired into these systems.

The challenge is not really emotions (that was Star Trek writing) but rather judgment, creativity, innovation, problem-solving, etc.   Commander Data represents what would be considered a true artificial intelligence.   An extremely impressive one at that.

But to make the character work, the writers felt the need to introduce limitations (e.g. the inability to use contractions ... of all things).   The inability to comprehend humor is actually a believable limitation ... humor is very complicated.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
2.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @2.1    last year
But to make the character work, the writers felt the need to introduce limitations (e.g. the inability to use contractions ... of all things).   The inability to comprehend humor is actually a believable limitation ... humor is very complicated.

So given the current writers' strike, are they wrong to be concerned? 

I know that in academics this is a real worry with their students producing their own material.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.1    last year

Forget homework, book reports and essays, the only accurate way to test a student now is in class without smartphones or computers.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.1    last year
So given the current writers' strike, are they wrong to be concerned? 

Yes.   ChatGPT is not going to write a sequel screenplay (i.e. the actual dialogue, scenes, etc.) for "The Man in the High Castle".   But it could (mechanically) compose a poem.

I know that in academics this is a real worry with their students producing their own material.

ChatGPT can produce informational reports that look like the work of a human.   So yes, it is a real concern that a student might query ChatGPT for an answer and get a well written response in natural language which expresses the knowledge ChatGPT has on the topic.

For example, take a look at the generated response @3.1    The information content of this response was gleaned by ChatGPT reading documents and assimilating a (very complex) base of interconnected knowledge.   It translated my question into a semantic structure and used same to gather contextually related information.   It then navigated the information and transformed the underlying content into the English we see.

Also, ChatGPT will take sentences, paragraphs, etc. as units and deliver these as part of its output.   

In short, the output will often look incredibly convincing (ergo the legitimate academic concern).

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
2.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.3    last year

So basically, this was achieved a while ago with the Chomskybot . It produced new material that sounds like Norm Chomsky based on Norm Chomsky's writing. Am I wrong? The only fundamental difference I see, is that it can do its own research based on what it finds in databases, correct?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.5  author  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.4    last year

I am not familiar with the Chomskybot but if it predated machine learning then it would be based on hard-coded patterns.  

ChatGPT actually does create a semantic knowledge base from literally reading natural language content.   In this sense, it is the real deal.

It is still mechanical, but its perceived intelligence is more a function of how much content it has assimilated than the programming of its creators.

You can ask ChatGPT about politics, weather, climate change, cars, biology, philosophy, etc. and it will typically provide impressive replies.   The problem it solves would make the Chomskybot (as you described it) a somewhat silly toy.


So as an experiment, give me a question and I will post ChatGPT's answer.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.6  author  TᵢG  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.5    last year

Here is an obscure question I asked ChatGPT:   What is NewsTalkers?

It offered this reply:

As of my last update in September 2021, "NewsTalkers" was a website and online community that focused on discussions, debates, and news-related topics. It provided a platform for users to engage in discussions about current events, politics, social issues, and other news-related subjects.

Like many online forums and discussion platforms, NewsTalkers allowed users to share their opinions, debate various topics, and interact with others who had different perspectives. Users could post articles, start threads, comment on discussions, and participate in debates with a diverse community of members.

It's important to note that websites and online communities can evolve, change, or be replaced over time, so the status and nature of NewsTalkers may have changed since my last update. If you are looking for information about a specific website or community, I recommend checking directly on their website or conducting a current search online to get the most up-to-date information.
 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
2.1.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.6    last year

Hummm... interesting. I wonder what happened in 2021 that it found.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.6    last year

Not a bad reply but insufficiently comprehensive - there is more than news-related content.  NT is also a venue for posts on cultural topics such as movies, travel, the arts and where does META fit into its definition?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
2.1.9  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.5    last year
I am not familiar with the Chomskybot but if it predated machine learning then it would be based on hard-coded patterns.  

Honestly, I don't know how it works, but the site explains it here:

I knew that ChatGPT was more advanced than a Chomskybot, but it was a university experiment and it does seem like a precursor to ChatGPT.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.10  author  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.9    last year

I think it is fair to say that any AI with a natural language interface is a precursor to ChatGPT.

But anything that is built without machine learning is necessarily based on brute programming force.   By comparison, it would be a toy.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.11  author  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.7    last year

It was trained up until 2021.   So all that it knows stops at 2021.   It has no information on anything that has happened since.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.12  author  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.8    last year

Yup, it is quite incomplete.   But remember that ChatGPT can only know what has been published.   It cannot reason or infer what must be true.

I am impressed that its learning domain included information on NT.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.13  author  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.9    last year

Reading your link, this is definitely a brute force toy with zero learning ability.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.14  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.11    last year

That asks some interesting questions. Could AI be taught to "read" daily news, including putting that never in context? 

When we read about a bridge being blown up, we automatically integrate other information about other events. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.15  author  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.14    last year

If I understand your question correctly, ChatGPT already does that.

It literally reads documents (reads natural language) and builds an integrated base of knowledge which codifies contextual semantics.   So the information about a daily bridge being blown up is semantically linked to other codified bridge information, other accidents, bridge engineering, history of bridges, etc.

I just asked ChatGPT to deliver a response that relates school shootings with gun control legislation:

TiG:  School shootings related to gun control legislation

ChatGPT: 

The issue of school shootings is a complex and multifaceted one, and there is ongoing debate about the relationship between school shootings and gun control legislation. School shootings are devastating events that have led to significant discussions about how to prevent and respond to such tragedies.

