Why not? The brain at its core is nothing more than an electrochemical computer. The power of the brain comes from that it is insanely parallel, and inherently imperfect. A problem is run many times through many different pathways coming up with many different solutions. Those results are tallied and a statistical best guess is chosen. The brain never comes up with correct answers, just probable ones. One prominent theory is that hard intelligence is born as a byproduct of this randomness.
The problem is that this is completely counter to how we build computers, and machines in general. Precision is paramount to performance. Every few years, some computer engineering professor comes out with a way to radically reduce power consumption by making computers prone to errors, but robust against them. Every few years, nothing happens, because this is such a foreign concept to everything we've built previously, that we can't figure out how to make it work. It will be a huge leap in computing power, for types of problems that can handle it, but it will require a complete paradigm shift in engineering and programming to make it happen. That is where you will see the beginnings of what you might consider "true AI".
Categorizing spam is not a simple binary task. It is an inherently analog statistical inference. You take that bit of data, and you take a bunch of other bits of data, and you calculate the likelihood that it matches. You can boil this down to a single pass/fail, or you can filter into any number of categories from certainly spam, probably spam, likely spam, maybe spam, unlikely spam, and react on each scenario differently.
The AI would be used to teach lectures, and provide students with guided self-learning. This would free up teachers to provide more one-to-one and one-to-few interaction with the students who need assistance. It would not replace teachers, merely shift their duties.
1. Of all the colleges at a university, the teaching college will generally have the lowest, or near the lowest, admissions requirements. Low pay just doesn't draw the high quality talent. Now sure, you'll find some absolutely stellar teachers, ones that actually care about their students, and spend lots of time outside of school researching the stuff they're teaching, building lesson plans, projects, field trips. You'll find a lot more who are just teaching straight out of the text book. I could outwit at least half my grade school teachers.
2. We are in school of some form or another for a good chunk of our lives. A couple years of daycare. Another decade of elementary and high school. From there, a few years of vocational, or several years of college, or up to another decade for higher level degrees. For 20 years of care, we only get another 40-50 of functional lifetime out of a person. We simply can't afford as a society to have a low student/teacher count. AI could fill the gaps for the less demanding tasks. An AI could guide individual students through directed self study, and aid them in homework, allowing a teacher to assign more work and still expect it be accomplished. An AI could handle larger lectures, allowing teachers to focus one-on-one, or with small groups.
AI in schools would allow the teachers we had to operate more efficiently and more effectively. That in turn means fewer teachers per student, increasing individual teacher pay, and drawing in a better quality of teacher. Think of it as the same thing that has happened in manufacturing for the last 200 years. Machines don't replace humans all together. They simply fulfill the more repetitive tasks.
GPUs haven't been special dedicated hardware for several generations. Ever since OpenGL 1.4 and Direct3D 8, they have been transitioning over to more general purpose use. They still have a dedicated raster unit, but the vast bulk of the chip is just a giant array of largely generic vector units. Those units can be put towards whatever application you want, whether it be graphics, physics, statistics, etc. It's basically a larger version of the SSE and Altivec units.
I presume the implication is the fact that it is 'embarrassingly parallel' means it can be performed on the shader units of a graphics card. What I don't understand is that IF it is a problem that can be efficiently broken up across the hundreds of cores of a modern GPU, why would you want to? All you're doing is adding a huge volume of data transfer across the PCIe bus, to bog down a CPU that could be better spent running collision detection, netcode, AI routines, or any number of other tasks that cannot be handled easily on a GPU.
While I might understand if they're talking about actual command line applications, as that will cause file conflicts in package managers, but that can be solved by simply prefixing each with there DE name, as should have been done in the first place. If you're running the GNOME desktop environment, why would you want to run the KDE System Settings application?
