The globe is getting warmer and climates are changing and it's real.
But this level of fear-mongering is not helpful and diminishes our side of the argument. At this point anyone who argues that the world isn't getting warmer is seen as an idiot. Anyone who argues that it's not humanities fault is a blowhard. The current debates are how bad it's going to be and what we can do about it.
at a rate of less than 2 millimeters a year -- and while that may not sound like a lot, the millimeters can add up fast.
No. It doesn't. It adds up at a rate of 2mm/year. That is not fast. It's not compound. There is no interest.
San Fran has 100 years to deal with 20cm, or 8 inches. Parts of New Orleans are currently several feet underwater. They got flooded once during a hurricane. It sucked, but it's not the end of the world. If sea-levels rise 2 meters in 100 years, yeah, we've got a lot of trouble and expensive relocation. Or expensive and questionable dikes. But 2mm a year sound manageable.
And this motherfucker is trying to get us worried about PLATE TECTONICS. Not earthquakes, the SPEED at which they MOVE. Dude.
and by not having to comply with the same environmental standards that the US has to comply with.
I understand this sentiment, but it's really infeasible to try and balance. Plus, they ARE paying for it. One way or another. If a US company has to spend $5 million dealing with pollution, and a Chinese company can dump it out the back door, the Chinese company will have the advantage, no doubt. But there's no way we could expect Kenya to have the same standards that the EPA sets forth. The nation just isn't there yet. And China wasn't NEARLY as advanced in years past when these deals were set up. To an extent, their infrastructure is still pretty rickety, but they have the cash to at least try and fix it now. But even with developed nations, imposing trade deals on the basis of how their EPA equivalents operate isn't likely to work. Trade deals take years and last decades while environmental policy fluctuates each term. It got cut to the bone this time. It sucks. Anyway, I just don't think it's viable.
And, they're paying for it. China is hella polluted. To the point it's killing people. This is, essentially, the Chinese government abusing it's people to make a buck. It might make the nation more money, but the people are paying for it with their health. As a democracy over here, the people got pissed at that sort of shit and we formed the EPA way back during the hippy era under that notorious greeny weeny Nixon. China's abuse of it's peasantry for the good of the economy goes deeper too, and more directly results in the trade deficit. They suppress their currency. They used to keep it strictly pegged to the USD, but they've let it slip a bit. It artificially REDUCES China's buying power, and makes selling Chinese goods that much easier. Imagine if Trump came around and said "We're devaluing the USD, now it'll cost you twice as much to purchase anything abroad. But hey, if you export, you'll make twice as much." That's what China did. If you're exports, hey, goooood times. If you earn Chinese Renminbi, and want to travel or buy foreign goods.... sucks to be you.
Both of these are, in short, taxes. Not quite the same as a direct tax of cash out of their wallets, but a tax all the same.
Now.... when it comes to the US's policy towards this. We could:
A) Punish China and limit trade in an effort to get them to stop abusing their workers.
B) Buy the highly discounted goods that they're selling at discount at the cost to their citizenry
And you're advocating for option A. That's uncharacteristically altruistic considering the "America first" and "MAGA" slogans that side's been throwing about. Realize that prices will RISE for everyone and the only people that would benefit from this sort of trade war would be competitors to Chinese manufacturing, pretty much US manufacturing. If you work in manufacturing (or own a car manufacturer), sure, this is voting for the wallet. And I get that. The rest of us essentially have to pay for it though. Also, trade wars are not a zero sum game. Blocking trade (or restricting via tariffs) hurts BOTH sides more than either side was losing prior. A trade-war between giants is a godsend to the little manufacturing nations out there.
Nazis of the 19030s/40s are bad, but the German people are and were not bad, it's the Nazi ideas that are bad. Calling those ideas out as bad is not saying the German people are bad. Same thing here. I'm criticizing a set of ideas, not people.
That carries less weight when you remember that not all Germans in 1946 were members of the NAZI party. NAZIs were political supporters of Hitler's regime. It was a big deal whether or not you were a party member. Probably less so than in China these days, but I'm not sure.
Ok, look at it this way. I'm absolutely sure there were people in the KKK that were pretty ok people. It might have been just been peer pressure, or maybe it was more like a BBQ group, or a drinking club with a racial pride disorder. But they supported and gave political weight and legitimacy to some TRULY horrendous leaders that did terrible things.
There comes a point where people will start blaming you for supporting atrocities. I'm still not over the fact we got ~300,000 civilians killed in Iraq. For as embarrassing as the current situation is, it isn't nearly that bad. You've got to self-police the crazies in your party. You've got to go against the flow. I personally leaned towards Damore with that google memo. And I'm constantly calling bullshit on idiots denouncing free speech and conflating it with the first amendment. At some point you are defined by the choices you make, the ideologies you espouse, and the people you support.
But hey, all that said, I'm all sorts of down for calm discussion, stable nations, and common ground. I too like the right to repair. And forcing companies to hand out documentation at the end of a gun (behind a few layers of threats, fines, and courts) is just fine with me as well.
wut? No dude. "College degree" is a broader term that encompasses bachelors degree. It ALSO encompasses associate degrees from shittier schools. And to inflate their own ego, they use the broader term. Like how they call themselves senators and congressmen instead of senators and representatives.....Although I think this might actually be a regional terminology issue. Here in the states, there's no real difference between "university" and "college". They're used interchangeably. And even on a technical level, a University just consists of a number of colleges (engineering, business, arts, etc). You a brit or something?
Nothing < GED < Highschool <Some college (meaning you dropped out) < Associate's Degree (like from a community college) <Bachelors < Masters < Doctorate
And somewhere to the left of all that is "degree from non-accredited college" as it just marks you as a rube.
