What she asks of machines they cannot have, as it comes from birth. She's looking at the wrong place. the furthers step isn't Watson, but UHFT.
An amoeba's interaction with its environment comes from the fact that it's a product of that environment. AI are not a product of their environment, they are artificial. What Alva Noe asks of an AI could only be answered by one that appears spontaneously from its environment.
However, the environment we've created in which AI could appear is way too simple to allow such spontaneous creation. For now.
The singularity won't arrive by a human built AI but by the evolution of a spontaneous behavior on an environment created for human purposes. Thus, the pool from which true AI will come isn't Watson, but ultra high frequency trading. Not a created being, but a created environment in which inexplicable behaviors arise.
"Jockey of Norfolk, be not so bold. For Dickon thy master is bought and sold." -- Shakespeare. Seriously, are there any politicians left who are NOT corrupt?
Your question is meaningless. Like "is there any ocean left which doesn't contain water?" or "what happened to all those unicorns that once tölted on the Atlantidan prairies?"
So, what exactly is the point of manned space stations? Is it really worth it? Or would the money, time and effort be better invested in some other types of space activity - automated experimental stations, or - let's dream - building a "real" base in space?
What's the point of everything else we do in space if not to extend our horizon? Manned space stations allow us to advance in one of the pillars of colonizing space; the actual survival in that space.
The question should be quite the opposite. what's the point on every other investment that doesn't allow us to push our boundaries? What's the objective of humanity?
For me, the primary objective should be to expand, so for example every single dollar spent in defense, to fight among ourselves, is only useful in whatever science those investments bring along.
I used to think it was just ignorance, but now I'm starting to realize it's actually a campaign my misogynists to try and keep women out of IT for some reason. That's the only explanation for why so many people either say or vote up posts like that.
I think it's neither. A lot of men simply don't care at all about how many women are in IT and react to the feeling that they are made responsible for it, while the vast majority are simple low level guys who have little impact on who gets hired and even less on who gets promoted.
What I don't get is why is it important? Even the immense majority of men were feminists, corporate managers would still be the only ones with the power to change the distribution. And whoever thinks corporate managers take their decisions based on what their employees think is naive or ignorant.
If they expect to earn as much as medics and engineers? Most certainly yes. Re read the previous posts and try to find who's the first one to relate salary with stupidity.
I know! I know! Ask her about her implication on the future best seller "Barbie: I, against all odds, can be a computer engineer for Amazon in Seattle"!
Challenge, for all you self-proclaimed scientists. Please describe, with appropriate citations, exactly what physical differences between men and women drive women to eschew "financial rewards" for "emotional rewards."
You're the retard who brought physical differences. If the parents were stupid enough to raise women who chose to be nurses instead of medics, or art students instead of engineers it's their fucking fault, not everyone else's. Mine didn't. And if I have any daughters I will most certainly not teach them those biases.
Someone who should be fired, not for being misogynistic, but simply for being stupid enough to not understand what he/she was doing.
I'd rather work somewhere where everybody is a misogynistic drooling pig than with people stupid enough to read that crap before sending it to print and not having the elementary intellectual capacity to think "when this shit hits the interwebz we'll be interred in so much crap we'll be able to host the World Shit Skiing Championship."
So they want a complex problem solved in 2 months (first test on Feb 4 and there are holidays inbetween), for which they will pay a relatively low amount and only to the winners. Even if the result wouldn't be used for spying, I don't think there would be many takers.
Relatively low amount? For $50k it would have to be coded by volunteers and prison inmates.
"It's breaking rocks with a hammer, being stabbed in the laundry, or coding the speech recognition thing." "Hmm, the laundry thing seems superfun but I'll pick hammering rocks. Give the coding gig to the guys in death row. They have nothing to lose anyway."
Thing is, every huge company has a core of an idea (perhaps built by the founders on a weekend), that they're just milking for all its worth... the $50k might motivate a lone wolf developer to build something that's qualitatively better than the multibillion dollar's core idea.
You may be right, let's offer $50k to whoever sends another probe to a comet. Sure it cost $1,4 billions to the ESA but a lone wolf could find a qualitatively better way to do the mission. By February 4, 2015.
Slashdot is the last place where I expected to see an extremely difficult problem underestimated just because it's a computing problem.
When US Intelligence says something so clearly stupid, you always have to look for the subtext. The hidden message. The truth crouching behind the apparent idiocy.
In this case, the hidden message seems to be "we are incompetent in even the simplest basics of our main task".
Slashdot Mirror
Revelation 6:13
And the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale.
Meh, doesn't seem too problematic.
Unless you know of any figs that weight 10^30kg and burn at 50K, that is.
Just put large nets on top of hospitals and equip ambulances with catapults.
It was inside a black wrapper with "MARS" written on it in red letters.
The key clue here is the red of the letters, which prove the authenticity.
If the round trip gets $100k/gram, I don't think anyone but the buyer cares if they're bringing rocks, meteorites or rubber ducks.
Give the technology to De Beers and we'll have brides carrying pieces of mars in a year.
The price is still far from the cost of going to Mars to dig some sedimentary rocks from a few meters deep. But it's getting closer.
all the evidence points to this being an infection caught off a dodgy iPad.
