Computers handle chess by projecting out the possibilities far into the future. Humans do this too, but there is a lot of evidence to show that humans also pattern match against previously seen positions in a very sophisticated way that computers don't do yet.
Currently, a lot of how Google is 'intelligent' is from slurping enormous quantities of data and doing vast statistical analysis of these sets and predicting likely outcomes.
Computers tend to do things this way. People tend to do things by a more sophisticated and detailed analysis of smaller sets of data as well as the ability to correlate ideas and concepts that seem totally unrelated and would never make it into the same dataset in a computer-run analysis.
So yes, I think there are two different approaches to reasoning. It may be that computers can be made just as good as what we do today. But they are not currently, so it makes a great deal of sense to find ways to intelligently combine the two kinds of intelligence. Have the computers provide us the results of there analysis in a way we can easily integrate into how we think about problems.
I could see using the AI as an assist rather than a replacement for reasoning.
For example, pulling up a database of similar positions, the moves made and the results, and overlaying that on the board by color coding certain moves in certain ways. Or the part that computes whether a particular branch of the tree is more likely to lead to a win overlaying it's information on the board in a similar fashion. Or the player putting in a couple of test moves he or she thinks are particularly interesting and seeing what the possible outcomes are.
A player may have knowledge of his opponents algorithm or psychology that the computer lacks. The computer may point out that in a couple of moves there is likely to be huge pressure in a certain area that the human missed, but the human might figure out the move that breaks that up when the computer couldn't.
I want interfaces that augment human decision making, not supplant it. Computers are very good at certain kinds of reasoning. People are very good at other kinds of reasoning. Lets try to combine the two to make a greater whole instead of having one or the other.
Computer vs. human is totally different from computer + human. One is adversarial and ends up with people being made to feel small as computers brute force their way into a win using techniques that would never ever work for a person. The other allows playing that's better than either a human or a machine could manage on their own.
IMHO, the solution is to create leagues. Aided players and unaided players. Allow people who have computer assistance to play. Why this 'pure human' garbage anyway? Do we really want to be at war with the technologies that we use to enhance our reach?
I would also like to see advances made in user interface design that enable computers to act more as extensions of ourselves. Creating a computer-aided chess league would do a great deal to push this forward. We should embrace the technological enhancements we've been learning to make for ourselves, not shunning them.
Given that they're likely cooking their books to cover up bribery (RTA - all of it) I doubt they really care about seeming sympathetic. Bribe government officials to give them a club. Use club. Wash, rinse, repeat.
If I buy it, I'm giving money to Microsoft. And that's not OK by me. Yes, they're nearly irrelevant nowadays. But they still haven't changed the behaviors that make them objectionable to give my business to.
I disagree with your overall assessment. In fact, I find most of these 'pinnacles' to be less interesting than the originals. Originality and a new take on things trumps everything in my book.
Their willingness to support Linux (and Tim Shafer's offbeat and silly style) is one of the reasons I became a backer of the Double Fine Adventure. Linux support makes me about 10 times more likely to spend money on a game, and I haven't bought a PC-only game in about 6 years because I don't run Windows. Seriously. Now this guy comes in, wants more money, and only grudgingly offers the possibility of an OS X port if they get enough money.
I think keeping 'Pay to win' concerns at the forefront is the key. Nothing turns me off of a game faster than that. At least, when the game is one where I'm competing against other people online. When it's a single-player game, the idea that you have to pay in order to win really irritates me, but if it merely takes a fair amount more skill to win if you don't pay, then it's sort of OK.
In fact, it is very laser-like, but in solid, not gaseous form.
In a gas laser, you get the electrons in a whole bunch of molecules of gas into an excited state. Then you get a few photons of the desired frequency bouncing around in the gas and whenever they encounter an excited electron, it jumps back to the ground state releasing all of it's energy as a photon that's exactly in phase with the photon that triggered the collapse in the first place. This happens in a cascade effect and results in a massive release of all the energy in the gas at once.