Then there's the relative worth of various degrees. A Masters of the Arts in Anthropology isn't nearly as good as a bachelors in engineering. Roughly, the sciences are one step up on the arts? Maybe?
There's some minor adjustments made for WHICH school you went to, which has stronger weight the higher the degree and more snooty the crowd. Ivy league Masters beats state uni PHD.
Then there's the trade-skill worker track, which I know less of. But there are certs, tech schools, apprenticeships, and.... some sort of "master" title? There's a lot of variance in what you're doing. Aviation mechanics make BANK.
Then there's everything AFTER schooling. All that schooling really only gets you your first job. Some fields it depends on what you worked on. Some fields it depends on where you worked. Some fields it's all about the cash. Some fields are regulated with distinct paths. Nurses and doctors and professors and the military have a long string of various titles and hoops to jump through to climb the ranks. Some poor bastards can only keep rising if they move into management.
Quit using words like "destroy" or "screw" when talking about making everyone's life easier.
In aggregate. It's a little better for most people. A lot better for a few people. And really colossally bad for the people put out on the streets or the kids who simply can't find work. If you just look at the aggregate, humanity has had a continuous improvement and no one has ever suffered.
The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed.
I'm pretty sure they go hand in hand and both lead to each other. A significant percentage of otherwise perfectly normal and civilized people are 3 meals away from barbarity. Most people have simply never gone through that. I haven't. After three days they'd roll you for a twinkie. And it's a real viscous cycle. Stress makes issues which lead to stress. Being poor makes you crazy. Being crazy makes you poor.
My dad worked at the power company. There was a big outage that lasted a week. Trees down everywhere. While bringing neighborhoods back up, they prioritized homes and skipped streetlights. Turns out that was a mistake. People were scared and stupid and doing things like chasing down utility trucks with shotguns demanding the streetlights turn on. This was in neighborhoods that they'd gotten power to. Something as simple as actual darkness, and people simply snapped. Some people at least.
No matter the struggle, I'm sure some other people would rise up and overcome. But when talking about sociology, you've got to talk about both the trends and the edge-cases. Even with welfare, you're going to get people that aren't functional enough to take a handout. Even with a socialized psych program, you're going to have people that can't make a buck. I think the right way to measure this stuff is to compare metriscs to other similar nations. I'd like to see some sort of psych initative, even if the idea of asylums freaks me right the fuck out. Isn't that the current deflection from the NRA? "We need mental health reform rather than gun control"? Super, great. And we're not going to see a damn thing are we?
or not satisfied with the physical/matter answers.
YES, there we go. People invoke the metaphyical when physics is insufficient to explain the phenomena.....But... we can explain this one.
about rats mating etc; these can be explained by matter. But claiming thoughts/intuition also arises from dna/matter is just a belief
... "Matter" in this case is the DNA inside of rats. The real physical non-meta molecules that exist inside of cells. Rats know to mate through instinct. The thought "go stick my dick in that" is instinctual. You're agreeing that the mating instinct in rats is explained through DNA. ie, DNA dictates instinct. Which is kind of the crux of the argument.
Beyond logic lies nonsense. To each their own I guess.
I dunno man, I avoid mystical shit like the plague. The idea that there's keter-level stuff out there that we not only don't know about but fundamentally can't comprehend is DEFINITELY "just a belief". How would you prove it? Even for Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we know what's unknowable, and can work with it enough that we've got qbit computers now.
The claim about intuition encoded in matter/DNA -- is there a scientific proof for it? isn't that just a belief?
After throwing that last one at me about how things are unknowable metaphyics, you then turn around and ask for proof about DNA and instinct? That's one hell of a double-standard. I mean, sure, there's still debate about that. But how else does a foal know how to walk around so soon after birth? Or sex. Rats grown in test tubes and raised in isolation will still have sex and make baby rats. They just know. Where's that impulse coming from if not the blue-prints which made them? Are you telling me that the single-celled slime mold has some sort of cognitive ability that learns how to band together to search for food?
DNA has all the information needed to build every living species on Earth. It literally describes how to build brains. And... take domesticated foxes for example. Or dog breeds. It's pretty conclusive that we can breed for trends in personality traits. Impregnate a wild fox with a domesticated fox and observe the resulting pup in the wild and you'll see it behave differently. This is it's disposition. What it naturally, instinctively gravitates towards. It's... honestly a bit creepy thinking about how that relates to free will and what makes us behave how we do. But it's true. You'd have to be willfully ignorant to not see the trend.
I dunno, it seems pretty obvious to me. Others might argue otherwise. The debate about what's learned and what's instinct is wide open for debate. There are some good points about epigenetics and environment, but if the alternatives include unknowable metaphysics, I'll stick with the simple solution.
NOTE that once u find an algorithm (like ML/recursive NN), there is no longer any magic left in say image recognition or natural language processing. it's just some math/matrix manipulations.
oh ho ho! There's still a lot of magic in natural languages. That's a deep one. And... even with a good NN that can do cool stuff... it doesn't mean they've completely solved image recognition or natural language. They still make mistakes. You know, like the article points out.
I'm not sure you're giving enough credit to the breadth of what "It's just some math" can entail.
We have to move to problems which math cant' solve.
Do we? Why? Are you saying that's a per-requisite for making "true" AI?
I've got a funny personal definition of magic though. This certainly isn't how most people see it, and I get that. But magic is just what we don't understand. The world is full of magic for kids. You know that phrase "sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic"? I think it literally IS magic. Most magic is fiction, but there is some real magic in the world at the edges of our knowledge. We need to find it, and kill it. Because once you know how the magic trick works, it's no longer magical. But that's all fairly poetic and more of a philosophy really.
