I hardly ever mentioned Jeopardy, and as somebody who is studying with one of the creators of Watson at CMU, I'm not clueless about what the algorithm is doing. But hey, don't let my intention to discuss some interesting topic interfere with your chances to find subtle and irrelevant points in my comment and use them to post your paternalistic, acid reply. After all, English might not be my native language, but some people don't even try to listen.
Easy enough, let them output the diagnosis and the chemical compounds that can cure it. Provide a list of all current remedies that contain those compounds in the right quantities, sort by secondary effects, descending.
I know something about machine learning, so let me tell you how it works. The input is partitioned in two sets, a training set and a test set. The training set is used to teach the algorithm, the test set to measure it's performance. So, while we know the outcome for the second set, the computer does not, he is literally seeing it for the first time, as if the patient has just came for a consultation. The decision accuracy is then computed comparing the new output with the known outcome we had reserved to ourselves to see it it matches. And it does it in real time. It IS a real clinical setting!
So no, while I understand your fears, calling anything in ML a "retrospectascope" is completely wrong and ignorant. In fact, if you build such an algorithm it tends to have very poor behavior, since it looses the power to generalize for insight (the technical term is "overfitting").
Truth is, it's a good think that you would love to get some of the things you mention, since the article is saying you'll get them (and I can attest to that). Very soon.
Don't believe me? Look at Watson in action and think deep about what the computer is doing. It might seem a game, but really think what it is going on. It is not a movie script. It does not know the answers, it is UNDERSTANDING the questions and COMING UP WITH the right answers. Faster than the best humanity has to offer. Are you smarter/more knowledgeable than them? The truth is indeed astonishing and might look like science fiction, but it is not.
Actually, he might have a point. I agree that time travel is a great thing if done right (Babylon 5 IMHO does it splendidly), but most movies/series do not pull it off. It end up being an inconsistent, illogical deux-ex-machina. I mean, I love fiction and fantasy, but that does not mean that I turn my brain off and believe anything.
And I could not even enumerate the number of idiotic scenes in the last Star Trek movie! Just one example: "No, I can't kill you for mutiny, I'll have to abandon you without supplies on a frozen planet, in a star system were a black hole was just created! That's clearly more logical and humane! But hey, look at the bright side, maybe if you walk around for a while you'll meet a future copy of myself, and then find the only guy in the galaxy that can beam us to a moving ship (1 in a trillion odds, pretty easy), so you'll get back, in which case I'm not going to throw you out of an airlock, but make you captain above all my other qualified lieutenants... but just for a while, since to stop a bunch of miners that can suddenly put the galaxy on it's feet we'll beam ourselves to their ship and stop them hand to hand. What do you say? Why not beam a time-bomb or a few dozen armed guys just to be on the safe side? Nah, no fun in that. Also, it seems like overkill to me, it's only the Earth at stake here, remember? Kneel before my superior logic!"
So how much responsibility should be placed on those maintaining the databases for making sure that the contents are accurate, particularly clearing up a mistake when it is pointed out? Is there additional responsibility if the database is accessible to the public?
The content IS accurate: it accurately reflects the likelihood of seeing those terms together based on web content and queries from other users. If you have issues with the original content, talk to them. Search engines should not be liable for every possible statistical permutation of words that anybody, anywhere might find offensive.
You fail to account for problems in income redistribution. The total production probably more than allows for the world you mention. The problem is that the extra money goes to the owner of the robot, who already had the capital to invest in it, while the worker goes unemployed. This is a clear trend, the relation between labor and capital has been moving towards capital for a while.
While I do virtual things for a living (software, books and courses), there is one failed premise in that typical argument: that you have a right to make money. Identical examples can be made on other fields that follow your same logic and the answer to them is usually "tough luck, not our problem". Copyright is not a natural right, is a fairly NEW tradeoff between society's right to do whatever they want with you talk after they listen to it, against society's interest in providing incentives for more culture for everyone. It's not about your talk. It's not about you as an individual. It is NOT.
