A human has a lot of sensors of different kinds -- including the mental sensor with which mental events are detected -- and its NI has been trained in recognizing events and deciding based on them for millions of years. Not saying we won't be able to match that with mechanical sensors and computational networks eventually, but I imagine it will require quite some time.
I think a measure of complexity as a challenge of AI is not how many states the domain problem has but how complex its input is. All board games have very simple input which is very clearly mathematically defined. Physical world is much different. If it's true for example that we (and some animals) can smell a single molecule of certain substances, which may alert us to do or not do something crucial, it would be very difficult to match that level of input in a sensor-connected AI.
Biological neural networks that we are have been trained for that kind of sensitivity over millions of years, you just can't do it from scratch. Now there may be some ingenious pairing of biological sensors with AI and/or quantum computation but for now that's SciFi.
The proposal is unrealistic since no politician will come up with it because they know how they would fare. We might just as well propose "change the minds of constituents so they don't shred to bits representatives who propose legalizing prostitution."
We need a bandaid in form of relaxing or changing some regulations to allow for protection of people engaged in prostitution without appearing like we are legalizing anything.
Congress should allow USPS to specifically charge Amazon more than others, on the grounds of preventing monopoly. Unfortunately that would be unpopular with consumers (and would violate Postal Neutrality). Maybe Trump's attempt of shaming USPS publicly into feeling stupid for helping Amazon would have some effect.
That makes sense. Our speaking apparatus, the muscles and nerves and whatnot are modulated by the emotions running through us at the moment. At the same time our own listening apparatus is trained through endless repetition to catch many of those modulations and identify them, consciously or not. For AI speech to be "indistinguishable from humans" it would need to simulate modulation by emotions which depend on the person and the context.
I've read that ancient Greeks ate meat only during festivities. The reasoning from our perspective is that was not only good for them but also for the animals -- giving the animal population time to recover.
Another interesting heuristics is that Crusaders, for all their wearing and use of heavy armor, were told by the Church to eat meat of warm blooded animals (such as wild game) only two meals a week. Fish was permitted more often so reportedly they started the process of cultivating fish for eating in ponds.
Yeah it's time we drop this, and revisit it in a year or two.
On the news that Schmidt is stepping down I too laughed at someone's comment, "Schmidt is the swampiest swamp monster of them all!" So I thought I'd pass on the laughs.:-)
Well then let me ask you this: suppose you are given the choice of that right now either A) your google account disappears making all your google email, docs and files being irretrievably locked or deleted, or B) Comcast (if that's your ISP, mine is Cox which have been mostly pleasant to work with) cuts off your internet connection immediately and you can't have internet through them ever again. Right now, you'd have to decide A or B, before making any backups or anything. Which would you choose?
Your answer will tell you which of the two has more power over you, and consequently who you should fear more.
No offense but you haven't tried it yet. And the very first use case they listed was "Magic Leap One allows web developers to optimize for content extraction and spatial browsing, enabling new ways to shop and explore with 3D objects." That's not very compelling, which web developer would optimize for an unknown number of ML wearers? And if they make a web site that's targeting ML users only, what will it do? "Enabling new ways to shop" sounds very tired.
I don't want to piss on what looks like an incredible effort by those engineers and designers but I'm weary of tech hype, I think it's harmful to everyone but the first round of investors. It's easy to think of one good reason to use any of the successful platforms (PC, internet, web, iphone...) and I can't think of one good reason to use ML. That said I hope I'll be proven wrong.
It seems to me if you call the man a "piece of shit" because he pushed for a (de)regulation that you don't like but which may or may not be bad for consumers, you can't be able to look at things rationally. I'm not preaching that we should all be without hate and blahblah but saying that if you notice you are overwhelmed by an emotion you can't trust your judgement.
You may end up being right, or not, but it may well be by chance because analysis doesn't worth much when emotions run hot. For my part I get angry about Google taking the far left position (socially, financially they are as far right as they can be) and meddling with the public opinion, so I can't quite trust my judgement there either. In reality I don't expect anything significant to happen, but logic says if ISPs can fleece Google et al they are more likely to do that then to charge consumers more -- far more money on that end -- and I don't have a problem with that.
FWIW I'm not a Republican, and I do think that consumer protections are important. And I'm still fine with NN repealed.
I agree. The race is a big factor and I think also the broken feeling of knowing that "is must be true" (in this case because obviously Trump administration would say such a thing, from the viewpoint of the reporter).
To your point about un-ingesting it, I remember a quote(*) from Churchill, "Public reads news and not retractions." That makes this all the more dangerous, though perhaps in the shorter news cycle some retractions may slip into the consciousness.
