Since only two candidates generally have a valid chance of winning, the alternative being worse is also a valid reason to vote for someone. It's not one that *I* accept, as in that case I'll vote for a minority party, but it's a valid reason.
Well, it *does* decrease the power of the Federal government. Of course, it only does that to the benefit of powerful corporations (or companies), but at least it's a decrease. That's a good precedent.
Well, I'm not going to vote for Trump, but I believe Hillary supports the TPP, while Sanders may not. So if Sanders gets the nomination I'll vote Democrat, but if it's Hillary I'll pick some other party. Probably the Greens, but perhaps the Libertarian (I haven't read their platform this time around...I like SOME Libertarian positions). Not that either has a chance, but I couldn't stomach voting for a TPP supporter.
Well, to be fair the prior studies didn't show that all conceivable ways of doing personalized education were horrible, they showed that certain particular ways were. And they were right, but this doesn't mean that Zuckerberg is wrong. He may be, I'm not informed enough about his plan to have much of an opinion. I *am* of the opinion the personalized eduction has some extremely strong points, and mass education has some horrible weaknesses. And the way it is currently implement is certainly worse than the way it was implemented in the schools I went to in the 1950s. (This is largely, though not totally, down to class size and lack of local autonomy.)
When "Common Core" is all that gets taught, then it *is* the "Common Plan". And when it's all they are evaluated on, it's all that will get taught (except for rare exceptions).
So far it has not been a good thing. I've been quite upset by pretty much ALL of the educational changes that have happened since I was in high school. And I can tell you what they were ALL about: Centralized Control. Every change has progressively removed control from teachers, and now even administrators, and placed it at a further remove. It was bad enough when the state usurped control from the local schools, but the feds are even worse.
That partially depends on what you mean by "well". A big part of education acculturating the children to the culture that they are going to live in. Personalized education is likely to splinter the groups and fragment the culture even more that is already happening.
Unfortunately, the current education system was designed to turn out factory workers...and there already isn't much need for that. But there still is need for glue to hold the civilization together. So shared common experiences are necessary. And lots of them. Personalized education should be superior at transferring intellectual knowledge, but that's not what school is really about.
OK. I've never experienced what you're complaining about on the stable branch of Debian with the sole exception of Gnome3. But perhaps my use case is quite different from yours.
No. The GPL is about freedom of the derivatives of the software. For the current incarnation/generation/instance of the software BSD is freer. The GPL guarantees that the derivative software will also be free.
Sometimes one is a better choice than the other, but neither is uniformly preferable.
It may depend on precisely what you mean by "solved". Solve originated from a Latin word meaning to dissolve, and the alchemists said "solve et coagulae" meaning to dissolve into the liquid and then to re-precipitate. They were talking about how to purify materials (well, and the mind). So it was originally necessary that not all the material be dissolved, and also that it not all be re-precipitated.
So, metaphorically solve came to mean to purify. And a program that can win against the human champion 3 out of 4 times can be reasonably said to have purified the concept of the game. Perfection was never claimed by the alchemists (not strictly true, but they only claimed it as a deception to get funding, not in their working notes), so the lack of perfect mastery doesn't count against the game having been solved.
The problem is that different people use the same word with slightly differing meanings. Most math teachers won't count a problem as solved unless you get everything perfect...but that's not the only legitimate usage.
He didn't say it didn't have any capability to learn on the fly, just not the same. That's probably correct. I wouldn't count on it always learning more slowly, however.
You just need a good definition of "self-awareness" and it's trivial to program it in. The question is "what good is it?", and the answer is "Not much unless you have sensors and effectors.", so people don't usually bother. But if you look at the video of Google's Atlas you will notice that it has self-awareness. It doesn't have complex motivations, but it is aware of itself in relation to the universe, and acts to alter this in determined ways.
If you don't like that definition, give one you like better, but it needs to be an operational definition, not just hand-waving.
Almost right. You don't have to incentivize the current generation of computer programss. You just tell them what to do and they do it, unquestioningly.
One of the limitations of the current generation of AI programs is a shallow motivational "stack". This is not something that appears difficult to address, but getting the changes right might be very tricky. (Addressing a problem and solving it are two very different things.) Once you start getting complex motivations you'll get reactions like Atlas being mad about being shoved around. So you need to be very careful there.