I dunno, that's kind of an empty statement when talking about how we learn things. If I told you training an NN is effectively "conceptualizing" how would you refute that?
generalize
I think NN does this. It takes a whole bunch of pictures of sheep and figures out that they're the same and generally called "sheep".
and abstract concepts we understand and have meaning for, we make associations and replace concepts with one another.
NN definitely makes associations. But yeah, I don't think they handle abstract concepts at all so far. Neither do ants or rats, but I did ask about human brains.
We do not learn directly the real world, we in fact learn the representations we continuously make ourselves of it.
Did you mean we not only learn from the real world? We ALSO learn through... Imagination? Is that what you're saying? To that I'd point out AlphaGo, the successor to DeepMind. Deepmind learned on a big training set of recorded games. AlphaGo self-teaches and is only given the rules of Go. No external input. I'd say that's pretty equivalent to imagining novel strategies. It plays a better game of Go than DeepMind after 3 days of training. (or whatever term you want to use for the process of messing with the neural nets to achieve a goal).
the human mind doesn't remotely resemble that set of algorithms based on a highly simplified representation called "artificial neural network".
Right, the human brain is represented, somehow, in 3 billion base pairs of GTAC resulting in our DNA. It does a LOT of learning after construction.... but that learning process likewise has neurons connecting and strengthening. A lot like how an ANN configures itself.
I don't want to start a polemic,... obviously not a native English speaker.
Naw it's cool dude. I understand people have different views, I just think while artificial intelligence is different from the biological form we're all familiar with, the fundamentals are the same. (And your English is great, except the "learning from the real world" thing)
How about intelligence is the ability to provide answers when the input to output processing cannot be encoded in symbols? [vaguely things like 'intuition'];
I'm not sure what that looks like. Could you give me an example of this sort of thing show that you or I are intellgent. (And maybe, like, rats and ants?)
And, uh.... 100% of your intuition is encoded in a 2-bit DNA sequence of 3 billion base pairs, or about 725 megabytes of data. It can be represented by the symbols GTAC. If it's not directly in the DNA, the thing that dictates your intuition is designed in and created by DNA. There's also some details like how it gets wound up. And physical damage. But we can describe those as well. With words.
Self-hosting is just running your software on someone else's network
Which I pay for and will switch away from if they try dicking with it. Also encryption means they CAN'T dick with the content I put on it. Also, No, my todo list typically doesn't leave my phone (but doesn't show up on my calendar... ), so it doesn't go through my ISP.
someone else's power grid
Which, as long as it's maintained, won't dick with any of my stuff. Also, my cell phone has a battery you insensitive clod!
someone else's operating system
Which I'm pretty sure a number of people around here would agree is a good thing to have under your control rather than "someone else" being able to dick with it. Hurzzah open source model, and all that.
Well that gets into a "no true scotsman" fallacy. Think about it like "life". Humans are alive and are really complex. But so are nematodes, bacteria, and arguably viruses and prions. The issues comes up that we don't have a solid definition of what "intelligence" or "alive" really are. Personally, I think viruses are alive. Even though my highschool biology told me otherwise. It self-replicates and makes copies which self-replicate. That's about And I think intelligence is defined by learning. If it learns, it's intelligent. Cue joke about the target political party of your choice.
But hey, white blood cells. Are they intelligent? Have you seen the videos of them chasing down intruders?
Are bacteria intelligent? How about a strain of bacteria? Because if you subject them to antibiotics enough bacteria learn how to thwart them.
Are plants intelligent? They have a shmorgas board of reactions to their surrounding. Communicate with others. Feel pain.
I'd say that mathematical constructs could be intelligent... as long as they can get get new stimuli and update itself so that it gives more apt output to additional stimuli. Or, in other words, if it learns. It doesn't even have to learn well, learn much, or endlessly learn with no upper limit. It doesn't have to impress me or out-compete a human being the same way that a my definition of "alive" doesn't have to be above me in the food chain. I have a low bar for these definitions.
The "gives the impression" of intelligence.... I dunno man, at some point if it has all the symptoms, that's pretty much the definition of falling into a category. If it quacks like a duck, etc. What about a computer program would make it definitely not intelligent?
Atoms have a nucleus which attracts electrons. Electrons repel other electrons and dance around the nucleus at various shells. Their position isn't like the orbit of the planets around the sun or.... "rubber balls rotating around each other". Which... would presumably need... string and a diorama, or a big rubber sheet.... or something... They are vaguely similar in the sense that balls could represent particles. Different sized or colored balls could be similar to how different particles have different properties. Otherwise they're not very similar.
There, I have compared an atom to rubber balls rotating around each other. Please compare the training of neural networks and the training of a human brain. I am not kidding. Please give me a straight answer.
See, this is why it's actually sometimes useful to argue with trolls. Nothing quite motivates me as delivering a brow-beating on an ignorant dumbfuck.
Remember when I said I was running with assumptions? Yeah, turns out I right about that and things have come a long way since 2012. Just like I mentioned in the other post that you likely didn't really read, This article points out that there has been significant advances. And they've got tools to help object recognition figure out object localization (drawing a bounding box around stuff to look at), sematic segmentation (figuring out what parts of the image are different things), instance segmentation (figuring out that there are multiple similar objects), keypoint detection (known objects have known details, like humans have arms which it can know the position of and faces have mouths that smile or frown)
It can and does recognize sheep in a field. Some of the time. Possibly most of the time. There have been incremental improvements in the field of object recognition for decades.
We have been training NN for 40 years now.
mmmmm, not even wrong. Training any given NN has diminishing returns after a point. The research and development has been making them better at learning from any given training. Case in point, DeepMind was trained on a massive set of past games. DeepMind's successor, AlphaGo, needed no such training set. It could self-teach starting from just the rules of Go. It could play a better game than DeepMind in about half-an-hour's training.
