If you think the government is broken, then the solution is not any of the practical changes, because they'll be corrupted along the way to serve the rich and powerful.
What you want is a complete reform of the election system. Personally I'd go for instant-runoff voting, but any kind of ranked choice would be better than the current system.
Yet people know how to read, shower, put on clothes and turn on the TV. Why are TV controllers not a career path? Millions of people need to turn on their TV on a daily basis.
I think a lot of people will be very happy spending the rest of their lives playing video games and creating content within those games.
The idea that you can only find meaning in real life is already outdated today. It will be forgotten by the time automation could replace humans on a massive scale.
AI can do a few very specific tasks better than the professionals. They're very far from doing all tasks better.
A major part of the problem is that we can't even foresee what tasks someone like a doctor might have to do, as they regularly encounter novel situations for which there aren't millions of documented cases to train a NN on.
It's retarded to talk about men and women separately. When those men stop making money, it's their wives and children who suffer. Even if the women have jobs, work gets more demanding in a bad job market, and if their husbands are laid off, it increases the stress level even more.
Single women are negatively affected too. Besides having to work harder to keep their jobs, their pool of potential mates will shrink, since most still want a man who earns more than them. Or if any of them would prefer to be a stay at home mom instead of going to work, well that's not really a possibility anymore.
Finally, even if they're not in the market for a husband, having crowds of unemployed men around is not a good thing. The rates of theft, robbery, and civil unrest will all rise.
Funny how your argument changed from the physics won't work to regulators haven't approve it.
Safety is heavy and/or expensive. There is no way to make this affordable, safe and functional concurrently.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Aviation is expensive because of the regulatory overhead. Plenty of car engines last as long as aviation piston engines, but the ones approved by the FAA costs 5 times as much.
Safety on the other hand, is not expensive at all. The vast majority of accidents are pilot-related.
Here's the leading causes of accidents for GA: 1. Loss of Control Inflight 2. Controlled Flight Into Terrain 3. System Component Failure – Powerplant 4. Fuel Related 5. Unknown or Undetermined 6. System Component Failure – Non-Powerplant 7. Unintended Flight In IMC 8. Midair Collisions 9. Low-Altitude Operations 10. Other
Only system failures cannot be avoided by better trained and more safety-conscious pilots. So instead of spending tens of thousands on pilot training, you improve safety much more by replacing them with computers. Why? Because a computer won't accidentally stall a plane. It won't fly itself into the ground. It won't forget to check the amount of fuel it needs. It won't intentionally fly into bad weather. It can constantly scan for other aircraft. And it certainly won't be scud-running.
Sometimes the bug is not in your code but in the execution environment. The disk is full. The remote machine is unresponsive. The thread pool is too small. Just reading code will not help you discover these problems, because you make all sorts of assumptions about the environment. A pool size of 1000 might seem reasonable, until you look at the network traffic and realize there's 20k requests per second.
So you don't want open borders, except you oppose the very agency prevents it from becoming one? Also, ICE's job was previously done by U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It's not created out of thin air.
As for the budget, a fool can balance it when their revenue is growing by billions a year. The problems only appear when you hit a recession. What are you going to do then? Tell all the illegal immigrants to GTFO?
You might have a reasonable opinion and you might consider yourself a liberal, as I once did, but you don't represent the Democrats, especially not those in power. "Abolish ICE" is not a Republican campaign and Texas is not home to 40+ sanctuary cities. The elected Democrats have to appease 38% of California that are Latino, even if what they want will eventually bankrupt the state.
The goal post has always been to replace human intelligence
The goalpost in AI research has always been chess.
From Wikipedia:
Modern AI research began in the mid 1950s.[20] The first generation of AI researchers was convinced that artificial general intelligence was possible and that it would exist in just a few decades. As AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon wrote in 1965: "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do."[21] Their predictions were the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who accurately embodied what AI researchers believed they could create by the year 2001.
It did not acquire any actual understanding of Starcraft mechanics
If it beat professional human players, then yes it did acquire an actual understanding of Starcraft mechanics. In fact, a better understanding than humans.
That you can train a dog to bark twice when shown 1+1, and three times when shown 2+1 does not mean the dog can do arithmetic.
There's nothing wrong with them wanting that, but if you let them come and immediately give them handouts, that's what they'll come for and we'll go bankrupt trying to take care of them all.
Your choices are: 1. Don't let them come 2. Let them come, but don't have social services for anyone 3. Let them come, but keep them as 2nd class citizens who don't receive social services 4. Let in only the best people, those who don't need social services
The early parts of US history was dominated by #2. Then as we started providing social services, it turned into #4. Both are viable options.
But what the liberals are proposing now simply won't work. You can't have everyone come and then also take really good care of them. We can't afford to give the entire world a first world living standard, at least not for long.
