At 8:56 The teletype machine to the right looks like a Creed model 75 from 1960. In 1978 I was given such a machine from a friend who bought it from a surplus store. He could not get it to work properly so he handed it over to me. I fixed it and designed and built a type of UART with TTL parts, hooked it up to my KIM-1 and used it for a printer for a few months. The noise as it typed, in my home dining room, was deafening and my wife was very upset every time it was used. I quickly moved on to using an Anderson Jacobson AJ 841 printer/terminal and finally a TI-810 printer, which although still a bit loud, was quite fast for it's time. Also by the time I purchased the TI-810 I had built my own hand wired version of an ADM-3A CRT terminal.
It was shortly after this was aired that the toy train drivers went on strike due to the threat of automation. All complicated things can be explained when you bring out a train set
Technology that helps identify racism and transphobia. And then limits the civil liberties of perpetrators until they learn to submit to the rules without question.
At 4:28 the computer does 1000 calculations per second, not even floating point operations. The Xbox Series X does 12 trillion floating point operations per second on the GPU. If you overclock an RTX 4090 you can get 100 trillion FLOPS per second. Accounting for inflation you could use that 1962 computer for about an hour and a half before you've spent as much as a Series X. Let's be generous and say your grandma gave you some extra money for your birthday and you can use it for 2 hours. You can do 7,200,000 calculations on that computer in two hours. You would need to use the computer for approximately 380.5 years to do the same number of calculations the series X can do in a second. 3171 years to do as much work as the RTX 4090 can do in a second.
04:20 "This is a typical, small, modern, commercial computer. It costs about 35 000 pounds [GBP], or you could hire it for something like 20 pounds an hour." This was in 1962, so you do the maths. :-)
Not to mention, it does a massive 1,000 calculations per second, an whopping 1,000 slower than a Commodore 64, and millions of times slower than your phone.
Bring back tommorows world the closest we have now is click but not the same the old programme is the sky at night it is amazing that a smart watch has more power than the one shown
Not much has changed. We still need a separate computer for each task. We have bots that can be physical, but don't communicate. We have friendly bots for customer relations, that can't do much physically. Then there's the bits that look real, but their function is very limited. It might seem to be getting closer, but in reality it's still a far fetched idea, to have machines that are like man. The human brain is just that amazing, that it's not easily recreated. Even with billions of dollars of financing, over the last 60 years, and we haven't gotten much further with the subject.
Such a pessimistic opinion, at least we no longer sit on those bulky ass machines only doing something that seems like a "overly fancy calculator" to us. Compared to our stone tablets on our pockets we have today, do you think its "not much has changed" lmao? Plus we don't really need machines to think like a man, they are more powerful than a man. Side Note: Take a look at chatGPT and AIs as of today, its terrifying but its just a primitive of things soon to come, were just at the base of an accelerated climb of breakthroughs. "ChatGPT is just a language model that is very good at recognizing patterns and giving verbose answers but still it's very impressive and getting there as far as 'thinking machines like men' is concerned." as one commenter noted.
@@Cpt_John_Price yes technology has come along. However we still need a very complicated operating system, to do well at one human task at a time. The self learning abilities are still at a slow speed, and often still need our input to get over many hurdles. I'm not talking about machines having self-awareness, and thinking for themselves. I'm just talking about a machine, that can switch between multiple types of tasks, that we as humans would need them to do. Things like house choirs, driving the kids to school, buying groceries or changing the oil in the car. We can't even get one, and teach it to do one of those things, if it wasn't already built and programmed specifically to do so. Just like the paper ribbon, feeding information into some of the tech, in this video. We've gone from a room sized machine, that can learn to play checkers, to a larger than human sized machine, that can help you carry stuff around a worksite. (Not available to the public.) Or there's a garbage can sized machine, that can take orders and serve food. You still have to program everything, from the layout of the store, your menu and what you want it to say. Or similar machines in hospitals, that take stuff to patients or act as a communication device. Plus there's the machines, that can deliver food. Then there's the machines that can carry a full on conversation, but can't do anything physical. That took over 60 years, and all we've ended up with is expensive delivery systems, messengers, and some talking computers, all separate from each other. The things in our pockets are nothing but a few cameras, speakers, notebooks and calendars, or an "overly fancy calculator". It only does what you tell it to do, or what a programmer has installed on it. Go ahead play a game of checkers, against your phone, not an app controlled by another machine. Have a conversation with it, and get unprogrammed responses from it. Get it to help you carry anything, besides files. It's not human like at all, and it's not actually smart. We have animals, that are happy to do multiple tasks for us. I can train a dog more tasks, than any machine could dream of doing. Plus they are wonderful companions, and provide protection. They can even predict dangerous situations, are very self-aware, yet no threat to humankind. Alright, they might not be able to talk, but they communicate just aswell as a talking machine, if not better. All at way less of a cost. Going back to powerful machines. As if we need to fear robots, becoming self-aware anyway. Imagine how complex a robot would have to be, to be able to self assess it own damages and fix itself. Where would it source its parts from? Without humams programming and maintaining machines, machines are useless. They are less man like, and more tool like. Now that's realistic thinking for you.
