The map would stay online for awhile and in the mean time you would steal quite a few peoples accounts so once your account gets banned you could just use one of the stolen accounts to restart. You could then resell the accounts as they have all the games the blizzard games that player had attached to them (you could conceivably get like 3 games for resale)
ofc this all rellys on people being stupid and blizzard being slow so It would probably only work once or twice before blizz caght on.
And plz no one do this because if you do it will just make blizzard take away our powers. (I don't think anyone is seriously considering it just pointing that out)
I don't know about 3d max but Microsoft certainly counts high schools for its student discounts. High schools are accredited and can give certificates.
It only has to work on 10% of the people to be successful and most people would not be looking out for it. Considering that it is currently very easy to deprotect maps I could see making fakes of popular maps with this (or something like it in them). So long as you manage to steal two accounts before your account is banned you still make a profit (Not that I am condoning this in any way shape or form).
There is no way to teach anyone anything except with logic. Sometimes the logic or the information it is based on is incorrect but all human knowledge is based on logic directly or indirectly. Also humans are probably mathematical operating systems deep down as well as our brains are composed of neurons each which can form about 1000 bonds to nearby neurons. Although we have 1000 states to work with rather than two and a greater level of noise and randomness in programming I would argue that we are probably still based on math and logic just with so many layers of programming (some of which are junk) on top of it that we cannot tell anymore. Ofc I don't know that for sure (no one does) but I don't see what else we could be based on (Our brains do comply with the natural laws of physics after all).
That has already been done to some extent. If you have I-Tunes go to I-Tunes University and search for machine learning. You will find a Stanford course (you can watch the entire thing for free) If you watch the first episode the professor will explain some of the really cool things that have already been done with machine learning (including turning 2d images into 3d models, teaching robots how to move, teaching cars to follow roads). However I don't think thinking in math is a problem. I was just noting that its not how humans think.
Quote from Varine:
When you think of house, you think of something you live in.
----
That is just an association. The difference between humans and machines is that the baseline for computers is math (specifically binary math) whereas the baseline for humans is something like sensory input (we assume no one knows exactly how the brain works). However its still all just abstractions and associations. For example to a human the idea of matter being solid is obvious and the idea of matter being made up mostly of empty space is abstract (even though the latter more closely represents reality). For a computer math is the most real bottom line thing but that does not mean it cannot understand say language or the concept of a home just as I can understand chemistry (well I at least I can pretend to understand it).
@Eiviyn:
Emotions are obviously very useful for humans and they have been programmed quite well by evolution to help us do things necessarily for evolution specifically to survive and reproduce. However the primary objective of robots built by humans would presumably be to help us with some specific of general task not to survive and reproduce. Also evolution is a blind watchmaker and is in many ways sub optimal. Emotions are very useful in the circumstances which we have spent most of our evolution (we have only had advanced civilization for 100 years or so) but they can be very cumbersome at times because they adapt very slowly. Your example of frustration is a good one. If a human spent all of its time trying to work on a problem without much success (say trying to cure cancer) than it would be evolutionary beneficial to give up because that would increase its probability of reproducing. However we would not want the machines we might build to attempt to find a cure to cancer to "give up" we would rather they keep trying. Therefor imo although emotions are useful they are not required especially for a task oriented machine. (Which would be more useful anyway)
@Reaper872:
You can program a computer to self program there is an entire field dedicated to it called machine learning.
Yes that's basically it. Imo learning is mostly associations. The difference between humans ability to do 3 x 7 and computers ability to do it is that the human can associate that with 3 groups of 7 apples while the computers simply thinks of it as a number. Current machines cannot associate anything without specifically being program ed to do it and even then they would simply associate it with the strings "apple" and "group". Humans on the other hand associate apples with a variety of things such as the color, shape, taste, price, and maybe even genealogy of the fruit. All depending on what we know. And we can associate it with more things as we learn things (you might latter associate it with gravity as you learn the story of how Newton supposedly discovered the law of universal gravitation). Therefor in my opinion a machine that could freely associate different concepts would be A.G.I. (It would ofc have to have a way to learn those concepts in the first place presumably from sensors or the internet).
Emotions in many ways could be described as "thinking shortcuts". A few billion years of evolution (or whatever you happen to believe created humans) have taught us the things that we emotionally consider disgusting cause disease. Even though we don't necessarily know why they are disgusted(The germ theory of disease is only a few hundred years old people have been disgusted for thousands of years) there is still a rational reason for it. This gives all humans a baseline of common sense that we don't have to learn (Even someone who was never taught not to they would be unlikely to walk into a fire or over a cliff). However I think this would not be particularly hard to mimic with programming. You would simply have to have a learning program in the machine as well as some human built programs which would do things like make sure it does not walk off a cliff.
