Do you really think AI will not follow a moore type law?
Why should it? Moore's law applies to one specific technology, which happens to be a technology that scaled/improve more than almost any other in history. There used to be a popular analogy, if cars improved as much as chips have, a car would cost a nickel, travel a million miles an hour and go around the world twice on a teaspoon of (low octane) gas, or something like that. Unfortunately most technologies don't improve that much. If neural nets are implemented on chips, they'll run into the limits of Moore's law too (I know, they've been predicting the end of Moore's law for many years, but past performance is no guarantee of future success).
What's actually new in the neural net business? That's a real question - not a sarcastic or rhetorical one.
Artificial neural nets were suggested and tried for AI at least 50 years ago. They were bashed by the old Minsky/McCarthy AI crowd, who didn't like the competition's idea (always better to write another million lines of Lisp). They wrote a paper that showed neural nets couldn't implement an XOR. That's true - for a 2 layer net. A 3 layer net does it just fine. Nevertheless M&M had enough clout to put bury NN research for years. Then in the 80's(?) they became a hot new thing again. One of the few good things about getting older is that you can remember hearing the same hype before.
However, I'm not saying there hasn't been progress. Sometimes a field needs to go through decades of incremental improvement before you can get decent non-trivial applications. It's not all giant breakthroughs. Sometimes just having faster hardware can make a dramatic difference. Loads of things that weren't practical became practical with better hardware. So what's really improved w/ neural nets these days?
For such a blatant, transparent, promotional, hyperbolic "story", I wish soulskill would at least throw in a sarcastic jab or two to balance out the stench a bit.
Agreed. This story smells of the usual Google hype.
I think it's great that there is more research in this area, but "The Man Behind the Google Brain: Andrew Ng and the Quest for the New AI" suggests that Google is at the forefront of this stuff. They're not. Look at the Successes in Pattern Recognition Contests since 2009. None of Ng, Stanford, Google or Silicon Valley are even mentioned. Google's greatest ability is in generating hype. It seems to be the stock-in-trade of much of Silicon Valley. Don't take it too seriously.
Generating this type of hype for your company is an art. I use to work for a small company run by a guy who was a wiz at it. What you have to understand is that reporters are always looking for stories, and this sort of spoon fed stuff is easy to write. Forget about "Wired". The guy I knew could usually get an article in NYT or WSJ in a day or two.
The younger crowd doesn't really care any more (more and more teens are waiting on getting a license until absolutely necessary).
Wait, what? I find that very difficult to believe. I'd ask for statistics, but it seems difficult to separate out just teenagers living in areas rural enough that you need a car. Where I grew up there's no transit at all; everyone gets a license as soon as possible as the alternative is to never leave home except via school bus or ride from your parents. I can't see that changing and the US isn't exactly pushing for more transit.
Yeah except there is no "he". Each of his endeavors involved many other people and their money.
Is it the other people's money that is noteworthy, or the other people whose ideas and work made these ventures a success?
Who is heavily into self-promotion again?
Of course Musk is a self-promoter. You rarely hear about people who aren't self promoters (unless they invented the polio vaccine or something). So what?
I also get tired of hearing about tech billionaire garbage. It's usually more about business strategy and getting away with monopolistic practices and a bunch of luck. However, if money is your interest, why not talk about the Waltons (worth a combined total of $115.7 billion)? Personally I'm a technophile. I'm more interested in (Nikola) Tesla, who died in debt, than I am in J.P. Morgan. I'm certainly not saying that Musk is another Nikola Tesla, but at least he starts ventures that do seriously cool and technologically interesting things, rather than making billions from boring over-hyped technologically uninteresting things like the latest "cloud" whatever.
Careful, you are very close to the high crime of lese-majeste. You may also note that questioning our future in space or the utility of 3D printing are equally unwelcome here.
Bah. Slashdotters are a bunch of wimps who "punish" blasphemers by saying unkind things to them. In the old days we'd burn 'em at the stake (bring your own marshmallows).
No need to attempt to sell me a bridge, instead re-read where I stated "and pretend they are not doing the same to you".
