Quantum AI?

#1
"Quantum computing will allow for the creation of powerful computers, but also much smarter and more creative robots than conventional ones. Scientists have now confirmed that quantum tools help robots learn and respond much faster to the stimuli around them. Quantum mechanics promises to revolutionize the world of communications and computers by introducing algorithms which are much quicker and more secure in transferring information."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141006085124.htm

If this applies to robots, why not living things? After all, human beings and indeed many other animals are incredibly creative, fast to learn and adapt. Feel free to disagree with me entirely btw.
 
#2
Who says living things don't use quantum processes?

I find it unlikely that if "Evolution did it" is capable of surviving an apparently hateful universe, it would completely forget about an entire branch of physics it could exploit.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure people are studying to see if quantum effects happen in "wetware."
 
#3
If this applies to robots, why not living things? After all, human beings and indeed many other animals are incredibly creative, fast to learn and adapt. Feel free to disagree with me entirely btw.
Thanks for that "feel free." I mean without I'd hesitate to share my view. ;) O . -kay. lol. Your premise is off. It would make sense if AIs had developed QP by themselves. Then one could make a valid correlations. As it the postulate is on par with "if hydraulics give robots more strength, why not living things?" Or "planes fly via turbines why not birds?"


That aside, I think physical realities themselves are couched within what I'd style Super-Quantum processes.
 
#4
If this applies to robots, why not living things?
Your premise is off. It would make sense if AIs had developed QP by themselves. Then one could make a valid correlations.
Maybe I should clarify a bit more; current computers use binary zeroes and ones, which means you must use deductive logic at all stages. As we have since learned in computer science, deductive logic is actually pretty bad at a lot of things because it is incapable of dealing with similarities without massive amounts of specifiers. Fuzzy logic has more to do with inductive logic, which people intuitively use, and does do a better job at "this is round shaped and red colored, its 75% likely to be an apple." On a classical basis, fuzzy logic is still built out of binary components and so you have binary logic emulating fuzzy logic. You can see why this might be slower than, say, skipping that whole step.

Since quantum computers use Qubits, and a Qubit operates as (0,...,1) instead of only [0,1], fuzzy logic is now modeled directly as the bits themselves. The reason robots are improved by this is because they were built poorly in the first place. As this gentleman explains an evolutionary process learns to inherently exploit the (0,...,1) nature of qubits and makes full use of them. A classical computer scientist, as he notes, would use binary and deductive reasoning as well as explicit clock circuits to do this job. His algorithm "evolved" a circuit which did not have these, it made use of electromagnetic fields and essentially uses those fields as neurons--he didn't even tell it to do that!

An evolved machine making use of electric fields for timekeeping and data processing sounds pretty similar to claims about qi and human bioelectric fields. So in short, living things are already abusing physics for all its worth.
 
#6
Nope. First, I'm very aware of all you posted. Second, it has nothing to do with the point I made. Okay . . .we'll call that one strike. Head back to the mound and show us whatcha got ;)
Nah, this forum isn't a baseball game for me. At least I answered OP's question.
 
Top