Things that cannot be or are not desired to be automated.
We see this already. People are buying handmade crap, just because it is handmade. No matter how good frozen food gets, I would rather go to restaurant. No matter how good that robot waiter is I rather have a nice cute female human bringing me my food and booze.
Automation will drive prices down for common things. This means people will desire uncommon things and pay extra for them.
Everything can be automated, it's just a question of time. Let's face it, we are just big and complex automatas, and as our knowledge expands, we are more and more able to mimic ourselves with artificial processes.
That leaves what is not desired to be automated. I'm not sure that's a lot of things. How much of "handmade" is just put by hand into the machine, only to be minimally "customized" by hand? Most people won't see any difference. You can find Kandinsky generators that are as interesting as the original (I'm pretty sure Gerhard Richter is a bot), there was even a Bach cantatas generator that was pretty impressive. Seriously, most of the case, the origin doesn't matter. Except when your kid gives you an ugly painting, you just prefer optimized things, and machines will sooner or later be better at optimizing everything than us.
On the other side, we just love to automate things, because we are lazy. That means, most of us won't bother to do things by hand if it's possible to automoate it (like this recent story on/. about the guy who outsourced his own job).
The question stands still: what will we do for a living after everything's been automated? We have to find an answer in a short time, cause automation is like any other growth, it's exponential.
Worst than that! Most of the time you have to pay an extra fee if the paper exceeds the limit set by the journal, and most publisher try to re-organize your paper (enlarge the figures for example) to get you beyond the limit.
And I'm not even talking about the extra fee if you have figures in color...
The problem with very talented programers, is that only very talented programers can easily understand their code. I understand it can be problematic in corprate environment when the next Junior comes in and gets totally lost.
But on the other hand, I guess these guys (The guy from TFA and Carmack) write far better code (performances wise, maintenance wise, etc), than most of the people at any standard IT company.
At my job (I'm associate professor at a French university), I got to sse a lot of programming styles. From my experience, it seems these kind of coding gurus tend to write code that bugs less often, and manage to maintain code of other gurus far better than non-gurus do with non-gurus code. It seems they are in a sort of tight cluster where they do communicate very well with themselves, while the rest of the programmers have high difficulties to communicate, whatever the number of redundant comments they write.
This is a manifestation of what I often call the "Elric Syndrome" after the saga by M. Moorcock. It's the obsession to solve a problem with the use of tools whereas the solution lies in oneself.
You can find it in almost every technical regulation policy, like speed regulators on cars or DRMs to name a few. Moorcock made a brilliant demonstration that this behavior is invariably set to fail.
In the 19th century we managed to get the workweek from 100 hours to about 50 hours thanks to the industrial revolution and energy sources like coal and oil. Now I keep hearing about how "productive" everyone is and how advanced our technology, and yet people work longer hours than ever and households now require both parents to work just to get the same level as single income families in the 1960s.
So, if we are so productive, what are we producing and for who?
If our technology is so advanced, why do we need to work so much?
What happened to the leisure society concept?
Because the exponential growth of our living standards has been backed by the expononential growth of energy production, which has come to an end recently (see for instance that article in Nature that made some noise last year).
It seems energy is finally the scarciest resource. And now that its exponential growth ends, everything related just ends its growth with a bit of latency. It seems industrial production output is first. Quality of life is probably just behind as well as food production. Population will most certainly be the last.
Prepare for a few years were your management will ask you to compensate with your sweat for what was done by the cheap energy growth, before every one realizes that some values have to decrease down to the sutainable level.
Starting the year with the biggest troll of 2013
on
An Ode To Skulpture
·
· Score: 1
CDE is the best and most consistent interface ever made.
OMFG! For about half a second, I thought you were serious, then I recalled clearly my student years were learning *nix was so much more easy with the CLI than with the plain mess that was CDE...
'We're past the mitigation [emissions cuts] and adaptation eras. We're now right into the era of loss and damage. What's next after that? Destruction?'
Obviously, the ultimate answer to this question is the same as for the Fermi paradox: greed.