BTW,
I listed those two plans for that explicit reason (cold war period).
The point was the US has a long history of spying, and there is no reason why one should assume other nations are not dong the same.
But the US is not "assum[ing] other nations are not dong the same". They're saying that China is! The difference is that the USSR was an enemy, and China is supposedly not.
If by transmission you mean a fixed ratio reduction gear. Electric motors have actually been used for years to eliminate the need for variable ratio transmissions, which often don't work well w/ high torques or other situations that electric motors handle gracefully. That's what the electric part of a diesel-electric locomotive is - an electric motor used in place of a transmission. They're built that way because mechanical transmissions can't cut it.
Teslas engineers were just too incompetent to build one correctly.
Tesla subcontracted the transmission design, and three companies, all of which have extensive experience, couldn't produce something that worked right. Tesla's solution was to improve the electric motor and drive electronics, which gave them equal or better performance than was originally anticipated with a transmission, but without the weight or unreliability of a mechanical transmission. Tesla's "incompetence" led to a better car.
Spoken like a true programmer. Why make something elegant and fun when it can just work?
I think cars started downhill when that newfangled synchromesh eliminated the need for double clutching, and as in so many other areas technology continues to destroy the simple pleasures of life. Imagine a train without the joy of stoking the fire while cinders fly in your eyes and you watch the pressure gauge to avoid a boiler explosion. Or a ship where you don't have to climb the ratlines in a storm. Or turning a tap labeled "hot" instead of fetching well water and starting a fire to warm it. Or of not having to run down your dinner armed only with a flint tipped spear.
really nice roads along the Mississippi in southeastern Minnesota
You country wusses. If you want some excitement in driving, try Manhattan. Driving on an empty road is no more challenging than flying with nothing around you, but Manhattan is like the Battle of Britain.
It's one thing to use a manual instead of an automatic if you need a transmission, but in an electric car? Talk about refusing to change with the times. Maybe when these newfangled horseless carriages came out, there were those who yearned for buggy whips and eau de equestrian posterior.
And thanks to those we're not standing in a pile of radioactive rubble. It's ignorance of a potential adversary's military capability that's most likely to lead to instability and even more excessive than usual arms buildups. Eisenhower wanted the U-2 because it was ignorance of Soviet capability that lead to the "bomber gap" claim and an enormous US nuclear buildup. Eisenhower was later frustrated because the secret nature of the U-2 flights meant he couldn't tell the public that all the talk of a missile gap was nonsense. Earlier in his administration Eisenhower had even made an "open skies" proposal to the USSR that would have let reconnaissance planes fly over each others territory. As far as "secret" spy sats, the secrets were in the details of their capabilities, not their existence. Later on they were unabashedly used to verify arms treaties. For example, we agreed to chop the wings off of most of our B-52's during the time when Soviet sats were overhead and could verify it.
However, what China is doing now has nothing to do with that sort of spying. They have their own spy sats and would know it if we were building up nuclear arms (or conventional ones for that matter). I'll also remind you that the USSR was an enemy country, whereas China is supposedly not. The amount and type of spying we're seeing is not the type you normally see from a friendly country. Yes, yes, the US and its allies do a little spying on each other, blah, blah, balh, but nothing approaching this level.
it does *NOT* mean that there is not SOMEONE ELSE who is OUTSIDE of china who has compromised that machine and is using it as a DDOS hacking jump-point in order to deliberately mask their true location [and identity]
First, what the hell does this have to do w/ DDOS? We're talking about spying.
Second, suppose Dr. Evil is hacking machines in China to hide the true source of the attacks. Why is he only using machines in China. Why not Russia or Canada or Elbonia? It would be much better for Dr. Evil to choose machines around the world so we couldn't just block Chinese IP addresses and be done with it. This is a case of Occam's razor: if the vast majority of the attacks come from China, then they're probably perpetrated by people in China. Given the authoritarian nature of the Chinese government, I find it hard to believe that this is done without their knowledge and approval. The alternative explanation is that people who can't read any news source that refers to Taiwan as an independent country, are at the same time launching massive penetration attacks without government approval.