Fission is not something the free market will invest in because the fact that were still running 40yr old reactor designs, restricted from fuel reprocessing, and stuck using expensive and rare U235, in addition to all the bureaucracy needed to install a new plant, means that by the time you get the thing built, it will be several decades before you recoup its cost, at which time it's nearing its end of life and will need to be replaced.
There is development and improvement being done. You take an existing x86 core and you improve the manufacturing process, you shrink the process size, you rework the instruction dispatcher, you add a memory controller, you add another layer of caching. These are all relatively low risk, evolutionary improvements, with a clear and near term financial payoff. What the OP is stating is that there is no private funding for high risk research. Intel is not putting large sums of money towards finding a replacement for silicon semiconductors, for the point 15-20 years down the line when quantum uncertainty gives us an insurmountable wall, effectively destroying the corporate strategy Intel has been running on since the 60s.
That kind of research with no perceivable near term gain is the kind of thing that made Bell Labs and PARC so renowned, and is now only being done through government grants.
Actually, if you ignore a DMCA take-down notice, going to court to enforce it is the next step. Of course, suppressing publishing of legal documents based off the premise the letterhead it is printed on is copyrighted is pretty bogus, likely to be outright dismissed by the judge.
just because someone is a retard that they deserve to be executed.
What? You're twisting things around. You make it sound like I have something against the mentally handicapped, and I want to round them all up and gas them like some eugenicist. Stop trying to redirect the argument.
Do you know what disemboweling is? It means that after cutting the manager up, he sliced her stomach open, deep enough that her intestines and other internal organs fell out. There is something very important missing in anyone can do such a thing, whether they have a 50 or 150 IQ. There is a point at which the crime is so heinous, insanity or retardation is not a sufficient excuse for ones actions.
Actually, some 40% of the power is split between Arizona and Nevada, with another 30% spent running pumps for the southern California aqueduct. Only about 30% is actually sent to California.
Low humidity only makes things easier to cool when you have plentiful water. The problem with places with a lack of humidity is that they also tend to lack water. Las Vegas only exists because Hoover Dam is there to provide water. Southern California has far exceeded the population the land can actually support, and their water demands have been slowly draining Lake Mead over the past 20 years. Amusingly, nearly a third of the power it produces is used to run the pumps that are draining the river.
If Southern California doesn't curb their water consumption, or switch to desalinization, in the next few decades, Las Vegas will become a ghost town.
Oh come on... You issue a life sentence for punishment, you issue the death penalty because the world is a better place without them. Did you read that article. The guy robbed a restaurant, tied up the manager, tortured her with a knife, and then disemboweled her. That is fucked up. Retarded or not, you just don't do shit like that.
People don't deserve the death penalty. Society deserves to rid themselves of people through the death penalty.
It doesn't. Why does a browser need to stay in 32-bit compatibility mode? We've had 64-bit desktop processors for eight years now, and 64-bit desktop operating systems for just as long. The only reason Firefox has waited so long to distribute a 64-bit binary is because garbage like Adobe Flash only works in 32-bit. If you were writing a tiny little terminal application that only required a few KB of memory, would you only compile it in 16-bit mode?
For my friends who use Linux, the first thing I do whenever a new distro is installed is to check if it is using PulseAudio. If so, I remove it and replace it with ALSA.
Actually, that's not entirely true. You're not replacing PulseAudio with anything. ALSA is already installed and set up, because ALSA provides the hardware access that PA is layered on top of. PA has no hardware support to survive on its own. You're just removing PA so the applications can hit ALSA directly.
Sounds like everything you could do with JACK years ago. Pulseaudio was written because... well... there is no good reason for pulseaudio to be written in the first place. Lennart simply didn't like JACK, or ESound, or aRts, or any of the other existing sound servers. It's the age old open source dilemma of rewriting from scratch what could otherwise be fixed in the existing systems. Except, pulseaudio has all sorts of problems of its own. It has terrible audio latency, which has caused a big headache for anyone trying to use it for multimedia purposes. It does not, and will not, support passthrough digital audio, also a detriment to multimedia purposes.