If you could achieve that same effect in a solid, the atoms would be bunch up much closer together, meaning that you'd get many more released photons per volume.
One of the things I loved about Real Genius was how much of the science (aside from the hacking parts) made perfect sense.
In this LED, you have a laser-like situation. But instead of the energy being stored in the excited state of electrons, it's stored as kinetic energy.
An LED normally works by having the incoming electricity dump its energy into an electron that enters an excited state of some kind. I don't fully understand it, as it doesn't seem exactly analogous to the higher-orbital thing that happens in the gas in the laser example. But this electron moves through the material towards the other side, but eventually encounters a 'hole'. An energy gap in which there could be an electron, but there isn't right now. The hole and the electron combine and the electron gives up its energy as a photon.
Apparently, while heat is not normally enough to push the electrons around, and make them combine with holes spontaneously, the electrical current acts like some sort of ratcheting mechanism (like how flagella in bacteria take advantage of brownian motion) that allows the heat to push the electrons into holes. Though this is a guess and very rough analogy on my part.
No, no, it is greater than 100% if you only count the incoming electrical power. They supplied 30 picowatts of power, and got 69 picowatts of light energy out. But the sample also became very slightly cooler.
I wouldn't call him a traitor. You don't know what kind of pressure the FBI put on him to turn after they caught him. While I do not have a lot of respect for people who crack under that sort of thing, neither do I bear them a lot of animosity. Nobody really knows what they will do in a situation like that until it happens to them.
If Bradley Manning had revealed those secrets because someone had bribed him or for some other sort of personal gain, sure.
Though, I do not apply the term 'traitor' to this Sabu fellow. The FBI can bring a lot of pressure to bear and were highly motivated to solve this case. I wouldn't be surprised if his children were obliquely threatened with some sort of negative consequence should he not cooperate. So, just like I would not apply the label 'traitor' to a soldier who cracked under torture, I will not call Sabu a traitor. I do not think highly of him, but a traitor he is not.
This Hammond person is basically exactly who you'd expect him to be. There will be more. The amount of effort it took to catch him was considerable, and required an inside man. More people will follow this path. This problem cannot be solved this way.
It could be solved if the man had turned out to be duping everybody about his values and beliefs. It could've soured and destroyed his credibility and made it less likely that anybody would trust the motives of anybody else who tried to do things like this. And while I expect a smear campaign, I also expect the smear campaign to be obvious and easily rebutted.
The FBI is fighting an idea, and is under the mistaken impression they can shut it down by finding and arresting people. It won't happen.
When I had Speakeasy (RIP) I had latencies of around 10ms. With Century link they have been anything form 40ms to 200ms at various times. And this was to the next hop after my modem. I consider latencies about 20ms to be annoying. 100ms is way too high for the hop from my modem to their router.
Hops after that are really hard to come up with values for since there is so much that can affect latency. But IMHO, if the broadband provider can't give you a link with less than 20ms latency from your modem to the next hop in line, something is horribly wrong with how they're managing their network.
I even question 10ms. In reality, it should take less than 5ms to get a packet anywhere within a metro area.
I'm wondering if they will. This seems like a very odd timing issue that may be a problem in the electronics. Of course, I suppose they could just put in some microcode to wait after certain operations to make sure things settle and so avoid the hardware bug.
Though, it's still very serious. At least it generally causes your program to crash rather than spitting out a wrong answer. And it sounds like the sequence of instructions that causes it is not commonly found.
I can well understand the guy who found it being all excited. The CPU is the last place you'd look for a bug, and finding one is pretty impressive, especially a really elusive one like this.
Slashdot Mirror
Because sometimes answers people don't want to hear are still the right answers.
BTW, Unix variants have had multiple desktops since long before Mac OS, OS X, or any Windows variant had them.
That's my answer. Give up the WIndows.
Of course, it's not an answer you likely want to hear. Unfortunately, I don't have any answers you'd want to hear.