Don't even know why I'm bothering to respond, but how do you propose type 1 diabetics use your methodology? Or are you just an ignorant twat who can't even be bothered to understand what type 1 diabetes is?
Hear, hear! I also feel vindicated that my 9:48AM post, while clumsily phrased so that it was misconstrued by some, was nevertheless accurate in predicting that somebody would make the sort of ignorant remarks that the OP did. Of course that prediction is like predicting that the sun will rise in the East, but I was still right.
Thank you for reading my post carefully. I made a post relating to political/social issues of universal health care, and inadvertently implied that type 2 is necessarily caused by being overweight. I apologized and clarified what I meant, but am not sure what else I have to do to atone for what was merely a clumsy attempt at making a point.
Sorry, no offense. Yes, I'm aware that weight is far from the only factor affecting type 2 diabetes. I have several relatives w/ type 2 that were able to reduce their medication dependence by losing weight (they were overweight to begin with), though of course it doesn't cure it.
I made my OP only because whenever health care is discussed (especially these days) there are sanctimonious assholes who attribute all health problems to people's poor habits, and think universal health care (if we ever get it) will pick their virtuous pockets to pay for other people's lack of virtue.
Preemptively posting, because you know there's gonna be some idiot talking about fat people, and who doesn't understand the difference between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn fine cellist though.
Do you really think AI will not follow a moore type law?
Why should it? Moore's law applies to one specific technology, which happens to be a technology that scaled/improve more than almost any other in history. There used to be a popular analogy, if cars improved as much as chips have, a car would cost a nickel, travel a million miles an hour and go around the world twice on a teaspoon of (low octane) gas, or something like that. Unfortunately most technologies don't improve that much. If neural nets are implemented on chips, they'll run into the limits of Moore's law too (I know, they've been predicting the end of Moore's law for many years, but past performance is no guarantee of future success).
What's actually new in the neural net business? That's a real question - not a sarcastic or rhetorical one.
Artificial neural nets were suggested and tried for AI at least 50 years ago. They were bashed by the old Minsky/McCarthy AI crowd, who didn't like the competition's idea (always better to write another million lines of Lisp). They wrote a paper that showed neural nets couldn't implement an XOR. That's true - for a 2 layer net. A 3 layer net does it just fine. Nevertheless M&M had enough clout to put bury NN research for years. Then in the 80's(?) they became a hot new thing again. One of the few good things about getting older is that you can remember hearing the same hype before.
However, I'm not saying there hasn't been progress. Sometimes a field needs to go through decades of incremental improvement before you can get decent non-trivial applications. It's not all giant breakthroughs. Sometimes just having faster hardware can make a dramatic difference. Loads of things that weren't practical became practical with better hardware. So what's really improved w/ neural nets these days?
For such a blatant, transparent, promotional, hyperbolic "story", I wish soulskill would at least throw in a sarcastic jab or two to balance out the stench a bit.
Agreed. This story smells of the usual Google hype.
I think it's great that there is more research in this area, but "The Man Behind the Google Brain: Andrew Ng and the Quest for the New AI" suggests that Google is at the forefront of this stuff. They're not. Look at the Successes in Pattern Recognition Contests since 2009. None of Ng, Stanford, Google or Silicon Valley are even mentioned. Google's greatest ability is in generating hype. It seems to be the stock-in-trade of much of Silicon Valley. Don't take it too seriously.
Generating this type of hype for your company is an art. I use to work for a small company run by a guy who was a wiz at it. What you have to understand is that reporters are always looking for stories, and this sort of spoon fed stuff is easy to write. Forget about "Wired". The guy I knew could usually get an article in NYT or WSJ in a day or two.
The younger crowd doesn't really care any more (more and more teens are waiting on getting a license until absolutely necessary).
Wait, what? I find that very difficult to believe. I'd ask for statistics, but it seems difficult to separate out just teenagers living in areas rural enough that you need a car. Where I grew up there's no transit at all; everyone gets a license as soon as possible as the alternative is to never leave home except via school bus or ride from your parents. I can't see that changing and the US isn't exactly pushing for more transit.