Open source is all about choice, and you're perfectly free to use pulseaudio if you want. The problem is that it got shoveled down the rest of our throats long before it was ready for public consumption, and without any real pressing need.
One of the many points it tries to bring home is that fire investigators in many states don't have any scientific training in how fires spread, and are more often than not just experienced fire-fighters "with a hunch". They haven't conducted scientific studies on fire, don't have degrees in science, and have little more knowledge about fire than simply having experience. Experience without theory, and rigor is little more than a series of anecdotes. Frontline showed the opinion of an ACTUAL expert (with scientific training, academic study, and experimental evidence) who said it was quite obvious that the fire was accidental if you've studied how fires happen.
You can bring in expert witnesses to say whatever you want them to say. It is the job of the defense attorney to question their conclusions, their training, their credentials. If they can't do that, then they're of no worth.
For example, in the arson trial of a Texas man who supposedly (for no credible reason) murdered his wife and children they brought in arson 'experts' who had no scientific validity to their process at all. A Texas arson expert looks at some char marks and somehow always (whenever it is a criminal investigation) concludes "it's arson". Despite the improbability of every fire said 'expert' examines during his career being caused by a crime.
Well this is surely a weighted claim if I've ever heard one. Just think about this for a moment.
Scenario 1: A building burns down. An expert comes in and calls it arson. Arson being a crime, the police investigate, find a suspect, put them on trial, and the expert is presented as a witness explaining why they think it is arson.
Scenario 2: A building burns down. An expert comes in and calls it accidental. Accidents are not crimes. There is no investigation, no suspect, and no trial for the expert to sit at and say it was not arson.
So, again... what is the likelihood an expert witness would claim a fire was arson at a trial?
It should be able to run on diesel or gasoline without much trouble. If it burns, you can use it. Fuel isn't injected until you actually want it to burn, so you don't have to worry about knock and pre-ignition like a gasoline motor. As long as its properties are such that the injector can aerosolize it properly, and it's not a slow burn, it should work fine. The problem is the stuff that doesn't burn. Additives like cleaners and solvents may screw up the fuel line and injectors. Any particulate like silica or sulfur will absolutely destroy a hot section.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not? The brain at its core is nothing more than an electrochemical computer. The power of the brain comes from that it is insanely parallel, and inherently imperfect. A problem is run many times through many different pathways coming up with many different solutions. Those results are tallied and a statistical best guess is chosen. The brain never comes up with correct answers, just probable ones. One prominent theory is that hard intelligence is born as a byproduct of this randomness.
The problem is that this is completely counter to how we build computers, and machines in general. Precision is paramount to performance. Every few years, some computer engineering professor comes out with a way to radically reduce power consumption by making computers prone to errors, but robust against them. Every few years, nothing happens, because this is such a foreign concept to everything we've built previously, that we can't figure out how to make it work. It will be a huge leap in computing power, for types of problems that can handle it, but it will require a complete paradigm shift in engineering and programming to make it happen. That is where you will see the beginnings of what you might consider "true AI".
Categorizing spam is not a simple binary task. It is an inherently analog statistical inference. You take that bit of data, and you take a bunch of other bits of data, and you calculate the likelihood that it matches. You can boil this down to a single pass/fail, or you can filter into any number of categories from certainly spam, probably spam, likely spam, maybe spam, unlikely spam, and react on each scenario differently.
The AI would be used to teach lectures, and provide students with guided self-learning. This would free up teachers to provide more one-to-one and one-to-few interaction with the students who need assistance. It would not replace teachers, merely shift their duties.
You have to remember two things:
AI in schools would allow the teachers we had to operate more efficiently and more effectively. That in turn means fewer teachers per student, increasing individual teacher pay, and drawing in a better quality of teacher. Think of it as the same thing that has happened in manufacturing for the last 200 years. Machines don't replace humans all together. They simply fulfill the more repetitive tasks.