The second role of emotions is to provide motivation. If you consider the world in a 100% logical way there is no reason to do anything. Even living and reproducing are "pointless". Therefor our main motivator are things like happiness and avoiding things like depression. However this would be unnecessary for a robot because presumably for it to be useful humans would be giving it its goals. For example you would not want a robotic car to be able to go Sunday driving because it feels like it you want it to go where you tell it to. This removes the need for self motivation.
As for the argument that humans are innovative I don't think there is any magical secret to innovation. Innovation is imo simply considering all the information you have and trying to use it in new ways. This is demonstrated by the fact that throughout history when the information necessarily to build it became available many things were invented by multiple people working independently almost simultaneously (eg the telephone). The fact that multiple people can invent the same thing at the same time shows that it is not some magical creative spark but simply that they happened to have all the information necessarily to invent the item in question and they happened to make the put it all together. With some very sophisticated programmatic I think that a robot which was capable of understanding arbitrary concepts in generalized logical ways would be able to innovate. (obviously no such machine exists and probably wont exist for allong time).
Finally about math. Although some humans are able to do that problem in our heads it takes us at best 10 seconds (if your really really good at it). A machine could do it in much much less than a second. The point of this is not to show that machines are smarter than us (they aren't) it is simply to point out that the process by which humans do arithmetic is very sub optimal therefor there is room for improvement if you were to attempt to build a machine with human like intelligence.
I am not trying to imply that current programs have intelligence. You are clearly cleverer than your calculator and your computer and the most powerful supercomputer on Earth. My point is simply that intelligence does not require emotion or even self motivation nor are human minds optimized for performance (If you think about it theres no physical reason we should not be able to do 67 * 43 rapidly). If you had a machine which when asked how to say design an arbitrary object could come up with a logical plan to build that build that object based on the data available to it then it would be intelligent (imo). I think the idea that emotion is some kind of special human trait that cannot be mimicked is also just human arrogance. Although I can see no reason why you would want to build a machine that could "fall in love" I also don't see any reason why it would be impossible.
That all being said I think we should not focus our efforts on mimicking humans. We already have (nearly) seven billion humans on Earth. Instead we should focus our efforts on things humans are bad at (like tracking vast numbers of people or doing complex calculations) and not try to create "Self motivated" A.I.
Humans don't actually only use 10% of there brains that is a myth. However an AI could be much more efficient because it would be programmed intelligently and optimized for performance where as humans obviously are not (shown by the fact that despite having billions of neurons most of us still cant do 67*43 in our heads). However I don't see why you would want to make an A.I emotional as I certainly would not say emotion or even free will is necessarily for intelligence. In my opinion an A.G.I (Artificial General Intelligence) could be based on pure logic and still be able to comprehend abstract subjects but as no such A.I exists that is obviously just an opinion.
Well thinking back to my own experience I attempted to learn C++ at first but found it very confusing. I then learned a BASIC knock off with simple syntax and learned programmers logic. However in my opinion it does not really matter which language you learn as the basic logic of programming applies to all languages (once you understand one its very easy to learn another).
Another tip that I did not use is to use an IDE. I attempted at first to program using notepad and a compiler as many tutorials seem to suggest. This was very difficult as a beginner and added allot of unnecessary steps. I suggest you start with a simple IDE that just does highlighting and compiling for you (don't worry about using its debugger). Then move on to a more complex IDE like visual studio or eclipse.
One way or another programming is a great thing to learn even if you never actually use it to program anything the problem solving skills and logic you will learn are very valuable.
Arn't Algebra and Pre-Algebra Middle school or High school level courses? I skipped Pre-Algebra and took Algebra I in middle school. Do you mean Algebra II? Or Algebra III (usually known as precalculus) or something else I have never herd of. If you havent taken any Algebra I suggest you go for a real class with a teacher because if you don't understand Algebra you won't understand any higher math.
You cant use unit arrays in the data editor so you will have to do it with triggers (possibly with catalog effects). That being said it should not be very difficult to do with triggers.
The bank tutorial I originally learned to use banks also said not to use variables in preload or as names in save/load so even if that wasn't your problem there is some precedent for it.