How can it not get closer? AI didn't used to be able to beat professional StarCraft players. Now they can. That is, by definition, moving closer, because it's not moving backwards, and clearly an improvement from not moving at all.
It is not moving at all. There's no viable route from this to general purpose AI. By playing countless games against itself on the same map, it is still performing a search on a decision tree, weighing the (now more fuzzy) nodes. It did not acquire any actual understanding of Starcraft mechanics. It does not logically reason about anything that it hasn't seen before. If you give it Warcraft instead, it'll take another several months of work from a team of very intelligent humans to make it good at it. In fact, I'll bet a big enough balance patch will cause it to have to throw out everything it's learned.
This is just more goalpost shifting, finding nonsense reasons to argue why it "doesn't count". Consider the alternative that maybe the things humans do aren't as as clever as we tell ourselves.
The goal post has always been to replace human intelligence. I don't see any AI building Starcraft-playing AI's, or discussing how long it will be before they are replaced by even better AIs.
If it's just "good micro", why can't humans use "good micro" to beat the AI, if we're so great?
Because humans have muscles that take time to move?
Immigrants cost society money. Robots cost their owners money.
One gets needs subsidized medicine, the other doesn't. One has children that need to be taught by teachers. The other only needs a "dd" command. One goes on welfare when they're no longer able to work. The other goes into the recycling bin.
If you want decent UBI, or any kind of social program really, those poor illegal immigrants will have to stop coming.
It's already operating with imperfect knowledge. From Vox:
During the 10 matches, the AI had one big advantage that a human player doesn’t have: It was able to see all of the parts of the map where it had visibility, while a human player has to manipulate the camera.
Emphasis mine. Yes, it's an advantage, but it's not cheating. Humans can use the minimap to see what's going on as well.
The problem with these matches and Starcraft in general, is that the it's able to win just with good micro. So getting really good at Starcraft doesn't get us closer to actual AI.
Slashdot Mirror
A bug introduced by early 21st century technology will be trivial to fix with 22nd century technology.
Technically not your body, but your kids. And yes, the government has some say because your kids' problems will eventually be society's problems.
If you think the government is broken, then the solution is not any of the practical changes, because they'll be corrupted along the way to serve the rich and powerful.
What you want is a complete reform of the election system. Personally I'd go for instant-runoff voting, but any kind of ranked choice would be better than the current system.
You can incentivize all you want, but as soon as it's cheaper to move to Mexico, they will.
You wouldn't happen to have a link to the study do you?
Yet people know how to read, shower, put on clothes and turn on the TV. Why are TV controllers not a career path? Millions of people need to turn on their TV on a daily basis.
I fail to see how that leads to better studying habits. The only behavior they'll be picking up is how girls play sports.
I think a lot of people will be very happy spending the rest of their lives playing video games and creating content within those games.
The idea that you can only find meaning in real life is already outdated today. It will be forgotten by the time automation could replace humans on a massive scale.
AI can do a few very specific tasks better than the professionals. They're very far from doing all tasks better.
A major part of the problem is that we can't even foresee what tasks someone like a doctor might have to do, as they regularly encounter novel situations for which there aren't millions of documented cases to train a NN on.
It's retarded to talk about men and women separately. When those men stop making money, it's their wives and children who suffer. Even if the women have jobs, work gets more demanding in a bad job market, and if their husbands are laid off, it increases the stress level even more.
Single women are negatively affected too. Besides having to work harder to keep their jobs, their pool of potential mates will shrink, since most still want a man who earns more than them. Or if any of them would prefer to be a stay at home mom instead of going to work, well that's not really a possibility anymore.
Finally, even if they're not in the market for a husband, having crowds of unemployed men around is not a good thing. The rates of theft, robbery, and civil unrest will all rise.
I must be missing something, but how does getting girls to play sports help with boys' academics?
Funny how your argument changed from the physics won't work to regulators haven't approve it.
Safety is heavy and/or expensive. There is no way to make this affordable, safe and functional concurrently.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Aviation is expensive because of the regulatory overhead. Plenty of car engines last as long as aviation piston engines, but the ones approved by the FAA costs 5 times as much.
Safety on the other hand, is not expensive at all. The vast majority of accidents are pilot-related.
Here's the leading causes of accidents for GA:
1. Loss of Control Inflight
2. Controlled Flight Into Terrain
3. System Component Failure – Powerplant
4. Fuel Related
5. Unknown or Undetermined
6. System Component Failure – Non-Powerplant
7. Unintended Flight In IMC
8. Midair Collisions
9. Low-Altitude Operations
10. Other
Only system failures cannot be avoided by better trained and more safety-conscious pilots. So instead of spending tens of thousands on pilot training, you improve safety much more by replacing them with computers. Why? Because a computer won't accidentally stall a plane. It won't fly itself into the ground. It won't forget to check the amount of fuel it needs. It won't intentionally fly into bad weather. It can constantly scan for other aircraft. And it certainly won't be scud-running.
Wouldn't it be better to let the firefighters have their own drones instead? The military drones are not designed to track and put out fires.
When I studied CS, there were maybe a tenth the number of CS students compared to now, but the attrition rate was around the same.
I think people are just bad judges of whether they have the logical thinking skills required for CS.
Sometimes the bug is not in your code but in the execution environment. The disk is full. The remote machine is unresponsive. The thread pool is too small. Just reading code will not help you discover these problems, because you make all sorts of assumptions about the environment. A pool size of 1000 might seem reasonable, until you look at the network traffic and realize there's 20k requests per second.
So you don't want open borders, except you oppose the very agency prevents it from becoming one? Also, ICE's job was previously done by U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It's not created out of thin air.
As for the budget, a fool can balance it when their revenue is growing by billions a year. The problems only appear when you hit a recession. What are you going to do then? Tell all the illegal immigrants to GTFO?
You might have a reasonable opinion and you might consider yourself a liberal, as I once did, but you don't represent the Democrats, especially not those in power. "Abolish ICE" is not a Republican campaign and Texas is not home to 40+ sanctuary cities. The elected Democrats have to appease 38% of California that are Latino, even if what they want will eventually bankrupt the state.
I guess you're not aware of California trying to give medicare to illegal immigrants.
The goalpost in AI research has always been chess.
From Wikipedia:
Modern AI research began in the mid 1950s.[20] The first generation of AI researchers was convinced that artificial general intelligence was possible and that it would exist in just a few decades. As AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon wrote in 1965: "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do."[21] Their predictions were the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who accurately embodied what AI researchers believed they could create by the year 2001.
It did not acquire any actual understanding of Starcraft mechanics
If it beat professional human players, then yes it did acquire an actual understanding of Starcraft mechanics. In fact, a better understanding than humans.
That you can train a dog to bark twice when shown 1+1, and three times when shown 2+1 does not mean the dog can do arithmetic.
There's nothing wrong with them wanting that, but if you let them come and immediately give them handouts, that's what they'll come for and we'll go bankrupt trying to take care of them all.
Your choices are:
1. Don't let them come
2. Let them come, but don't have social services for anyone
3. Let them come, but keep them as 2nd class citizens who don't receive social services
4. Let in only the best people, those who don't need social services
The early parts of US history was dominated by #2. Then as we started providing social services, it turned into #4. Both are viable options.
But what the liberals are proposing now simply won't work. You can't have everyone come and then also take really good care of them. We can't afford to give the entire world a first world living standard, at least not for long.
How can it not get closer? AI didn't used to be able to beat professional StarCraft players. Now they can. That is, by definition, moving closer, because it's not moving backwards, and clearly an improvement from not moving at all.
It is not moving at all. There's no viable route from this to general purpose AI. By playing countless games against itself on the same map, it is still performing a search on a decision tree, weighing the (now more fuzzy) nodes. It did not acquire any actual understanding of Starcraft mechanics. It does not logically reason about anything that it hasn't seen before. If you give it Warcraft instead, it'll take another several months of work from a team of very intelligent humans to make it good at it. In fact, I'll bet a big enough balance patch will cause it to have to throw out everything it's learned.
This is just more goalpost shifting, finding nonsense reasons to argue why it "doesn't count". Consider the alternative that maybe the things humans do aren't as as clever as we tell ourselves.
The goal post has always been to replace human intelligence. I don't see any AI building Starcraft-playing AI's, or discussing how long it will be before they are replaced by even better AIs.
If it's just "good micro", why can't humans use "good micro" to beat the AI, if we're so great?
Because humans have muscles that take time to move?
That photo of Pluto had a lot of pixels, but we really only need 1 to determine if there's anything there.
Besides, we saw Ultima Thule didn't we? It would have to be a lot dimmer than even that before it's indistinguishable from noise.
Immigrants cost society money. Robots cost their owners money.
One gets needs subsidized medicine, the other doesn't. One has children that need to be taught by teachers. The other only needs a "dd" command. One goes on welfare when they're no longer able to work. The other goes into the recycling bin.
If you want decent UBI, or any kind of social program really, those poor illegal immigrants will have to stop coming.
It's already operating with imperfect knowledge. From Vox:
During the 10 matches, the AI had one big advantage that a human player doesn’t have: It was able to see all of the parts of the map where it had visibility, while a human player has to manipulate the camera.
Emphasis mine. Yes, it's an advantage, but it's not cheating. Humans can use the minimap to see what's going on as well.
The problem with these matches and Starcraft in general, is that the it's able to win just with good micro. So getting really good at Starcraft doesn't get us closer to actual AI.