True! The IMF has the power to create money too but it doesn't, instead imposing draconian austerity measures on countries that don't work. The IMF is a killer, robbing countless Greeks of their lives.
The money for quantitative easing was created, not taxpayer-funded. No robbing took place. The Fed, however, should have forgiven the mortgage defaults of the mortgages it bought, instead of letting banks continue to foreclose.
Th Fed is not taxpayer-funded. It gives its profits to the Treasury. It is mandated to work in the public interest. Saying the Fed robs anyone is hyperbolic paranoia.
The Fed was created to do what the private banking system was already doing: provide liquidity in a crisis. No one wanted J. P. Morgan to bail the country out again as he did in 1907, because there were too many conflict-of-interest issues (Morgan deciding to help his friends and hurt his enemies).
The Fed is not perfect but it can learn. It learned from the Depression that its defense of the gold standard and reluctance to commit to expansionary monetary policy prolonged the depression. So this latest time, it has been more expansive.
In the future, it should learn to bail out people instead of banks. Even Conservative darling Kenneth Rogoff thinks that would have been the best policy.
And that logic is such a pain to override when you want to, for example, model natural language, so everyone can code in their native tongue (you could still drop to lower-level code when you wanted).
Well, the models have current flowing one way and charge the other, so they get kind of freaky. Then the professor makes a mistake, changes a sign, or just waves hands. In the labs, the measurements are wrong but 'within tolerance', and really unpredicted results are not mentioned, censored, self-censored.
Aristarchus was like the French though: he copied no one, and no one copied him. Greeks used such arguments as: "If the earth orbits the sun, we should see parallax motion of the stars. We don't see parallax motion of the stars. Therefore, the earth does not orbit the sun."
This logic is sound. The problem was with their technology; their instruments were not sensitive enough. Instead of concentrating on how to improve their technology, they spent their time developing epicycles.
Consider the consequences for Wall Street: record highs in all indices. Lots of hedge funds making lots of money for a few rich people.
Now apply that money creation technology to government's finances. Think of a bank taking your deposits and creating a bunch of money with it. You don't think that you have to pay for all those promises the bank makes, do you? If banks reported a "debt to GDP" it would be on the order of thousands of percent, much higher than any government.
Indexation serves as a hedge against inflation. Index savings too, to eliminate any inflation tax. Thus purchasing power does not decrease, no matter how high inflation gets. Basically you automate everything so that inflation becomes irrelevant to people living their daily lives.
Eventually the sociopathic businessman raising prices just because he can gives up, because creating artificial inflation doesn't get him the attention he's seeking.
Solution: remove NASA's budget constraints. Artificial scarcity of money is the problem. Creating more public money (before the private sector asks the Fed for created money to backstop their screwups) is the solution.
I disagree. One way of modeling poetry-writing is to have a creative agent, which doesn't know or won't discuss why or how it created what it did. I used to participate in a jazz forum; Branford Marsalis was something like that, very reluctant to answer questions about what swing is, what he's doing when he improvises. He didn't think like a critic.
Socrates used to run into experts who just did what they did, without being able to verbalize an explanation.
Alternatively, you can model a "critic" agent that would offer critic-pleasing answers. The "critic" and creative agents can be different. This program might be a good creative agent. For questions of a critical nature, where you're trying to catch the author out, you use another agent.
Luckily there are recreational marijuana shops in eastern Wa, and some wildernesses where you can smoke pot out in the open for days without encountering humans. Screw the political retards; this land was made for you and me.
Turing mentions writing a sonnet twice, in his paper. The first time, the computer declines to write a poem. The second mention, the interrogator asks about a sonnet supposedly written by the computer. Can we imagine a combined strategy for the computer: it writes the interrogator a poem, then declines to answer questions about it? Might such behavior not seem human, as authors frequently refuse to discuss their work?
This program can provide part of a solution to the Turing Test. Questions about the poem can be handled by other agents. When a better tool than this program comes along, it can be switched out.
Because the types of agents I've already written might be able to read the poem and answer questions about it, but I haven't put poem-writing capability in them. Why not use this program, assuming it's open source and easy enough to incorporate as an agent in my system?
In the paper, Turing has the computer decline to do what the interrogator asks him. So there are very human ways of avoiding questions, deflecting them. Other agents could perform such tasks in a multi-agent AI that included this program as one tool.
Therefore, this program represents part of the solution to the Turing Test.
If you take the time to look at the paper, you will discover that Turing included an example question asking the computer to write a poem. Thus this project is pretty relevant to the Turing Test. It is one tool that can be used in the test.
The (potential) advantage of the computer is that it can do things better and faster than humans can. So you have a ready calculator available while you chat, whereas humans would have to use pen and paper or find a calculator to answer a difficult math question. But a multiagent AI could send the request to Wolfram Alpha and return the response in seconds; a human might take hours.
The request for poems is the interrogation. The poem is the answer. Like in Turing's sample dialog, just more spread out and in email instead of teletyped.
Next step: include this program as an agent in a multiagent system (here's my proof-of-concept). A controller sends it the input: "Write me a poem" and the like. It generates a poem and the controller selects it to return to the user. Then, if the user asks questions, other agents can handle it. Another agent can read the poem and do searches on it, or linguistic analysis, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not let the kids choose for themselves what they like?
The worst was an IMF edx MOOC that required Excel. Lucky I was able to do the assignments on a borrowed computer that had it.
Python's like a beer that only fits in one bottle size.
Downvoting destroys, so there is an effect.
I want the computer to understand what I'm doing.
If this happened to bitcoin, people would have lost money. Thanks to insurance, no bank customer was robbed.