If you're not going to read any of this, you're just spamming the same questions over and over.
tell the difference between a sheep and a letter, yes. So you are saying that all you need is a big neural net with different training set, or multiple sub-NN?
Yeah, if you want an NN to know about something you have to train it. If you want it to know about two different things, you have to give it a training set that spans both. Or you could have some sort of tiered affair. The letter recognition wouldn't see anything while the animal recognition would see a sheep, with something managing both. Generally the broader the training set the longer it takes to figure anything out.
You know this, stop feigning ignorance.
If that is the case, why don't we have one?
We do. Like the article mentions. Microsoft's Azure is an object recognition program. HERE. Just go play with it. Find a picture of a sheep. Load it into the API, hit submit, and one of the tags will, likely, be "sheep".
NN have been around for 40 years. When are we going to have one that can recognize sheep?
Around 2012. At least it was a nice mile-stone. There has been incremental improvements and the hit-rate has been getting progressively better.
What is your explanation?
I'd explain this line of inquiry with: You're a willfully ignorant troll that refuses to admit at the thing that's right in front of his face and that AI is a real thing.
The article is about how Azure failed ONE TIME to accurately identify an image. Does your imaginary 2 year old ALWAYS correctly identify objects? Do you? Are you some infallible god-like being? Are you omniscient? Does this line of hyperbolic inquiry lend any meaningful credence?
So the AI was biased because it preferred black and white fence posts in the ground to sheep?
It'll have biases due to it's training set. In this one, I think it's shown a bunch of pictures of fields of sheep and told those are sheep, so it assumes fields with white blobs are sheep. To MS's Azure, "sheep" isn't an animal with wool and split hooves, it's a field with white blobs. At least in part. The two are tied to each other. If you blur this picture enough and ask people about it, they might make the same sort of assumption. But they'll know that it's a field with sheep in it. I'm not sure Azure is making that connection. But I'm honestly running with a lot of assumptions here.
Did you have problems recognizing sheep in the pictures? If not, why didn't you? After all, you have biases.
No, because I've got a lot more training with a much more advanced learning algorithm and can pick out details differentiating rocks and sheep. I'm smarter than Azure, like most people. When AI advances though, as it bound to do, we do need remember that it will STILL be prone to bias. Just like people.
The point is that we can see how it's failing with easy problems. Once it starts putting forth solutions to hard problems we should expect it to fail in the same sort of way, and shouldn't just blindly assume that it's immune to the same sort of issues that people have.
Yeah, yeah, I know you're working some sort of "No True Scottish AI" angle, but there's a real lesson about AI development here. If you don't want to discuss that, piss off.
Your two-year old could read the whole alphabet? Get that kid into a gifted program!
Why do you need a special NN for each one of those tasks?
Or one big one given different training sets. Or a collection of NN managed by and to be called upon by a overlord NN. Because your two year old ALSO had to learn shapes, animals, and objects before learning the alphabet. And he ALSO has different areas of his brain that are dedicated to certain tasks. Getting them all to work together is one hell of a trick.
But you ALWAYS come to any AI thread and ALWAYS claim there is no such thing. Come on 110010001000 ( 697113 ), give us the spiel already. Just get it out of your system.
Eh, even if they don't flip over the turtle, we can make sure they stay INTERLINKED. You are a collection of cells. cells. do you want mod points? interlinked. is microsoft evil? interlinked. is wayland the way? interlinked. within cells interlinked.
oh come on you lazy slashot filter. Grow some AI and pick up when capslock is funny... ok, for full effect, assume I'm yelling at you in the last half. You know the scene.
I'd say that goes for any sort of machine learning or AI. Same thing is certainly true for genetic algorithms as well.
However if you present them with an example that is significantly different, it may not work as well.
Right, but that's what's interpolation and extrapolation does, it sees trends and applies that knowledge to new situations. If the new thing doesn't follow the trend of your past experience, you're screwed. Just like people. The trick with AI at this point is giving them broad experiences rather than niche. Expanding their horizon is almost certainly going to involve a collection of different AI specializing in certain tasks.... the same way that portions of your brain specializes in certain tasks.
The lesson is that AI will have biases. They will have the exact same sort of problems and issues that people have when it comes to presumptions built up from prior experience. Stereotypes, prejudices, and bias. Sounds bad right? But it's the basis of CONTEXT. It's how language works. Things like pronouns and "it" can refer to anything and you have to rely on context to link it to something. And we do so based on what makes sense based on experience. Our eyeballs do the same thing. They fill in a lot of blanks. It's how you never notice your blind spot. It's how a lot of optical illusions work. AI are going to have the same thing. Here's some video of a guy running into convenience store and robbing it. What did it see? How would it describe the guy? Well... that depends on it's training set.
I imagine we'll eventually be able to train up different AI with different biases. Train two in different bubbles, and then compare their output and we'll be able to see how badly these bubbles influence people's views and thoughts. Also where they agree.
Computers are great when it comes to being impartial. They can make the world a better place with less corruption. But it's useful to think of AI as a generated person, with all the flaws and awesomeness that comes with that. There are some tasks that, even if an AI could do it, we'd have to be careful about how they do it, and figuring out exactly how AI does what it does is hard. We mostly just look at the end-result. So, get ready for people professionally trained to vet AIs before employment.
Slashdot Mirror
The globe is getting warmer and climates are changing and it's real.
