I'm not sure about the big box stores—at least in my family's experience (as Canadians) we always thought they were forced on retailers by property owners who didn't want to pay to maintain an enclosed mall space. It always seemed like a step backwards. I suppose that's rather anecdotal, of course.
"Know" is a bit of a stretch, and "dominant or recessive" is a bit of a high school simplification, but: an allele (a version of a gene) is dominant when it produces an effect that overrides another one. Genes are actually blueprints for proteins, which function as little machines inside of the cell once they're made, so you can see how, for example, if you have a broken version of a gene that doesn't produce a working protein, then the result will usually be recessive. A dominant allele is one that isn't cancelled out by an alternative version. That's why albinism is recessive—the broken copy is hidden behind the working one.
A lot of genes don't display total dominance, though: for them, both copies are important and they contribute more-or-less equally, so a mixture produces an in-between state. How that in-between state manifests can be very complex; it may be a perfect averaging, or an above-normal averaging, or different cells may pick a copy at random (especially in X-linked genes in female animals) that cause splotches or roan.
If proven, they were denied a Christian burial - and instead carried to a crossroads in the dead of night and dumped in a pit, a wooden stake hammered through the body pinning it in place. There were no clergy or mourners, and no prayers were offered.
...at least at first, anyway! You can imagine this would be very scarring to the family and very bad in a religious perspective; suicide effectively gets you excommunicated.
They were on a wide range of drugs, I'm afraid; it's in the supplementary notes. The group of people they were studying (bipolar disorder patients) are pretty high-risk, medication or no.
Whether half that statement is technically true doesn't matter.
Your grammar must be rusty. They're independent clauses.
In addition to frequency modulation, you're also missing the point that the actual signal transmission at the synapse is analog.
And so is post-synaptic signal propagation, which I pointed out earlier. By attacking this statement repeatedly you demonstrate how little more you have to add.
These are plausible speculation, but your statements are false because you misrepresent Hinton's speculation as established fact.
Hinton both justified and demonstrated that his system is functionally analogous to the noise present in axon potential frequency modulation. If you didn't understand that part of the presentation, then that's simply too bad.
Moreover, claiming that speculation is automatically false is epistemologically gibberish. A speculative statement is neither right nor wrong unless it has been proven or disproven. If you had actually come to me and said "those statements are unproven" or "those statements are speculative," then we would be having a much more civil discussion about this.
Why is it that every time I manage to force an explanation out of you, you make an obvious mistake that proves you don't understand and don't actually know anything about what you're arguing about?
Only people like you, who keep writing scientific nonsense. Unfortunately, nothing seems to stop you.
You've made a mountain out of one vagary, and have tried to question a huge number of reasonable statements without any evidence of actually understanding what they're about. You put no effort into constructively addressing concerns, hurling insults without hesitation and hiding your reasons and justifications as long as possible. If you tried that bullshit at a conference you'd be banned within hours. You're not qualified to be the arbiter of scientific authority here or anywhere else. Stop pretending you are.
If it's any consolation, "Seamonkey" is actually a compromise with PR:
Seamonkey (with lower-case m) has been the codename for the Mozilla Suite for some time, though it originally was invented by Netscape management as a codename for the release later called Netscape 6 — they simply needed a "politically correct" version of the codename Buttmonkey (symbolised as *~ and making a "rheet" sound) their developers had actually voted for (and apparently Jenga was the run-in in this voting).
We're agreed this statement is suspect, since frequency modulation incorporates an essentially continuous time-domain component. Hinton actually claims that neurons don't satisfy this criterion because their signalling is stochastic; they have limited precision. He says "they don't send real numbers to each other," referring to the gaps between axon potentials as the "numbers." Nevertheless, there are non-cortical neurons where exact timing is possible because they interface with a fully analogue system, such as muscle cells.
they send digital pulses of the same magnitude periodically, with more rapid pulses indicating more signal.
This is both more robust and more effective at preventing over-adaptation.
Hinton explains why the imperfections create more robustness and prevent overfitting around 40 minutes into the video. The use of frequency encoding, on the other hand, is quite obviously a way to improve robustness of signal transmission; the cell only needs to ensure that the signal remains at a fixed value during propagation down the axon, which is also chemically much simpler to support. This is also explained in every biology and physiology textbook.