0
The map would stay online for awhile and in the mean time you would steal quite a few peoples accounts so once your account gets banned you could just use one of the stolen accounts to restart. You could then resell the accounts as they have all the games the blizzard games that player had attached to them (you could conceivably get like 3 games for resale)
ofc this all rellys on people being stupid and blizzard being slow so It would probably only work once or twice before blizz caght on.
And plz no one do this because if you do it will just make blizzard take away our powers. (I don't think anyone is seriously considering it just pointing that out)
0
I don't know about 3d max but Microsoft certainly counts high schools for its student discounts. High schools are accredited and can give certificates.
0
It only has to work on 10% of the people to be successful and most people would not be looking out for it. Considering that it is currently very easy to deprotect maps I could see making fakes of popular maps with this (or something like it in them). So long as you manage to steal two accounts before your account is banned you still make a profit (Not that I am condoning this in any way shape or form).
0
@Reaper872:
There is no way to teach anyone anything except with logic. Sometimes the logic or the information it is based on is incorrect but all human knowledge is based on logic directly or indirectly. Also humans are probably mathematical operating systems deep down as well as our brains are composed of neurons each which can form about 1000 bonds to nearby neurons. Although we have 1000 states to work with rather than two and a greater level of noise and randomness in programming I would argue that we are probably still based on math and logic just with so many layers of programming (some of which are junk) on top of it that we cannot tell anymore. Ofc I don't know that for sure (no one does) but I don't see what else we could be based on (Our brains do comply with the natural laws of physics after all).
0
That has already been done to some extent. If you have I-Tunes go to I-Tunes University and search for machine learning. You will find a Stanford course (you can watch the entire thing for free) If you watch the first episode the professor will explain some of the really cool things that have already been done with machine learning (including turning 2d images into 3d models, teaching robots how to move, teaching cars to follow roads). However I don't think thinking in math is a problem. I was just noting that its not how humans think.
0
@Varine:
Quote from Varine:
When you think of house, you think of something you live in.
----
That is just an association. The difference between humans and machines is that the baseline for computers is math (specifically binary math) whereas the baseline for humans is something like sensory input (we assume no one knows exactly how the brain works). However its still all just abstractions and associations. For example to a human the idea of matter being solid is obvious and the idea of matter being made up mostly of empty space is abstract (even though the latter more closely represents reality). For a computer math is the most real bottom line thing but that does not mean it cannot understand say language or the concept of a home just as I can understand chemistry (well I at least I can pretend to understand it).
@Eiviyn:
Emotions are obviously very useful for humans and they have been programmed quite well by evolution to help us do things necessarily for evolution specifically to survive and reproduce. However the primary objective of robots built by humans would presumably be to help us with some specific of general task not to survive and reproduce. Also evolution is a blind watchmaker and is in many ways sub optimal. Emotions are very useful in the circumstances which we have spent most of our evolution (we have only had advanced civilization for 100 years or so) but they can be very cumbersome at times because they adapt very slowly. Your example of frustration is a good one. If a human spent all of its time trying to work on a problem without much success (say trying to cure cancer) than it would be evolutionary beneficial to give up because that would increase its probability of reproducing. However we would not want the machines we might build to attempt to find a cure to cancer to "give up" we would rather they keep trying. Therefor imo although emotions are useful they are not required especially for a task oriented machine. (Which would be more useful anyway)
@Reaper872:
You can program a computer to self program there is an entire field dedicated to it called machine learning.
0
Yes that's basically it. Imo learning is mostly associations. The difference between humans ability to do 3 x 7 and computers ability to do it is that the human can associate that with 3 groups of 7 apples while the computers simply thinks of it as a number. Current machines cannot associate anything without specifically being program ed to do it and even then they would simply associate it with the strings "apple" and "group". Humans on the other hand associate apples with a variety of things such as the color, shape, taste, price, and maybe even genealogy of the fruit. All depending on what we know. And we can associate it with more things as we learn things (you might latter associate it with gravity as you learn the story of how Newton supposedly discovered the law of universal gravitation). Therefor in my opinion a machine that could freely associate different concepts would be A.G.I. (It would ofc have to have a way to learn those concepts in the first place presumably from sensors or the internet).
0
Emotions in many ways could be described as "thinking shortcuts". A few billion years of evolution (or whatever you happen to believe created humans) have taught us the things that we emotionally consider disgusting cause disease. Even though we don't necessarily know why they are disgusted(The germ theory of disease is only a few hundred years old people have been disgusted for thousands of years) there is still a rational reason for it. This gives all humans a baseline of common sense that we don't have to learn (Even someone who was never taught not to they would be unlikely to walk into a fire or over a cliff). However I think this would not be particularly hard to mimic with programming. You would simply have to have a learning program in the machine as well as some human built programs which would do things like make sure it does not walk off a cliff.