Given that the article is pay-walled, is there any prediction about ice loss? What are the most recent predictions that have given accurate result in the past?
Then what format should one use for "important documents" that are intended to be editable?
(La)TeX
This should not be moded funny but insightful. If you ever work in the scientific academic domain, every important document is formatted in Latex, and they are all still editable whatever the bazillion versions of Office came in between.
We're fucked because we are too stupid to choose the right decision, however evident it is.
Some say humans are the smartest animals out there, but the reality (and soon history) is humans are as dumbfuck as every other species of the little muddy rock, they grow until they overshoot and then disappear.
Let's get it straight, if you do it for the hypothetical job of your dream you might get in return, you're doing it wrong. If you're not enjoying what you do, no matter it's only 40hrs a week or 72 (6 days at 12hrs), you're not doing the right thing.
Back when I was doing my M.Sc and PhD, we all used to work around 70 hrs a week, sometimes more (conferences deadlines for instance), sometimes less. It wasn't bad or unhealthy at all, because all of those who did this enjoyed what they did. Indeed, sometimes it wasn't the heavy workload, it was that you just could not stop doing something related to the field. Now that I'm associate professor, it still happens a lot that I get weeks of more than 70hrs of work at the lab. I still enjoy it. I still grab a recent paper to read and annotate on Sunday evening. Is that work too?
Ask yourself the question, how many hour do professional musicians work? Probably more than 80. Science is not so different from art, in the sense that you do something that truly brings you pleasure. What is the point of doing it less, when you can do it more?
Sometimes I'm saying this to the students who complain there is too much work. I'm available from 8 in the morning till 8 in the evening, and I answer email until 11, so if you have a problem, I'd be happy to take an hour or 2 to re-explain something or to try to solve your problem. If you're not willing to spend these 2 hours, then you're probably not doing the right studies. There is no secrecy, if you want to learn something, you have to spend a lot of time on it. So you'd better enjoy it.
If you don't like evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory, and believe it's all lies, then just don't bother with it. Leave alone the poor guys believing such insanities. Let them do as they want, if it's not true, they should not achieve anything dangerous, right?
Does this theory at all reduce the chance that when the Warp Drive ship arrives at its destination that it will emit a huge gamma ray burst? This planet destroying side effect would sure put a damper on any kind of arrival party for the warp drive ship.
Hoho! It's going to get money from the DoD then...
You might want to check the PhD of this guy in 1998 entitled "Ant Colony Optimization and its application to adaptive routing in telecommunication networks".
There are plenty of other ant like heuristics to network routing even older than this. Ant behavior modelization dates as far as 1989 (from J-L. Deneubourg), and routing was the first practical application for the derivative algorithms.
In all computer related fields, that's pretty easy: give the code. It's often a pain in the ass to reproduce the results (and I talk only for my field), but as soon as you get the code, then you see what's the tricky part, and what's left to improve.
Mathematics is BORING until you can show people WHY they are learning this
Actually if you continue learning maths, there's a moment where they become interesting by themselves and not only for what you can do with it.
If you didn't felt this, I guess you stopped too early, like when you stop reading a very good book because the first chapter was boring. Or maybe it's just not your kind (say, like some musical taste), whatever practical use it has or not.
My bet is the rush of sensation comes from killing the others instead of being killed, not from the tools used to achieve this. Replace the gun by whatever you want, it will still be violent because it triggers some primal feelings deep in your DNA.
SVM are primarily a classification technique that has been extended to clustering, regrssion, structured output learning (such as ranking), and so on. So yes, the max margin principle has been used is basically all the areas of machine learning.
How do you argue machine learning is not AI? You know the vast majority of researchers and publishers in the ML field consider it to be AI.
Slashdot Mirror
Could it be that the most open source friendly app stores will be the ones run my Microsoft?"
Bill, is that you?
Things that cannot be or are not desired to be automated.