What HAS changed is that compute power has got several orders of magnitude smaller and cheaper. In 1962 the idea of having separate processors for each function would have scared the accountants to death - but not now.
@@mattsparling9843 in all fairness ChatGPT is just a language model that is very good at recognizing patterns and giving verbose answers but still it's very impressive and getting there as far as 'thinking machines like men' is concerned.
@@davedogge2280 I imagine chatgpt as a person who just google the answers incredibly efficient, if chatGPT made mistakes, its usually because the stuff its googling at has mistakes.
Sadly I remember when BBC programming was as superb as this example, and I took it for granted, including technically competent presenters like Raymond Baxter, who was an Ex RAF fighter pilot. The BBC has been a propaganda mill for more than 20-years now, populated by the correct rather than the competent.
There is an argument that I think carries some weight and that argument points out the problematic nature of trying to use the human brain to design something that can equal or excel its own intelligence. Designing cars and planes that move far faster than us or do things we can't (i.e. fly) is one thing, but intelligence is a far harder thing to even understand, let alone replicate. We have machines which give the impression they are intelligent, but you don;t have to scratch far below the surface to realise that it is just an impression.
To say Bertram Vivian Bowden was a complex character would be a gross understatement. He became a Lord, appointed by Harold Wilson, and later on in life was pushing for Islam rights and financing. A so-called socialist, he job-nobbed with nobility. I don't think he ever got married, One can imaging women wouldn't have played an important part in his life.
You know shows like this came on prime-time the old family sat down and the boys went back to the room after the show with the wildest imaginations some probably tried to build their own robot 🤖🤖
Friends, the international social project Creative Society is gaining momentum in the world! People from different countries, nationalities, and religions unite to build a fair society! Only together we can change everything! I told you the truth, everything is in our hands!
For centuries, the word 'man' (and its plural) has had *_two_* meanings, one generic, one specific. The generic meaning is 'person', as used in 'mankind', 'manhole cover' and 'man the pumps', etc.; even women footballers shout "man on!" to warn of an approaching opponent. In Downton Abbey, when the Dowager Countess and Cousin Isobel laid down a challenge, they said: "May the best man win", even though they were both women. Unfortunately, some militant people came along one day and 'overlooked' the generic meaning and accused everyone of being sexist. There are indeed some sexist people (at whom their complaints should have been more precisely aimed), but that was never true across the board; to suggest otherwise is offensive in itself. The same is true of 'he' and 'him', long used for non-specific references to people (e.g. "He who laughs last, laughs least"), yet we are now saddled with the constant inconvenience of having to construct awkward sentences that use plural pronouns for singular unspecified people. 🤦♂
It's so interesting to see how much has changed, and how much hasn't.
The computer that could play the board game made me think so much about modern AI
At 8:56 The teletype machine to the right looks like a Creed model 75 from 1960. In 1978 I was given such a machine from a friend who bought it from a surplus store. He could not get it to work properly so he handed it over to me. I fixed it and designed and built a type of UART with TTL parts, hooked it up to my KIM-1 and used it for a printer for a few months. The noise as it typed, in my home dining room, was deafening and my wife was very upset every time it was used. I quickly moved on to using an Anderson Jacobson AJ 841 printer/terminal and finally a TI-810 printer, which although still a bit loud, was quite fast for it's time. Also by the time I purchased the TI-810 I had built my own hand wired version of an ADM-3A CRT terminal.
Ripping yarns!
Cool 😎 thanks for sharing 👍
This was SO satisfyingly Nerdy! T H A N K S🙏!
It was shortly after this was aired that the toy train drivers went on strike due to the threat of automation. All complicated things can be explained when you bring out a train set
Would love the BBC to produce more tv programmes around technology like Tomorrows World did. Educational, social and cultural impacts across society
too much woke trash on it now
Technology that helps identify racism and transphobia. And then limits the civil liberties of perpetrators until they learn to submit to the rules without question.
Thats an interesting answer we get from the computer at 06:04 - i must make a note of the question...
Just DON'T forget
your Towel..!
Anyone else see the similar form of the robot at 1:15 and the latest Boston Dynamics ones? Size aside, they look alike.
Rather delightful .
Mr Baxter would have a marvellous time today- 2023
Only passed away a few years ago. Probably 10!