But this level of fear-mongering is not helpful and diminishes our side of the argument. At this point anyone who argues that the world isn't getting warmer is seen as an idiot. Anyone who argues that it's not humanities fault is a blowhard. The current debates are how bad it's going to be and what we can do about it.
at a rate of less than 2 millimeters a year -- and while that may not sound like a lot, the millimeters can add up fast.
No. It doesn't. It adds up at a rate of 2mm/year. That is not fast. It's not compound. There is no interest.
San Fran has 100 years to deal with 20cm, or 8 inches. Parts of New Orleans are currently several feet underwater. They got flooded once during a hurricane. It sucked, but it's not the end of the world. If sea-levels rise 2 meters in 100 years, yeah, we've got a lot of trouble and expensive relocation. Or expensive and questionable dikes. But 2mm a year sound manageable.
And this motherfucker is trying to get us worried about PLATE TECTONICS. Not earthquakes, the SPEED at which they MOVE. Dude.
and by not having to comply with the same environmental standards that the US has to comply with.
I understand this sentiment, but it's really infeasible to try and balance. Plus, they ARE paying for it. One way or another. If a US company has to spend $5 million dealing with pollution, and a Chinese company can dump it out the back door, the Chinese company will have the advantage, no doubt. But there's no way we could expect Kenya to have the same standards that the EPA sets forth. The nation just isn't there yet. And China wasn't NEARLY as advanced in years past when these deals were set up. To an extent, their infrastructure is still pretty rickety, but they have the cash to at least try and fix it now. But even with developed nations, imposing trade deals on the basis of how their EPA equivalents operate isn't likely to work. Trade deals take years and last decades while environmental policy fluctuates each term. It got cut to the bone this time. It sucks. Anyway, I just don't think it's viable.
And, they're paying for it. China is hella polluted. To the point it's killing people. This is, essentially, the Chinese government abusing it's people to make a buck. It might make the nation more money, but the people are paying for it with their health. As a democracy over here, the people got pissed at that sort of shit and we formed the EPA way back during the hippy era under that notorious greeny weeny Nixon. China's abuse of it's peasantry for the good of the economy goes deeper too, and more directly results in the trade deficit. They suppress their currency. They used to keep it strictly pegged to the USD, but they've let it slip a bit. It artificially REDUCES China's buying power, and makes selling Chinese goods that much easier. Imagine if Trump came around and said "We're devaluing the USD, now it'll cost you twice as much to purchase anything abroad. But hey, if you export, you'll make twice as much." That's what China did. If you're exports, hey, goooood times. If you earn Chinese Renminbi, and want to travel or buy foreign goods.... sucks to be you.
Both of these are, in short, taxes. Not quite the same as a direct tax of cash out of their wallets, but a tax all the same.
Now.... when it comes to the US's policy towards this. We could:
A) Punish China and limit trade in an effort to get them to stop abusing their workers.
B) Buy the highly discounted goods that they're selling at discount at the cost to their citizenry
And you're advocating for option A. That's uncharacteristically altruistic considering the "America first" and "MAGA" slogans that side's been throwing about. Realize that prices will RISE for everyone and the only people that would benefit from this sort of trade war would be competitors to Chinese manufacturing, pretty much US manufacturing. If you work in manufacturing (or own a car manufacturer), sure, this is voting for the wallet. And I get that. The rest of us essentially have to pay for it though. Also, trade wars are not a zero sum game. Blocking trade (or restricting via tariffs) hurts BOTH sides more than either side was losing prior. A trade-war between giants is a godsend to the little manufacturing nations out there.
Nazis of the 19030s/40s are bad, but the German people are and were not bad, it's the Nazi ideas that are bad. Calling those ideas out as bad is not saying the German people are bad. Same thing here. I'm criticizing a set of ideas, not people.
That carries less weight when you remember that not all Germans in 1946 were members of the NAZI party. NAZIs were political supporters of Hitler's regime. It was a big deal whether or not you were a party member. Probably less so than in China these days, but I'm not sure.
Ok, look at it this way. I'm absolutely sure there were people in the KKK that were pretty ok people. It might have been just been peer pressure, or maybe it was more like a BBQ group, or a drinking club with a racial pride disorder. But they supported and gave political weight and legitimacy to some TRULY horrendous leaders that did terrible things.
There comes a point where people will start blaming you for supporting atrocities. I'm still not over the fact we got ~300,000 civilians killed in Iraq. For as embarrassing as the current situation is, it isn't nearly that bad. You've got to self-police the crazies in your party. You've got to go against the flow. I personally leaned towards Damore with that google memo. And I'm constantly calling bullshit on idiots denouncing free speech and conflating it with the first amendment. At some point you are defined by the choices you make, the ideologies you espouse, and the people you support.
But hey, all that said, I'm all sorts of down for calm discussion, stable nations, and common ground. I too like the right to repair. And forcing companies to hand out documentation at the end of a gun (behind a few layers of threats, fines, and courts) is just fine with me as well.
College Degree < Bachelors
wut? No dude. "College degree" is a broader term that encompasses bachelors degree. It ALSO encompasses associate degrees from shittier schools. And to inflate their own ego, they use the broader term. Like how they call themselves senators and congressmen instead of senators and representatives. ....Although I think this might actually be a regional terminology issue. Here in the states, there's no real difference between "university" and "college". They're used interchangeably. And even on a technical level, a University just consists of a number of colleges (engineering, business, arts, etc). You a brit or something?
Nothing < GED < Highschool <Some college (meaning you dropped out) < Associate's Degree (like from a community college) <Bachelors < Masters < Doctorate
And somewhere to the left of all that is "degree from non-accredited college" as it just marks you as a rube.
Then there's the relative worth of various degrees. A Masters of the Arts in Anthropology isn't nearly as good as a bachelors in engineering. Roughly, the sciences are one step up on the arts? Maybe?