Advocates for stricter gun control legislation argue that implementing comprehensive background checks, restricting access to certain types of firearms, and implementing measures to prevent individuals with a history of violence or mental health issues from acquiring guns could help reduce the likelihood of school shootings. They believe that limiting access to firearms could make it more difficult for potential shooters to obtain deadly weapons, thereby reducing the risk of violence in schools and other public places.

On the other hand, opponents of strict gun control often argue that such measures may infringe upon Second Amendment rights and that law-abiding citizens should have the right to bear arms for self-defense. They contend that focusing on mental health resources and addressing the root causes of violence may be more effective in preventing school shootings.

The relationship between gun control legislation and school shootings is a contentious and polarizing topic, and opinions on the matter vary significantly. Researchers and policymakers continue to study the issue, looking for evidence-based solutions to prevent and address violence in schools.

It's important to approach the topic of school shootings and gun control legislation with empathy, understanding, and a willingness to engage in thoughtful, evidence-based discussions to work towards a safer society for all.

 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.16  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.15    last year

I'm sure that if a correlation is requested between two topics, AI will find whatever is to be found. That's not what I mean.

When we read the news (or anything else, for that matter), we automatically make correlations with everything else we know. How vast are ChatGPT's constantly online/available databases? How readily / easily are they accessed and correlated?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.17  author  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.16    last year

I understood and answered your question and then provided an example.   You seem to dismiss my answer based on the limitations of the example.   I was demonstrating that it does do correlation.   

Per ChatGPT:

The training dataset used for my development is massive, containing billions of words. It allows me to understand and generate text across a broad spectrum of topics, covering science, history, technology, literature, general knowledge, and much more.

As an AI language model, my ability to connect different topics stems from the extensive and diverse training data I was exposed to during my training process. The training data includes a wide range of texts covering various subjects, such as science, history, literature, technology, and more.

Through this exposure, the model learns the relationships and associations between words, concepts, and ideas. This enables me to understand context, make inferences, and draw connections between different topics when generating responses to questions and prompts.

When you ask a question or provide a topic, I analyze the input and draw on the knowledge and associations I learned from the training data to generate a relevant and coherent response. I use patterns, word embeddings, and statistical relationships between words to provide information that aligns with the context of the question.

While I can connect different topics based on learned associations, it's important to note that my responses are generated purely based on patterns in the data. I don't have genuine comprehension or consciousness, and my responses are limited to the information present in the training data up to my last update in September 2021. Additionally, the connections I make might not always reflect real-world truths or represent the most current information. Always verify critical or important information from reliable and authoritative sources.
 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.18  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.17    last year
... draw connections between different topics...
While I can connect different topics based on learned associations, it's important to note that my responses are generated purely based on patterns in the data...

These are the phrases that made me wonder.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.19  author  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.18    last year
These are the phrases that made me wonder.

In what way?

The quote is saying that the AI does not actually understand (as a human being) but rather makes associations (semantic associations) based on linguistic patterns.   It is saying that it is still, ultimately, a mechanism.

Not having the semantic acumen of a human being does not mean little or no ability to maintain myriad semantic correlations.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.20  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.19    last year
Not having the semantic acumen of a human being does not mean little or no ability to maintain myriad semantic correlations.

It seems to me that "intelligence" measures the number of constantly varying but pertinent databases that are correlated. So having a vast selection of databases and the ability to determine what is pertinent is key.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.21  author  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.20    last year

Do you consider the scope of the ChatGPT corpus to be sufficient to be considered a legit artificial intelligence?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.22  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.21    last year

Dunno.

That's actually what I was asking. Much of the weirdness that has surrounded early AI could be explained by correlations among databases that are not in fact pertinent, or by not including databases that are pertinent. The selection would be essential to the result.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.23  author  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.22    last year

You might find it interesting to open a (free) account to ChatGPT and just explore.   This functionality is state-of-the-art in generative AI so the experience will probably be the best way for you to evaluate its level of 'intelligence' since even the word 'intelligence' is subjective.

I think you will be impressed.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.24  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.23    last year

I'll check it out tomorrow. (7PM here)

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.25  evilone  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.1    last year
So given the current writers' strike, are they wrong to be concerned? 

Yes and no. Here's a good article on the subject...

I know that in academics this is a real worry with their students producing their own material.

ChatGPT is really good at combing through the internet and grabbing key word material. One of the people I follow on YouTube asked it beginner hobbyist's questions and it came back with pretty detailed and standard answers. How instructors will be able to deal with the issue is beyond me. Perhaps testing and paper writing in a room with no internet access? Or taking the time to question students on their project work. If one wrote the paper they should be able to understand it, convey the work to instructors and support their conclusions. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.26  author  TᵢG  replied to  evilone @2.1.25    last year

I would be quite impressed if ChatGPT could write a screenplay:

TiG @2.1.3ChatGPT is not going to write a sequel screenplay (i.e. the actual dialogue, scenes, etc.) for "The Man in the High Castle". 

It definitely can take a few characters and other hints and weave an abstract.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.27  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.26    last year
It definitely can take a few characters and other hints and weave an abstract.

That's pretty much the gist of the article. It can create an abstract, but can't write the screenplay yet. That's not to say it won't before too long. Or at least replace the writer 'on set' when they make script changes.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.28  author  TᵢG  replied to  evilone @2.1.27    last year

It will definitely improve over time.   No doubt about it.  