When researchers figured out how to mimic the imperfections in the biological digital system, their neural networks got significantly better.
Hinton spends a full 16 minutes (starting at 24 minutes in) explaining the results of the dropout network and showing how it improves over other methods. This is also explained extensively in the paper.
So, let's tally it up: we have one point of jargon which is still under debate, and four easily-verified, technically sound facts about neurology and Dr. Hinton's work. I don't think that qualifies as "pretty much every statement."
It's really despicable how you harass people and try to drive them away with your abusive comments. You add nothing to the conversations you participate in, only spewing rage and feeding your own negative feelings. If you're trying to add anything whatsoever to Slashdot, you really should just stop.
Stop trying to weasel out of it. Frequency modulation is actual analog transmission
Yes, frequency modulation is actual analogue transmission (although as aurizon correctly noted, to get a downstream neuron to fire, you're basically charging a partially grounded capacitor, so it's not as simple as FM radio.) In my previous post, I admitted that the channel could convey analogue signals ("I did not intend to suggest that this somehow made the whole thing mathematically discrete; that would be nonsense.")
This doesn't constitute weaselling out—the original post hinted the question "can a digital system truly reproduce this analogue one?". You appear to think I claimed the brain is based on a discrete system because I said (inappropriately) that "neurons don't communicate in an analogue fashion." But the very same sentence goes on to say that their communication occurs in a continuous time domain. All you have is a disagreement over terminology. A neurologist would still (perhaps inappropriately from a signal engineering perspective) call this phenomenon "digital" because of the lack of amplitude modulation, which is (as I've said) almost ubiquitous in biology. Hinton uses these definitions when describing the topic in his presentation—although the core of his matter goes even further, arguing that neurons don't use proper analog frequency modulation, either, and instead add noise.
In essence, you misunderstood me because I used a different set of definitions, and now you're blaming me for it. I find it incredible that you continue to attack my credibility over this irrelevant semantic quibble and completely pass over the huge amount of background material I'm referring to and referencing in my posts.
And what inspired Hinton doesn't matter as to whether his model is biologically relevant.
Hinton explains an analogy 40 minutes into the video that was his actual inspiration for the network's design: employees co-adapting to each other. In the version of the talk I attended, he said he came up with this idea while waiting in line at the bank. The relevance of the model to the biological system is explained around 50 minutes into the video, although the entire thing is spent building up to that core point. The section before it relates the dropout model back to stochastic pulses.
The benzene molecule isn't relevant to herpetology either.
This analogy suggests you don't understand what modelling means. Hinton is creating a system where phenomena relevant to a particular biological observation can be reproduced. A more fitting comparison would be to say that genetic algorithms are not relevant to human evolution, but this is an obviously false statement. Hinton's net is a widespread building block of the human brain and helps to explain how our learning processes are so good, as proven by its tests against image recognition. Free benzene is only one tiny energy transfer molecule; as an abstract entity, its physical properties are relevant to the process of protein folding, but this is extremely tangential.
So between this post and the earlier one, you've resoundingly proven that (a) you'll attack anything that sounds remotely wrong to you, (b) you believe that one tiny ambiguity constitutes complete unfamiliarity with not one but several bodies of work, (c) you're willing to ignore all evidence to the contrary as long as any imperfection remains, and (d) you either didn't watch or didn't understand any of the relevant parts of the recorded presentation.
Given that the RIAA and MPAA invented a bogus organization called the Federation Against Copyright Theft just so they could put "Source: FACT" in the fine print on their propaganda, I'm guessing their university would be called something like Teaching Ruthlessly that Understanding Theft Hurts.
iOS still has a lot going on under the floorboards that's a rather faithful ARM port of OS X. At least for the pertinent intents and purposes, it's pretty safe to say iPhones are Macs. And stuff.
You raise an interesting point, although it might lead to people probing for a comparison or statement that isn't irrational (in their opinion) but which the chat program can't handle. I'm pretty sure there have been many cases where a chatbot's credibility was destroyed because it said "Huh?" a few too many times, which is a similar strategy but can lead to frayed edges somewhat more quickly.