Strange but true. See this article.
The AF447 crash shows exactly the opposite of what you are trying to demonstrate.
Yes it does, but that's only one case. How many thousands of times has the autopilot kicked out and the human pilot(s) handled it just fine?
Try Paris, or Moscow. Manhatten driving is for wimps.
Manhattan is for people who want excitement. Paris and Moscow are for people who are suicidal.
Yeah except there is no "he". Each of his endeavors involved many other people and their money.
Is it the other people's money that is noteworthy, or the other people whose ideas and work made these ventures a success?
Who is heavily into self-promotion again?
Of course Musk is a self-promoter. You rarely hear about people who aren't self promoters (unless they invented the polio vaccine or something). So what?
I also get tired of hearing about tech billionaire garbage. It's usually more about business strategy and getting away with monopolistic practices and a bunch of luck. However, if money is your interest, why not talk about the Waltons (worth a combined total of $115.7 billion)? Personally I'm a technophile. I'm more interested in (Nikola) Tesla, who died in debt, than I am in J.P. Morgan. I'm certainly not saying that Musk is another Nikola Tesla, but at least he starts ventures that do seriously cool and technologically interesting things, rather than making billions from boring over-hyped technologically uninteresting things like the latest "cloud" whatever.
Careful, you are very close to the high crime of lese-majeste. You may also note that questioning our future in space or the utility of 3D printing are equally unwelcome here.
Bah. Slashdotters are a bunch of wimps who "punish" blasphemers by saying unkind things to them. In the old days we'd burn 'em at the stake (bring your own marshmallows).
No need to attempt to sell me a bridge, instead re-read where I stated "and pretend they are not doing the same to you".
BTW, I listed those two plans for that explicit reason (cold war period).
The point was the US has a long history of spying, and there is no reason why one should assume other nations are not dong the same.
But the US is not "assum[ing] other nations are not dong the same". They're saying that China is! The difference is that the USSR was an enemy, and China is supposedly not.
Electric motors need a transmission too.
If by transmission you mean a fixed ratio reduction gear. Electric motors have actually been used for years to eliminate the need for variable ratio transmissions, which often don't work well w/ high torques or other situations that electric motors handle gracefully. That's what the electric part of a diesel-electric locomotive is - an electric motor used in place of a transmission. They're built that way because mechanical transmissions can't cut it.
Teslas engineers were just too incompetent to build one correctly.
Tesla subcontracted the transmission design, and three companies, all of which have extensive experience, couldn't produce something that worked right. Tesla's solution was to improve the electric motor and drive electronics, which gave them equal or better performance than was originally anticipated with a transmission, but without the weight or unreliability of a mechanical transmission. Tesla's "incompetence" led to a better car.
Given the alternative, I would prefer a cruse ship that let you man the sails.
From the article:
Hallways were flooded with human waste, there was no A/C or running water, and passengers were left to survive on limited food and water.
In the days of sailing ships, you only got those conditions in first class.
Humans love to bask in the feeling of being in control, especially when it comes to cars. With planes, this was different
Haven't met many pilots, have you?
Spoken like a true programmer. Why make something elegant and fun when it can just work?
I think cars started downhill when that newfangled synchromesh eliminated the need for double clutching, and as in so many other areas technology continues to destroy the simple pleasures of life. Imagine a train without the joy of stoking the fire while cinders fly in your eyes and you watch the pressure gauge to avoid a boiler explosion. Or a ship where you don't have to climb the ratlines in a storm. Or turning a tap labeled "hot" instead of fetching well water and starting a fire to warm it. Or of not having to run down your dinner armed only with a flint tipped spear.
really nice roads along the Mississippi in southeastern Minnesota
You country wusses. If you want some excitement in driving, try Manhattan. Driving on an empty road is no more challenging than flying with nothing around you, but Manhattan is like the Battle of Britain.
Agreed on manual transmission.