Now, there is ambiguous evidence on the fact that copyright works as intended, clear signs that culture will be fine without it, massive interest of society to share and clear benefits to sharing those things that give value and can be copied for free. If that is not enough reason to rethink society's agreement, here are others: the law has been hijacked to benefit the interest of a few, give incentives to dead people, make most of the worlds population into criminals and risk huge damage to the culture it is supposed to benefit by limiting the ability to base new culture on previous culture and by risking loosen thousands of orphaned works.
Clearly, a serious fix is needed here. But while we wait no copyright is IMHO clearly better than the current one (maybe a few less works, but x1000 access).
Not too good I'm afraid, unless you were joking. Probably better than many. Some tips:
-You should always think of the amount of memory your program uses. You could for instance have moved the numbers in place without defining a new array but using an auxiliary variable instead.
-You don't need a secondary counter, you could have used 'x' and 'size-x'. Less memory, less initialization,an extra subtraction but less increments.
-You definitely don't need 2 nested loops to do a single-pass (O(n)) operation.
I agree. Something I've found culturally odd in the US is how violence in general seems to be acceptable to solve problems. It goes all the way from individuals to foreign policy.
What I've always wondered is how do they come up with these numbers. If the revenue raises by that number over adding the patented tech on the standard products, then it would be fair, as we are only taking the money the transgressor made. Potentially multiplying that by 3 as a deterrent for willful infraction seems also reasonable, else every company would then just infringe on the chance it does not get caught.
The article does mention 2.3 billion chips sold. That leaves us with a fee of $0.508 per chip sold. The number seems quite steep to me, since such a number seems to me probably closer to the retail price for the whole chip. Which is nuts... does anybody know how much revenue Marvell gets per chip?
This is a good point. At the very least, legislation should be in place to guarantee that any advertising uses the correct word. I would like to see the "buy" button replaced by the "licence" button on every digital store and see what impact that actually has. Anything else is just a con.
Reading around and/or having a mentor. There is the people that want to get better and others who just want to get something done, even if they realize they have no idea what is going on.
Actually you don't lose context at all. The start menu is already out of context with whatever task is being done, if any. It's not that you need to look at the words in your document or check the values in your spreadsheet to use the menu. On the contrary, it is usually part of initiating a new task or subtask, and hiding unrelated UI could actually be an improvement. The context-switch happens anyway.
I think you are looking into this from the wrong perspective. I just moved into the US 2 years ago from one of those countries you mention (where this kind of thing just does not happen). For me is not about a potential ban, is that banned or not I see no reason to want to have a gun at all. What I've found extremely peculiar of the US is people's mentality and attitude. I see soldiers for instance as people doing a regrettably necessary job in the potential defense of the country. Here they seem to be "heroes" (although what cause they follow seems foggy), bringing purification by fire and salvation to others in some sort of capitalism/democracy jihad. No "defense" that I have seen. And that is just a single example.
There are all kinds of justifications, but the bottom line is that people in the US see VIOLENCE AS A VALID WAY to "solve" issues, instead of something to be shunned and avoided at all costs. I can't stress that enough. Diminishing the damage potential or availability of the tools of violence is a nice step, but does not address the real causes and (as many have pointed) will not be sufficient.
I did find this talk some time ago: http://www.ted.com/talks/marc_goodman_a_vision_of_crimes_in_the_future.html. It's interesting in noticing that security is almost impossible as damaging is much easier than preventing damage. The problem with terrorist is that little can actually be done to stop it. As it was recently proved, a single person with a gun can shock the world. Do that 10 times in random locations and see what happens... hell, I can think of many ways to create terror myself, without trying much.