The purpose of the Turing Test is to convince skeptical people that the AI being tested is intelligent. Turing argued that if a machine passed the "imitation game" then nobody would be able to deny that it was intelligent. He was wrong, of course, but that was his argument, and the basis of the test. He was arguing that intelligent machines were possible. He never expected anyone to seriously run the test. (And, in fact, nobody has yet tried to run the test as he specified it.)
If you want to generalize the term, you should generalize it to "a test to convince skeptics that the computer is intelligent". As such a "Go Turing Test" is perfectly reasonable, if unlikely to be successful.
Higher standards for humans depend on more efficient "algorithms". Higher standards for computers can derive not only from more efficient "algorithms", but also from more powerful hardware. And the current computer hardware is quite inferior to brains for neural processing, so much improvement is possible.
You overestimate how much of the job the AI was able to do. It wasn't trivial, but it was far from the complete job. I expect that medical labs will be automated before doctors are...but that doctors will increasingly use tools that do parts of the job.
To change reference frames, to say that this replaced a doctor is like saying that an IDE replaces a programmer. It may well be better at recognizing correct parameters to a library routine, but that's far from the complete job.
Yes, but.... My guess is that time is two different things that we call by the same name, thus creating confusion. ONE of the things started with the big bang. The other pre-existed it, and was necessary for the big bang to have time to happen (in). The one that started with the big bang is probably entropy. The other is ??? sequencing? Is it even measurable? I can't wrap my head around it, but some sort of pre-existingness has to exist for the big bang to have a time and place to happen. And to assume that this pre-existingness disappeared during the interval between then and now seems without reason, other than we haven't detected them, but even ordinary space and time are pretty subtle. One can infer that they must have supported virtual particle formation, because otherwise how could the big bang happen. But if the big bang was just a really unusual virtual particle, what happened to the opposing particle, and why didn't they mutually annihilate? But these are just guesses, or questions based on guesses.
While I can't argue with your exact statements here, to me it sounds more like collected lifetime experience than intelligence.
OTOH, that does bring up another point. People have deep analogy detectors that work in general cases. I'm not certain that these AI programs do. And unlike the lack of deep motivational structures, that DOES seem to me to be a part of intelligence.
Excuse me, but could you inform me of "the hassle that Linux brings". I've been using it for nearly a couple of decades now, and for at least the last decade it's been less hassle than was the MSWind I switched from.
Of your first example rudimentary forms have been exhibited this year. (Computers that learned to play various computer games by first watching someone else play, and then playing themselves until they succeeded.)
The second is one that people fail at all the time. (Your example was pretty clear, but there are still people who would miss it. And POEs law.)
The third example is even worse. It depends on specialist knowledge. At some shops the mechanics won't change your oil faster, they'll just keep your car overnight so they can finish the paperwork and go home on time. So here what is needed is learning by experience. Neural nets already handle this one, too, to an extent. And it's another one where people often fail.
I deny that humans are capable of general problem solving. They are quite capable of solving a finite set of problems, some with more difficulty than others. (An in what category do you place the proof of the four-color theorum, where every step could be done by a trained mathematician, but no mathematician could do the whole thing, because they couldn't hold the entire proof in memory? The proof was done by a human-computer cooperation. I think it's an edge case.)
No. I'm sorry but i *don't* know what you mean. You didn't define consciousness. By my definition the Atlas robot showed consciousness.
What the current robots all lack is a deep motivational structure. Also the computers they run on are underpowered compared to human brains for the kind of task they are performing. This may be addressed by the "neural computers" that people keep talking about building.
P.S.: Consciousness is the ability to asses your own state and compare it with the external physical world, and react in such a way as to achieve your goals. (Please note that by this definition a thermostat connected to a furnace and an air conditioner has a minimal amount of consciousness though no intelligence to speak of. It probably has one unit of whatever we eventually decide to measure consciousness in, corresponding to one bit in information theory.)
Slashdot Mirror
What's the benefit? I mean for any average citizen. I'm not aware of any...and I'm aware of a LOT of drawbacks.