Computers handle chess by projecting out the possibilities far into the future. Humans do this too, but there is a lot of evidence to show that humans also pattern match against previously seen positions in a very sophisticated way that computers don't do yet.
Currently, a lot of how Google is 'intelligent' is from slurping enormous quantities of data and doing vast statistical analysis of these sets and predicting likely outcomes.
Computers tend to do things this way. People tend to do things by a more sophisticated and detailed analysis of smaller sets of data as well as the ability to correlate ideas and concepts that seem totally unrelated and would never make it into the same dataset in a computer-run analysis.
So yes, I think there are two different approaches to reasoning. It may be that computers can be made just as good as what we do today. But they are not currently, so it makes a great deal of sense to find ways to intelligently combine the two kinds of intelligence. Have the computers provide us the results of there analysis in a way we can easily integrate into how we think about problems.
I could see using the AI as an assist rather than a replacement for reasoning.
For example, pulling up a database of similar positions, the moves made and the results, and overlaying that on the board by color coding certain moves in certain ways. Or the part that computes whether a particular branch of the tree is more likely to lead to a win overlaying it's information on the board in a similar fashion. Or the player putting in a couple of test moves he or she thinks are particularly interesting and seeing what the possible outcomes are.
A player may have knowledge of his opponents algorithm or psychology that the computer lacks. The computer may point out that in a couple of moves there is likely to be huge pressure in a certain area that the human missed, but the human might figure out the move that breaks that up when the computer couldn't.
I want interfaces that augment human decision making, not supplant it. Computers are very good at certain kinds of reasoning. People are very good at other kinds of reasoning. Lets try to combine the two to make a greater whole instead of having one or the other.
Computer vs. human is totally different from computer + human. One is adversarial and ends up with people being made to feel small as computers brute force their way into a win using techniques that would never ever work for a person. The other allows playing that's better than either a human or a machine could manage on their own.
Whether it's 'allowed' now or not, it happens.
IMHO, the solution is to create leagues. Aided players and unaided players. Allow people who have computer assistance to play. Why this 'pure human' garbage anyway? Do we really want to be at war with the technologies that we use to enhance our reach?
I would also like to see advances made in user interface design that enable computers to act more as extensions of ourselves. Creating a computer-aided chess league would do a great deal to push this forward. We should embrace the technological enhancements we've been learning to make for ourselves, not shunning them.
Given that they're likely cooking their books to cover up bribery (RTA - all of it) I doubt they really care about seeming sympathetic. Bribe government officials to give them a club. Use club. Wash, rinse, repeat.
So, you're advocating that customers be cheated? They should pay for a lot of unproductive hours just because you can bill them by the hour?
The grandparent stated a fact. He or she did not say it was a problem, just that it was true.
If I buy it, I'm giving money to Microsoft. And that's not OK by me. Yes, they're nearly irrelevant nowadays. But they still haven't changed the behaviors that make them objectionable to give my business to.
Where am I going to get a copy of Windows to run in the VM? Not to mention that's a pretty huge pain.
I disagree with your overall assessment. In fact, I find most of these 'pinnacles' to be less interesting than the originals. Originality and a new take on things trumps everything in my book.
Their willingness to support Linux (and Tim Shafer's offbeat and silly style) is one of the reasons I became a backer of the Double Fine Adventure. Linux support makes me about 10 times more likely to spend money on a game, and I haven't bought a PC-only game in about 6 years because I don't run Windows. Seriously. Now this guy comes in, wants more money, and only grudgingly offers the possibility of an OS X port if they get enough money.
Nope, sorry.
Well, yes, they got that part all wrong. :-) Unless you apply layers of meaning to the scene that are likely not there.
I think keeping 'Pay to win' concerns at the forefront is the key. Nothing turns me off of a game faster than that. At least, when the game is one where I'm competing against other people online. When it's a single-player game, the idea that you have to pay in order to win really irritates me, but if it merely takes a fair amount more skill to win if you don't pay, then it's sort of OK.
In fact, it is very laser-like, but in solid, not gaseous form.