GPUs haven't been special dedicated hardware for several generations. Ever since OpenGL 1.4 and Direct3D 8, they have been transitioning over to more general purpose use. They still have a dedicated raster unit, but the vast bulk of the chip is just a giant array of largely generic vector units. Those units can be put towards whatever application you want, whether it be graphics, physics, statistics, etc. It's basically a larger version of the SSE and Altivec units.
I presume the implication is the fact that it is 'embarrassingly parallel' means it can be performed on the shader units of a graphics card. What I don't understand is that IF it is a problem that can be efficiently broken up across the hundreds of cores of a modern GPU, why would you want to? All you're doing is adding a huge volume of data transfer across the PCIe bus, to bog down a CPU that could be better spent running collision detection, netcode, AI routines, or any number of other tasks that cannot be handled easily on a GPU.
Then why the need to place them a kilometer away from the train?
While I might understand if they're talking about actual command line applications, as that will cause file conflicts in package managers, but that can be solved by simply prefixing each with there DE name, as should have been done in the first place. If you're running the GNOME desktop environment, why would you want to run the KDE System Settings application?
What good is that going to do? You can't stop one of those trains that fast.
Fission is not something the free market will invest in because the fact that were still running 40yr old reactor designs, restricted from fuel reprocessing, and stuck using expensive and rare U235, in addition to all the bureaucracy needed to install a new plant, means that by the time you get the thing built, it will be several decades before you recoup its cost, at which time it's nearing its end of life and will need to be replaced.
There is development and improvement being done. You take an existing x86 core and you improve the manufacturing process, you shrink the process size, you rework the instruction dispatcher, you add a memory controller, you add another layer of caching. These are all relatively low risk, evolutionary improvements, with a clear and near term financial payoff. What the OP is stating is that there is no private funding for high risk research. Intel is not putting large sums of money towards finding a replacement for silicon semiconductors, for the point 15-20 years down the line when quantum uncertainty gives us an insurmountable wall, effectively destroying the corporate strategy Intel has been running on since the 60s.
That kind of research with no perceivable near term gain is the kind of thing that made Bell Labs and PARC so renowned, and is now only being done through government grants.
Didn't Pink Floyd make a song about this?
Actually, if you ignore a DMCA take-down notice, going to court to enforce it is the next step. Of course, suppressing publishing of legal documents based off the premise the letterhead it is printed on is copyrighted is pretty bogus, likely to be outright dismissed by the judge.
just because someone is a retard that they deserve to be executed.
What? You're twisting things around. You make it sound like I have something against the mentally handicapped, and I want to round them all up and gas them like some eugenicist. Stop trying to redirect the argument.
Do you know what disemboweling is? It means that after cutting the manager up, he sliced her stomach open, deep enough that her intestines and other internal organs fell out. There is something very important missing in anyone can do such a thing, whether they have a 50 or 150 IQ. There is a point at which the crime is so heinous, insanity or retardation is not a sufficient excuse for ones actions.
Actually, some 40% of the power is split between Arizona and Nevada, with another 30% spent running pumps for the southern California aqueduct. Only about 30% is actually sent to California.
Low humidity only makes things easier to cool when you have plentiful water. The problem with places with a lack of humidity is that they also tend to lack water. Las Vegas only exists because Hoover Dam is there to provide water. Southern California has far exceeded the population the land can actually support, and their water demands have been slowly draining Lake Mead over the past 20 years. Amusingly, nearly a third of the power it produces is used to run the pumps that are draining the river.
If Southern California doesn't curb their water consumption, or switch to desalinization, in the next few decades, Las Vegas will become a ghost town.
My personal feelings on the death penalty aside...
O rly. There's another person executed by the USAsian rednecks for torturing and disemboweling another person.
Fixed that for you.