The second role of emotions is to provide motivation. If you consider the world in a 100% logical way there is no reason to do anything. Even living and reproducing are "pointless". Therefor our main motivator are things like happiness and avoiding things like depression. However this would be unnecessary for a robot because presumably for it to be useful humans would be giving it its goals. For example you would not want a robotic car to be able to go Sunday driving because it feels like it you want it to go where you tell it to. This removes the need for self motivation.
As for the argument that humans are innovative I don't think there is any magical secret to innovation. Innovation is imo simply considering all the information you have and trying to use it in new ways. This is demonstrated by the fact that throughout history when the information necessarily to build it became available many things were invented by multiple people working independently almost simultaneously (eg the telephone). The fact that multiple people can invent the same thing at the same time shows that it is not some magical creative spark but simply that they happened to have all the information necessarily to invent the item in question and they happened to make the put it all together. With some very sophisticated programmatic I think that a robot which was capable of understanding arbitrary concepts in generalized logical ways would be able to innovate. (obviously no such machine exists and probably wont exist for allong time).
Finally about math. Although some humans are able to do that problem in our heads it takes us at best 10 seconds (if your really really good at it). A machine could do it in much much less than a second. The point of this is not to show that machines are smarter than us (they aren't) it is simply to point out that the process by which humans do arithmetic is very sub optimal therefor there is room for improvement if you were to attempt to build a machine with human like intelligence.
0
I am not trying to imply that current programs have intelligence. You are clearly cleverer than your calculator and your computer and the most powerful supercomputer on Earth. My point is simply that intelligence does not require emotion or even self motivation nor are human minds optimized for performance (If you think about it theres no physical reason we should not be able to do 67 * 43 rapidly). If you had a machine which when asked how to say design an arbitrary object could come up with a logical plan to build that build that object based on the data available to it then it would be intelligent (imo). I think the idea that emotion is some kind of special human trait that cannot be mimicked is also just human arrogance. Although I can see no reason why you would want to build a machine that could "fall in love" I also don't see any reason why it would be impossible.
That all being said I think we should not focus our efforts on mimicking humans. We already have (nearly) seven billion humans on Earth. Instead we should focus our efforts on things humans are bad at (like tracking vast numbers of people or doing complex calculations) and not try to create "Self motivated" A.I.
0
Humans don't actually only use 10% of there brains that is a myth. However an AI could be much more efficient because it would be programmed intelligently and optimized for performance where as humans obviously are not (shown by the fact that despite having billions of neurons most of us still cant do 67*43 in our heads). However I don't see why you would want to make an A.I emotional as I certainly would not say emotion or even free will is necessarily for intelligence. In my opinion an A.G.I (Artificial General Intelligence) could be based on pure logic and still be able to comprehend abstract subjects but as no such A.I exists that is obviously just an opinion.
0
Well thinking back to my own experience I attempted to learn C++ at first but found it very confusing. I then learned a BASIC knock off with simple syntax and learned programmers logic. However in my opinion it does not really matter which language you learn as the basic logic of programming applies to all languages (once you understand one its very easy to learn another).
Another tip that I did not use is to use an IDE. I attempted at first to program using notepad and a compiler as many tutorials seem to suggest. This was very difficult as a beginner and added allot of unnecessary steps. I suggest you start with a simple IDE that just does highlighting and compiling for you (don't worry about using its debugger). Then move on to a more complex IDE like visual studio or eclipse.
One way or another programming is a great thing to learn even if you never actually use it to program anything the problem solving skills and logic you will learn are very valuable.
0
Arn't Algebra and Pre-Algebra Middle school or High school level courses? I skipped Pre-Algebra and took Algebra I in middle school. Do you mean Algebra II? Or Algebra III (usually known as precalculus) or something else I have never herd of. If you havent taken any Algebra I suggest you go for a real class with a teacher because if you don't understand Algebra you won't understand any higher math.
0
There is a blender m3 import/exporter but it does not work very well.
0
You cant use unit arrays in the data editor so you will have to do it with triggers (possibly with catalog effects). That being said it should not be very difficult to do with triggers.
0
The bank tutorial I originally learned to use banks also said not to use variables in preload or as names in save/load so even if that wasn't your problem there is some precedent for it.