In a gas laser, you get the electrons in a whole bunch of molecules of gas into an excited state. Then you get a few photons of the desired frequency bouncing around in the gas and whenever they encounter an excited electron, it jumps back to the ground state releasing all of it's energy as a photon that's exactly in phase with the photon that triggered the collapse in the first place. This happens in a cascade effect and results in a massive release of all the energy in the gas at once.
If you could achieve that same effect in a solid, the atoms would be bunch up much closer together, meaning that you'd get many more released photons per volume.
One of the things I loved about Real Genius was how much of the science (aside from the hacking parts) made perfect sense.
In this LED, you have a laser-like situation. But instead of the energy being stored in the excited state of electrons, it's stored as kinetic energy.
An LED normally works by having the incoming electricity dump its energy into an electron that enters an excited state of some kind. I don't fully understand it, as it doesn't seem exactly analogous to the higher-orbital thing that happens in the gas in the laser example. But this electron moves through the material towards the other side, but eventually encounters a 'hole'. An energy gap in which there could be an electron, but there isn't right now. The hole and the electron combine and the electron gives up its energy as a photon.
Apparently, while heat is not normally enough to push the electrons around, and make them combine with holes spontaneously, the electrical current acts like some sort of ratcheting mechanism (like how flagella in bacteria take advantage of brownian motion) that allows the heat to push the electrons into holes. Though this is a guess and very rough analogy on my part.
No, no, it is greater than 100% if you only count the incoming electrical power. They supplied 30 picowatts of power, and got 69 picowatts of light energy out. But the sample also became very slightly cooler.
I wouldn't call him a traitor. You don't know what kind of pressure the FBI put on him to turn after they caught him. While I do not have a lot of respect for people who crack under that sort of thing, neither do I bear them a lot of animosity. Nobody really knows what they will do in a situation like that until it happens to them.
If Bradley Manning had revealed those secrets because someone had bribed him or for some other sort of personal gain, sure.
Though, I do not apply the term 'traitor' to this Sabu fellow. The FBI can bring a lot of pressure to bear and were highly motivated to solve this case. I wouldn't be surprised if his children were obliquely threatened with some sort of negative consequence should he not cooperate. So, just like I would not apply the label 'traitor' to a soldier who cracked under torture, I will not call Sabu a traitor. I do not think highly of him, but a traitor he is not.
This Hammond person is basically exactly who you'd expect him to be. There will be more. The amount of effort it took to catch him was considerable, and required an inside man. More people will follow this path. This problem cannot be solved this way.
It could be solved if the man had turned out to be duping everybody about his values and beliefs. It could've soured and destroyed his credibility and made it less likely that anybody would trust the motives of anybody else who tried to do things like this. And while I expect a smear campaign, I also expect the smear campaign to be obvious and easily rebutted.
The FBI is fighting an idea, and is under the mistaken impression they can shut it down by finding and arresting people. It won't happen.
When I had Speakeasy (RIP) I had latencies of around 10ms. With Century link they have been anything form 40ms to 200ms at various times. And this was to the next hop after my modem. I consider latencies about 20ms to be annoying. 100ms is way too high for the hop from my modem to their router.
Hops after that are really hard to come up with values for since there is so much that can affect latency. But IMHO, if the broadband provider can't give you a link with less than 20ms latency from your modem to the next hop in line, something is horribly wrong with how they're managing their network.
I even question 10ms. In reality, it should take less than 5ms to get a packet anywhere within a metro area.
I'm wondering if they will. This seems like a very odd timing issue that may be a problem in the electronics. Of course, I suppose they could just put in some microcode to wait after certain operations to make sure things settle and so avoid the hardware bug.
Though, it's still very serious. At least it generally causes your program to crash rather than spitting out a wrong answer. And it sounds like the sequence of instructions that causes it is not commonly found.
I can well understand the guy who found it being all excited. The CPU is the last place you'd look for a bug, and finding one is pretty impressive, especially a really elusive one like this.