Had this gem on Omegle. Enjoy:
Stranger: shall we debate the issue?
You: punch it full of more holes than a 10 gauge
Stranger:
I"ll use a 12 gage... Less holes but more power with each one
Stranger: never minde
Stranger: that was un true
Stranger: first point
You: haha
Stranger: Technology is the culmination of what the human mind can creat
Stranger: It is only set for sertain purposes
You: And it is rapidly exceeding it. Our brains are biologically limited. What they can create is not.
You: Our software and hardware is becoming more and more generalized and more and more powerful each and every year. Things like graphics which used to need a separate processor are becoming integrated into the CPU, allowing for the same power with less electrical use
You: I'm not sure if you saw it, but recently IBM's "Watson" supercomputer took the two reigning Jeopardy champions to school in just that game
Stranger: and how much electricity does our body require to power thought?
Stranger: That is a good point
Stranger: IBM has some very impressive equipment
You: They aren't the power on the consumer market they once were, but they're advancements in artificial intelligence are unmatched
You: Also, reverting to your older point
Stranger: we could delve even further by replacing the electricity used in IBM's computers with the food humans comsume
You: The human body uses approximately 4.18 x10^25 watts of electricity, but in incredibly low voltages
You: We're talking millivolts here
You: 10-100 according to what I found
You: Making the Matrix scenario highly impractical
You: It would require more energy to maintain their facilities than we could produce
You: But that's an entirely different story
Stranger: nice... Second point is the old but true argument of relative time reaction. This relates back to why we have had to send a human into orbit inorder to evaluate and react to any unforsien surcumstances
Stranger: technology is only ablt to react to what we can forsee
Stranger: able
You: I'm afraid I must disagree with you
Stranger: please explain
Stranger: actually, I can see how there would be many points against and for that one
You: Computer's reaction times are vastly superior to ours.
You: If a driver is expecting a pedestrian to dart into the street while driving
You: It will take them almost half a second to acknowledge that there is an obstacle and send a message to their leg to apply the brakes
You: Never mind the time to move the foot and stop the car
You: A computer could handle that situation in nanoseconds
Stranger: yes that is true
You: Even picoseconds if it was based on fiberoptics or quantum technology
You: What computers currently have a nearly impossible time doing is the things we humans take for granted
You: They are our polar opposites
You: Where we struggle, with high end calculations and multi tasking, they excel
Stranger: i agree
You: But trying to get an andriod to walk up stairs, or have a robotic arm tell the difference between glass and steel, is incredibly difficult
You: Even Watson has a special approach to solving Jeopardy problems
You: Our language is incredibly confusing to a machine
Stranger: they do accell in jobs which deal in analizing data
You: Words with double meanings, dozens of ways to phrase the same statement
You: And yes
You: Thats exactly it
You: When we sent a probe to saturn
You: It only knew to look for certain things
You: It takes a human to look for things that are really out of the ordinary and strange
You: A computer might see an alien spaceship and totally ignore it
You: Admittedly that would be due to poor software design, but it could happen nonetheless
Stranger: There are so many instansed or senarios were we could say that a human could have done more jobs or reacted to more factors but computers ace able to perforn a given job much more quickly and efficiantly than most
You: Precisely
You: Want to hit your target? A computer can do it every time.
Stranger: GREAT example!
You: Stuck behind enemy lines and want to get creative with limited supplies? A human is probably better suited to the task
You: A computer is only good at chess because there are rules
You: When you take those away, you have a very expensive piece of silicon and plastic
Stranger: I think you have pretty well summed it up with that last observance.
Stranger: both computers and humans have qualities which we can not duplicat, how ever each is more efficient in different ways
You: Artificial intelligence though, will combine both of them
You: That is where we encounter the problems
You: When they can think outside the rule set AND do everything faster than us
It then descended into discussing the Matrix and Canadian military (not related)