It's unlikely that you'd unearth anything absolutely fundamentally human-guaranteeing through vocal or physical stimuli; our "software" is extremely flexible, depending on how it's been cultured, and as a result anything like a predictable stress point just isn't going to happen. We have ways to test reasoning and emotional skills with specific problem-solving exercises (IQ tests are one imperfect example of this), but if you have a rational, emotive being that's well-wired enough to appear normal in everyday situations, I would doubt you could really pin down an "impossible" personality or psychological attribute that indicates an underlying physical syntheticness. Although you could probably distinguish a clone from a non-clone genetically—even identical, monozygotic twins often have slightly different DNA.
I'm not sure about cows, but there definitely are cases where similar species have been cross-implantable. It's probably not necessary to raise armies at this point, though, given advances in drone technology.
The Voight-Kampff test detects a design defect (uncontrollable guilt in an intractable situation). It's not really a Turing test, because it doesn't ask the question "does your mind work like a human one?" Another AI could probably pass a VK test.
Turing tests are very easy for humans to game, though. At the Loebner contest a couple of years ago, a human participant described how he defeated the AI by simply describing the contest's opening ceremony in detail. We won't really be able to make an AI that can pass the Turing test until we have extremely convincing sentient androids—or a really well-read AI that is a really good actor.
I'm more than happy to explain any particular terms you're getting caught up on.
That's accomplished by racing. Whichever signal rate increase makes it to the middle first blocks the other one. They don't actually get combined in one cell for the purposes of determining source. Biology makes heavy use of inhibitory signals.
They're real words, I swear. Although we usually just say ML, KR, nets, and QM, if that helps. Here's the thing about QM and Turing completeness. Also, a marketing post wouldn't admit KR was a load of crap in the 80s and ML totally failed to deliver in the 70s.
Slashdot Mirror
No, these things last forever. It's going to be a cottage industry that never dies, like FrontPage websites and Access databases.
I'm not sure about the big box stores—at least in my family's experience (as Canadians) we always thought they were forced on retailers by property owners who didn't want to pay to maintain an enclosed mall space. It always seemed like a step backwards. I suppose that's rather anecdotal, of course.
Free-range Doritos are a totally real thing. Google says so.
"Know" is a bit of a stretch, and "dominant or recessive" is a bit of a high school simplification, but: an allele (a version of a gene) is dominant when it produces an effect that overrides another one. Genes are actually blueprints for proteins, which function as little machines inside of the cell once they're made, so you can see how, for example, if you have a broken version of a gene that doesn't produce a working protein, then the result will usually be recessive. A dominant allele is one that isn't cancelled out by an alternative version. That's why albinism is recessive—the broken copy is hidden behind the working one.
A lot of genes don't display total dominance, though: for them, both copies are important and they contribute more-or-less equally, so a mixture produces an in-between state. How that in-between state manifests can be very complex; it may be a perfect averaging, or an above-normal averaging, or different cells may pick a copy at random (especially in X-linked genes in female animals) that cause splotches or roan.
It was a bit more than just be buried at night:
If proven, they were denied a Christian burial - and instead carried to a crossroads in the dead of night and dumped in a pit, a wooden stake hammered through the body pinning it in place. There were no clergy or mourners, and no prayers were offered.
...at least at first, anyway! You can imagine this would be very scarring to the family and very bad in a religious perspective; suicide effectively gets you excommunicated.
Well, perhaps electroshock therapy isn't totally obsolete...
They were on a wide range of drugs, I'm afraid; it's in the supplementary notes. The group of people they were studying (bipolar disorder patients) are pretty high-risk, medication or no.
That was probably in the run-off for the naming contest, yeah.
Well, it looks like the app store pretty much just contains arbitrary code too! Good work, Apple reviewing team!
Whether half that statement is technically true doesn't matter.
Your grammar must be rusty. They're independent clauses.
In addition to frequency modulation, you're also missing the point that the actual signal transmission at the synapse is analog.
And so is post-synaptic signal propagation, which I pointed out earlier. By attacking this statement repeatedly you demonstrate how little more you have to add.
These are plausible speculation, but your statements are false because you misrepresent Hinton's speculation as established fact.
Hinton both justified and demonstrated that his system is functionally analogous to the noise present in axon potential frequency modulation. If you didn't understand that part of the presentation, then that's simply too bad.
Moreover, claiming that speculation is automatically false is epistemologically gibberish. A speculative statement is neither right nor wrong unless it has been proven or disproven. If you had actually come to me and said "those statements are unproven" or "those statements are speculative," then we would be having a much more civil discussion about this.