It's one thing to use a manual instead of an automatic if you need a transmission, but in an electric car? Talk about refusing to change with the times. Maybe when these newfangled horseless carriages came out, there were those who yearned for buggy whips and eau de equestrian posterior.
we had the U2, SR71, secret spy sats
And thanks to those we're not standing in a pile of radioactive rubble. It's ignorance of a potential adversary's military capability that's most likely to lead to instability and even more excessive than usual arms buildups. Eisenhower wanted the U-2 because it was ignorance of Soviet capability that lead to the "bomber gap" claim and an enormous US nuclear buildup. Eisenhower was later frustrated because the secret nature of the U-2 flights meant he couldn't tell the public that all the talk of a missile gap was nonsense. Earlier in his administration Eisenhower had even made an "open skies" proposal to the USSR that would have let reconnaissance planes fly over each others territory. As far as "secret" spy sats, the secrets were in the details of their capabilities, not their existence. Later on they were unabashedly used to verify arms treaties. For example, we agreed to chop the wings off of most of our B-52's during the time when Soviet sats were overhead and could verify it.
However, what China is doing now has nothing to do with that sort of spying. They have their own spy sats and would know it if we were building up nuclear arms (or conventional ones for that matter). I'll also remind you that the USSR was an enemy country, whereas China is supposedly not. The amount and type of spying we're seeing is not the type you normally see from a friendly country. Yes, yes, the US and its allies do a little spying on each other, blah, blah, balh, but nothing approaching this level.
I do a significant amount of network traffic analysis specifically for security.
On Slashdot that will probably lead to accusations that you have no idea what you're talking about.
it does *NOT* mean that there is not SOMEONE ELSE who is OUTSIDE of china who has compromised that machine and is using it as a DDOS hacking jump-point in order to deliberately mask their true location [and identity]
First, what the hell does this have to do w/ DDOS? We're talking about spying.
Second, suppose Dr. Evil is hacking machines in China to hide the true source of the attacks. Why is he only using machines in China. Why not Russia or Canada or Elbonia? It would be much better for Dr. Evil to choose machines around the world so we couldn't just block Chinese IP addresses and be done with it. This is a case of Occam's razor: if the vast majority of the attacks come from China, then they're probably perpetrated by people in China. Given the authoritarian nature of the Chinese government, I find it hard to believe that this is done without their knowledge and approval. The alternative explanation is that people who can't read any news source that refers to Taiwan as an independent country, are at the same time launching massive penetration attacks without government approval.
Shortage of competent programmers.
And the employers get to decide who is a true Scotsman, so they can always claim there is a shortage.
aren't these large companies wanting to raise the H-1B visa limits because of allegedly poorly trained/inexperienced programmers
Because poorly trained/inexperienced guest workers are better than poorly trained/inexperienced Americans.
Don't even know why I'm bothering to respond, but how do you propose type 1 diabetics use your methodology? Or are you just an ignorant twat who can't even be bothered to understand what type 1 diabetes is?
Hear, hear! I also feel vindicated that my 9:48AM post, while clumsily phrased so that it was misconstrued by some, was nevertheless accurate in predicting that somebody would make the sort of ignorant remarks that the OP did. Of course that prediction is like predicting that the sun will rise in the East, but I was still right.
Thank you for reading my post carefully. I made a post relating to political/social issues of universal health care, and inadvertently implied that type 2 is necessarily caused by being overweight. I apologized and clarified what I meant, but am not sure what else I have to do to atone for what was merely a clumsy attempt at making a point.
Sorry, no offense. Yes, I'm aware that weight is far from the only factor affecting type 2 diabetes. I have several relatives w/ type 2 that were able to reduce their medication dependence by losing weight (they were overweight to begin with), though of course it doesn't cure it.
I made my OP only because whenever health care is discussed (especially these days) there are sanctimonious assholes who attribute all health problems to people's poor habits, and think universal health care (if we ever get it) will pick their virtuous pockets to pay for other people's lack of virtue.
Preemptively posting, because you know there's gonna be some idiot talking about fat people, and who doesn't understand the difference between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.