Oh come on... You issue a life sentence for punishment, you issue the death penalty because the world is a better place without them. Did you read that article. The guy robbed a restaurant, tied up the manager, tortured her with a knife, and then disemboweled her. That is fucked up. Retarded or not, you just don't do shit like that.
People don't deserve the death penalty. Society deserves to rid themselves of people through the death penalty.
It doesn't. Why does a browser need to stay in 32-bit compatibility mode? We've had 64-bit desktop processors for eight years now, and 64-bit desktop operating systems for just as long. The only reason Firefox has waited so long to distribute a 64-bit binary is because garbage like Adobe Flash only works in 32-bit. If you were writing a tiny little terminal application that only required a few KB of memory, would you only compile it in 16-bit mode?
For my friends who use Linux, the first thing I do whenever a new distro is installed is to check if it is using PulseAudio. If so, I remove it and replace it with ALSA.
Actually, that's not entirely true. You're not replacing PulseAudio with anything. ALSA is already installed and set up, because ALSA provides the hardware access that PA is layered on top of. PA has no hardware support to survive on its own. You're just removing PA so the applications can hit ALSA directly.
Sounds like everything you could do with JACK years ago. Pulseaudio was written because... well... there is no good reason for pulseaudio to be written in the first place. Lennart simply didn't like JACK, or ESound, or aRts, or any of the other existing sound servers. It's the age old open source dilemma of rewriting from scratch what could otherwise be fixed in the existing systems. Except, pulseaudio has all sorts of problems of its own. It has terrible audio latency, which has caused a big headache for anyone trying to use it for multimedia purposes. It does not, and will not, support passthrough digital audio, also a detriment to multimedia purposes.
Open source is all about choice, and you're perfectly free to use pulseaudio if you want. The problem is that it got shoveled down the rest of our throats long before it was ready for public consumption, and without any real pressing need.
One of the many points it tries to bring home is that fire investigators in many states don't have any scientific training in how fires spread, and are more often than not just experienced fire-fighters "with a hunch". They haven't conducted scientific studies on fire, don't have degrees in science, and have little more knowledge about fire than simply having experience. Experience without theory, and rigor is little more than a series of anecdotes. Frontline showed the opinion of an ACTUAL expert (with scientific training, academic study, and experimental evidence) who said it was quite obvious that the fire was accidental if you've studied how fires happen.
You can bring in expert witnesses to say whatever you want them to say. It is the job of the defense attorney to question their conclusions, their training, their credentials. If they can't do that, then they're of no worth.
For example, in the arson trial of a Texas man who supposedly (for no credible reason) murdered his wife and children they brought in arson 'experts' who had no scientific validity to their process at all. A Texas arson expert looks at some char marks and somehow always (whenever it is a criminal investigation) concludes "it's arson". Despite the improbability of every fire said 'expert' examines during his career being caused by a crime.
Well this is surely a weighted claim if I've ever heard one. Just think about this for a moment.
Scenario 1: A building burns down. An expert comes in and calls it arson. Arson being a crime, the police investigate, find a suspect, put them on trial, and the expert is presented as a witness explaining why they think it is arson.
Scenario 2: A building burns down. An expert comes in and calls it accidental. Accidents are not crimes. There is no investigation, no suspect, and no trial for the expert to sit at and say it was not arson.
So, again... what is the likelihood an expert witness would claim a fire was arson at a trial?
It should be able to run on diesel or gasoline without much trouble. If it burns, you can use it. Fuel isn't injected until you actually want it to burn, so you don't have to worry about knock and pre-ignition like a gasoline motor. As long as its properties are such that the injector can aerosolize it properly, and it's not a slow burn, it should work fine. The problem is the stuff that doesn't burn. Additives like cleaners and solvents may screw up the fuel line and injectors. Any particulate like silica or sulfur will absolutely destroy a hot section.
The amusing bit is that is spacenut7. He's already trolled the exact same message on this same story using spacenut1-6.