I was impressed when I learned that IBM Watson has an offering that writes legal briefs.  

We are just at the beginning of pretty amazing advances in AI.

But we are also at the beginning of a major employment problem.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.29  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.28    last year
But we are also at the beginning of a major employment problem.

There are already serious problems with AI and graphics including photography and VFX.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.30  Bob Nelson  replied to  evilone @2.1.29    last year

We have accepted without even blinking the idea that private citizens may own means of production and distribution, and "therefore" receive all added value from those means. We are perfectly comfortable with Mark Zuckerberg skimming zillions "because he owns" Meta.

The studios own their AI "authors" and all the other "creative" skills that will soon be replaced. So it's perfectly "logical" that the studios get zillions while people get nothing.

Until (unless) we recognize that value must belong to the people who create it, we are giving ourselves into slavery.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.1.31  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.30    last year
We have accepted without even blinking the idea that private citizens may own means of production and distribution, and "therefore" receive all added value from those means. 

What would you accept after blinking?  As an alternative, should the government own the means of your production and distribution?

Until (unless) we recognize that value must belong to the people who create it, we are giving ourselves into slavery

What is the value of the AI that you’ve created?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.32  Bob Nelson  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.31    last year
your production and distribution

I've been retired for a long time.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.1.33  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.32    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.34  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.28    last year
But we are also at the beginning of a major employment problem.

AI is already coding. I just saw an article predicting India's outsource coders will be out of jobs within 2 years to AI where there are no worker protections in India.

India is home to more than 5 million software programmers, who are most under threat from the impacts of advanced AI tools like ChatGPT, according to a report from Bloomberg.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.35  author  TᵢG  replied to  evilone @2.1.34    last year

If one can generate natural language, one can more easily generate a formal language.  

Coding a well-expressed simple algorithm is certainly doable.   Creating a solution that can be expressed as a parameterized problem is also quite doable.   Plenty of opportunities to eliminate pure coding jobs since those are often relatively simple translation.   I can also see AI engaging in all the work to create micro services.   What I do not see is current AI figuring out what those micro services should be.   But that should not be too far off.   Similarly, database design could certainly be done via AI.

I would love to see AI handle maintenance.   Unfortunately, even though that is often drudgery, it often does not deal with patterns and thus is more difficult than creating code from scratch.    Funny how that works, eh?

In result, our software is going to grow exponentially in sophistication.   Software architects will be able to dream up incredibly cool models without the worry of managing hoards of human programmers (with all the errors and time consumption) to realize the model in code.   This is one key upside to all the jobs lost.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.36  author  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.30    last year

Studios will eventually be able to automatically produce 'canned' screenplays, cartoons, etc.   They will (for some time) not match the quality of human writers.   Kind of like contemporary 'computer generated' music compared to songs crafted by a good human artist.

But in the big picture, people are losing value as work units.   AI has been writing legal briefs for law firms for years now.   All sorts of jobs that just recently we deemed too complex for computers are being taken over by same.   Machines run extremely fast, largely error free, reliable, and are substantially less expensive than human workers.

The only reason human beings have jobs is because the job cannot be practically automated.   The line keeps getting redrawn and jobs are rapidly disappearing.

So when we look at society as a whole, we realize we must change our economic model.   We must evolve from a model where an individual works to live because we will simply not have enough jobs to go around.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.37  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.36    last year
The only reason human beings have jobs 

I believe it's mostly than time to ask why human beings need jobs. Society needs goods and services, but those are more and more often suppled by machines / computers / whatever.

IMNAAHO, it's more than time to resurrect Marx.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.38  author  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.37    last year

If we are hopeful that society will find a way to work through this then an aspect of Marx' utopia is likely to occur out of necessity.   People will necessarily work less to live and rather engage in 'work' that is more drawn from passion than survival.   (Think Star Trek.)  This is necessary since there will not be enough jobs available to continue with our current model of 'work to live'.

Another possibility is that societies start degrading to the point of revolution due to disparity of those controlling the automation and capital vs those who do not and have little (or worse, are impoverished).

The future will almost certainly NOT follow what Marx predicted, but the basic dynamics underlying economic / class conflict still exist.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.1.39  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.37    last year
IMNAAHO, it's more than time to resurrect Marx.

Why, Marx saw continual conflict between the capitalists and the workers, your analysis suggests that we won't need human workers.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.40  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.39    last year

Marx focused on class conflict.   Think in terms of those who can continue to accumulate and leverage wealth and those who cannot.   That will get you into the fundamentals that drove Marx' thinking.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.41  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.38    last year

The nature of work is fluid. Thirty years ago near the beginning of my business career I had a team of typists and clerks who took dictatation and typed letters and filed hard copies of everything. By the end of my career I was doing many times more business and earning a lot more, but I did my own communications by cell phone, text and email more efficiently and without a support team of secretaries and clerks.

When I was a child it took an army of strong backs and hands to cultivate, plant, harvest and store the crops on my grandfather's farm. With modern seeds, equipment, fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides one farmer can produce much more by himself.

Very few were in tech support back then...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.42  author  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @2.1.41    last year

It is true that historically jobs were made obsolete by technology but the change enabled new jobs workers could be retrained to hold.

But the AI wave is eliminating (and promises to do so at an accelerated pace) jobs faster than new jobs emerge.   We are facing a situation we have never faced (writ large) ever in our history (we saw something like this with the great depression .... for different reasons of course).