Since only two candidates generally have a valid chance of winning, the alternative being worse is also a valid reason to vote for someone. It's not one that *I* accept, as in that case I'll vote for a minority party, but it's a valid reason.
Well, it *does* decrease the power of the Federal government. Of course, it only does that to the benefit of powerful corporations (or companies), but at least it's a decrease. That's a good precedent.
Well, I'm not going to vote for Trump, but I believe Hillary supports the TPP, while Sanders may not. So if Sanders gets the nomination I'll vote Democrat, but if it's Hillary I'll pick some other party. Probably the Greens, but perhaps the Libertarian (I haven't read their platform this time around...I like SOME Libertarian positions). Not that either has a chance, but I couldn't stomach voting for a TPP supporter.
The thing is, we actually DO have less. We may have fancier computer toys, but food, housing, etc. are a lot more expensive/hour worked.
And Persian and Macedonian.
Well, to be fair the prior studies didn't show that all conceivable ways of doing personalized education were horrible, they showed that certain particular ways were. And they were right, but this doesn't mean that Zuckerberg is wrong. He may be, I'm not informed enough about his plan to have much of an opinion. I *am* of the opinion the personalized eduction has some extremely strong points, and mass education has some horrible weaknesses. And the way it is currently implement is certainly worse than the way it was implemented in the schools I went to in the 1950s. (This is largely, though not totally, down to class size and lack of local autonomy.)
When "Common Core" is all that gets taught, then it *is* the "Common Plan". And when it's all they are evaluated on, it's all that will get taught (except for rare exceptions).
So far it has not been a good thing. I've been quite upset by pretty much ALL of the educational changes that have happened since I was in high school. And I can tell you what they were ALL about: Centralized Control. Every change has progressively removed control from teachers, and now even administrators, and placed it at a further remove. It was bad enough when the state usurped control from the local schools, but the feds are even worse.
That partially depends on what you mean by "well". A big part of education acculturating the children to the culture that they are going to live in. Personalized education is likely to splinter the groups and fragment the culture even more that is already happening.
Unfortunately, the current education system was designed to turn out factory workers...and there already isn't much need for that. But there still is need for glue to hold the civilization together. So shared common experiences are necessary. And lots of them. Personalized education should be superior at transferring intellectual knowledge, but that's not what school is really about.
There is no "THE definition". Language doesn't work that way. If you don't know what you're looking for you won't recognize it when you find it.
OK. I've never experienced what you're complaining about on the stable branch of Debian with the sole exception of Gnome3. But perhaps my use case is quite different from yours.
No. The GPL is about freedom of the derivatives of the software. For the current incarnation/generation/instance of the software BSD is freer. The GPL guarantees that the derivative software will also be free.
Sometimes one is a better choice than the other, but neither is uniformly preferable.
It may depend on precisely what you mean by "solved". Solve originated from a Latin word meaning to dissolve, and the alchemists said "solve et coagulae" meaning to dissolve into the liquid and then to re-precipitate. They were talking about how to purify materials (well, and the mind). So it was originally necessary that not all the material be dissolved, and also that it not all be re-precipitated.
So, metaphorically solve came to mean to purify. And a program that can win against the human champion 3 out of 4 times can be reasonably said to have purified the concept of the game. Perfection was never claimed by the alchemists (not strictly true, but they only claimed it as a deception to get funding, not in their working notes), so the lack of perfect mastery doesn't count against the game having been solved.
The problem is that different people use the same word with slightly differing meanings. Most math teachers won't count a problem as solved unless you get everything perfect...but that's not the only legitimate usage.
He didn't say it didn't have any capability to learn on the fly, just not the same. That's probably correct. I wouldn't count on it always learning more slowly, however.
You just need a good definition of "self-awareness" and it's trivial to program it in. The question is "what good is it?", and the answer is "Not much unless you have sensors and effectors.", so people don't usually bother. But if you look at the video of Google's Atlas you will notice that it has self-awareness. It doesn't have complex motivations, but it is aware of itself in relation to the universe, and acts to alter this in determined ways.
If you don't like that definition, give one you like better, but it needs to be an operational definition, not just hand-waving.
Almost right. You don't have to incentivize the current generation of computer programss. You just tell them what to do and they do it, unquestioningly.