There's some minor adjustments made for WHICH school you went to, which has stronger weight the higher the degree and more snooty the crowd. Ivy league Masters beats state uni PHD.
Then there's the trade-skill worker track, which I know less of. But there are certs, tech schools, apprenticeships, and.... some sort of "master" title? There's a lot of variance in what you're doing. Aviation mechanics make BANK.
Then there's everything AFTER schooling. All that schooling really only gets you your first job. Some fields it depends on what you worked on. Some fields it depends on where you worked. Some fields it's all about the cash. Some fields are regulated with distinct paths. Nurses and doctors and professors and the military have a long string of various titles and hoops to jump through to climb the ranks. Some poor bastards can only keep rising if they move into management.
Quit using words like "destroy" or "screw" when talking about making everyone's life easier.
In aggregate. It's a little better for most people. A lot better for a few people. And really colossally bad for the people put out on the streets or the kids who simply can't find work. If you just look at the aggregate, humanity has had a continuous improvement and no one has ever suffered.
The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed.
I'm pretty sure they go hand in hand and both lead to each other. A significant percentage of otherwise perfectly normal and civilized people are 3 meals away from barbarity. Most people have simply never gone through that. I haven't. After three days they'd roll you for a twinkie. And it's a real viscous cycle. Stress makes issues which lead to stress. Being poor makes you crazy. Being crazy makes you poor.
My dad worked at the power company. There was a big outage that lasted a week. Trees down everywhere. While bringing neighborhoods back up, they prioritized homes and skipped streetlights. Turns out that was a mistake. People were scared and stupid and doing things like chasing down utility trucks with shotguns demanding the streetlights turn on. This was in neighborhoods that they'd gotten power to. Something as simple as actual darkness, and people simply snapped. Some people at least.
No matter the struggle, I'm sure some other people would rise up and overcome. But when talking about sociology, you've got to talk about both the trends and the edge-cases. Even with welfare, you're going to get people that aren't functional enough to take a handout. Even with a socialized psych program, you're going to have people that can't make a buck. I think the right way to measure this stuff is to compare metriscs to other similar nations. I'd like to see some sort of psych initative, even if the idea of asylums freaks me right the fuck out. Isn't that the current deflection from the NRA? "We need mental health reform rather than gun control"? Super, great. And we're not going to see a damn thing are we?
go metaphysical when you are bored
uuuuuuuuhhhhh....
or not satisfied with the physical/matter answers.
YES, there we go. People invoke the metaphyical when physics is insufficient to explain the phenomena. ....But... we can explain this one.
about rats mating etc; these can be explained by matter. But claiming thoughts/intuition also arises from dna/matter is just a belief
... "Matter" in this case is the DNA inside of rats. The real physical non-meta molecules that exist inside of cells. Rats know to mate through instinct. The thought "go stick my dick in that" is instinctual. You're agreeing that the mating instinct in rats is explained through DNA. ie, DNA dictates instinct. Which is kind of the crux of the argument.
Beyond logic lies nonsense. To each their own I guess.
you need to go meta physical. outside matter.
I dunno man, I avoid mystical shit like the plague. The idea that there's keter-level stuff out there that we not only don't know about but fundamentally can't comprehend is DEFINITELY "just a belief". How would you prove it? Even for Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we know what's unknowable, and can work with it enough that we've got qbit computers now.
The claim about intuition encoded in matter/DNA -- is there a scientific proof for it? isn't that just a belief?
After throwing that last one at me about how things are unknowable metaphyics, you then turn around and ask for proof about DNA and instinct? That's one hell of a double-standard. I mean, sure, there's still debate about that. But how else does a foal know how to walk around so soon after birth? Or sex. Rats grown in test tubes and raised in isolation will still have sex and make baby rats. They just know. Where's that impulse coming from if not the blue-prints which made them? Are you telling me that the single-celled slime mold has some sort of cognitive ability that learns how to band together to search for food?
DNA has all the information needed to build every living species on Earth. It literally describes how to build brains. And... take domesticated foxes for example. Or dog breeds. It's pretty conclusive that we can breed for trends in personality traits. Impregnate a wild fox with a domesticated fox and observe the resulting pup in the wild and you'll see it behave differently. This is it's disposition. What it naturally, instinctively gravitates towards. It's... honestly a bit creepy thinking about how that relates to free will and what makes us behave how we do. But it's true. You'd have to be willfully ignorant to not see the trend.
I dunno, it seems pretty obvious to me. Others might argue otherwise. The debate about what's learned and what's instinct is wide open for debate. There are some good points about epigenetics and environment, but if the alternatives include unknowable metaphysics, I'll stick with the simple solution.
NOTE that once u find an algorithm (like ML/recursive NN), there is no longer any magic left in say image recognition or natural language processing. it's just some math/matrix manipulations.
oh ho ho! There's still a lot of magic in natural languages. That's a deep one. And... even with a good NN that can do cool stuff... it doesn't mean they've completely solved image recognition or natural language. They still make mistakes. You know, like the article points out.
I'm not sure you're giving enough credit to the breadth of what "It's just some math" can entail.
We have to move to problems which math cant' solve.
Do we? Why? Are you saying that's a per-requisite for making "true" AI?
I've got a funny personal definition of magic though. This certainly isn't how most people see it, and I get that. But magic is just what we don't understand. The world is full of magic for kids. You know that phrase "sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic"? I think it literally IS magic. Most magic is fiction, but there is some real magic in the world at the edges of our knowledge. We need to find it, and kill it. Because once you know how the magic trick works, it's no longer magical. But that's all fairly poetic and more of a philosophy really.