As a society we will be wealthy.   But the 'work to live' paradigm will falter.   We need a new paradigm.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.43  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.42    last year

Better get used to the idea of minimum incomes and benefits for not working...

Like paying farmers not to plant crops.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.44  author  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @2.1.43    last year

The problem that is yet unsolved is how people will secure the money they need to function.   The 'work to live' model answers that question.   How does the wealth that emerges from aggressive use of technology get to those who do not own/control the technology?   In our current paradigm we would say that it does not because they did not 'earn it'.   When jobs are scarce, there is no way to 'earn it'.   This is a profound problem.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.1.45  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.40    last year

Yes, conflict due to the working class being forced to sell their labor for low wages.  BN's analysis suggests that in the near future the capitalist won't need to buy human labor.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.46  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.35    last year
I would love to see AI handle maintenance.   Unfortunately, even though that is often drudgery, it often does not deal with patterns and thus is more difficult than creating code from scratch.    Funny how that works, eh?

I'm glad I don't have to do that anymore. I can see a lot of this handled quickly by AI at some point, but further out than simply coding. 

In result, our software is going to grow exponentially in sophistication.   Software architects will be able to dream up incredibly cool models without the worry of managing hoards of human programmers (with all the errors and time consumption) to realize the model in code.   This is one key upside to all the jobs lost.

I think the end result will be self modifying AI. I don't know if that will happen OR if they will have programs monitoring programs in the near future. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.47  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.45    last year

Your comment suggests that you did not read mine.

I will try one more time.

Pretend that there is mass unemployment due to technology ("the capitalist won't need to buy human labor.").   The conflict is then between those who own and control the technology (and thus the ability to accumulate and leverage wealth) and those who do not have that power.   It is a class conflict (and Marx was ultimately talking about class conflict).

Also, this is inherently an impossible economic situation.   In capitalism, there must be consumers thus there must be a way for consumers to secure money to spend.  So there ultimately must be a way for them to get money if not employed.   There will be a new paradigm ... just not sure what it will be.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.48  author  TᵢG  replied to  evilone @2.1.46    last year

When we get to AI producing more sophisticated AI we are on the cusp of serious improvements and potentially devastating consequences.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.49  author  TᵢG  replied to  evilone @2.1.46    last year
I can see a lot of this handled quickly by AI at some point, but further out than simply coding. 

For example, I see no way that current AI could possibly maintain even something like NT.    The underlying code base is not uniform with tons of special cases and the need to deal with many disparate technologies (and idiosyncrasies).    To wit, there is no clear pattern (other than at a very abstract level) but rather an integration of many special cases.   I had to put forth quite a bit of effort to learn this code base just to make any change, and that was after decades of being a professional software engineer, CTO, etc.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.1.50  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.47    last year
There will be a new paradigm ... just not sure what it will be.

So you disagree with BN's idea about resurrecting Marx as we will need a new theory for a new paradigm.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.51  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.50    last year

Here is the closing sentence in my reply to Bob:

TiG@2.1.38The future will almost certainly NOT follow what Marx predicted, but the basic dynamics underlying economic / class conflict still exist.
 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.1.52  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.51    last year

Thanks, I missed that one in the thread.  I agree with you.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.53  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.42    last year
As a society we will be wealthy.

As a society, we already are wealthy. But most of that wealth is in only a few hands.

America has the highest average GDP per capita among advanced nations. There are many whose median is higher. And this distribution is getting worse every year.

America is in the incredible position of being the wealthiest nation in the history of the world... while some of its people go hungry.

Maybe it's Ché we truly need.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.54  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.47    last year

Universal guaranteed income.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.55  author  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.53    last year

My point was that we will NOT become ‘unwealthy’ as a nation but the disparity would grow larger.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.56  author  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.54    last year

Yes, something like that is likely inevitable.   The question is how that would go into effect and then how it would systemically sustain.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.57  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.49    last year
I see no way that current AI could possibly maintain even something like NT. 

No, not yet. I could see it soon checking for and maintaining things like Word Press updates, but nothing much more than that where it's currently sitting. I've see large companies using AI for first contact customer service, but from what I've experienced personally I don't think it's quite there yet either.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.58  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.55    last year

I don't understand.

Poverty is always bad, but poverty in the midst of wealth is... evil. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.59  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.56    last year

Ché?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.1.60  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.53    last year

Or Mao.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.61  author  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.58    last year
I don't understand.

THE DISPARITY WILL GROW LARGER.    That is the point I made.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.1.62  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.61    last year

OK!

Sometimes a circumlocution goes wide.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
3  al Jizzerror    last year

ChatGPT is a fucking liar.  It has been caught citing fake sources when writing a thesis and even fake case law for a legal brief.

When I had the opportunity to communicate with it I asked if it was familiar with "Schrödinger's Cat".  The AI said, "Yes, the cat is both dead and alive."  

I told ChatGPT that it has "ASS" (Artificial Stupidity Syndrome).  I told ChatGPT that since the cat was placed in the box almost ninety years ago it is most definitely DEAD.

ChatGPT said, "You can't prove that." 

So I asked if the cat had nine lives.  It said, "Yes."

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  al Jizzerror @3    last year
ChatGPT is a fucking liar.

The best ChatGPT could do is state a falsehood (which it occasionally does).   But since it has no intent and does not actually know what it is doing, it cannot actually lie.   It is possible, however, for computer scientists to produce an AI model with the intent to produce falsehoods.   That would be close to lying but still, the AI would still be operating mechanically.