We see this already. People are buying handmade crap, just because it is handmade. No matter how good frozen food gets, I would rather go to restaurant. No matter how good that robot waiter is I rather have a nice cute female human bringing me my food and booze.
Automation will drive prices down for common things. This means people will desire uncommon things and pay extra for them.
Everything can be automated, it's just a question of time. Let's face it, we are just big and complex automatas, and as our knowledge expands, we are more and more able to mimic ourselves with artificial processes.
That leaves what is not desired to be automated. I'm not sure that's a lot of things. How much of "handmade" is just put by hand into the machine, only to be minimally "customized" by hand? Most people won't see any difference. You can find Kandinsky generators that are as interesting as the original (I'm pretty sure Gerhard Richter is a bot), there was even a Bach cantatas generator that was pretty impressive. Seriously, most of the case, the origin doesn't matter. Except when your kid gives you an ugly painting, you just prefer optimized things, and machines will sooner or later be better at optimizing everything than us.
On the other side, we just love to automate things, because we are lazy. That means, most of us won't bother to do things by hand if it's possible to automoate it (like this recent story on /. about the guy who outsourced his own job).
The question stands still: what will we do for a living after everything's been automated? We have to find an answer in a short time, cause automation is like any other growth, it's exponential.
"Well I don't know about the former, but given they are all dead I'm pretty sure about the latter."
Not at all. They were superstrong and supersmart. Unfortunately for them, they were also supergullible.
Or supertasty...
Yummy!
Worst than that! Most of the time you have to pay an extra fee if the paper exceeds the limit set by the journal, and most publisher try to re-organize your paper (enlarge the figures for example) to get you beyond the limit.
And I'm not even talking about the extra fee if you have figures in color...
The problem with very talented programers, is that only very talented programers can easily understand their code. I understand it can be problematic in corprate environment when the next Junior comes in and gets totally lost.
But on the other hand, I guess these guys (The guy from TFA and Carmack) write far better code (performances wise, maintenance wise, etc), than most of the people at any standard IT company.
At my job (I'm associate professor at a French university), I got to sse a lot of programming styles. From my experience, it seems these kind of coding gurus tend to write code that bugs less often, and manage to maintain code of other gurus far better than non-gurus do with non-gurus code. It seems they are in a sort of tight cluster where they do communicate very well with themselves, while the rest of the programmers have high difficulties to communicate, whatever the number of redundant comments they write.
This is a manifestation of what I often call the "Elric Syndrome" after the saga by M. Moorcock. It's the obsession to solve a problem with the use of tools whereas the solution lies in oneself.
You can find it in almost every technical regulation policy, like speed regulators on cars or DRMs to name a few. Moorcock made a brilliant demonstration that this behavior is invariably set to fail.
Apparently, He failed to awake on last december 21.
Java will come back to number 1 in a few years thanks to Android...
In the 19th century we managed to get the workweek from 100 hours to about 50 hours thanks to the industrial revolution and energy sources like coal and oil. Now I keep hearing about how "productive" everyone is and how advanced our technology, and yet people work longer hours than ever and households now require both parents to work just to get the same level as single income families in the 1960s.
So, if we are so productive, what are we producing and for who?
If our technology is so advanced, why do we need to work so much?
What happened to the leisure society concept?
Because the exponential growth of our living standards has been backed by the expononential growth of energy production, which has come to an end recently (see for instance that article in Nature that made some noise last year).
It seems energy is finally the scarciest resource. And now that its exponential growth ends, everything related just ends its growth with a bit of latency. It seems industrial production output is first. Quality of life is probably just behind as well as food production. Population will most certainly be the last.
Prepare for a few years were your management will ask you to compensate with your sweat for what was done by the cheap energy growth, before every one realizes that some values have to decrease down to the sutainable level.
CDE is the best and most consistent interface ever made.
OMFG! For about half a second, I thought you were serious, then I recalled clearly my student years were learning *nix was so much more easy with the CLI than with the plain mess that was CDE...
You can also compare the predictions of TFA with that of the famous "limits to growth" report and updates.
