Nobody at Google goes through a dictionary choosing the sentiment of words; it's the context of word usage out in the world that trains these models.
So it's not Google's fault, it's our fault, if blame is to be laid.
>We are at least 50 years off from strong AI as in human level common sense about the world.
There's no way you can justify this number. From your assessment of the status quo, you aren't keeping up with what's being researched on the frontier, so don't make these statements. It might be 10 years or less that we have strong AI, might not. We need to come up with algorithms to sort out the NP-complete problems of entailment and better knowledge representation, but whatever.
Common sense isn't spooky, it's a certain set of patterns and principles that are not readily codified, because the higher-level implications our reality are hard to derive without just seeing and sensing them. It's unlikely there is a database with an exhaustive set of facts such as "If A is next to B, then B is next to A" but this sort of thing is readily derivable with senses, because we always see the co-occurrence of (A next to B) then (B next to A), and so common sense principles come about by reinforcement. It's not inconceivable to devise a machine to learn billions of common sense rules about the world, given some good algorithms and senses.
I've seen the classifications of other algorithms and they fall prey to the distortions of makeup. For example an average looking woman with makeup accentuating features, particularly dark eyebrows and eyelashes, will score higher than a beautiful woman without. The fact that the score can be affected by image quality suggests it's using the same sort of NN features.
Better features for beauty are symmetry, facial width to height ratio, unblemished skin, bone structure, etc. ANNs tend not to understand morphology without deliberate preprocessing (e.g. by someone deciding it's a network feature worth calculation), so many of these things can be missed.
Artificial intelligence / automation will almost certainly put up bigger numbers than that.
As Gates said "A breakthrough in machine learning will be worth 10 Microsofts"
It's not illegal to use weapons that blind, it just cannot be their primary purpose to do so. Like, a nuke can probably blind someone.
This laser is ostensibly designed for non-human targets.
You want to make something out of (name any substance)? There are only a few special cases where any government approval is required, and patents are NEVER required.
If you want any capital to operate with, you need security in the profitability of producing it. Patents are this security, and so are always necessary unless you want to throw money away. So no, you don't want to leave out steps that will quickly leave your company bankrupt.
And all business sectors have codes, standards, and regulations by which you need to abide.
There are a hundred steps in between the lab and the open market.
You need a lot of funding, development and approval of patents, the approval from applicable government agencies, prototyping, mass production, marketing, and then if all that is successful, market penetration. This doesn't happen in a year. Hopefully it's highly profitable too, or its time on the market will be short-lived.
Galaxy hopping is not as improbable as you would think.
It's a matter of developing better propulsion systems, something I'm sure we'll do. You might have heard it said that at 1g constant acceleration, you could reach Andromeda in under 40 years, ship-time.
Man would need to master antimatter and suspended animation, but even today that doesn't seem like magic.
Like someone else said, what 4K TV's won't be able to upscale, and at least as well as a microchip crammed into a tiny cable jack? It's not like a fixed-ratio bicubic filter is serious signal processing for the TV maker.
Slashdot Mirror
Precisely why I'm rooting for cryptocurrencies to disappear.
%.00006 of $11.2B is $7,000.
Nobody at Google goes through a dictionary choosing the sentiment of words; it's the context of word usage out in the world that trains these models. So it's not Google's fault, it's our fault, if blame is to be laid.
1) SoftBank isn't a bank, it's a VC firm. 2) They don't have $1 trillion. They have 1 trillion YEN . That's like $50. Yen make pesos look expensive.
Read the figures again -- they've already invested 10T yen in just one of their funds.
You are truly uninformed.
>We are at least 50 years off from strong AI as in human level common sense about the world.
There's no way you can justify this number. From your assessment of the status quo, you aren't keeping up with what's being researched on the frontier, so don't make these statements. It might be 10 years or less that we have strong AI, might not. We need to come up with algorithms to sort out the NP-complete problems of entailment and better knowledge representation, but whatever.
Common sense isn't spooky, it's a certain set of patterns and principles that are not readily codified, because the higher-level implications our reality are hard to derive without just seeing and sensing them. It's unlikely there is a database with an exhaustive set of facts such as "If A is next to B, then B is next to A" but this sort of thing is readily derivable with senses, because we always see the co-occurrence of (A next to B) then (B next to A), and so common sense principles come about by reinforcement. It's not inconceivable to devise a machine to learn billions of common sense rules about the world, given some good algorithms and senses.
How is the cost of Eastern labour relevant to on-site security in Silicon Valley?
It's what they'd do.
Those critters from LV-426 better look out.
I've seen the classifications of other algorithms and they fall prey to the distortions of makeup. For example an average looking woman with makeup accentuating features, particularly dark eyebrows and eyelashes, will score higher than a beautiful woman without. The fact that the score can be affected by image quality suggests it's using the same sort of NN features. Better features for beauty are symmetry, facial width to height ratio, unblemished skin, bone structure, etc. ANNs tend not to understand morphology without deliberate preprocessing (e.g. by someone deciding it's a network feature worth calculation), so many of these things can be missed.
Artificial intelligence / automation will almost certainly put up bigger numbers than that. As Gates said "A breakthrough in machine learning will be worth 10 Microsofts"
"Earlier" means earlier revision of that bill. Both of those numbers are increases over the previous cap.
Will make a point to mod you down on sight. You have a foul mouth.
Not true - the shortening of telomeres can be controlled epigenetically with the telomerase enzyme.
It won't; you must be thinking 250 - 470 million years.
It's not illegal to use weapons that blind, it just cannot be their primary purpose to do so. Like, a nuke can probably blind someone. This laser is ostensibly designed for non-human targets.
Mod parent -1 Subtle brag.
You want to make something out of (name any substance)? There are only a few special cases where any government approval is required, and patents are NEVER required.
If you want any capital to operate with, you need security in the profitability of producing it. Patents are this security, and so are always necessary unless you want to throw money away. So no, you don't want to leave out steps that will quickly leave your company bankrupt. And all business sectors have codes, standards, and regulations by which you need to abide.
There are a hundred steps in between the lab and the open market. You need a lot of funding, development and approval of patents, the approval from applicable government agencies, prototyping, mass production, marketing, and then if all that is successful, market penetration. This doesn't happen in a year. Hopefully it's highly profitable too, or its time on the market will be short-lived.
Well for the first few hundred million years there's zero metal. Anything* other than hydrogen and helium are only made during a sun exploding.
Correction: anything elements above Iron are only made during a supernova.
Galaxy hopping is not as improbable as you would think. It's a matter of developing better propulsion systems, something I'm sure we'll do. You might have heard it said that at 1g constant acceleration, you could reach Andromeda in under 40 years, ship-time. Man would need to master antimatter and suspended animation, but even today that doesn't seem like magic.
Time to break the EU into several different countries.
That would put its potential tax liability at $201B. 4.4% seems more likely.
There was indeed a "red crucifix" supernova found recently around 775 -- seems obviously the cause.
Like someone else said, what 4K TV's won't be able to upscale, and at least as well as a microchip crammed into a tiny cable jack? It's not like a fixed-ratio bicubic filter is serious signal processing for the TV maker.