I read somewhere that one of Bin Laden's objectives was to make the US spend 1 millon for each dolar that they spent. It is guerrilla warfare, it's all they've got, and they have been extremely successful at it. The values and way of life the US people were so proud about are gone. The millions were spent and continue to be. Sadly, the root of the issue it that, bared some reasonable efforts, the only way to fight terror is by enduring it and not being scared. Luckily, very few people are actually determined to do real damage and cause pain.
The medical danger should be a concern to everyone, but evidence suggests that the danger is negligible (though possibly nonzero).
But, ironically, bigger than the terrorism risk it's designed to prevent. Apart from the rest of your opinion, which I share, it also feels incredibly stupid to spend trucks of money to actually INCREASE my risk, especially given the economic circumstances and alternatives.
And I'm not even considering that how efficient the scanners are in preventing the terrorism risk in general, which I deem next to zero too. So all things considered, you spend a lot, hazzle and disrespect people considerably, step over privacy rights, don't prevent much and end up adding a new, bigger risk. Fucking brilliant!
What I find even more stupid is the NEED for a consensus. If even a single person tells you you are walking into a sand pit, you should be more careful. If 4 out of 5 people tell you about it, you would be incredibly stupid to continue as if nothing new is going on. Ignoring potential danger until you are 100% certain of it is an evolutionary recipe for extinction. That's why living being react to cues, instincts, etc.
And if there was no real danger, so what? No harm done. God forbid we create a more stable and sustainable society for no reason!
The problem there is that the is no such thing as a Carbon Cliff. It's more of a carbon slope, so there is the illusion of the danger not being too immediate and that eventually you could climb the slope back.
Put a frog in boiling water and he'll jump away. Boil the water when the frog is already in it and it will happily boil to death.
Slashdot Mirror
I hardly ever mentioned Jeopardy, and as somebody who is studying with one of the creators of Watson at CMU, I'm not clueless about what the algorithm is doing. But hey, don't let my intention to discuss some interesting topic interfere with your chances to find subtle and irrelevant points in my comment and use them to post your paternalistic, acid reply. After all, English might not be my native language, but some people don't even try to listen.
It is not, but it's going to tell you REALLY cheap and fast what things are NOT solutions.
Easy enough, let them output the diagnosis and the chemical compounds that can cure it. Provide a list of all current remedies that contain those compounds in the right quantities, sort by secondary effects, descending.
I know something about machine learning, so let me tell you how it works. The input is partitioned in two sets, a training set and a test set. The training set is used to teach the algorithm, the test set to measure it's performance. So, while we know the outcome for the second set, the computer does not, he is literally seeing it for the first time, as if the patient has just came for a consultation. The decision accuracy is then computed comparing the new output with the known outcome we had reserved to ourselves to see it it matches. And it does it in real time. It IS a real clinical setting!
;-)
So no, while I understand your fears, calling anything in ML a "retrospectascope" is completely wrong and ignorant. In fact, if you build such an algorithm it tends to have very poor behavior, since it looses the power to generalize for insight (the technical term is "overfitting").
Truth is, it's a good think that you would love to get some of the things you mention, since the article is saying you'll get them (and I can attest to that). Very soon. Don't believe me? Look at Watson in action and think deep about what the computer is doing. It might seem a game, but really think what it is going on. It is not a movie script. It does not know the answers, it is UNDERSTANDING the questions and COMING UP WITH the right answers. Faster than the best humanity has to offer. Are you smarter/more knowledgeable than them? The truth is indeed astonishing and might look like science fiction, but it is not.
The pony though might take some time
Actually, he might have a point. I agree that time travel is a great thing if done right (Babylon 5 IMHO does it splendidly), but most movies/series do not pull it off. It end up being an inconsistent, illogical deux-ex-machina. I mean, I love fiction and fantasy, but that does not mean that I turn my brain off and believe anything.