@@flybobbie1449 He died in 2006 at the age of 84. He just missed the introduction of the first iPhone in 2007.
Cool to see an early prototype of ED-209 at 1:08
Raymond had 20 seconds to comply.
I wonder why this channel is so underrated
At 4:28 the computer does 1000 calculations per second, not even floating point operations. The Xbox Series X does 12 trillion floating point operations per second on the GPU. If you overclock an RTX 4090 you can get 100 trillion FLOPS per second. Accounting for inflation you could use that 1962 computer for about an hour and a half before you've spent as much as a Series X. Let's be generous and say your grandma gave you some extra money for your birthday and you can use it for 2 hours. You can do 7,200,000 calculations on that computer in two hours. You would need to use the computer for approximately 380.5 years to do the same number of calculations the series X can do in a second. 3171 years to do as much work as the RTX 4090 can do in a second.
Trains, computers, and computer history. I'm in heaven.
8:36 This part was so iconic 😄
today it's people who have trouble with logic.
You are dangerously, and prophetically correct!
I am more scared of Men like Machines.
Those kill today.
Mrs Valerie Harris should have her own show
Where Is She NOW?!😊
That last scientist went on to design W.O.P.R.
That computer never made provision for 'leaves on the line' or 'the wrong kind of leaf' excuses!
😂
04:20 "This is a typical, small, modern, commercial computer. It costs about 35 000 pounds [GBP], or you could hire it for something like 20 pounds an hour." This was in 1962, so you do the maths. :-)
Not to mention, it does a massive 1,000 calculations per second, an whopping 1,000 slower than a Commodore 64, and millions of times slower than your phone.
Machine like men ? I want machines like women
I love nixie tubes
They called it research but I'm convinced they just wanted to play with toy trains
love it that the enormous Atlas machine there, had only 2/3 of one Megabyte as its memory.
This aged well
Bring back tommorows world the closest we have now is click but not the same the old programme is the sky at night it is amazing that a smart watch has more power than the one shown
CLICK is So underated🤷♂️
Open the pod bay door, HAL.
I can't do that Dave.
@@MatthewHarrold I'm through arguing with you, HAL, now open the door!
Alexa! Open the pod bay door…..Alexa!….ALEXA!!! LOL
Not much has changed. We still need a separate computer for each task. We have bots that can be physical, but don't communicate. We have friendly bots for customer relations, that can't do much physically. Then there's the bits that look real, but their function is very limited.
It might seem to be getting closer, but in reality it's still a far fetched idea, to have machines that are like man. The human brain is just that amazing, that it's not easily recreated. Even with billions of dollars of financing, over the last 60 years, and we haven't gotten much further with the subject.
Such a pessimistic opinion, at least we no longer sit on those bulky ass machines only doing something that seems like a "overly fancy calculator" to us. Compared to our stone tablets on our pockets we have today, do you think its "not much has changed" lmao?
Plus we don't really need machines to think like a man, they are more powerful than a man.
Side Note: Take a look at chatGPT and AIs as of today, its terrifying but its just a primitive of things soon to come, were just at the base of an accelerated climb of breakthroughs.
"ChatGPT is just a language model that is very good at recognizing patterns and giving verbose answers but still it's very impressive and getting there as far as 'thinking machines like men' is concerned." as one commenter noted.
@@Cpt_John_Price yes technology has come along. However we still need a very complicated operating system, to do well at one human task at a time. The self learning abilities are still at a slow speed, and often still need our input to get over many hurdles.
I'm not talking about machines having self-awareness, and thinking for themselves. I'm just talking about a machine, that can switch between multiple types of tasks, that we as humans would need them to do. Things like house choirs, driving the kids to school, buying groceries or changing the oil in the car. We can't even get one, and teach it to do one of those things, if it wasn't already built and programmed specifically to do so. Just like the paper ribbon, feeding information into some of the tech, in this video.
We've gone from a room sized machine, that can learn to play checkers, to a larger than human sized machine, that can help you carry stuff around a worksite. (Not available to the public.) Or there's a garbage can sized machine, that can take orders and serve food. You still have to program everything, from the layout of the store, your menu and what you want it to say. Or similar machines in hospitals, that take stuff to patients or act as a communication device. Plus there's the machines, that can deliver food. Then there's the machines that can carry a full on conversation, but can't do anything physical. That took over 60 years, and all we've ended up with is expensive delivery systems, messengers, and some talking computers, all separate from each other.
The things in our pockets are nothing but a few cameras, speakers, notebooks and calendars, or an "overly fancy calculator". It only does what you tell it to do, or what a programmer has installed on it. Go ahead play a game of checkers, against your phone, not an app controlled by another machine. Have a conversation with it, and get unprogrammed responses from it. Get it to help you carry anything, besides files. It's not human like at all, and it's not actually smart.
