Definitely some truth in what you're saying, though we should remember high level piano isn't actually supposed to be competitive (though you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise, when looking at the grandstand pieces being played all the time).
When it comes to freakish fingers though, I'm afraid Korea's gamers have a way to go before they can compete. See Yuja Wang here as an example (no, it's not sped up).:-)
Tell them you're recording the call at the same point their pre-recorded voice tells you "calls may be recorded...". Just say it back to the recorded voice.
I was thinking about something like this. It could use encrypted email as it's underlying protocol - the mail message could be xml containing the various types of message that could be sent back and forth. You would have a client that interprets them, and presents things to you in a facebook (or whatever) style way.
Sounds fairly doable to my addled brain, though I daresay people can shoot it down readily enough:-)
15 minutes almost up, Zuckerberg. Why? You ask - who knows?
I'd like to think people's collective common sense is waking from it's slumber, and realising what a monstrous, evil, alienating waste of time your site is. Then again, maybe people are just tired of seeing your wonky face leering at them from news articles, and remembering that you could buy everything they've worked their whole lives for, with just one day's accumulated interest on your wealth, and they are contributing to you.
A pox on all "social" network sites, and the mega-corps that aim to profit from people's need to feel loved, say I.
Hear hear! When I look back at what the UK's aerospace industry back in the 60s, it makes me weep for what we've lost. These days, wherever you look, there's just an endless web of interconnected consultants, sub contractors and outsourcers, soaking up money in the name of "maximising efficiency". Inevitably little or nothing gets achieved, and it's never anyone's fault. We need companies like SpaceX, which really seems to have some of that old "get it done" attitude.
Really? That's appalling - and it's also an object lesson in the slow, insidious destruction that the free market brings to society. It's rightly loved for it's efficiency, and the "quality of life" improvements it brings, but I've come to worry that it also brings a slow, slow death to everything bar the lowest common denominator profiteering.
Space / not space - who cares? I probably have an overly bleak opinion of the world, but it warmed my heart to see a "Father & Son" team doing something cool together - the world needs (a lot) more parents like this. I hope to do some similar antics once my kids are old enough to appreciate / contribute.
It sounds like a really interesting course. As you say, programming is just another tool, but remember an artist is always, always shaped by the tools they use, so it's not as simple as just learning the language. That can be good though - they'll bring a fresh pair of eyes. Fine art types are highly switched on, and often fairly geeky in their own way - I bet it will work really well.
I think the assumption that Kurzweil is making, in common with many GAI researchers, is that the individual protein mechanisms, and the genomes that code for them are part of the "implementation" of the brain in our heads. That's what biology uses to build things with - genes and proteins, hormones etc. However the underlying ALGORITHM (and yes, there must be one), is seperable from the biology used to implement it. That may not be the case, but that's the bet.
I'm not sure what it is about his claims that are supposed to be so ludicrous. For example, a million lines of code seems at least plausible, as long as we bear in mind the following:
1. We're not trying to mimic the brain at the protein level, rather at the broader, inter-neuron level (and whatever complex intra neuron behaviour we discover).
2. The million lines of code don't need to encompass the capacity of the brain, just its general neural architecture and adaption rules - there will no doubt be many gigabytes (terabytes?) of working memory, which would actually store the neural connections and whatever parameters they may have.
To be honest, the authors of this article seem to be rather too cocksure in dismissing all this. Even the apparent agreement of Terry Sejnowski (co-inventor of the boltzmann machine) doesn't give them pause. I'm not that familiar with Kurzweil's predictions, but this seems fairly reasonable to me.
There is a google tech talk by Geoff Hinton on restricted boltzmann machines, (a sort of stochastic neural network) that's well worth a watch, for those that are interested. They are considered biologically plausible, and he seems mostly to apply them to machine vision tasks.
Missing the train due to slow lumbering lumps is infuriating. A formally polite but clipped "Excuse me please", works fairly well for left-escalator-standers, but people slow on the stairs are much harder. You don't want to brush past them, as they're moving, and you might put them off balance, and they probably can't go any faster anyway. V. Annoying.
Barriers are almost as bad - during the rush hours, most travellers have RFID Oyster cards, which are touched to a receiver pad to open the barrier. This process can easily be done without breaking stride, but one is often stymied by someone stopping to hunt for their card right in front of the barrier, blocking it for everyone else.
Very true, I usually walk up / down London Underground escalators, and often see people ahead, unable to find a "slot" on the crowded right hand side to pull in and stop. Sadly, the laws of the escalator dictate that if they cannot find safe harbour on the right, and cannot continue moving due to being excessively useless, they must be trampled.
And we'd like to buy your super new material! What's that? Good for batteries, you say? Errrrr *snigger* oh yes - of course, really powerful "batteries", oh yes!
They could indeed do that, and they could also send a very small, low to the ground camera, to disguise the fact that Robo-Godzilla is only 12 inches tall.