And I could not even enumerate the number of idiotic scenes in the last Star Trek movie! Just one example: "No, I can't kill you for mutiny, I'll have to abandon you without supplies on a frozen planet, in a star system were a black hole was just created! That's clearly more logical and humane! But hey, look at the bright side, maybe if you walk around for a while you'll meet a future copy of myself, and then find the only guy in the galaxy that can beam us to a moving ship (1 in a trillion odds, pretty easy), so you'll get back, in which case I'm not going to throw you out of an airlock, but make you captain above all my other qualified lieutenants... but just for a while, since to stop a bunch of miners that can suddenly put the galaxy on it's feet we'll beam ourselves to their ship and stop them hand to hand. What do you say? Why not beam a time-bomb or a few dozen armed guys just to be on the safe side? Nah, no fun in that. Also, it seems like overkill to me, it's only the Earth at stake here, remember? Kneel before my superior logic!"
No... this is definitely NOT good news.
So how much responsibility should be placed on those maintaining the databases for making sure that the contents are accurate, particularly clearing up a mistake when it is pointed out? Is there additional responsibility if the database is accessible to the public?
The content IS accurate: it accurately reflects the likelihood of seeing those terms together based on web content and queries from other users. If you have issues with the original content, talk to them. Search engines should not be liable for every possible statistical permutation of words that anybody, anywhere might find offensive.
You fail to account for problems in income redistribution. The total production probably more than allows for the world you mention. The problem is that the extra money goes to the owner of the robot, who already had the capital to invest in it, while the worker goes unemployed. This is a clear trend, the relation between labor and capital has been moving towards capital for a while.
Or you know, it might say: "I don't want to carry $850 in my pocket were I can easily lose it, break it or get mugged for it".
While I do virtual things for a living (software, books and courses), there is one failed premise in that typical argument: that you have a right to make money. Identical examples can be made on other fields that follow your same logic and the answer to them is usually "tough luck, not our problem". Copyright is not a natural right, is a fairly NEW tradeoff between society's right to do whatever they want with you talk after they listen to it, against society's interest in providing incentives for more culture for everyone. It's not about your talk. It's not about you as an individual. It is NOT.
Now, there is ambiguous evidence on the fact that copyright works as intended, clear signs that culture will be fine without it, massive interest of society to share and clear benefits to sharing those things that give value and can be copied for free. If that is not enough reason to rethink society's agreement, here are others: the law has been hijacked to benefit the interest of a few, give incentives to dead people, make most of the worlds population into criminals and risk huge damage to the culture it is supposed to benefit by limiting the ability to base new culture on previous culture and by risking loosen thousands of orphaned works.
Clearly, a serious fix is needed here. But while we wait no copyright is IMHO clearly better than the current one (maybe a few less works, but x1000 access).
Not too good I'm afraid, unless you were joking. Probably better than many. Some tips:
-You should always think of the amount of memory your program uses. You could for instance have moved the numbers in place without defining a new array but using an auxiliary variable instead.
-You don't need a secondary counter, you could have used 'x' and 'size-x'. Less memory, less initialization,an extra subtraction but less increments.
-You definitely don't need 2 nested loops to do a single-pass (O(n)) operation.
I hope it helps.
Maybe, but no as funny as seeing candidates compete for the "least negative tally" ;-)
I agree. Something I've found culturally odd in the US is how violence in general seems to be acceptable to solve problems. It goes all the way from individuals to foreign policy.
A quarter is probably more than enough for defense. Offense on the other side..
Time for us students to get a tuition discount?
What I've always wondered is how do they come up with these numbers. If the revenue raises by that number over adding the patented tech on the standard products, then it would be fair, as we are only taking the money the transgressor made. Potentially multiplying that by 3 as a deterrent for willful infraction seems also reasonable, else every company would then just infringe on the chance it does not get caught.
The article does mention 2.3 billion chips sold. That leaves us with a fee of $0.508 per chip sold. The number seems quite steep to me, since such a number seems to me probably closer to the retail price for the whole chip. Which is nuts... does anybody know how much revenue Marvell gets per chip?
