You could 1. generate a key pair, 2. put the public key as metadata in the unforgable blockchain entry, and 3. sign whatever message is needed to be tied to this entry with the private key. This scheme ensures no unauthorized message is associated to the same blockchain entry (a property verifiable by anyone), but is vulnerable to an attack needing say an identical message on a different physical object (someone copying the sticker, as you suggest). Depending on the particular needs, this may or may not be sufficient.
Really? The best they could come up with is comparing the bot to a programmable mouse, illegal in human play? This standard basically disqualifies any bot implementation being fair in their definition just on the basis of being a program. What do they want? The bot to send commands to a human operator which plays the game for it?
Their slightly less ridiculous claim is saying the bot is unfair because it interfaces with the game not through mouse and keyboard and the dota renderer but through valve's bot api. Just..fine, if you dont care about how good a bot can be under the dota developer's own definition, then ignore the results.
I just dont understand the mindset here, is this resistance to change? People dont want AI to be good, so they make up narratives to explain away recent successes? It really feels like the same mindset as conspiracy theorists.
Modern cpus are designed so that some instructions take multiple cycles to complete. Think floating point operations, loads and stores, probably most nontrivial instruction from extended sets (SSE, AVX, etc). During these operations, the cpu can do other business and will try to schedule all its modules maximally. Just as an example, imagine a floating point matrix multiplication. The loop bookkeeping code (index compare and branch, increment) is literally free because it can complete fast enough to keep the floating point math module 100% saturated. In this workload, the integer module is mostly idle.
My understanding of hyperthreading is its an attempt to schedule the cpu modules maximally over 2 threads, not just 1. So maybe you would see a benefit if 1 process was doing a lot of memory operations and the other a lot of math, or if 1 was doing a lot of integer math and the other floating point math. I'm not an expert on this but my understand is that billions of dollars in research have gone to squeeze average case performance out of modern cpus and HT is one piece of the puzzle.
I think they're developing the liar to model the situation in which an AI might not be trustworthy or malicious. The experiment is proposing a method to trust AIs in the absense of knowing their internals completely.
The author offers the fact that Google open sources some of its software to profit off of the support it provides in a tone that suggests this is a problem. This is one of those everybody wins scenarios which Richard Stallman dreamed about when he invented the GPL. Can anyone explain to me what reason the author has to be upset other than "someone other than me is making money"?
Well im not happy with the word the physicists have chosen either, but this is actually established terminology. It refers to the ability to transfer a qubit by actually transfering 2 classical bits, provided the two parties have preshared an EPR entangled pair of qubits.
I had a VCR which did this in the 90s for taped TV. I'm not sure how it worked, but on playback it would just physically fast forward through the commercials.
If facebook only needs a hash of the image, it should allow users to upload only the hash by providing the hashing function. Or are we talking about something super proprietary here?
To solve the accidental activation problem, the single button solution obviously would have been implemented with a physical guard over the button, like in fighter jets over the missile arm buttons. Such a timeless and elegant solution would have been, in Bill's view, just one more way Microsoft could have revolutionized the PC market and culture./sarcasm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...â"Levin_theorem
Cook showed that any decision problem with easily checkable solution could be mechanically and quickly converted into a Boolean satisfiability problem of similar size. Thus, SAT became the first known example of a so called NP-complete problem. Other examples are then much more easily found by giving a procedure to convert SAT problems into that kind of problem. Such a procedure was apparently given for some variation of the queen problem. So in fact yes, an algorithm fast for specifically queens can be composed with the (already known) fast transformation from SAT and ultimately through Cooks construction for any particular NP problem (where he is able to be completely general by taking as input the Turing machine for the solution checker)
If you think it's unbelievable, that's completely natural. No one would suspect the existance of NP complete problems from the start.
First of all, the problem cant in any real sense be considered a chess puzzle, except in the superficial sense of placing queens on a board. Chess reasoning has nothing to do with a solution of the problem.
Second of all, the $1m prize is exactly the clay millennium prize for the resolution of P vs NP. If n-qeens has a solution in P, being NP-complete, this implies P=NP.
The solution to *any* problem that has resisted solution for as long as this has will likely contain essentially new ideas. These new methods of analysis likely have a much broader application than strictly the original problem. Many minds following the threads through and having their own insights will result in an improvement in the state of the art which you would find in even the most practically minded engineers textbook.
Personally, I think knowing the why to the answer to the question "can a problem whose solution is easily checked actually be hard?", whatever it is, is interesting enough in its own right.