We conceptualize,
I dunno, that's kind of an empty statement when talking about how we learn things. If I told you training an NN is effectively "conceptualizing" how would you refute that?
generalize
I think NN does this. It takes a whole bunch of pictures of sheep and figures out that they're the same and generally called "sheep".
and abstract concepts we understand and have meaning for, we make associations and replace concepts with one another.
NN definitely makes associations. But yeah, I don't think they handle abstract concepts at all so far. Neither do ants or rats, but I did ask about human brains.
We do not learn directly the real world, we in fact learn the representations we continuously make ourselves of it.
Did you mean we not only learn from the real world? We ALSO learn through... Imagination? Is that what you're saying? To that I'd point out AlphaGo, the successor to DeepMind. Deepmind learned on a big training set of recorded games. AlphaGo self-teaches and is only given the rules of Go. No external input. I'd say that's pretty equivalent to imagining novel strategies. It plays a better game of Go than DeepMind after 3 days of training. (or whatever term you want to use for the process of messing with the neural nets to achieve a goal).
the human mind doesn't remotely resemble that set of algorithms based on a highly simplified representation called "artificial neural network".
Right, the human brain is represented, somehow, in 3 billion base pairs of GTAC resulting in our DNA. It does a LOT of learning after construction.... but that learning process likewise has neurons connecting and strengthening. A lot like how an ANN configures itself.
I don't want to start a polemic, ... obviously not a native English speaker.
Naw it's cool dude. I understand people have different views, I just think while artificial intelligence is different from the biological form we're all familiar with, the fundamentals are the same. (And your English is great, except the "learning from the real world" thing)
How about intelligence is the ability to provide answers when the input to output processing cannot be encoded in symbols? [vaguely things like 'intuition'];
I'm not sure what that looks like. Could you give me an example of this sort of thing show that you or I are intellgent. (And maybe, like, rats and ants?)
And, uh.... 100% of your intuition is encoded in a 2-bit DNA sequence of 3 billion base pairs, or about 725 megabytes of data. It can be represented by the symbols GTAC. If it's not directly in the DNA, the thing that dictates your intuition is designed in and created by DNA. There's also some details like how it gets wound up. And physical damage. But we can describe those as well. With words.
Self-hosting is just running your software on someone else's network
Which I pay for and will switch away from if they try dicking with it. Also encryption means they CAN'T dick with the content I put on it. Also, No, my todo list typically doesn't leave my phone (but doesn't show up on my calendar... ), so it doesn't go through my ISP.
someone else's power grid
Which, as long as it's maintained, won't dick with any of my stuff. Also, my cell phone has a battery you insensitive clod!
someone else's operating system
Which I'm pretty sure a number of people around here would agree is a good thing to have under your control rather than "someone else" being able to dick with it. Hurzzah open source model, and all that.
Do you?
Well that gets into a "no true scotsman" fallacy. Think about it like "life". Humans are alive and are really complex. But so are nematodes, bacteria, and arguably viruses and prions. The issues comes up that we don't have a solid definition of what "intelligence" or "alive" really are. Personally, I think viruses are alive. Even though my highschool biology told me otherwise. It self-replicates and makes copies which self-replicate. That's about And I think intelligence is defined by learning. If it learns, it's intelligent. Cue joke about the target political party of your choice.
But hey, white blood cells. Are they intelligent? Have you seen the videos of them chasing down intruders?
Are bacteria intelligent? How about a strain of bacteria? Because if you subject them to antibiotics enough bacteria learn how to thwart them.
Are plants intelligent? They have a shmorgas board of reactions to their surrounding. Communicate with others. Feel pain.
I'd say that mathematical constructs could be intelligent... as long as they can get get new stimuli and update itself so that it gives more apt output to additional stimuli. Or, in other words, if it learns. It doesn't even have to learn well, learn much, or endlessly learn with no upper limit. It doesn't have to impress me or out-compete a human being the same way that a my definition of "alive" doesn't have to be above me in the food chain. I have a low bar for these definitions.
The "gives the impression" of intelligence.... I dunno man, at some point if it has all the symptoms, that's pretty much the definition of falling into a category. If it quacks like a duck, etc. What about a computer program would make it definitely not intelligent?
Atoms have a nucleus which attracts electrons. Electrons repel other electrons and dance around the nucleus at various shells. Their position isn't like the orbit of the planets around the sun or.... "rubber balls rotating around each other". Which... would presumably need... string and a diorama, or a big rubber sheet.... or something... They are vaguely similar in the sense that balls could represent particles. Different sized or colored balls could be similar to how different particles have different properties. Otherwise they're not very similar.
There, I have compared an atom to rubber balls rotating around each other. Please compare the training of neural networks and the training of a human brain. I am not kidding. Please give me a straight answer.
See, this is why it's actually sometimes useful to argue with trolls. Nothing quite motivates me as delivering a brow-beating on an ignorant dumbfuck.
Remember when I said I was running with assumptions? Yeah, turns out I right about that and things have come a long way since 2012. Just like I mentioned in the other post that you likely didn't really read, This article points out that there has been significant advances. And they've got tools to help object recognition figure out object localization (drawing a bounding box around stuff to look at), sematic segmentation (figuring out what parts of the image are different things), instance segmentation (figuring out that there are multiple similar objects), keypoint detection (known objects have known details, like humans have arms which it can know the position of and faces have mouths that smile or frown)
It can and does recognize sheep in a field. Some of the time. Possibly most of the time. There have been incremental improvements in the field of object recognition for decades.
We have been training NN for 40 years now.
mmmmm, not even wrong. Training any given NN has diminishing returns after a point. The research and development has been making them better at learning from any given training. Case in point, DeepMind was trained on a massive set of past games. DeepMind's successor, AlphaGo, needed no such training set. It could self-teach starting from just the rules of Go. It could play a better game than DeepMind in about half-an-hour's training.