I KNEW IT!
Told you so.
He'll probably become a soon to be deported retroactive rapist.
A car? Why would anyone get a car because of this?
What she asks of machines they cannot have, as it comes from birth. She's looking at the wrong place. the furthers step isn't Watson, but UHFT.
An amoeba's interaction with its environment comes from the fact that it's a product of that environment. AI are not a product of their environment, they are artificial. What Alva Noe asks of an AI could only be answered by one that appears spontaneously from its environment.
However, the environment we've created in which AI could appear is way too simple to allow such spontaneous creation. For now.
The singularity won't arrive by a human built AI but by the evolution of a spontaneous behavior on an environment created for human purposes. Thus, the pool from which true AI will come isn't Watson, but ultra high frequency trading. Not a created being, but a created environment in which inexplicable behaviors arise.
EXTERMINATE
"Jockey of Norfolk, be not so bold. For Dickon thy master is bought and sold." -- Shakespeare. Seriously, are there any politicians left who are NOT corrupt?
Your question is meaningless. Like "is there any ocean left which doesn't contain water?" or "what happened to all those unicorns that once tölted on the Atlantidan prairies?"
So, what exactly is the point of manned space stations? Is it really worth it? Or would the money, time and effort be better invested in some other types of space activity - automated experimental stations, or - let's dream - building a "real" base in space?
What's the point of everything else we do in space if not to extend our horizon? Manned space stations allow us to advance in one of the pillars of colonizing space; the actual survival in that space.
The question should be quite the opposite. what's the point on every other investment that doesn't allow us to push our boundaries? What's the objective of humanity?
For me, the primary objective should be to expand, so for example every single dollar spent in defense, to fight among ourselves, is only useful in whatever science those investments bring along.
I used to think it was just ignorance, but now I'm starting to realize it's actually a campaign my misogynists to try and keep women out of IT for some reason. That's the only explanation for why so many people either say or vote up posts like that.
I think it's neither. A lot of men simply don't care at all about how many women are in IT and react to the feeling that they are made responsible for it, while the vast majority are simple low level guys who have little impact on who gets hired and even less on who gets promoted.
What I don't get is why is it important? Even the immense majority of men were feminists, corporate managers would still be the only ones with the power to change the distribution. And whoever thinks corporate managers take their decisions based on what their employees think is naive or ignorant.
So people who are artists and nurses are stupid?
If they expect to earn as much as medics and engineers? Most certainly yes. Re read the previous posts and try to find who's the first one to relate salary with stupidity.
I know! I know! Ask her about her implication on the future best seller "Barbie: I, against all odds, can be a computer engineer for Amazon in Seattle"!
As the city gets whiter, it reflects more light, which is bad for cities with long, cold, winters.
Challenge, for all you self-proclaimed scientists. Please describe, with appropriate citations, exactly what physical differences between men and women drive women to eschew "financial rewards" for "emotional rewards."
You're the retard who brought physical differences. If the parents were stupid enough to raise women who chose to be nurses instead of medics, or art students instead of engineers it's their fucking fault, not everyone else's. Mine didn't. And if I have any daughters I will most certainly not teach them those biases.
STARVING?
Innocent animals are DYING every day! What kind of monster are you that you'd rather deal with what people eat?
So if your mother was having a heart attack and you were hungry you'd first call for a pizza and only then help her!?
You should die in a fire fueled by your own selfishness.
Someone who should be fired, not for being misogynistic, but simply for being stupid enough to not understand what he/she was doing.
I'd rather work somewhere where everybody is a misogynistic drooling pig than with people stupid enough to read that crap before sending it to print and not having the elementary intellectual capacity to think "when this shit hits the interwebz we'll be interred in so much crap we'll be able to host the World Shit Skiing Championship."
No, he meant a CIO
So they want a complex problem solved in 2 months (first test on Feb 4 and there are holidays inbetween), for which they will pay a relatively low amount and only to the winners. Even if the result wouldn't be used for spying, I don't think there would be many takers.
Relatively low amount? For $50k it would have to be coded by volunteers and prison inmates.
"It's breaking rocks with a hammer, being stabbed in the laundry, or coding the speech recognition thing."
"Hmm, the laundry thing seems superfun but I'll pick hammering rocks. Give the coding gig to the guys in death row. They have nothing to lose anyway."
Thing is, every huge company has a core of an idea (perhaps built by the founders on a weekend), that they're just milking for all its worth... the $50k might motivate a lone wolf developer to build something that's qualitatively better than the multibillion dollar's core idea.
You may be right, let's offer $50k to whoever sends another probe to a comet. Sure it cost $1,4 billions to the ESA but a lone wolf could find a qualitatively better way to do the mission. By February 4, 2015.
Slashdot is the last place where I expected to see an extremely difficult problem underestimated just because it's a computing problem.
When US Intelligence says something so clearly stupid, you always have to look for the subtext. The hidden message. The truth crouching behind the apparent idiocy.
In this case, the hidden message seems to be "we are incompetent in even the simplest basics of our main task".
Call Nuance and tell them you are going to make a money injection in their R&D dept.
I'm sure your 50k will make a real impact, when added to their 1.9 billion dollar revenue.
I expected little less than this