One of the limitations of the current generation of AI programs is a shallow motivational "stack". This is not something that appears difficult to address, but getting the changes right might be very tricky. (Addressing a problem and solving it are two very different things.) Once you start getting complex motivations you'll get reactions like Atlas being mad about being shoved around. So you need to be very careful there.
The purpose of the Turing Test is to convince skeptical people that the AI being tested is intelligent. Turing argued that if a machine passed the "imitation game" then nobody would be able to deny that it was intelligent. He was wrong, of course, but that was his argument, and the basis of the test. He was arguing that intelligent machines were possible. He never expected anyone to seriously run the test. (And, in fact, nobody has yet tried to run the test as he specified it.)
If you want to generalize the term, you should generalize it to "a test to convince skeptics that the computer is intelligent". As such a "Go Turing Test" is perfectly reasonable, if unlikely to be successful.
Higher standards for humans depend on more efficient "algorithms". Higher standards for computers can derive not only from more efficient "algorithms", but also from more powerful hardware. And the current computer hardware is quite inferior to brains for neural processing, so much improvement is possible.
You overestimate how much of the job the AI was able to do. It wasn't trivial, but it was far from the complete job. I expect that medical labs will be automated before doctors are...but that doctors will increasingly use tools that do parts of the job.
To change reference frames, to say that this replaced a doctor is like saying that an IDE replaces a programmer. It may well be better at recognizing correct parameters to a library routine, but that's far from the complete job.
Yes, but ....
My guess is that time is two different things that we call by the same name, thus creating confusion. ONE of the things started with the big bang. The other pre-existed it, and was necessary for the big bang to have time to happen (in). The one that started with the big bang is probably entropy. The other is ??? sequencing? Is it even measurable? I can't wrap my head around it, but some sort of pre-existingness has to exist for the big bang to have a time and place to happen. And to assume that this pre-existingness disappeared during the interval between then and now seems without reason, other than we haven't detected them, but even ordinary space and time are pretty subtle. One can infer that they must have supported virtual particle formation, because otherwise how could the big bang happen. But if the big bang was just a really unusual virtual particle, what happened to the opposing particle, and why didn't they mutually annihilate? But these are just guesses, or questions based on guesses.
While I can't argue with your exact statements here, to me it sounds more like collected lifetime experience than intelligence.
OTOH, that does bring up another point. People have deep analogy detectors that work in general cases. I'm not certain that these AI programs do. And unlike the lack of deep motivational structures, that DOES seem to me to be a part of intelligence.
Excuse me, but could you inform me of "the hassle that Linux brings". I've been using it for nearly a couple of decades now, and for at least the last decade it's been less hassle than was the MSWind I switched from.
Of your first example rudimentary forms have been exhibited this year. (Computers that learned to play various computer games by first watching someone else play, and then playing themselves until they succeeded.)
The second is one that people fail at all the time. (Your example was pretty clear, but there are still people who would miss it. And POEs law.)
The third example is even worse. It depends on specialist knowledge. At some shops the mechanics won't change your oil faster, they'll just keep your car overnight so they can finish the paperwork and go home on time. So here what is needed is learning by experience. Neural nets already handle this one, too, to an extent. And it's another one where people often fail.
I deny that humans are capable of general problem solving. They are quite capable of solving a finite set of problems, some with more difficulty than others. (An in what category do you place the proof of the four-color theorum, where every step could be done by a trained mathematician, but no mathematician could do the whole thing, because they couldn't hold the entire proof in memory? The proof was done by a human-computer cooperation. I think it's an edge case.)
No. I'm sorry but i *don't* know what you mean. You didn't define consciousness. By my definition the Atlas robot showed consciousness.
What the current robots all lack is a deep motivational structure. Also the computers they run on are underpowered compared to human brains for the kind of task they are performing. This may be addressed by the "neural computers" that people keep talking about building.
P.S.: Consciousness is the ability to asses your own state and compare it with the external physical world, and react in such a way as to achieve your goals. (Please note that by this definition a thermostat connected to a furnace and an air conditioner has a minimal amount of consciousness though no intelligence to speak of. It probably has one unit of whatever we eventually decide to measure consciousness in, corresponding to one bit in information theory.)