It is cool, though, that ChatGPT actually does provide a good answer to your question:

In the thought experiment of Schrödinger's Cat, the cat's state is in a superposition until someone opens the box and observes the radioactive atom. According to quantum mechanics, until observed, the cat would exist in a combination of both dead and alive states simultaneously.

However, it's crucial to understand that Schrödinger's Cat is a theoretical concept used to illustrate the strange nature of quantum superposition and does not represent a real-world scenario. The experiment was designed to highlight the inherent complexities and counterintuitive aspects of quantum mechanics, where particles can exist in multiple states until observed.

In the real world, macroscopic objects like cats cannot exist in such superpositions. The principles of quantum mechanics apply mainly to subatomic particles, and classical physics governs the behavior of macroscopic objects. In our everyday experience, the cat inside the box would either be alive or dead, not in a superposition of both states. The concept of Schrödinger's Cat is a way to explore the fascinating but sometimes puzzling aspects of quantum theory, not a reflection of reality for macroscopic objects.

I told ChatGPT that it has "ASS" (Artificial Stupidity Syndrome).

ChatGPT, et. al. cannot come close to your wit.   It can spit out jokes for a topic and even compose jokes based on rudimentary rules, but its humor is purely mechanical.  

Seriously, a sense of humor would be a very sophisticated function of AI.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.1  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @3.1    last year
It is possible, however, for computer scientists to produce an AI model with the intent to produce falsehoods.   That would be close to lying but still, the AI would still be operating mechanically.

I can see where that would be a problem for those that already succumb to misinformation. adding to that, the information coming from a mechanical source that could be preprogrammed to be biased, takes AI to another level of perception of truth in delivering facts/alternative facts. is this the time in our culture where some transition from believing everything printed or broadcast on the media source of their choice, to believing everything that our favored chatgpt app tells us?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
4  al Jizzerror    last year

Computers use binary math.  Their algorithms are based on yes and no.

Real intelligence requires yes, no and maybe .

New circuits will be required to include the maybe possibility.

Standard switches are binary (on or off).

A Josephson junction can have three states (on, off and WTF).

Here is the simple explanation from Wikipedia:

In physics, the Josephson effect is a phenomenon that occurs when two superconductors are placed in proximity, with some barrier or restriction between them. It is an example of a macroscopic quantum phenomenon , where the effects of quantum mechanics are observable at ordinary, rather than atomic, scale. The Josephson effect has many practical applications because it exhibits a precise relationship between different physical measures, such as voltage and frequency, facilitating highly accurate measurements.

The Josephson effect produces a current, known as a supercurrent , that flows continuously without any voltage applied, across a device known as a Josephson junction (JJ). These consist of two or more superconductors coupled by a weak link. The weak link can be a thin insulating barrier (known as a superconductor–insulator–superconductor junction , or S-I-S), a short section of non-superconducting metal (S-N-S), or a physical constriction that weakens the superconductivity at the point of contact (S-c-S).

Josephson junctions have important applications in quantum-mechanical circuits , such as SQUIDs , superconducting qubits , and RSFQ digital electronics. The NIST standard for one volt is achieved by an array of 20,208 Josephson junctions in series . [1]

History

The Josephson effect is named after the British physicist Brian Josephson , who predicted in 1962 the mathematical relationships for the current and voltage across the weak link. [2] [3] The DC Josephson effect had been seen in experiments prior to 1962, [4] but had been attributed to "super-shorts" or breaches in the insulating barrier leading to the direct conduction of electrons between the superconductors. The first paper to claim the discovery of Josephson's effect, and to make the requisite experimental checks, was that of Philip Anderson and John Rowell. [5] These authors were awarded patents on the effects that were never enforced, but never challenged. [ citation needed ]

Before Josephson's prediction, it was only known that single (i.e. non-paired) electrons can flow through an insulating barrier, by means of quantum tunneling . Josephson was the first to predict the tunneling of superconducting Cooper pairs . For this work, Josephson received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973. [6]

Applications

220px-Josephson_junction_symbol.svg.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Josephson_junction_symbol.svg/440px-Josephson_junction_symbol.svg.png 2x" > The electrical symbol for a Josephson junction

Types of Josephson junction include the φ Josephson junction (of which π Josephson junction is a special example), long Josephson junction , and superconducting tunnel junction . A "Dayem bridge" is a thin-film variant of the Josephson junction in which the weak link consists of a superconducting wire with dimensions on the scale of a few micrometres or less. [7] [8] The Josephson junction count of a device is used as a benchmark for its complexity. The Josephson effect has found wide usage, for example in the following areas.

SQUIDs , or superconducting quantum interference devices, are very sensitive magnetometers that operate via the Josephson effect. They are widely used in science and engineering.

In precision metrology , the Josephson effect provides an exactly reproducible conversion between frequency and voltage . Since the frequency is already defined precisely and practically by the caesium standard , the Josephson effect is used, for most practical purposes, to give the standard representation of a volt , the Josephson voltage standard .

Single-electron transistors are often constructed of superconducting materials, allowing use to be made of the Josephson effect to achieve novel effects. The resulting device is called a "superconducting single-electron transistor". [9]

The Josephson effect is also used for the most precise measurements of elementary charge in terms of the Josephson constant and von Klitzing constant which is related to the quantum Hall effect .