True! The IMF has the power to create money too but it doesn't, instead imposing draconian austerity measures on countries that don't work. The IMF is a killer, robbing countless Greeks of their lives.
The Fed creates money, why would it need to rob? Note that the dollar has gained strength: the more dollars the Fed creates, the stronger it gets.
The money for quantitative easing was created, not taxpayer-funded. No robbing took place. The Fed, however, should have forgiven the mortgage defaults of the mortgages it bought, instead of letting banks continue to foreclose.
Th Fed is not taxpayer-funded. It gives its profits to the Treasury. It is mandated to work in the public interest. Saying the Fed robs anyone is hyperbolic paranoia.
The Fed was created to do what the private banking system was already doing: provide liquidity in a crisis. No one wanted J. P. Morgan to bail the country out again as he did in 1907, because there were too many conflict-of-interest issues (Morgan deciding to help his friends and hurt his enemies).
The Fed is not perfect but it can learn. It learned from the Depression that its defense of the gold standard and reluctance to commit to expansionary monetary policy prolonged the depression. So this latest time, it has been more expansive.
In the future, it should learn to bail out people instead of banks. Even Conservative darling Kenneth Rogoff thinks that would have been the best policy.
And that logic is such a pain to override when you want to, for example, model natural language, so everyone can code in their native tongue (you could still drop to lower-level code when you wanted).
Well, the models have current flowing one way and charge the other, so they get kind of freaky. Then the professor makes a mistake, changes a sign, or just waves hands. In the labs, the measurements are wrong but 'within tolerance', and really unpredicted results are not mentioned, censored, self-censored.
Aristarchus was like the French though: he copied no one, and no one copied him. Greeks used such arguments as: "If the earth orbits the sun, we should see parallax motion of the stars. We don't see parallax motion of the stars. Therefore, the earth does not orbit the sun."
This logic is sound. The problem was with their technology; their instruments were not sensitive enough. Instead of concentrating on how to improve their technology, they spent their time developing epicycles.
So Aristarchus was ignored for millennia.
Those flares and spouts are more shaped by electromagnetic fields than by gravity, right?
Consider the consequences for Wall Street: record highs in all indices. Lots of hedge funds making lots of money for a few rich people.
Now apply that money creation technology to government's finances. Think of a bank taking your deposits and creating a bunch of money with it. You don't think that you have to pay for all those promises the bank makes, do you? If banks reported a "debt to GDP" it would be on the order of thousands of percent, much higher than any government.
Indexation serves as a hedge against inflation. Index savings too, to eliminate any inflation tax. Thus purchasing power does not decrease, no matter how high inflation gets. Basically you automate everything so that inflation becomes irrelevant to people living their daily lives.
Eventually the sociopathic businessman raising prices just because he can gives up, because creating artificial inflation doesn't get him the attention he's seeking.
Solution: remove NASA's budget constraints. Artificial scarcity of money is the problem. Creating more public money (before the private sector asks the Fed for created money to backstop their screwups) is the solution.
I disagree. One way of modeling poetry-writing is to have a creative agent, which doesn't know or won't discuss why or how it created what it did. I used to participate in a jazz forum; Branford Marsalis was something like that, very reluctant to answer questions about what swing is, what he's doing when he improvises. He didn't think like a critic.
Socrates used to run into experts who just did what they did, without being able to verbalize an explanation.
Alternatively, you can model a "critic" agent that would offer critic-pleasing answers. The "critic" and creative agents can be different. This program might be a good creative agent. For questions of a critical nature, where you're trying to catch the author out, you use another agent.
Luckily there are recreational marijuana shops in eastern Wa, and some wildernesses where you can smoke pot out in the open for days without encountering humans. Screw the political retards; this land was made for you and me.
Turing mentions writing a sonnet twice, in his paper. The first time, the computer declines to write a poem. The second mention, the interrogator asks about a sonnet supposedly written by the computer. Can we imagine a combined strategy for the computer: it writes the interrogator a poem, then declines to answer questions about it? Might such behavior not seem human, as authors frequently refuse to discuss their work?
This program can provide part of a solution to the Turing Test. Questions about the poem can be handled by other agents. When a better tool than this program comes along, it can be switched out.
Because the types of agents I've already written might be able to read the poem and answer questions about it, but I haven't put poem-writing capability in them. Why not use this program, assuming it's open source and easy enough to incorporate as an agent in my system?
In the paper, Turing has the computer decline to do what the interrogator asks him. So there are very human ways of avoiding questions, deflecting them. Other agents could perform such tasks in a multi-agent AI that included this program as one tool.
Therefore, this program represents part of the solution to the Turing Test.
Turing included an example request for the computer to write him a poem, in the paper that proposes the Turing Test.
This program is one tool among many that can be used to respond appropriately to user input. Thus, this program is relevant to the Turing Test.
If you take the time to look at the paper, you will discover that Turing included an example question asking the computer to write a poem. Thus this project is pretty relevant to the Turing Test. It is one tool that can be used in the test.
The (potential) advantage of the computer is that it can do things better and faster than humans can. So you have a ready calculator available while you chat, whereas humans would have to use pen and paper or find a calculator to answer a difficult math question. But a multiagent AI could send the request to Wolfram Alpha and return the response in seconds; a human might take hours.
This program can be an agent, like Wolfram Alpha.
The request for poems is the interrogation. The poem is the answer. Like in Turing's sample dialog, just more spread out and in email instead of teletyped.
Next step: include this program as an agent in a multiagent system (here's my proof-of-concept). A controller sends it the input: "Write me a poem" and the like. It generates a poem and the controller selects it to return to the user. Then, if the user asks questions, other agents can handle it. Another agent can read the poem and do searches on it, or linguistic analysis, etc.