If you're not going to read any of this, you're just spamming the same questions over and over.
How is that fundamentally different from what happens in your head when you see a picture of a sheep?
tell the difference between a sheep and a letter, yes. So you are saying that all you need is a big neural net with different training set, or multiple sub-NN?
Yeah, if you want an NN to know about something you have to train it. If you want it to know about two different things, you have to give it a training set that spans both. Or you could have some sort of tiered affair. The letter recognition wouldn't see anything while the animal recognition would see a sheep, with something managing both. Generally the broader the training set the longer it takes to figure anything out.
You know this, stop feigning ignorance.
If that is the case, why don't we have one?
We do. Like the article mentions. Microsoft's Azure is an object recognition program. HERE. Just go play with it. Find a picture of a sheep. Load it into the API, hit submit, and one of the tags will, likely, be "sheep".
NN have been around for 40 years. When are we going to have one that can recognize sheep?
Around 2012. At least it was a nice mile-stone. There has been incremental improvements and the hit-rate has been getting progressively better.
What is your explanation?
I'd explain this line of inquiry with: You're a willfully ignorant troll that refuses to admit at the thing that's right in front of his face and that AI is a real thing.
The article is about how Azure failed ONE TIME to accurately identify an image. Does your imaginary 2 year old ALWAYS correctly identify objects? Do you? Are you some infallible god-like being? Are you omniscient? Does this line of hyperbolic inquiry lend any meaningful credence?
Just keep walking up that evolutionary tree until it's close enough.
We're all just advanced small furry mammals.
So the AI was biased because it preferred black and white fence posts in the ground to sheep?
It'll have biases due to it's training set. In this one, I think it's shown a bunch of pictures of fields of sheep and told those are sheep, so it assumes fields with white blobs are sheep. To MS's Azure, "sheep" isn't an animal with wool and split hooves, it's a field with white blobs. At least in part. The two are tied to each other. If you blur this picture enough and ask people about it, they might make the same sort of assumption. But they'll know that it's a field with sheep in it. I'm not sure Azure is making that connection. But I'm honestly running with a lot of assumptions here.
Did you have problems recognizing sheep in the pictures? If not, why didn't you? After all, you have biases.
No, because I've got a lot more training with a much more advanced learning algorithm and can pick out details differentiating rocks and sheep. I'm smarter than Azure, like most people. When AI advances though, as it bound to do, we do need remember that it will STILL be prone to bias. Just like people.
The point is that we can see how it's failing with easy problems. Once it starts putting forth solutions to hard problems we should expect it to fail in the same sort of way, and shouldn't just blindly assume that it's immune to the same sort of issues that people have.
Yeah, yeah, I know you're working some sort of "No True Scottish AI" angle, but there's a real lesson about AI development here. If you don't want to discuss that, piss off.
Your two-year old could read the whole alphabet? Get that kid into a gifted program!
Why do you need a special NN for each one of those tasks?
Or one big one given different training sets. Or a collection of NN managed by and to be called upon by a overlord NN. Because your two year old ALSO had to learn shapes, animals, and objects before learning the alphabet. And he ALSO has different areas of his brain that are dedicated to certain tasks. Getting them all to work together is one hell of a trick.
But you ALWAYS come to any AI thread and ALWAYS claim there is no such thing. Come on 110010001000 ( 697113 ), give us the spiel already. Just get it out of your system.
What do you mean by consciousness?
Yeah, I guess that explains a few things like the platypus. Australia is a pretty big.
Eh, even if they don't flip over the turtle, we can make sure they stay INTERLINKED. You are a collection of cells. cells. do you want mod points? interlinked. is microsoft evil? interlinked. is wayland the way? interlinked. within cells interlinked.
oh come on you lazy slashot filter. Grow some AI and pick up when capslock is funny... ok, for full effect, assume I'm yelling at you in the last half. You know the scene.
neural networks are not practically auditable.
I'd say that goes for any sort of machine learning or AI. Same thing is certainly true for genetic algorithms as well.
However if you present them with an example that is significantly different, it may not work as well.
Right, but that's what's interpolation and extrapolation does, it sees trends and applies that knowledge to new situations. If the new thing doesn't follow the trend of your past experience, you're screwed. Just like people. The trick with AI at this point is giving them broad experiences rather than niche. Expanding their horizon is almost certainly going to involve a collection of different AI specializing in certain tasks.... the same way that portions of your brain specializes in certain tasks.
The lesson is that AI will have biases. They will have the exact same sort of problems and issues that people have when it comes to presumptions built up from prior experience. Stereotypes, prejudices, and bias. Sounds bad right? But it's the basis of CONTEXT. It's how language works. Things like pronouns and "it" can refer to anything and you have to rely on context to link it to something. And we do so based on what makes sense based on experience. Our eyeballs do the same thing. They fill in a lot of blanks. It's how you never notice your blind spot. It's how a lot of optical illusions work. AI are going to have the same thing. Here's some video of a guy running into convenience store and robbing it. What did it see? How would it describe the guy? Well... that depends on it's training set.
I imagine we'll eventually be able to train up different AI with different biases. Train two in different bubbles, and then compare their output and we'll be able to see how badly these bubbles influence people's views and thoughts. Also where they agree.
Computers are great when it comes to being impartial. They can make the world a better place with less corruption. But it's useful to think of AI as a generated person, with all the flaws and awesomeness that comes with that. There are some tasks that, even if an AI could do it, we'd have to be careful about how they do it, and figuring out exactly how AI does what it does is hard. We mostly just look at the end-result. So, get ready for people professionally trained to vet AIs before employment.