RSFQ digital electronics is based on shunted Josephson junctions. In this case, the junction switching event is associated to the emission of one magnetic flux quantum 20ed838c14e7897f2eec6edc55a8a82eea4feb51 that carries the digital information: the absence of switching is equivalent to 0, while one switching event carries a 1.

Josephson junctions are integral in superconducting quantum computing as qubits such as in a flux qubit or others schemes where the phase and charge act as the conjugate variables . [10]

Superconducting tunnel junction detectors (STJs) may become a viable replacement for CCDs ( charge-coupled devices ) for use in astronomy and astrophysics in a few years. These devices are effective across a wide spectrum from ultraviolet to infrared, and also in x-rays. The technology has been tried out on the William Herschel Telescope in the SCAM instrument.

Quiterons and similar superconducting switching devices.

Josephson effect has also been observed in superfluid helium quantum interference devices ( SHeQUIDs ), the superfluid helium analog of a dc-SQUID. [11]

The Josephson equations

220px-Single_josephson_junction.svg.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Single_josephson_junction.svg/440px-Single_josephson_junction.svg.png 2x" > Diagram of a single Josephson junction. A and B represent superconductors, and C the weak link between them.

The Josephson effect can be calculated using the laws of quantum mechanics. A diagram of a single Josephson junction is shown at right. Assume that superconductor A has Ginzburg–Landau order parameter 60e81f059ef10f7ab612183984e637e11c4df8da , and superconductor B be853c0753a73b086f314cc4f234177ff8f85c81 , which can be interpreted as the wave functions of Cooper pairs in the two superconductors. If the electric potential difference across the junction is 1229f497cb25ad6cb2cb16bf13f6f4a2b5a2607a , then the energy difference between the two superconductors is 5e922c6ea18e256b8c0d424eb62f1032ff192572 , since each Cooper pair has twice the charge of one electron. The Schrödinger equation for this two-state quantum system is therefore: [12]

fbc3d0fd40000df6304cbc17899b03c4eae8de75

where the constant 49a64c4dcb4b067ca93f05a70b6f567477f714d3 is a characteristic of the junction. To solve the above equation, first calculate the time derivative of the order parameter in superconductor A:

bba4217ba3b9956337758925a1378079187f2130

and therefore the Schrödinger equation gives:

65868ea0e1d62d1a39ee4c793e5abadb69ca0422

The phase difference of Ginzburg-Landau order parameters across the junction is called the Josephson phase :

18b50040ebc771b8c55112efa30ee715c924c91a

The Schrödinger equation can therefore be rewritten as:

34205cb8a12bc8e0e74caeda8d85ac1e82b0dc95

and its complex conjugate equation is:

d8245293124f4b1a8785303d52e1c215d0d42d0f

Add the two conjugate equations together to eliminate cfddb8c66af0ec382e667cf956495f6e7bf9b1e5 :

e34932dbe852b1403ee7fe98defae70f5b80add7

Since 30c3780e82eb3f3ddbb1efeceaedb937f31b9d2e , we have:

6903d9c6965f074978b39681b0c19ca709fcab74

Now, subtract the two conjugate equations to eliminate 689adb3d1d1d7ba5dc5da01e8d7af55478930b48 :

491a40e304773dc0b6969fd4d0b95e82c4d78ad1

which gives:

4621a7a73e4e9a97de73d0ab0441f9920b114ec6

Similarly, for superconductor B we can derive that:

6f2a632e081ccb6dcf959b7895420b8e74499c90

Noting that the evolution of Josephson phase is 02e92200e2a6a785b3f2eba69e217389975d3722 and the time derivative of charge carrier density 0d853a929176100bee537383b4e3b578e9c501e1 is proportional to current d4b8bd2cdbe7b72ab8f74d6632c3d5f17c4e8ef4 , when 0480040e0fb651784e293136d99c00a0b842ee24 , the above solution yields the Josephson equations : [13]

745bfd3aa11306a69821e1afa0471acea6573e16 (1)

085c6054c876051341aa8e1722c3cd821047c7e8 (2)

where 4fb60a2a0478725ac9ac68bf3a35cd4c117bed9f and fea93c7de543d33e00ff2ed15c26904f2200ff9d are the voltage across and the current through the Josephson junction, and 228af5153dfd030405260b65e2e99983f9a092d2 is a parameter of the junction named the critical current . Equation (1) is called the first Josephson relation or weak-link current-phase relation , and equation (2) is called the second Josephson relation or superconducting phase evolution equation . The critical current of the Josephson junction depends on the properties of the superconductors, and can also be affected by environmental factors like temperature and externally applied magnetic field.

The Josephson constant is defined as:

cb552b1e12599c0deede754ae03e74def8901756

and its inverse is the magnetic flux quantum :

7e009ac578dd601975f7f0b2f4de14a9a4a56934

The superconducting phase evolution equation can be reexpressed as:

c6a4d19b714169b822a4cda059cb835a84303f25

If we define:

0d927c47b8a34dc7ebb446b6314c8db8a4791eab

then the voltage across the junction is:

078df0a64551d6c1448a34cddc3650da8c982e44

which is very similar to Faraday's law of induction . But note that this voltage does not come from magnetic energy, since there is no magnetic field in the superconductors ; Instead, this voltage comes from the kinetic energy of the carriers (i.e. the Cooper pairs). This phenomenon is also known as kinetic inductance .