OTOOH, have you considered that for someone well schooled in "The art of war", a post-dated memetic virus encouraging the populace to be docile and credulous might be just the ticket... mwahahaha..
Of course, what he perceives will be nothing like an 8x8 bitmap image. His brain will do all sorts of cool vision interpretation, including accumulating visual scene information over time (by way of small motions of the head, for example). With all this, I imagine that what he sees will be WAY higher fidelity than an 8x8 bitmap.
"A blur on the other hand, especially a gaussian blur, will mix pixels together in such a way that any recovered image will be one of many possible outcomes"
Not true actually - at least theoretically, a gaussian blur (or any convolution) amounts to nothing more that a change of basis - and that change can be undone.
However, the need to know the EXACT kernel used, and the quantized (8bits per channel) data, in the case of an image, may well render it practically impossible.
This technique sounds like it could be useful for 3d reconstruction problems. The main issue in, for example shape from stereo algorithms is accurately finding depth discontinuities, and it can be nigh on impossible with a textureless, evenly lit surface.
Having said that, I'm not sure whether it would be better than existing solutions for that sort of thing, for example structured light.
What you are saying is true, but these impracticalities of simulation you refer to only arise if you assume you must simulate the entire system to make useful predictions. Chaotic time series may resist accurate prediction, but that is not to say that probabilistic predictions may not be made, using a variety of methods.
Chaos is not the same as randomness, it just implies an infinite sensitivity to initial conditions. *BUT* that needn't apply to the the whole of the system's phase space. Some areas may be completely predictable, or even robust in the face of peturbations (a contractive mapping). Other areas may be dissipative and resist predictions. But knowing when you can't make a prediction is a prediction in itself, in a sense.
Alas, this technology will not enable any (good) invisibility cloaks. If you look at the same piece of fabric from different directions, you'll need to see a different colour to match whatever background it's currently obscuring. Some kind of dynamic holographic cloth could do it, but I'm guessing that's more than a little way off yet.
I envision a slew of early adopters creeping furtively into women's changing rooms, dressed head to toe in highly non-invisible, brightly patterned gimp suits.
Slashdot Mirror
It's gratifying that a humble creature that spends its days rolling dung about, can also reach for things on a cosmic scale.
Definitely some truth in what you're saying, though we should remember high level piano isn't actually supposed to be competitive (though you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise, when looking at the grandstand pieces being played all the time).
When it comes to freakish fingers though, I'm afraid Korea's gamers have a way to go before they can compete. See Yuja Wang here as an example (no, it's not sped up). :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8alxBofd_eQ
Tell them you're recording the call at the same point their pre-recorded voice tells you "calls may be recorded...". Just say it back to the recorded voice.
I was thinking about something like this. It could use encrypted email as it's underlying protocol - the mail message could be xml containing the various types of message that could be sent back and forth. You would have a client that interprets them, and presents things to you in a facebook (or whatever) style way.
Sounds fairly doable to my addled brain, though I daresay people can shoot it down readily enough :-)
You silly, this is not for Apple devices. This is for banks' doors.
So the banks can blame the special glass when their employees fail to be visible in reflections?
15 minutes almost up, Zuckerberg.
Why? You ask - who knows?
I'd like to think people's collective common sense is waking from it's slumber, and realising what a monstrous, evil, alienating waste of time your site is. Then again, maybe people are just tired of seeing your wonky face leering at them from news articles, and remembering that you could buy everything they've worked their whole lives for, with just one day's accumulated interest on your wealth, and they are contributing to you.
A pox on all "social" network sites, and the mega-corps that aim to profit from people's need to feel loved, say I.
Hear hear! When I look back at what the UK's aerospace industry back in the 60s, it makes me weep for what we've lost. These days, wherever you look, there's just an endless web of interconnected consultants, sub contractors and outsourcers, soaking up money in the name of "maximising efficiency". Inevitably little or nothing gets achieved, and it's never anyone's fault. We need companies like SpaceX, which really seems to have some of that old "get it done" attitude.
Really? That's appalling - and it's also an object lesson in the slow, insidious destruction that the free market brings to society. It's rightly loved for it's efficiency, and the "quality of life" improvements it brings, but I've come to worry that it also brings a slow, slow death to everything bar the lowest common denominator profiteering.
Space / not space - who cares? I probably have an overly bleak opinion of the world, but it warmed my heart to see a "Father & Son" team doing something cool together - the world needs (a lot) more parents like this. I hope to do some similar antics once my kids are old enough to appreciate / contribute.
It sounds like a really interesting course. As you say, programming is just another tool, but remember an artist is always, always shaped by the tools they use, so it's not as simple as just learning the language. That can be good though - they'll bring a fresh pair of eyes. Fine art types are highly switched on, and often fairly geeky in their own way - I bet it will work really well.
Well, let's hope it doesn't get rooted! *rimshot*
Aaathankyouverymuch...