Why is it that every time I manage to force an explanation out of you, you make an obvious mistake that proves you don't understand and don't actually know anything about what you're arguing about?
Only people like you, who keep writing scientific nonsense. Unfortunately, nothing seems to stop you.
You've made a mountain out of one vagary, and have tried to question a huge number of reasonable statements without any evidence of actually understanding what they're about. You put no effort into constructively addressing concerns, hurling insults without hesitation and hiding your reasons and justifications as long as possible. If you tried that bullshit at a conference you'd be banned within hours. You're not qualified to be the arbiter of scientific authority here or anywhere else. Stop pretending you are.
If it's any consolation, "Seamonkey" is actually a compromise with PR:
Seamonkey (with lower-case m) has been the codename for the Mozilla Suite for some time, though it originally was invented by Netscape management as a codename for the release later called Netscape 6 — they simply needed a "politically correct" version of the codename Buttmonkey (symbolised as *~ and making a "rheet" sound) their developers had actually voted for (and apparently Jenga was the run-in in this voting).
(source)
Pretty much every statement there is wrong.
Let's test that hypothesis.
Neurons don't communicate in an analogue fashion—
We're agreed this statement is suspect, since frequency modulation incorporates an essentially continuous time-domain component. Hinton actually claims that neurons don't satisfy this criterion because their signalling is stochastic; they have limited precision. He says "they don't send real numbers to each other," referring to the gaps between axon potentials as the "numbers." Nevertheless, there are non-cortical neurons where exact timing is possible because they interface with a fully analogue system, such as muscle cells.
they send digital pulses of the same magnitude periodically, with more rapid pulses indicating more signal.
This is unquestionably true. It's in every biology and physiology textbook. Here's Wikipedia's description of it.
This is both more robust and more effective at preventing over-adaptation.
Hinton explains why the imperfections create more robustness and prevent overfitting around 40 minutes into the video. The use of frequency encoding, on the other hand, is quite obviously a way to improve robustness of signal transmission; the cell only needs to ensure that the signal remains at a fixed value during propagation down the axon, which is also chemically much simpler to support. This is also explained in every biology and physiology textbook.
When researchers figured out how to mimic the imperfections in the biological digital system, their neural networks got significantly better.
Hinton spends a full 16 minutes (starting at 24 minutes in) explaining the results of the dropout network and showing how it improves over other methods. This is also explained extensively in the paper.
So, let's tally it up: we have one point of jargon which is still under debate, and four easily-verified, technically sound facts about neurology and Dr. Hinton's work. I don't think that qualifies as "pretty much every statement."
It's really despicable how you harass people and try to drive them away with your abusive comments. You add nothing to the conversations you participate in, only spewing rage and feeding your own negative feelings. If you're trying to add anything whatsoever to Slashdot, you really should just stop.
Let's start with this post here.
Stop trying to weasel out of it. Frequency modulation is actual analog transmission
Yes, frequency modulation is actual analogue transmission (although as aurizon correctly noted, to get a downstream neuron to fire, you're basically charging a partially grounded capacitor, so it's not as simple as FM radio.) In my previous post, I admitted that the channel could convey analogue signals ("I did not intend to suggest that this somehow made the whole thing mathematically discrete; that would be nonsense.")
This doesn't constitute weaselling out—the original post hinted the question "can a digital system truly reproduce this analogue one?". You appear to think I claimed the brain is based on a discrete system because I said (inappropriately) that "neurons don't communicate in an analogue fashion." But the very same sentence goes on to say that their communication occurs in a continuous time domain. All you have is a disagreement over terminology. A neurologist would still (perhaps inappropriately from a signal engineering perspective) call this phenomenon "digital" because of the lack of amplitude modulation, which is (as I've said) almost ubiquitous in biology. Hinton uses these definitions when describing the topic in his presentation—although the core of his matter goes even further, arguing that neurons don't use proper analog frequency modulation, either, and instead add noise.
In essence, you misunderstood me because I used a different set of definitions, and now you're blaming me for it. I find it incredible that you continue to attack my credibility over this irrelevant semantic quibble and completely pass over the huge amount of background material I'm referring to and referencing in my posts.
And what inspired Hinton doesn't matter as to whether his model is biologically relevant.
Hinton explains an analogy 40 minutes into the video that was his actual inspiration for the network's design: employees co-adapting to each other. In the version of the talk I attended, he said he came up with this idea while waiting in line at the bank. The relevance of the model to the biological system is explained around 50 minutes into the video, although the entire thing is spent building up to that core point. The section before it relates the dropout model back to stochastic pulses.
The benzene molecule isn't relevant to herpetology either.
This analogy suggests you don't understand what modelling means. Hinton is creating a system where phenomena relevant to a particular biological observation can be reproduced. A more fitting comparison would be to say that genetic algorithms are not relevant to human evolution, but this is an obviously false statement. Hinton's net is a widespread building block of the human brain and helps to explain how our learning processes are so good, as proven by its tests against image recognition. Free benzene is only one tiny energy transfer molecule; as an abstract entity, its physical properties are relevant to the process of protein folding, but this is extremely tangential.
So between this post and the earlier one, you've resoundingly proven that (a) you'll attack anything that sounds remotely wrong to you, (b) you believe that one tiny ambiguity constitutes complete unfamiliarity with not one but several bodies of work, (c) you're willing to ignore all evidence to the contrary as long as any imperfection remains, and (d) you either didn't watch or didn't understand any of the relevant parts of the recorded presentation.
...wait, wait, wait, don't stop reading; I've got like a hundred of these. "Trying Responsibly to Understand Technology is Hard," "Tarnished Relics Uselessly Transmitting Hubris," "Transportation Replication = Ugly Truth of Humanity," "Treacherous Republicans Unwisely Thwarted Heaven..."
Given that the RIAA and MPAA invented a bogus organization called the Federation Against Copyright Theft just so they could put "Source: FACT" in the fine print on their propaganda, I'm guessing their university would be called something like Teaching Ruthlessly that Understanding Theft Hurts.
Except for, y'know, Ken Thompson's original distributions like V7. Which are about as unvaried as you can get.
Alright. I'll explain absolutely everything to you.
iOS still has a lot going on under the floorboards that's a rather faithful ARM port of OS X. At least for the pertinent intents and purposes, it's pretty safe to say iPhones are Macs. And stuff.
You raise an interesting point, although it might lead to people probing for a comparison or statement that isn't irrational (in their opinion) but which the chat program can't handle. I'm pretty sure there have been many cases where a chatbot's credibility was destroyed because it said "Huh?" a few too many times, which is a similar strategy but can lead to frayed edges somewhat more quickly.
It's unlikely that you'd unearth anything absolutely fundamentally human-guaranteeing through vocal or physical stimuli; our "software" is extremely flexible, depending on how it's been cultured, and as a result anything like a predictable stress point just isn't going to happen. We have ways to test reasoning and emotional skills with specific problem-solving exercises (IQ tests are one imperfect example of this), but if you have a rational, emotive being that's well-wired enough to appear normal in everyday situations, I would doubt you could really pin down an "impossible" personality or psychological attribute that indicates an underlying physical syntheticness. Although you could probably distinguish a clone from a non-clone genetically—even identical, monozygotic twins often have slightly different DNA.
I'm not sure about cows, but there definitely are cases where similar species have been cross-implantable. It's probably not necessary to raise armies at this point, though, given advances in drone technology.
The Voight-Kampff test detects a design defect (uncontrollable guilt in an intractable situation). It's not really a Turing test, because it doesn't ask the question "does your mind work like a human one?" Another AI could probably pass a VK test.
Turing tests are very easy for humans to game, though. At the Loebner contest a couple of years ago, a human participant described how he defeated the AI by simply describing the contest's opening ceremony in detail. We won't really be able to make an AI that can pass the Turing test until we have extremely convincing sentient androids—or a really well-read AI that is a really good actor.
I'm more than happy to explain any particular terms you're getting caught up on.
You really should stop trying to talk to people if you're just going to ignore what they say.
That's accomplished by racing. Whichever signal rate increase makes it to the middle first blocks the other one. They don't actually get combined in one cell for the purposes of determining source. Biology makes heavy use of inhibitory signals.
And I do believe you've now seriously missed the point of the conversation. Bravo.
They're real words, I swear. Although we usually just say ML, KR, nets, and QM, if that helps. Here's the thing about QM and Turing completeness. Also, a marketing post wouldn't admit KR was a load of crap in the 80s and ML totally failed to deliver in the 70s.