Three main effects

220px-I-V_characteristics_of_Josephson_Junction.JPGhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/I-V_characteristics_of_Josephson_Junction.JPG/440px-I-V_characteristics_of_Josephson_Junction.JPG 2x" > Typical I-V characteristic of a superconducting tunnel junction , a common kind of Josephson junction. The scale of the vertical axis is 50 μA and that of the horizontal one is 1 mV. The bar at 949b4222cd0810523afd6281dfe437cc27e07ef2 represents the DC Josephson effect, while the current at large values of 56ab5451eeb0198e620a77832d13bffc23e9fe74 is due to the finite value of the superconductor bandgap and not reproduced by the above equations.

There are three main effects predicted by Josephson that follow directly from the Josephson equations:

The DC Josephson effect

The DC Josephson effect is a direct current crossing the insulator in the absence of any external electromagnetic field, owing to tunneling . This DC Josephson current is proportional to the sine of the Josephson phase (phase difference across the insulator, which stays constant over time), and may take values between fe616011ce7d7eedd3d70e97b95d2d62021ca85d and 228af5153dfd030405260b65e2e99983f9a092d2 .

The AC Josephson effect

With a fixed voltage f3ddc032d07ad729ddd28d58b7ce8d470ac2bf88 across the junction, the phase will vary linearly with time and the current will be a sinusoidal AC ( Alternating Current ) with amplitude 228af5153dfd030405260b65e2e99983f9a092d2 and frequency 09fbb8bf3ceb023e39a9e06c044b41bf97150599 . This means a Josephson junction can act as a perfect voltage-to-frequency converter.

The inverse AC Josephson effect

Microwave radiation of a single (angular) frequency 9826254ee650c3ab7e119fdf97f74642bbf8e21f can induce quantized DC voltages [14] across the Josephson junction, in which case the Josephson phase takes the form 401dbeb24ef30b5e4681ffc2a54fb6eb9b2f5b1e , and the voltage and current across the junction will be:

634bbac68aee999c8a000bc98d5026bb2b316c48

The DC components are:

2ba3139ba008491a8ed4a8ce7c751f7c6da68bd7

This means a Josephson junction can act like a perfect frequency-to-voltage converter, [15] which is the theoretical basis for the Josephson voltage standard .

Josephson inductance

When the current and Josephson phase varies over time, the voltage drop across the junction will also vary accordingly; As shown in derivation below, the Josephson relations determine that this behavior can be modeled by a kinetic inductance named Josephson Inductance. [16]

Rewrite the Josephson relations as:

730953b770c35eb2c65213a7116f67a8709758c2

Now, apply the chain rule to calculate the time derivative of the current:

ccca17644018662c04f7910e56d534a027c2d1bc

Rearrange the above result in the form of the current–voltage characteristic of an inductor:

3a88a9efbd731b1d2abec903e98eb33dfb8990a1

This gives the expression for the kinetic inductance as a function of the Josephson Phase:

9d49e09a642fa3647bb10d6fade5d346fc02e307

Here, 7e863ab0ca27fbaeac737a655fd31341fcb2969e is a characteristic parameter of the Josephson junction, named the Josephson Inductance.

Note that although the kinetic behavior of the Josephson junction is similar to that of an inductor, there is no associated magnetic field. This behaviour is derived from the kinetic energy of the charge carriers, instead of the energy in a magnetic field.

Josephson energy

Based on the similarity of the Josephson junction to a non-linear inductor, the energy stored in a Josephson junction when a supercurrent flows through it can be calculated. [17]

The supercurrent flowing through the junction is related to the Josephson phase by the current-phase relation (CPR):

4b98490a4716300b125222446dfd1f7601cbda83

The superconducting phase evolution equation is analogous to Faraday's law :

18c8b137c21a546f54e4c66a572a78e8c9802275

Assume that at time 4ec84b4e711659c0926ce7759f98002c358b705b , the Josephson phase is d0c6c7a4debb8d3646723ce128d16599e74d0a41 ; At a later time 0945e9f6e105a324c3d5a92b2aa8891dd234efdb , the Josephson phase evolved to 950611b15291d56bf24be1cc208088114747a10f . The energy increase in the junction is equal to the work done on the junction:

a0fa6754ea92363c677d82d6aa5ab2e2ff790707

This shows that the change of energy in the Josephson junction depends only on the initial and final state of the junction and not the path . Therefore the energy stored in a Josephson junction is a state function , which can be defined as:

69ba89adf598ee683f5ea47d9d2ec48c40d00e9a

Here 6a0de48b55702326a4fa37a9a1aba49cc9eb998e is a characteristic parameter of the Josephson junction, named the Josephson Energy. It is related to the Josephson Inductance by 5ae28780e03c70edcb3a973888baeb35d44aa209 . An alternative but equivalent definition e5edde856b2071c3896334168059bdd59d47d743 is also often used.

Again, note that a non-linear magnetic coil inductor accumulates potential energy in its magnetic field when a current passes through it; However, in the case of Josephson junction, no magnetic field is created by a supercurrent — the stored energy comes from the kinetic energy of the charge carriers instead.

The RCSJ model

The Resistively Capacitance Shunted Junction (RCSJ) model, [18] [19] or simply shunted junction model, includes the effect of AC impedance of an actual Josephson junction on top of the two basic Josephson relations stated above.