This is a good point. At the very least, legislation should be in place to guarantee that any advertising uses the correct word. I would like to see the "buy" button replaced by the "licence" button on every digital store and see what impact that actually has. Anything else is just a con.
True. But a lot of old content, ironically, can't be found/purchased either. So 600x400 is better than 0x0.
So where does one get that knowledge, then?
Reading around and/or having a mentor. There is the people that want to get better and others who just want to get something done, even if they realize they have no idea what is going on.
Actually you don't lose context at all. The start menu is already out of context with whatever task is being done, if any. It's not that you need to look at the words in your document or check the values in your spreadsheet to use the menu. On the contrary, it is usually part of initiating a new task or subtask, and hiding unrelated UI could actually be an improvement. The context-switch happens anyway.
I think you are looking into this from the wrong perspective. I just moved into the US 2 years ago from one of those countries you mention (where this kind of thing just does not happen). For me is not about a potential ban, is that banned or not I see no reason to want to have a gun at all. What I've found extremely peculiar of the US is people's mentality and attitude. I see soldiers for instance as people doing a regrettably necessary job in the potential defense of the country. Here they seem to be "heroes" (although what cause they follow seems foggy), bringing purification by fire and salvation to others in some sort of capitalism/democracy jihad. No "defense" that I have seen. And that is just a single example.
There are all kinds of justifications, but the bottom line is that people in the US see VIOLENCE AS A VALID WAY to "solve" issues, instead of something to be shunned and avoided at all costs. I can't stress that enough. Diminishing the damage potential or availability of the tools of violence is a nice step, but does not address the real causes and (as many have pointed) will not be sufficient.
I did find this talk some time ago: http://www.ted.com/talks/marc_goodman_a_vision_of_crimes_in_the_future.html. It's interesting in noticing that security is almost impossible as damaging is much easier than preventing damage. The problem with terrorist is that little can actually be done to stop it. As it was recently proved, a single person with a gun can shock the world. Do that 10 times in random locations and see what happens... hell, I can think of many ways to create terror myself, without trying much.
I read somewhere that one of Bin Laden's objectives was to make the US spend 1 millon for each dolar that they spent. It is guerrilla warfare, it's all they've got, and they have been extremely successful at it. The values and way of life the US people were so proud about are gone. The millions were spent and continue to be. Sadly, the root of the issue it that, bared some reasonable efforts, the only way to fight terror is by enduring it and not being scared. Luckily, very few people are actually determined to do real damage and cause pain.
The medical danger should be a concern to everyone, but evidence suggests that the danger is negligible (though possibly nonzero).
But, ironically, bigger than the terrorism risk it's designed to prevent. Apart from the rest of your opinion, which I share, it also feels incredibly stupid to spend trucks of money to actually INCREASE my risk, especially given the economic circumstances and alternatives.
And I'm not even considering that how efficient the scanners are in preventing the terrorism risk in general, which I deem next to zero too. So all things considered, you spend a lot, hazzle and disrespect people considerably, step over privacy rights, don't prevent much and end up adding a new, bigger risk. Fucking brilliant!
What I find even more stupid is the NEED for a consensus. If even a single person tells you you are walking into a sand pit, you should be more careful. If 4 out of 5 people tell you about it, you would be incredibly stupid to continue as if nothing new is going on. Ignoring potential danger until you are 100% certain of it is an evolutionary recipe for extinction. That's why living being react to cues, instincts, etc.
And if there was no real danger, so what? No harm done. God forbid we create a more stable and sustainable society for no reason!
The problem there is that the is no such thing as a Carbon Cliff. It's more of a carbon slope, so there is the illusion of the danger not being too immediate and that eventually you could climb the slope back.
Put a frog in boiling water and he'll jump away. Boil the water when the frog is already in it and it will happily boil to death.
Mirrors, obviously. Everybody know the lasers are on the sharks...
Because god forbid we find something as human as humor in politicians? I mean, I for one would welcome any humane trait in politics whatsoever!