'We're past the mitigation [emissions cuts] and adaptation eras. We're now right into the era of loss and damage. What's next after that? Destruction?'
Obviously, the ultimate answer to this question is the same as for the Fermi paradox: greed.
Given that the article is pay-walled, is there any prediction about ice loss? What are the most recent predictions that have given accurate result in the past?
Then what format should one use for "important documents" that are intended to be editable?
(La)TeX
This should not be moded funny but insightful. If you ever work in the scientific academic domain, every important document is formatted in Latex, and they are all still editable whatever the bazillion versions of Office came in between.
We're fucked because we are too stupid to choose the right decision, however evident it is.
Some say humans are the smartest animals out there, but the reality (and soon history) is humans are as dumbfuck as every other species of the little muddy rock, they grow until they overshoot and then disappear.
Let's get it straight, if you do it for the hypothetical job of your dream you might get in return, you're doing it wrong. If you're not enjoying what you do, no matter it's only 40hrs a week or 72 (6 days at 12hrs), you're not doing the right thing.
Back when I was doing my M.Sc and PhD, we all used to work around 70 hrs a week, sometimes more (conferences deadlines for instance), sometimes less. It wasn't bad or unhealthy at all, because all of those who did this enjoyed what they did. Indeed, sometimes it wasn't the heavy workload, it was that you just could not stop doing something related to the field. Now that I'm associate professor, it still happens a lot that I get weeks of more than 70hrs of work at the lab. I still enjoy it. I still grab a recent paper to read and annotate on Sunday evening. Is that work too?
Ask yourself the question, how many hour do professional musicians work? Probably more than 80. Science is not so different from art, in the sense that you do something that truly brings you pleasure. What is the point of doing it less, when you can do it more?
Sometimes I'm saying this to the students who complain there is too much work. I'm available from 8 in the morning till 8 in the evening, and I answer email until 11, so if you have a problem, I'd be happy to take an hour or 2 to re-explain something or to try to solve your problem. If you're not willing to spend these 2 hours, then you're probably not doing the right studies. There is no secrecy, if you want to learn something, you have to spend a lot of time on it. So you'd better enjoy it.
If you don't like evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory, and believe it's all lies, then just don't bother with it. Leave alone the poor guys believing such insanities. Let them do as they want, if it's not true, they should not achieve anything dangerous, right?
In the end, we will see who was right...
Does this theory at all reduce the chance that when the Warp Drive ship arrives at its destination that it will emit a huge gamma ray burst? This planet destroying side effect would sure put a damper on any kind of arrival party for the warp drive ship.
Hoho! It's going to get money from the DoD then...
What if the test consists in building an AI that can pass the test?
You might want to check the PhD of this guy in 1998 entitled "Ant Colony Optimization and its application to adaptive routing in telecommunication networks".
There are plenty of other ant like heuristics to network routing even older than this. Ant behavior modelization dates as far as 1989 (from J-L. Deneubourg), and routing was the first practical application for the derivative algorithms.
In all computer related fields, that's pretty easy: give the code. It's often a pain in the ass to reproduce the results (and I talk only for my field), but as soon as you get the code, then you see what's the tricky part, and what's left to improve.
Mathematics is BORING until you can show people WHY they are learning this
Actually if you continue learning maths, there's a moment where they become interesting by themselves and not only for what you can do with it.
If you didn't felt this, I guess you stopped too early, like when you stop reading a very good book because the first chapter was boring. Or maybe it's just not your kind (say, like some musical taste), whatever practical use it has or not.
My bet is the rush of sensation comes from killing the others instead of being killed, not from the tools used to achieve this. Replace the gun by whatever you want, it will still be violent because it triggers some primal feelings deep in your DNA.
SVM are primarily a classification technique that has been extended to clustering, regrssion, structured output learning (such as ranking), and so on. So yes, the max margin principle has been used is basically all the areas of machine learning.
How do you argue machine learning is not AI? You know the vast majority of researchers and publishers in the ML field consider it to be AI.
I prefer those dating bonds over your accusative ones.