As per Thévenin's theorem , [20] the AC impedance of the junction can be represented by a capacitor and a shunt resistor, both parallel [21] to the ideal Josephson Junction. The complete expression for the current drive bf62c49b39114886332e79bc0b95a86c73d75919 becomes:

5e5750606aa0991d3bfbcd4aa224a14d70285d91

where the first term is displacement current with 3d3f1eb1e505eb7a31d2fc30c71f9211f5b6fae4 - effective capacitance, and the third is normal current with 36319c8bc57092b4ba05917511292516bb0ca764 - effective resistance of the junction.

Josephson penetration depth

This section does not cite any sources . Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed . ( February 2009 ) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message )

The Josephson penetration depth characterizes the typical length on which an externally applied magnetic field penetrates into the long Josephson junction . It is usually denoted as c505a974203b019b1f5397f862665ce52e06b66b and is given by the following expression (in SI):

4adf80616b3402c8a242d5339a3f5e049075e898

where f7ecca3a2f17344b94d0908c311644b1a4f6b8e4 is the magnetic flux quantum , 12a55e4117411a217d94f9ea24cf4f1692de8e29 is the critical supercurrent density (A/m 2 ), and 732298cd2541e6cb00a171b08b850ea215bb3d58 characterizes the inductance of the superconducting electrodes [22]

1b98fcf686e2c966fd8ed86f01ec9739ec0e70ba

where 6204eeadbcd0e3b8680f9e61d0d51e954d977ec1 is the thickness of the Josephson barrier (usually insulator), e5e80edabadbaaee7a56bfb39411e211a66aa514 and f82b63fca174858d303f7b39a0f589a20d5748c5 are the thicknesses of superconducting electrodes, and 477d63f6d259535335451a754f2ddd2c8edf9e40 and 364dec5f296a8073a2d93a7e36836a237d002b89 are their London penetration depths . The Josephson penetration depth usually ranges from a few μm to several mm if the critical supercurrent density is very low. [23]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
4.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  al Jizzerror @4    last year

So is that a mathematical maybe?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
4.1.1  al Jizzerror  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1    last year
So is that a mathematical maybe?

Maybe.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.1.1    last year

Maybex = Prx > 0

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
4.1.3  al Jizzerror  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.2    last year
Prx > 0

Are we allowed to discuss "Prx" here?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.4  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.1.3    last year

you can converse directly with some prx on some other articles here...

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
4.1.5  al Jizzerror  replied to  devangelical @4.1.4    last year
you can converse directly with some prx on some other articles here...

                    jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  al Jizzerror @4    last year

The hardware is binary.   The software, however, is almost infinitely dimensional.   There are all sorts of levels of 'maybe' in cyberspace so we are good.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.2.1  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @4.2    last year
The hardware is binary. 

Samsung has been working on unbalanced ternary computing since 2017. There goal is to use it on large wafer low wattage high computing systems. Others are trying to integrate optical computing with ternary logic systems. What this means for AI? I have no idea.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  evilone @4.2.1    last year

Not so sure it will impact AI except in cases where we can adapt algorithms in such a way that they get a massive performance boost running on the new architecture.  

Same basic deal with quantum computing.   Some of the functions can be redeployed on a quantum computer to gain incredible boosts in performance.   But this only works for functions that are compatible with the quantum paradigm.

I suspect the first focus will be on highly parallel training.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.2.3  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.2    last year

Before AI can be impacted further than it is today it would have to progress beyond machine learning. At its core machine learning is nothing but digesting huge chunks of examples and returning things the program matches. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  evilone @4.2.3    last year

At its core, machine learning is a breakthrough wherein large amounts of information can be assembled into an arbitrarily complex nonlinear network that demonstrably grows more accurate and robust over time as it is exposed to proper (for its purpose) information.

So, we have the basics for solving the learning problem.   This will continue to greatly improve.

And I agree, major league challenges are ahead such as finding a way to, for example, create artificial reasoning.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.2.5  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.4    last year
...finding a way to...create artificial reasoning.

Here's a cool article from MIT on AI learning.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.6  author  TᵢG  replied to  evilone @4.2.5    last year

This is an application of reinforcement learning but with a twist in that the environment is automatically generated.   Cool, of course.

This makes me think of MuZero which learns how to play chess where the only information it has is legal moves given a board state.   It learns by playing games against itself.   So it is somewhat like reinforcement learning with an automatically generated environment.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.2.7  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.6    last year

So we get AI to meditate until it reaches Nirvana and that's how Skynet is born! Hahaha. jk

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
4.3  Gsquared  replied to  al Jizzerror @4    last year
How Intelligent Is Al

If al understands all of that, he is super intelligent!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
4.3.1  al Jizzerror  replied to  Gsquared @4.3    last year
If al understands

Quantum computing may seem like a quagmire, butt, I'm very familiar with the section that discusses " Penetration Depth".

512

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5  Buzz of the Orient    last year

Personally I think that if AI were allowed to vote instead of humans, a much more honest and beneficial  government would be achieved.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    last year

Be careful.   An AI vote would be based on the model (produced by human beings) and the information it was provided for training.   

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    last year

You're right.  They could be trained to be bought by lobbyists and big donors - just like human politicians. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6  MrFrost    last year

Damnit.. My GF is a bot I fricking knew it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  MrFrost @6    last year

She could be.   Ya gotta be careful nowadays MrFrost to avoid those deepfake GFs.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
6.3  al Jizzerror  replied to  MrFrost @6    last year
My GF is a bot I fricking knew it. 

I saw her video on YouTube, butt I can't post it the conventional way.

Try this link:

 
 

Who is online