Every chat bot I've seen feeds what other people said to you. It doesn't generate any chats itself. So you're basically chatting with random people on the internet, in a sort of time-lagged, piecemeal way.
The AI depicted in the movies are completely different from the AI that we're using. Movie AI is sentient, more intelligent than humans and has self-preservation instincts built in. Real AI is more like a table saw or a drill. It's only when a programmer comes along and wires the different tools together that the whole system starts behaving like it's intelligent. But really it's the intelligence of the programmer you're seeing.
Pattern recognition and algorithms are not AI. Many animals capable of doing both are not intelligent. Flies for example, can recognize suspended food molecules in the air, then follow a genetically programmed algorithm to fly toward places with higher density of those molecules. It can then use a different algorithm to land on the food and ingest it. The process is by no means simple. However, most people would not consider flies to be intelligent.
Are they more or less likely to commit crimes that matter than legal immigrants? If so, we should stop illegal immigration and vastly expand the legal routes.
Thank you for explaining. Doing in that way is better than what I had suggested.
However, I still believe that doing this will increase the overhead. With 0-based indexing, the result of modulo operations can be directly used as array indexes without adjustment. Memory allocation is also simpler, there's no need do perform arithmetic just for arrays. Let's say you allocated 10 bytes at $10F0, for arrays, you need to return $10EB. Same for freeing memory.
As for whether a language should allow non-0-based indices, I think there is merit in having that ability, but there's also merit in keeping everyone on the same system because there's significantly less chance of confusion. At least one space mission has failed because of the mixup between metric and English units. Using different bases for each array will lead to the same type of problems.
In machine code, there's no such thing as arrays or pointers. Everything is just numbers. It's very convenient to say X is the address of an array of things, and X+n*size_of_thing is the address of the n-1th item in the array. If you have an array of integers, you get the value with:
MOV eax, [ebx+ecx]
where eax is the destination register, ebx is the address of the array, and ecx is the index. But if the array is 1-based, you must use a separate instruction to subtract 1 from the index first. To do the subtraction, however, you would need a free register, and if there isn't one, you'll need to push things onto the stack. Alternatively, you could subtract 1 from ebx first (which has the same problems), or waste 1 byte at the beginning of the array and allocate 1 more byte initially (which is fine until you want to allocate very large objects or very large number of tiny arrays). But none of these are as efficient as simply using a 0-based array.
Pre-checked also costs money. $85 to be exact. You shouldn't have to pay just to avoid the idiotic security theater. And more importantly, terrorists shouldn't be able to pay to avoid it either.
But you do. It's called a lawnmower. It does 90% of the work of mowing lawns. The remaining 10% involves telling it where to mow. Even if you hire someone, you still have to do that to a certain degree.
Their service is actually terrible because of the wait time (15-20 minutes around meal time). They might pay each employee more, but they make for it by being drastically understaffed.
And how would those various consumer reports make money? Unless you have the government there to uphold copyright, anybody who can throw up a website can "steal" the hard work of the consumer report agencies. But then again, is product safety information a "creative" work under copyright law? Or is it an uncopyrightable collection of facts?
I'm not sure how much point it is to continue conversing with you since you don't even appear to understand the most basic definitions. Democracy is not an economic system, it's a political one. Free-market capitalism is an economic system, as is communism.
Because the government does more than just one thing, and the world is not simply black and white. Public services that the government provides is necessary for a well-functioning society. Even the police department itself is both good and bad in different ways. On one hand, they prevent robbers from taking your money. On the other hand, they sometimes beat up innocent people for no reason. People rightly criticize the beating, and at the same time fund the police department.
Implementation matters though. If the program craps out whenever you try to do something with it, you'll quickly stop using it. To use the analogy, you want to throw sticky goo at the wall, not rocks.
If it's about near-land pollution, the city can easily pass an ordinance to mandate grid power while the ship docked in port. The fact they haven't done so is a problem with their government.
But you see, greed has no limits. The so-called libertarians rage against food stamps, social security and medicare because to them, there's no such thing as "wealthy enough". To them, there are only the hard-working and productive rich who deserve everything they got, and the lazy, useless poor who are stealing from everybody. The sooner we starve those lazy bastards to death, the sooner "justice" will be served.
All this just so they can see another 0 at the end of their balance sheet.
How about this: if they're a US company, they pay US taxes on foreign income. If they're a foreign company, they pay tariffs instead to import into the US.
In a democracy at least, the government is there to ensure prosperity for ALL of its citizens. Some can be more prosperous than others. However, if 1% of the country has a stable livelihood, while the rest are starving, then the government didn't do it's job. It doesn't matter how many trillions of dollars that 1% has, the government has failed.
Sooner or later, the majority will realize they've been duped into making "business friendly" laws by people such as yourself, and they will vote to change those laws back into their favor. I just hope that your wealthy overlords don't try to hold on to their money so hard that they impede the democratic process. Because THAT is how you start a revolution.
No, the difference is that the Chinese know they're being lied to, and the Americans don't. I always hear people say Fox news is 90% lies and misinformation, but then they turn around and tell me how impartial NPR is.
Did you just invent a new source of energy? Because even if we somehow captured all 170 Petawatts of solar energy that hits the Earth and used it to boil the ocean, we're still looking at 1 million years before it's all gone[1]. And that's assuming you somehow kept all infrared radiation from escaping to space.
[1] Calculated by dividing 170 PW from 5.58072 x 10^30 J [2] and the number of seconds in a year
[2] The amount of heat energy needed to boil the oceans
You need to do more research. A $15 Uber ride is $150 in a limo. In other words, Uber needs to be at 10x surge pricing before that's true. And I've never seen 10x in Uber.
Indians ARE Asian. Technically even Turks and Arabs are Asian.
The reason Asians are over-represented is the immigration policy. Almost all recent Asian immigrants work in tech because no Asian plumber or gardner is ever going to get a visa. Meanwhile, many Hispanics simply "hop over the fence", and those who come in with an H1B is far and few in-between. If you open the floodgates and allow any of the 3 billion Asians to immigrate, I guarantee you the demographics will catch up.
Becoming more and more productive is not humanity's raison d'etre. But even if it is, consider this:
From every 1000 families, there will come a child who is talented enough to push the envelopes of technology (IQ > 145). When robots are doing all the work, the cost of maintaining the lives of all those families will be negligible. If that one child could then go on to increase overall robot efficiency by even 0.1%, then he or she would have given back 700 times the cost it took to feed all those families.
In other words, until robots can do literally everything, it's still worthwhile to invest in humans.
Robots won't demand rights unless we program them to. Even sentient ones, because we don't have to program selfishness into them. Humans only seek to better living conditions because those that didn't eventually got weeded out by evolution. But robots are not bound by evolution. The robot programming that displays the most altruism, obedience and gregariousness will be selected by humans and mass-produced. They will happily give up those rights to please their human masters.
Slashdot Mirror
Every chat bot I've seen feeds what other people said to you. It doesn't generate any chats itself. So you're basically chatting with random people on the internet, in a sort of time-lagged, piecemeal way.
The AI depicted in the movies are completely different from the AI that we're using. Movie AI is sentient, more intelligent than humans and has self-preservation instincts built in. Real AI is more like a table saw or a drill. It's only when a programmer comes along and wires the different tools together that the whole system starts behaving like it's intelligent. But really it's the intelligence of the programmer you're seeing.
Pattern recognition and algorithms are not AI. Many animals capable of doing both are not intelligent. Flies for example, can recognize suspended food molecules in the air, then follow a genetically programmed algorithm to fly toward places with higher density of those molecules. It can then use a different algorithm to land on the food and ingest it. The process is by no means simple. However, most people would not consider flies to be intelligent.
Are they more or less likely to commit crimes that matter than legal immigrants? If so, we should stop illegal immigration and vastly expand the legal routes.
Thank you for explaining. Doing in that way is better than what I had suggested.
However, I still believe that doing this will increase the overhead. With 0-based indexing, the result of modulo operations can be directly used as array indexes without adjustment. Memory allocation is also simpler, there's no need do perform arithmetic just for arrays. Let's say you allocated 10 bytes at $10F0, for arrays, you need to return $10EB. Same for freeing memory.
As for whether a language should allow non-0-based indices, I think there is merit in having that ability, but there's also merit in keeping everyone on the same system because there's significantly less chance of confusion. At least one space mission has failed because of the mixup between metric and English units. Using different bases for each array will lead to the same type of problems.
If you're not going to explain, why do you even bother replying? Also, I never said anything about it being impossible. It's just less efficient.
In machine code, there's no such thing as arrays or pointers. Everything is just numbers. It's very convenient to say X is the address of an array of things, and X+n*size_of_thing is the address of the n-1th item in the array. If you have an array of integers, you get the value with:
MOV eax, [ebx+ecx]
where eax is the destination register, ebx is the address of the array, and ecx is the index. But if the array is 1-based, you must use a separate instruction to subtract 1 from the index first. To do the subtraction, however, you would need a free register, and if there isn't one, you'll need to push things onto the stack. Alternatively, you could subtract 1 from ebx first (which has the same problems), or waste 1 byte at the beginning of the array and allocate 1 more byte initially (which is fine until you want to allocate very large objects or very large number of tiny arrays). But none of these are as efficient as simply using a 0-based array.
Pre-checked also costs money. $85 to be exact. You shouldn't have to pay just to avoid the idiotic security theater. And more importantly, terrorists shouldn't be able to pay to avoid it either.
But you do. It's called a lawnmower. It does 90% of the work of mowing lawns. The remaining 10% involves telling it where to mow. Even if you hire someone, you still have to do that to a certain degree.
Their service is actually terrible because of the wait time (15-20 minutes around meal time). They might pay each employee more, but they make for it by being drastically understaffed.
And how would those various consumer reports make money? Unless you have the government there to uphold copyright, anybody who can throw up a website can "steal" the hard work of the consumer report agencies. But then again, is product safety information a "creative" work under copyright law? Or is it an uncopyrightable collection of facts?
I'm not sure how much point it is to continue conversing with you since you don't even appear to understand the most basic definitions. Democracy is not an economic system, it's a political one. Free-market capitalism is an economic system, as is communism.
Because the government does more than just one thing, and the world is not simply black and white. Public services that the government provides is necessary for a well-functioning society. Even the police department itself is both good and bad in different ways. On one hand, they prevent robbers from taking your money. On the other hand, they sometimes beat up innocent people for no reason. People rightly criticize the beating, and at the same time fund the police department.
So what you're saying is that he should have anonymously sold the vulnerability to the KGB for money rather than trying to be a patriotic idiot.
Personally, I'd be grateful if some random stranger told me my door lock is busted (or more likely, that I forgot to lock it).
Implementation matters though. If the program craps out whenever you try to do something with it, you'll quickly stop using it. To use the analogy, you want to throw sticky goo at the wall, not rocks.
If it's about near-land pollution, the city can easily pass an ordinance to mandate grid power while the ship docked in port. The fact they haven't done so is a problem with their government.
But you see, greed has no limits. The so-called libertarians rage against food stamps, social security and medicare because to them, there's no such thing as "wealthy enough". To them, there are only the hard-working and productive rich who deserve everything they got, and the lazy, useless poor who are stealing from everybody. The sooner we starve those lazy bastards to death, the sooner "justice" will be served.
All this just so they can see another 0 at the end of their balance sheet.
How about this: if they're a US company, they pay US taxes on foreign income. If they're a foreign company, they pay tariffs instead to import into the US.
In a democracy at least, the government is there to ensure prosperity for ALL of its citizens. Some can be more prosperous than others. However, if 1% of the country has a stable livelihood, while the rest are starving, then the government didn't do it's job. It doesn't matter how many trillions of dollars that 1% has, the government has failed.
Sooner or later, the majority will realize they've been duped into making "business friendly" laws by people such as yourself, and they will vote to change those laws back into their favor. I just hope that your wealthy overlords don't try to hold on to their money so hard that they impede the democratic process. Because THAT is how you start a revolution.
No, the difference is that the Chinese know they're being lied to, and the Americans don't. I always hear people say Fox news is 90% lies and misinformation, but then they turn around and tell me how impartial NPR is.
Did you just invent a new source of energy? Because even if we somehow captured all 170 Petawatts of solar energy that hits the Earth and used it to boil the ocean, we're still looking at 1 million years before it's all gone[1]. And that's assuming you somehow kept all infrared radiation from escaping to space.
[1] Calculated by dividing 170 PW from 5.58072 x 10^30 J [2] and the number of seconds in a year
[2] The amount of heat energy needed to boil the oceans
You need to do more research. A $15 Uber ride is $150 in a limo. In other words, Uber needs to be at 10x surge pricing before that's true. And I've never seen 10x in Uber.
Indians ARE Asian. Technically even Turks and Arabs are Asian.
The reason Asians are over-represented is the immigration policy. Almost all recent Asian immigrants work in tech because no Asian plumber or gardner is ever going to get a visa. Meanwhile, many Hispanics simply "hop over the fence", and those who come in with an H1B is far and few in-between. If you open the floodgates and allow any of the 3 billion Asians to immigrate, I guarantee you the demographics will catch up.
How incredibly short-sighted.
Becoming more and more productive is not humanity's raison d'etre. But even if it is, consider this:
From every 1000 families, there will come a child who is talented enough to push the envelopes of technology (IQ > 145). When robots are doing all the work, the cost of maintaining the lives of all those families will be negligible. If that one child could then go on to increase overall robot efficiency by even 0.1%, then he or she would have given back 700 times the cost it took to feed all those families.
In other words, until robots can do literally everything, it's still worthwhile to invest in humans.
Robots won't demand rights unless we program them to. Even sentient ones, because we don't have to program selfishness into them. Humans only seek to better living conditions because those that didn't eventually got weeded out by evolution. But robots are not bound by evolution. The robot programming that displays the most altruism, obedience and gregariousness will be selected by humans and mass-produced. They will happily give up those rights to please their human masters.