I think the assumption that Kurzweil is making, in common with many GAI researchers, is that the individual protein mechanisms, and the genomes that code for them are part of the "implementation" of the brain in our heads. That's what biology uses to build things with - genes and proteins, hormones etc. However the underlying ALGORITHM (and yes, there must be one), is seperable from the biology used to implement it. That may not be the case, but that's the bet.
I'm not sure what it is about his claims that are supposed to be so ludicrous. For example, a million lines of code seems at least plausible, as long as we bear in mind the following:
1. We're not trying to mimic the brain at the protein level, rather at the broader, inter-neuron level (and whatever complex intra neuron behaviour we discover).
2. The million lines of code don't need to encompass the capacity of the brain, just its general neural architecture and adaption rules - there will no doubt be many gigabytes (terabytes?) of working memory, which would actually store the neural connections and whatever parameters they may have.
To be honest, the authors of this article seem to be rather too cocksure in dismissing all this. Even the apparent agreement of Terry Sejnowski (co-inventor of the boltzmann machine) doesn't give them pause. I'm not that familiar with Kurzweil's predictions, but this seems fairly reasonable to me.
There is a google tech talk by Geoff Hinton on restricted boltzmann machines, (a sort of stochastic neural network) that's well worth a watch, for those that are interested. They are considered biologically plausible, and he seems mostly to apply them to machine vision tasks.
Missing the train due to slow lumbering lumps is infuriating. A formally polite but clipped "Excuse me please", works fairly well for left-escalator-standers, but people slow on the stairs are much harder. You don't want to brush past them, as they're moving, and you might put them off balance, and they probably can't go any faster anyway. V. Annoying.
Barriers are almost as bad - during the rush hours, most travellers have RFID Oyster cards, which are touched to a receiver pad to open the barrier. This process can easily be done without breaking stride, but one is often stymied by someone stopping to hunt for their card right in front of the barrier, blocking it for everyone else.
A pox on them, I say!
Very true, I usually walk up / down London Underground escalators, and often see people ahead, unable to find a "slot" on the crowded right hand side to pull in and stop. Sadly, the laws of the escalator dictate that if they cannot find safe harbour on the right, and cannot continue moving due to being excessively useless, they must be trampled.
And we'd like to buy your super new material! What's that? Good for batteries, you say? Errrrr *snigger* oh yes - of course, really powerful "batteries", oh yes!
They could indeed do that, and they could also send a very small, low to the ground camera, to disguise the fact that Robo-Godzilla is only 12 inches tall.
OTOOH, have you considered that for someone well schooled in "The art of war", a post-dated memetic virus encouraging the populace to be docile and credulous might be just the ticket... mwahahaha..
It was recorded you know, you can still watch it.
Of course, what he perceives will be nothing like an 8x8 bitmap image. His brain will do all sorts of cool vision interpretation, including accumulating visual scene information over time (by way of small motions of the head, for example). With all this, I imagine that what he sees will be WAY higher fidelity than an 8x8 bitmap.
"A blur on the other hand, especially a gaussian blur, will mix pixels together in such a way that any recovered image will be one of many possible outcomes"
Not true actually - at least theoretically, a gaussian blur (or any convolution) amounts to nothing more that a change of basis - and that change can be undone.
However, the need to know the EXACT kernel used, and the quantized (8bits per channel) data, in the case of an image, may well render it practically impossible.
This technique sounds like it could be useful for 3d reconstruction problems. The main issue in, for example shape from stereo algorithms is accurately finding depth discontinuities, and it can be nigh on impossible with a textureless, evenly lit surface.
Having said that, I'm not sure whether it would be better than existing solutions for that sort of thing, for example structured light.
What you are saying is true, but these impracticalities of simulation you refer to only arise if you assume you must simulate the entire system to make useful predictions. Chaotic time series may resist accurate prediction, but that is not to say that probabilistic predictions may not be made, using a variety of methods.
Chaos is not the same as randomness, it just implies an infinite sensitivity to initial conditions. *BUT* that needn't apply to the the whole of the system's phase space. Some areas may be completely predictable, or even robust in the face of peturbations (a contractive mapping). Other areas may be dissipative and resist predictions. But knowing when you can't make a prediction is a prediction in itself, in a sense.
Matt Taylor
FWIW The function would need to be resistant to peturbations, rather than just having a fixed point.
.
A fixed point in a chaotic dynamical system does not necessarily have a basin of attraction - it may be infinitely sensitive to peturbations
Matt Taylor
Alas, this technology will not enable any (good) invisibility cloaks. If you look at the same piece of fabric from different directions, you'll need to see a different colour to match whatever background it's currently obscuring. Some kind of dynamic holographic cloth could do it, but I'm guessing that's more than a little way off yet.
I envision a slew of early adopters creeping furtively into women's changing rooms, dressed head to toe in highly non-invisible, brightly patterned gimp suits.