Aside from eliminating privacy for everyone, can measures like this be expected to actually fight terror or crime at all? Encryption is essentially a solved problem; a coordinated terror group needs only do a little work to make its own app using strong end to end encryption in the backend. Insisting that popular messaging apps be insecure simply robs the common citizen from privacy protection tools without addressing the problem which is claimed to be tackled.
In latex, to force word spacing after an abbreviation, you escape the space like '\ '. I suppose if it has to be spaced as a text document, the editor should unconditionally insert two spaces after a period, then in the case of an abreviation the user should backspace.
What one sees as the "concept of free speech" is obviously dependent on your definition. If you are speaking of the free speech legislated in the first ammendment, it only protects the people from government, not from private individuals. In fact the only constitutional provision which limits the actions of private individuals is the 14th ammendment, which outlaws slavery.
Now there could in principal be federal or local laws which somehow protect free speech from infringement by other private individuals, but I'm not aware of an example, and indeed this is usually not the case (nor should it be in my opinion).
It sucks because warming removes arctic ice, which no longer reflects sunlight, which causes more warming. The summary suggests that when (in the future) arctic ice goes away completely during the summer, this will be very bad.
Ones that even beat the proprietary competitors too, see
http://tests.stockfishchess.or....
This is not to mention efforts like folding@home and similar. Of course there is still the problem of having large training data sets.
Hmm, theoretically impossible? I guess, *in principle*, any user could always just reformat and install Windows XP, but granting that at least *some* system components can be trusted, there is the notion of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-carrying_code/ which, although not commonly implemented due to the technology not being there yet for widespread adoption, could conceivably be implemented as a system wide policy.
The idea is that each piece of code contains within it a proof of its compliance with some formally specified security policy defined by the system, which the system verifies before the code is allowed to execute. The result is, as long as you can trust the security policy and things like the program loader, you can trust everything that executes, regardless of origin.
While writing this, it occurs to me that maybe the issue with even this system is no security policy could simultaneously allow all nonmalicious software features while excluding all malicious features, even in principle. A proof of this isnt so obvious to me though
Slashdot Mirror
You could 1. generate a key pair, 2. put the public key as metadata in the unforgable blockchain entry, and 3. sign whatever message is needed to be tied to this entry with the private key. This scheme ensures no unauthorized message is associated to the same blockchain entry (a property verifiable by anyone), but is vulnerable to an attack needing say an identical message on a different physical object (someone copying the sticker, as you suggest). Depending on the particular needs, this may or may not be sufficient.
Presumably he's describing a system where the sticker is signed by a blockchain entry, or something, which can be checked automatically by a scanner.
Really? The best they could come up with is comparing the bot to a programmable mouse, illegal in human play? This standard basically disqualifies any bot implementation being fair in their definition just on the basis of being a program. What do they want? The bot to send commands to a human operator which plays the game for it?
Their slightly less ridiculous claim is saying the bot is unfair because it interfaces with the game not through mouse and keyboard and the dota renderer but through valve's bot api. Just..fine, if you dont care about how good a bot can be under the dota developer's own definition, then ignore the results.
I just dont understand the mindset here, is this resistance to change? People dont want AI to be good, so they make up narratives to explain away recent successes? It really feels like the same mindset as conspiracy theorists.
Modern cpus are designed so that some instructions take multiple cycles to complete. Think floating point operations, loads and stores, probably most nontrivial instruction from extended sets (SSE, AVX, etc). During these operations, the cpu can do other business and will try to schedule all its modules maximally. Just as an example, imagine a floating point matrix multiplication. The loop bookkeeping code (index compare and branch, increment) is literally free because it can complete fast enough to keep the floating point math module 100% saturated. In this workload, the integer module is mostly idle.
My understanding of hyperthreading is its an attempt to schedule the cpu modules maximally over 2 threads, not just 1. So maybe you would see a benefit if 1 process was doing a lot of memory operations and the other a lot of math, or if 1 was doing a lot of integer math and the other floating point math. I'm not an expert on this but my understand is that billions of dollars in research have gone to squeeze average case performance out of modern cpus and HT is one piece of the puzzle.
I think they're developing the liar to model the situation in which an AI might not be trustworthy or malicious. The experiment is proposing a method to trust AIs in the absense of knowing their internals completely.
Its the magnetic field, not the atmosphere, which protects people on the ground.
Maybe we can make it two centuries in a row!
Then again, AI which could beat humans at Go were 10 years away last year :)
So much for american technology
The author offers the fact that Google open sources some of its software to profit off of the support it provides in a tone that suggests this is a problem. This is one of those everybody wins scenarios which Richard Stallman dreamed about when he invented the GPL. Can anyone explain to me what reason the author has to be upset other than "someone other than me is making money"?
Well im not happy with the word the physicists have chosen either, but this is actually established terminology. It refers to the ability to transfer a qubit by actually transfering 2 classical bits, provided the two parties have preshared an EPR entangled pair of qubits.
After some googling, one source says about 4000 qubits to break 2048-bit RSA keys. Another says 10000 for the same job
I had a VCR which did this in the 90s for taped TV. I'm not sure how it worked, but on playback it would just physically fast forward through the commercials.
If facebook only needs a hash of the image, it should allow users to upload only the hash by providing the hashing function. Or are we talking about something super proprietary here?
To solve the accidental activation problem, the single button solution obviously would have been implemented with a physical guard over the button, like in fighter jets over the missile arm buttons. Such a timeless and elegant solution would have been, in Bill's view, just one more way Microsoft could have revolutionized the PC market and culture. /sarcasm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...â"Levin_theorem Cook showed that any decision problem with easily checkable solution could be mechanically and quickly converted into a Boolean satisfiability problem of similar size. Thus, SAT became the first known example of a so called NP-complete problem. Other examples are then much more easily found by giving a procedure to convert SAT problems into that kind of problem. Such a procedure was apparently given for some variation of the queen problem. So in fact yes, an algorithm fast for specifically queens can be composed with the (already known) fast transformation from SAT and ultimately through Cooks construction for any particular NP problem (where he is able to be completely general by taking as input the Turing machine for the solution checker)
If you think it's unbelievable, that's completely natural. No one would suspect the existance of NP complete problems from the start.
First of all, the problem cant in any real sense be considered a chess puzzle, except in the superficial sense of placing queens on a board. Chess reasoning has nothing to do with a solution of the problem.
Second of all, the $1m prize is exactly the clay millennium prize for the resolution of P vs NP. If n-qeens has a solution in P, being NP-complete, this implies P=NP.
tldr Sensationalist title is sensationalist
The solution to *any* problem that has resisted solution for as long as this has will likely contain essentially new ideas. These new methods of analysis likely have a much broader application than strictly the original problem. Many minds following the threads through and having their own insights will result in an improvement in the state of the art which you would find in even the most practically minded engineers textbook.
Personally, I think knowing the why to the answer to the question "can a problem whose solution is easily checked actually be hard?", whatever it is, is interesting enough in its own right.
Do you have a reason to distrust all of our intelligence services?
Aside from eliminating privacy for everyone, can measures like this be expected to actually fight terror or crime at all? Encryption is essentially a solved problem; a coordinated terror group needs only do a little work to make its own app using strong end to end encryption in the backend. Insisting that popular messaging apps be insecure simply robs the common citizen from privacy protection tools without addressing the problem which is claimed to be tackled.
In latex, to force word spacing after an abbreviation, you escape the space like '\ '. I suppose if it has to be spaced as a text document, the editor should unconditionally insert two spaces after a period, then in the case of an abreviation the user should backspace.
What one sees as the "concept of free speech" is obviously dependent on your definition. If you are speaking of the free speech legislated in the first ammendment, it only protects the people from government, not from private individuals. In fact the only constitutional provision which limits the actions of private individuals is the 14th ammendment, which outlaws slavery.
Now there could in principal be federal or local laws which somehow protect free speech from infringement by other private individuals, but I'm not aware of an example, and indeed this is usually not the case (nor should it be in my opinion).
Arctic ice affects Y by the albedo effect.
It sucks because warming removes arctic ice, which no longer reflects sunlight, which causes more warming. The summary suggests that when (in the future) arctic ice goes away completely during the summer, this will be very bad.
Ones that even beat the proprietary competitors too, see http://tests.stockfishchess.or.... This is not to mention efforts like folding@home and similar. Of course there is still the problem of having large training data sets.
Hmm, theoretically impossible? I guess, *in principle*, any user could always just reformat and install Windows XP, but granting that at least *some* system components can be trusted, there is the notion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-carrying_code/ which, although not commonly implemented due to the technology not being there yet for widespread adoption, could conceivably be implemented as a system wide policy.
The idea is that each piece of code contains within it a proof of its compliance with some formally specified security policy defined by the system, which the system verifies before the code is allowed to execute. The result is, as long as you can trust the security policy and things like the program loader, you can trust everything that executes, regardless of origin.
While writing this, it occurs to me that maybe the issue with even this system is no security policy could simultaneously allow all nonmalicious software features while excluding all malicious features, even in principle. A proof of this isnt so obvious to me though