We have animals, that are happy to do multiple tasks for us. I can train a dog more tasks, than any machine could dream of doing. Plus they are wonderful companions, and provide protection. They can even predict dangerous situations, are very self-aware, yet no threat to humankind. Alright, they might not be able to talk, but they communicate just aswell as a talking machine, if not better. All at way less of a cost.
Going back to powerful machines.
As if we need to fear robots, becoming self-aware anyway. Imagine how complex a robot would have to be, to be able to self assess it own damages and fix itself. Where would it source its parts from? Without humams programming and maintaining machines, machines are useless. They are less man like, and more tool like. Now that's realistic thinking for you.
What HAS changed is that compute power has got several orders of magnitude smaller and cheaper. In 1962 the idea of having separate processors for each function would have scared the accountants to death - but not now.
@@alanmusicman3385 the accountants of just six years after 1962 when 'cut-and-paste' was invented - before man set foot on the Moon!
ChatGPT agrees with this !
ChatGPT calculated how to go back in time and created it.
@@mattsparling9843 in all fairness ChatGPT is just a language model that is very good at recognizing patterns and giving verbose answers but still it's very impressive and getting there as far as 'thinking machines like men' is concerned.
@@davedogge2280 I imagine chatgpt as a person who just google the answers incredibly efficient, if chatGPT made mistakes, its usually because the stuff its googling at has mistakes.
Its been a year no voice ans video@@davedogge2280
Imagine how much an I phone would be worth in 1962!
Nothing, it would be useless
@@Markcain268 just the calculator function would blow their mind, or its ability to take video of things. That you could use.
You could get an iphone 14 pro for £64.32
Opening sounds like Katamari Damacy music
Sadly I remember when BBC programming was as superb as this example, and I took it for granted, including technically competent presenters like Raymond Baxter, who was an Ex RAF fighter pilot. The BBC has been a propaganda mill for more than 20-years now, populated by the correct rather than the competent.
Computer is not a toy❤❤❤
There is an argument that I think carries some weight and that argument points out the problematic nature of trying to use the human brain to design something that can equal or excel its own intelligence. Designing cars and planes that move far faster than us or do things we can't (i.e. fly) is one thing, but intelligence is a far harder thing to even understand, let alone replicate. We have machines which give the impression they are intelligent, but you don;t have to scratch far below the surface to realise that it is just an impression.
To say Bertram Vivian Bowden was a complex character would be a gross understatement. He became a Lord, appointed by Harold Wilson, and later on in life was pushing for Islam rights and financing.
A so-called socialist, he job-nobbed with nobility. I don't think he ever got married, One can imaging women wouldn't have played an important part in his life.
You know shows like this came on prime-time the old family sat down and the boys went back to the room after the show with the wildest imaginations some probably tried to build their own robot 🤖🤖
What did 'the girls' do?
The female programmer being ignored while the man explains everything, my how things have….errr…..never mind
And? Who cares what morsel of useless information is floating around in her mind like a lonely fish turd in a pond?
I think programmer is a generous title for someone operating a calculator.
She went on to develop the Petticoat 5.
ua-cam.com/video/z0fJNDOHYp4/v-deo.html
Humanoid
The middle class is AI.
Absolute Idiots?
Friends, the international social project Creative Society is gaining momentum in the world! People from different countries, nationalities, and religions unite to build a fair society! Only together we can change everything! I told you the truth, everything is in our hands!
I'd rather buy a Comet airplane for under £1.5m than spend on these scientific calculators! 🐱👍🏿
Just men?
For centuries, the word 'man' (and its plural) has had *_two_* meanings, one generic, one specific. The generic meaning is 'person', as used in 'mankind', 'manhole cover' and 'man the pumps', etc.; even women footballers shout "man on!" to warn of an approaching opponent. In Downton Abbey, when the Dowager Countess and Cousin Isobel laid down a challenge, they said: "May the best man win", even though they were both women.
Unfortunately, some militant people came along one day and 'overlooked' the generic meaning and accused everyone of being sexist. There are indeed some sexist people (at whom their complaints should have been more precisely aimed), but that was never true across the board; to suggest otherwise is offensive in itself.
The same is true of 'he' and 'him', long used for non-specific references to people (e.g. "He who laughs last, laughs least"), yet we are now saddled with the constant inconvenience of having to construct awkward sentences that use plural pronouns for singular unspecified people. 🤦♂
Are we not men?
we are DEVO
@@4nna5 I was hoping for that!
@@heraldeventsandfilms5970 could never ignore a spud reference c: