Yes, that's normal in almost every biological system, because they're based on chemical abundances. Axon potentials are unusual in that they're all the same level. Pretty much everything in biology is frequency modulated in this way, but nothing else is so binarized during part of signal transmission. The word you're looking for is "continuous" rather than "de facto analog."
Processing... well, it still depends. Do you think all of CS is "glorified coders"? Because if so, I have some really bad news to you about the university you learned that from.
The distinction between frequency modulation and actual analogue transmission is quite important from a biological standpoint, as there are many parts of the neuronal signalling mechanism that do perform work using analogue voltages and ion concentrations; signal integration and post-synaptic impulses are both done in a truly analogue fashion. Given the fact that the vast majority of other chemical signals in the body uses frequency modulation to some extent unless they catalyse a very fast, irreversible, one-time event, the fact that presynaptic potentials do this only with a digital underlying signal is unusual. I did not intend to suggest that this somehow made the whole thing mathematically discrete; that would be nonsense.
Admittedly that paper doesn't go into the story of how Hinton came up with the idea for dropout learning; I picked that up from a pair of talks he gave last year. This looks like an earlier recording of the same presentation; the other one was in a lecture, but the slides don't seem to have been posted anywhere. (You do know who Hinton is, don't you?)
Neurons don't communicate in an analogue fashion—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. When researchers figured out how to mimic the imperfections in the biological digital system, their neural networks got significantly better. Because they'd been working under the assumption that an exact analogue value was going to be superior than a digital value, they hadn't considered this possibility.
If and when we do create a synthetic mind that is humanlike, there is no reason to believe it would be anything other than a completely innocent newborn. How it acts depends on how we treat it, just like with any other person. This is not exactly a new concept in science fiction.
You're thinking of machine learning, which is a separate branch of AI that's more like an overfunded brand of applied statistics—their strategy is actually still to try and push the envelope (like Hinton, another U of T prof, did last year with dropout networks) but they do so in a more results-driven manner. The ML field as a whole is still sore from three or four decades of overpromising on the future, so they try to put their words where their mouths are, and focus on things that are attainable.
Levesque is in the knowledge representation group, which is more closely in step with cognitive science (the leading edge in modelling human thought) but still very philosophical in their approach. KR was the dominant AI field in the 80s (when Prolog and expert systems were all the rage) but it's matured a great deal since then. Here is his homepage, just to show you how different things are now.
Remember that neural networks aren't magic irreducible fairy dust: they're incredibly powerful, but at the end of the day there must be some program that is running within the network unless it's just a wildly complex ever-changing mapping function, which is unlikely given the illusion of consciousness. Given that quantum mechanics is believed to be Turing-complete, it's fairly likely we'll eventually discover some underlying model that lets us produce a human-like cognitive system without the same level of hardware parallelism that the brain has.
In the real, grown-up world, cognitive science is a mixed bag of CS people, linguists, and psychologists. They work together and are often well versed in all three fields, unlike poncy Anonymous Cowards.
Pretty sure it was a typo for "theists," or perhaps a misunderstanding. Deists tend to be pretty "blind clockmaker"-y, and assume either a divinity that preprogrammed the evolution of intelligence and left well enough alone, or a completely scientific universe being run as a cosmic experiment—i.e. no intervention whatsoever.
At my alma mater the department was called the School of Computing. I always figured that got around the confusion adequately. When the field was named, the utility of the distinction between a theoretical computation model and an actual computing machine was pretty minor.
You do know that the word "science" predates the concept of evidence-based, hypothesis-driven testing, right? There are plenty of things called science that aren't empirical, including most modern theoretical physics. In the future, you may want to consult a dictionary before posting flamebait about categorical boundaries.
"However, after stratification based on age, younger (28 cups per week) and all-cause mortality after adjusting for potential confounders and fitness level (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.30-1.87 for men; and HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.26-3.59 for women)."
I believe the standard next step is to assert that they couldn't have possibly checked for all possible correlated variables, and hence all studies are meaningless. If you're into that sort of thing.
The work you described is generally small compared to the amount of time you might otherwise spend researching a game to purchase—and it definitely can't make up for the whole price of the game. Moreover, most game torrents come with cracks anyway, and sometimes even patches pre-applied, so I rather question the reality of the arduous labours you describe. (I'm not saying necessarily that the publishers deserve the money, just that your cracking time/effort calculus is suspect.)
So is this your way of saying you wouldn't be interested in a mini-cloud in every university department and medium-sized business, or perhaps a personal cloud you could run at home? What about a mobile cloud to put in your pocket? Admittedly, they'll be rather bulky and brick-like at first, but some day they might be as compact and lightweight as, say, a deck of cards or a pocket notebook.
No, I'm just being bad at reading. Go go gadget embarrassing reading comprehension failure. For some reason I thought the list missed the iPod and iMac.
...I somewhat regret the comment at this point, and I wasn't criticising him, actually; I was annoyed that they didn't mention more of those products specifically because I thought they were deserving of more attention. But, hey, I completely misread it anyway, since I skipped over the half of the list. Yay, leaky memory.
...which brings up another point: Steve Jobs rejoined Apple in 1997. The iPhone didn't come out until 2007. Way to pass over a decade of history, SlashBI. Keep giving us reasons to regard you as the amnesiac, moronic little squirrel that you are.
The scientists in the Geller case, Puthoff and Targ, were physicists and hence out of their fields when dealing with an illusionist. Geller circumvented their tests using sensory cues that any competent psychologist would have managed—they blocked peepholes inadequately and discussed the answer to problems within his hearing range, assuming wrongly that he would not figure out what they were discussing. Perhaps you are not aware, but high-profile physicists occasionally suffer from extreme hubris that makes them assume they know everything about the other sciences. Puthoff and Targ went on to become serious nutcases and were prone to suspense of disbelief; both did research into remote viewing, and Puthoff even joined the Church of Scientology briefly.
The claim that playing a game enhances certain skills is by no means extraordinary, and has been studied extensively in a large number of other genres, including non-video games. As it is inherently obvious that success in Starcraft requires the management of many units in different contexts under time-sensitive conditions, the hypothesis of this study should be something intuitive and plausible to anyone examining it.
While as a general adage it is important to accept and recognize that people with PhDs can occasionally do bad science, especially when they're out of their field, it's wildly inappropriate to insinuate or suggest that this study has any chance of falling into that bracket. The claims are not extraordinary and do not require extraordinary evidence to support.
Moreover, the study had mixed results: apparently both an underestimation of the work required to perform at The Sims 2 and an over-estimation of some of Starcraft's finer points. Given that, you really can't fault their testing methodology for indulging in wishful thinking.
So, basically, RTFA and save your cynicism for another headline.
If I do subscribe to any memes about glucose in particular, it is because I work with anaerobes most of the time and think of aerobic respiration as a kind of black magic. I have nothing but the utmost respect for our foul-breathed trillion-celled crash-dieting overlords.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's normal in almost every biological system, because they're based on chemical abundances. Axon potentials are unusual in that they're all the same level. Pretty much everything in biology is frequency modulated in this way, but nothing else is so binarized during part of signal transmission. The word you're looking for is "continuous" rather than "de facto analog."
Processing... well, it still depends. Do you think all of CS is "glorified coders"? Because if so, I have some really bad news to you about the university you learned that from.
The distinction between frequency modulation and actual analogue transmission is quite important from a biological standpoint, as there are many parts of the neuronal signalling mechanism that do perform work using analogue voltages and ion concentrations; signal integration and post-synaptic impulses are both done in a truly analogue fashion. Given the fact that the vast majority of other chemical signals in the body uses frequency modulation to some extent unless they catalyse a very fast, irreversible, one-time event, the fact that presynaptic potentials do this only with a digital underlying signal is unusual. I did not intend to suggest that this somehow made the whole thing mathematically discrete; that would be nonsense.
Admittedly that paper doesn't go into the story of how Hinton came up with the idea for dropout learning; I picked that up from a pair of talks he gave last year. This looks like an earlier recording of the same presentation; the other one was in a lecture, but the slides don't seem to have been posted anywhere. (You do know who Hinton is, don't you?)
Neurons don't communicate in an analogue fashion—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. When researchers figured out how to mimic the imperfections in the biological digital system, their neural networks got significantly better. Because they'd been working under the assumption that an exact analogue value was going to be superior than a digital value, they hadn't considered this possibility.
If and when we do create a synthetic mind that is humanlike, there is no reason to believe it would be anything other than a completely innocent newborn. How it acts depends on how we treat it, just like with any other person. This is not exactly a new concept in science fiction.
No, we'd go mad because the spelling system is a trainwreck of unparalleled proportions.
You're thinking of machine learning, which is a separate branch of AI that's more like an overfunded brand of applied statistics—their strategy is actually still to try and push the envelope (like Hinton, another U of T prof, did last year with dropout networks) but they do so in a more results-driven manner. The ML field as a whole is still sore from three or four decades of overpromising on the future, so they try to put their words where their mouths are, and focus on things that are attainable.
Levesque is in the knowledge representation group, which is more closely in step with cognitive science (the leading edge in modelling human thought) but still very philosophical in their approach. KR was the dominant AI field in the 80s (when Prolog and expert systems were all the rage) but it's matured a great deal since then. Here is his homepage, just to show you how different things are now.
Remember that neural networks aren't magic irreducible fairy dust: they're incredibly powerful, but at the end of the day there must be some program that is running within the network unless it's just a wildly complex ever-changing mapping function, which is unlikely given the illusion of consciousness. Given that quantum mechanics is believed to be Turing-complete, it's fairly likely we'll eventually discover some underlying model that lets us produce a human-like cognitive system without the same level of hardware parallelism that the brain has.
In the real, grown-up world, cognitive science is a mixed bag of CS people, linguists, and psychologists. They work together and are often well versed in all three fields, unlike poncy Anonymous Cowards.
Pretty sure it was a typo for "theists," or perhaps a misunderstanding. Deists tend to be pretty "blind clockmaker"-y, and assume either a divinity that preprogrammed the evolution of intelligence and left well enough alone, or a completely scientific universe being run as a cosmic experiment—i.e. no intervention whatsoever.
At my alma mater the department was called the School of Computing. I always figured that got around the confusion adequately. When the field was named, the utility of the distinction between a theoretical computation model and an actual computing machine was pretty minor.
You do know that the word "science" predates the concept of evidence-based, hypothesis-driven testing, right? There are plenty of things called science that aren't empirical, including most modern theoretical physics. In the future, you may want to consult a dictionary before posting flamebait about categorical boundaries.
It's probably the same fundamental principle that causes there to be no original ideas.
"However, after stratification based on age, younger (28 cups per week) and all-cause mortality after adjusting for potential confounders and fitness level (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.30-1.87 for men; and HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.26-3.59 for women)."
I believe the standard next step is to assert that they couldn't have possibly checked for all possible correlated variables, and hence all studies are meaningless. If you're into that sort of thing.
The work you described is generally small compared to the amount of time you might otherwise spend researching a game to purchase—and it definitely can't make up for the whole price of the game. Moreover, most game torrents come with cracks anyway, and sometimes even patches pre-applied, so I rather question the reality of the arduous labours you describe. (I'm not saying necessarily that the publishers deserve the money, just that your cracking time/effort calculus is suspect.)
I'd say obviously that was satire, but terrifyingly at least one of these terms has been used (albeit wildly wrongly.)
So is this your way of saying you wouldn't be interested in a mini-cloud in every university department and medium-sized business, or perhaps a personal cloud you could run at home? What about a mobile cloud to put in your pocket? Admittedly, they'll be rather bulky and brick-like at first, but some day they might be as compact and lightweight as, say, a deck of cards or a pocket notebook.
So which heading do you use for organized crime and antivirus vendors?
The irony is not lost on me!
No, I'm just being bad at reading. Go go gadget embarrassing reading comprehension failure. For some reason I thought the list missed the iPod and iMac.
...I somewhat regret the comment at this point, and I wasn't criticising him, actually; I was annoyed that they didn't mention more of those products specifically because I thought they were deserving of more attention. But, hey, I completely misread it anyway, since I skipped over the half of the list. Yay, leaky memory.
...which brings up another point: Steve Jobs rejoined Apple in 1997. The iPhone didn't come out until 2007. Way to pass over a decade of history, SlashBI. Keep giving us reasons to regard you as the amnesiac, moronic little squirrel that you are.
The scientists in the Geller case, Puthoff and Targ, were physicists and hence out of their fields when dealing with an illusionist. Geller circumvented their tests using sensory cues that any competent psychologist would have managed—they blocked peepholes inadequately and discussed the answer to problems within his hearing range, assuming wrongly that he would not figure out what they were discussing. Perhaps you are not aware, but high-profile physicists occasionally suffer from extreme hubris that makes them assume they know everything about the other sciences. Puthoff and Targ went on to become serious nutcases and were prone to suspense of disbelief; both did research into remote viewing, and Puthoff even joined the Church of Scientology briefly.
The claim that playing a game enhances certain skills is by no means extraordinary, and has been studied extensively in a large number of other genres, including non-video games. As it is inherently obvious that success in Starcraft requires the management of many units in different contexts under time-sensitive conditions, the hypothesis of this study should be something intuitive and plausible to anyone examining it.
While as a general adage it is important to accept and recognize that people with PhDs can occasionally do bad science, especially when they're out of their field, it's wildly inappropriate to insinuate or suggest that this study has any chance of falling into that bracket. The claims are not extraordinary and do not require extraordinary evidence to support.
Moreover, the study had mixed results: apparently both an underestimation of the work required to perform at The Sims 2 and an over-estimation of some of Starcraft's finer points. Given that, you really can't fault their testing methodology for indulging in wishful thinking.
So, basically, RTFA and save your cynicism for another headline.
That's a little off-topic, don't you think?
It has a successor that no longer fills the same niche.
If I do subscribe to any memes about glucose in particular, it is because I work with anaerobes most of the time and think of aerobic respiration as a kind of black magic. I have nothing but the utmost respect for our foul-breathed trillion-celled crash-dieting overlords.
Then Microsoft is sued out of existence for negligence. Pretty sure that's a win–win by local standards.