(*) Of course I don't know if it really was from Churchill, I wasn't there when he said it, if he did, I only think I read it years ago from a source I believe I thought reputable at the time.
There is something recognizable emerging slowly about fake news but I can't verbalize it yet. Some quality of "it is an affront to all that is decent and rational" kind of thing.
I'd be happier is the government broke up Google/FB/Amazon and left Net Neutrality in place. That's obviously much less likely to happen so at least we may now pit ISPs against the Big Three. So let the ISPs innovate in a way that can siphon money away from Google/FB/Amazon in whichever way the ISPs can get away with. And if they are stupid enough to hurt consumers they'll be slapped on with new regulation.
But in contrary to my statement above, as a principle, it's better to have fewer rules than more to achieve something. To paraphrase Einstein, you want as little regulation as possible, but not less. My belief is that NN was above the necessary minimum. That last two years alone couldn't prove that NN was necessary -- we'll need the next two years to know it if it was.
It's not a baby, Google/FB/Amazon are monsters. It's not even the privacy laws that I'm concerned with, it's their unchecked profits and growth. I'm fine with Apple and even MSoft having that kind of money, they sell you gadgets and software, but Google, FB and Amazon directly influence the public opinion. NN was feeding the monsters, repealing NN will only feed the garden trolls that are the ISPs.
Sorry but that was primarily what I had in mind. It is bizarre and unexpected but whatever traces of beauty it had, before those were destroyed by pattern repetition, came from the original art. This is only my opinion of course, and not even an opinion, just a feeling.
I don't know if the original news is true (hard to know these days), but assuming things happened exactly as reported, #nofilter (which is fairly unlikely), let me be the devil's advocate and give you a context: "evidence-based reasoning suggests that trans fats are not as bad as has been previously thought." If you have to emphasize that your line of deductive reasoning is "science-based" is a little bit like North Korea having to emphasize that it's a Democratic People's Republic.
That said, I think banning words is idiotic, if the report is true.
Presumably Google AI is now able to read the minds of people posting articles to know their intention they harbor in their hearts with over 98% accuracy. Sometimes even when even the said people are completely unaware of it!
Is it not better then to plug the hole that allows for Google/FB/Amazon's unchecked growth, and then start from there to bring regulation that gives us a better alternative?
I don't know if the ISP would now be able to throttle say Google/YT traffic specifically (on the ground of it consuming more bandwidth overall, or no reason) unless they pay to the ISP to bring their user-bound bandwidth to the same level as that of everyone else, including the small startup. That may be illegal or simply naive to consider but if that were to happen, or at least if it's possible in theory, I'd welcome it.
Global thermonuclear war being undesirable is not a divisive opinion. When people are divided on something it is because they disagree on how they see the future relative to that thing, net neutrality in this case. Google/FB can't see the future either but they understand the inner workings of the system far better than we do, and they decided NN is profitable for them. Whether it's good for us they don't care. Now NN may or may not be good for us, it may even be neither, but I am of the opinion that a less strong, less influential, less profitable Google/FB is good for us.
What would you say why the big guys fought so hard for Net Neutrality then? If it's just PR they could have faked it like Comcast did. I will be cynical and rule out google/fb striving for what's best for the community even if it is at a detriment to their bottom line. If you join me in that cynicism then what other google/fb motive does it leave us with then?
If ISPs will use their new powers to hamper competition to FB/Google why did FB/Google lobby so hard for Net Neutrality? You can bet that they studied and projected everything in far more detail than we here have. And I can bet they are not doing it out of love for humanity. The only reasonable answer is FB/Google feel they -- their profits -- could be in danger. How can that be bad for us?
Me, I personally believe that nothing significant will change, and some people will get a break in their fees while some heavy users will pay more. That is my wild guess after pretending to look at the crystal ball and saying what *will* happen, in some imaginary future none of us are able to conceive because the system is too complex.
"If you have two enemies, fight the stronger one first." -- or something like that, Sun Tzu. Google/Facebook/Amazon are far bigger enemies to us than ISPs are. If NN repeal slows them down -- possibly since they lobbied for NN so much -- that will be the best possible outcome, then we can deal with ISPs. The fact that ISPs are forced to be transparent is in my opinion the only regulation we needed.
Slashdot Mirror
A human has a lot of sensors of different kinds -- including the mental sensor with which mental events are detected -- and its NI has been trained in recognizing events and deciding based on them for millions of years. Not saying we won't be able to match that with mechanical sensors and computational networks eventually, but I imagine it will require quite some time.
I think a measure of complexity as a challenge of AI is not how many states the domain problem has but how complex its input is. All board games have very simple input which is very clearly mathematically defined. Physical world is much different. If it's true for example that we (and some animals) can smell a single molecule of certain substances, which may alert us to do or not do something crucial, it would be very difficult to match that level of input in a sensor-connected AI.
Biological neural networks that we are have been trained for that kind of sensitivity over millions of years, you just can't do it from scratch. Now there may be some ingenious pairing of biological sensors with AI and/or quantum computation but for now that's SciFi.
The proposal is unrealistic since no politician will come up with it because they know how they would fare. We might just as well propose "change the minds of constituents so they don't shred to bits representatives who propose legalizing prostitution."
We need a bandaid in form of relaxing or changing some regulations to allow for protection of people engaged in prostitution without appearing like we are legalizing anything.
True. Ars reflects the short term sensibilities of their readership, but no more than that.
Congress should allow USPS to specifically charge Amazon more than others, on the grounds of preventing monopoly. Unfortunately that would be unpopular with consumers (and would violate Postal Neutrality). Maybe Trump's attempt of shaming USPS publicly into feeling stupid for helping Amazon would have some effect.
That makes sense. Our speaking apparatus, the muscles and nerves and whatnot are modulated by the emotions running through us at the moment. At the same time our own listening apparatus is trained through endless repetition to catch many of those modulations and identify them, consciously or not. For AI speech to be "indistinguishable from humans" it would need to simulate modulation by emotions which depend on the person and the context.
I've read that ancient Greeks ate meat only during festivities. The reasoning from our perspective is that was not only good for them but also for the animals -- giving the animal population time to recover.
Another interesting heuristics is that Crusaders, for all their wearing and use of heavy armor, were told by the Church to eat meat of warm blooded animals (such as wild game) only two meals a week. Fish was permitted more often so reportedly they started the process of cultivating fish for eating in ponds.
Yeah it's time we drop this, and revisit it in a year or two.
On the news that Schmidt is stepping down I too laughed at someone's comment, "Schmidt is the swampiest swamp monster of them all!" So I thought I'd pass on the laughs. :-)
"They have been given an inch, and they most certainly will take a mile if we don't fight it tooth and nail to get NN restored."
Eric Schmidt will thank you for that.
Well then let me ask you this: suppose you are given the choice of that right now either A) your google account disappears making all your google email, docs and files being irretrievably locked or deleted, or B) Comcast (if that's your ISP, mine is Cox which have been mostly pleasant to work with) cuts off your internet connection immediately and you can't have internet through them ever again. Right now, you'd have to decide A or B, before making any backups or anything. Which would you choose?
Your answer will tell you which of the two has more power over you, and consequently who you should fear more.
No offense but you haven't tried it yet. And the very first use case they listed was "Magic Leap One allows web developers to optimize for content extraction and spatial browsing, enabling new ways to shop and explore with 3D objects." That's not very compelling, which web developer would optimize for an unknown number of ML wearers? And if they make a web site that's targeting ML users only, what will it do? "Enabling new ways to shop" sounds very tired.
I don't want to piss on what looks like an incredible effort by those engineers and designers but I'm weary of tech hype, I think it's harmful to everyone but the first round of investors. It's easy to think of one good reason to use any of the successful platforms (PC, internet, web, iphone...) and I can't think of one good reason to use ML. That said I hope I'll be proven wrong.
It seems to me if you call the man a "piece of shit" because he pushed for a (de)regulation that you don't like but which may or may not be bad for consumers, you can't be able to look at things rationally. I'm not preaching that we should all be without hate and blahblah but saying that if you notice you are overwhelmed by an emotion you can't trust your judgement.
You may end up being right, or not, but it may well be by chance because analysis doesn't worth much when emotions run hot. For my part I get angry about Google taking the far left position (socially, financially they are as far right as they can be) and meddling with the public opinion, so I can't quite trust my judgement there either. In reality I don't expect anything significant to happen, but logic says if ISPs can fleece Google et al they are more likely to do that then to charge consumers more -- far more money on that end -- and I don't have a problem with that.
FWIW I'm not a Republican, and I do think that consumer protections are important. And I'm still fine with NN repealed.
I agree. The race is a big factor and I think also the broken feeling of knowing that "is must be true" (in this case because obviously Trump administration would say such a thing, from the viewpoint of the reporter).
To your point about un-ingesting it, I remember a quote(*) from Churchill, "Public reads news and not retractions." That makes this all the more dangerous, though perhaps in the shorter news cycle some retractions may slip into the consciousness.
(*) Of course I don't know if it really was from Churchill, I wasn't there when he said it, if he did, I only think I read it years ago from a source I believe I thought reputable at the time.
Not that anyone cares but I will toot my own horn and prove that I suspected the news were fake:
https://slashdot.org/comments.....
There is something recognizable emerging slowly about fake news but I can't verbalize it yet. Some quality of "it is an affront to all that is decent and rational" kind of thing.
I'd be happier is the government broke up Google/FB/Amazon and left Net Neutrality in place. That's obviously much less likely to happen so at least we may now pit ISPs against the Big Three. So let the ISPs innovate in a way that can siphon money away from Google/FB/Amazon in whichever way the ISPs can get away with. And if they are stupid enough to hurt consumers they'll be slapped on with new regulation.
But in contrary to my statement above, as a principle, it's better to have fewer rules than more to achieve something. To paraphrase Einstein, you want as little regulation as possible, but not less. My belief is that NN was above the necessary minimum. That last two years alone couldn't prove that NN was necessary -- we'll need the next two years to know it if it was.
It's not a baby, Google/FB/Amazon are monsters. It's not even the privacy laws that I'm concerned with, it's their unchecked profits and growth. I'm fine with Apple and even MSoft having that kind of money, they sell you gadgets and software, but Google, FB and Amazon directly influence the public opinion. NN was feeding the monsters, repealing NN will only feed the garden trolls that are the ISPs.
Sorry but that was primarily what I had in mind. It is bizarre and unexpected but whatever traces of beauty it had, before those were destroyed by pattern repetition, came from the original art. This is only my opinion of course, and not even an opinion, just a feeling.
I haven't seen anything *beautiful* generated by AI. Useful yes, sometimes even amusing, but not beautiful.
I don't know if the original news is true (hard to know these days), but assuming things happened exactly as reported, #nofilter (which is fairly unlikely), let me be the devil's advocate and give you a context: "evidence-based reasoning suggests that trans fats are not as bad as has been previously thought." If you have to emphasize that your line of deductive reasoning is "science-based" is a little bit like North Korea having to emphasize that it's a Democratic People's Republic.
That said, I think banning words is idiotic, if the report is true.
Presumably Google AI is now able to read the minds of people posting articles to know their intention they harbor in their hearts with over 98% accuracy. Sometimes even when even the said people are completely unaware of it!
Is it not better then to plug the hole that allows for Google/FB/Amazon's unchecked growth, and then start from there to bring regulation that gives us a better alternative?
I don't know if the ISP would now be able to throttle say Google/YT traffic specifically (on the ground of it consuming more bandwidth overall, or no reason) unless they pay to the ISP to bring their user-bound bandwidth to the same level as that of everyone else, including the small startup. That may be illegal or simply naive to consider but if that were to happen, or at least if it's possible in theory, I'd welcome it.
Global thermonuclear war being undesirable is not a divisive opinion. When people are divided on something it is because they disagree on how they see the future relative to that thing, net neutrality in this case. Google/FB can't see the future either but they understand the inner workings of the system far better than we do, and they decided NN is profitable for them. Whether it's good for us they don't care. Now NN may or may not be good for us, it may even be neither, but I am of the opinion that a less strong, less influential, less profitable Google/FB is good for us.
What would you say why the big guys fought so hard for Net Neutrality then? If it's just PR they could have faked it like Comcast did. I will be cynical and rule out google/fb striving for what's best for the community even if it is at a detriment to their bottom line. If you join me in that cynicism then what other google/fb motive does it leave us with then?
If ISPs will use their new powers to hamper competition to FB/Google why did FB/Google lobby so hard for Net Neutrality? You can bet that they studied and projected everything in far more detail than we here have. And I can bet they are not doing it out of love for humanity. The only reasonable answer is FB/Google feel they -- their profits -- could be in danger. How can that be bad for us?
Me, I personally believe that nothing significant will change, and some people will get a break in their fees while some heavy users will pay more. That is my wild guess after pretending to look at the crystal ball and saying what *will* happen, in some imaginary future none of us are able to conceive because the system is too complex.
"If you have two enemies, fight the stronger one first." -- or something like that, Sun Tzu. Google/Facebook/Amazon are far bigger enemies to us than ISPs are. If NN repeal slows them down -- possibly since they lobbied for NN so much -- that will be the best possible outcome, then we can deal with ISPs. The fact that ISPs are forced to be transparent is in my opinion the only regulation we needed.