Ok. It's pretty clear you never were in East Germany, nor knew anybody from there. You're just inverting stuff just to comfort your ideology.
I'm not saying DDR was the dreamland, but just that it wasn't as bad as you're trying to portray it. You should go to Leipzig or Dresden (both are beautiful cities, very worth the trip) and speak with people in their 50s/60s, it might hurt your convictions.
Ask the people in East Germany before they were set free from your idea of utopia if they think their lifestyles - as empowered by mandatory collectivist wonderfulness - was more or less corrupt, or polluted, or impoverished than was the lifestyle in West Germany.
I was born in DDR. Let's be honest, there was as much corruption and pollution. However, at the collapse of the regime, many (most?) people lost a lot. They lost their jobs, their home, their hopes for the future. Most of the people I know had huge regret. You're trying to make it very one-sided, truth isn't that clear...
Well, to be honest, there is no other human choice.
What is the percentage of people that are useless? 30%, 40%? It has to be higher than the unemployment rate, given the amount of bullshit jobs that exist nowadays. This percentage is increasing thanks to the machine intelligence going on. One guy with modern tools can do the same work as many guys that hadn't those tools back then. Most of the population cannot become PhDs (lack of capabilities, money, lust, whatever), and even if they could, we just don't need 10^9 PhDs. What will be that percentage in 30 years? 80% 90%?
What do we do of these people? Let them starve and have social unrest? Give them what it takes to smoke pot and play video games and have most of the population happy?
We built all our previous civilizations on the value of human work. You have to realize that the value human work is very rapidly plunging towards zero. This is unprecedented in history. Do you really think we can continue business as usual and it will be fine?
You don't seem to actually know anything about religion, therefore your opinion doesn't count for shit. And I say that as a non-religious person.
What an argumentation! I'm impressed. Vague affirmation, false consequence, vulgarity, and finally false authority. You managed to use 4 fallacies in only 2 sentences, I suppose you have to be right...
The Flying Spaghetti Monster Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement," and thus not a "real" religion.
I though all religion were work of satire meant to entertain. The main broad difference is that FSM is indeed making a political statement whereas other religion are not meant to be anything else than pure entertainment, or when they are making political statement, it's most of the time not in the good direction.
Humans will simply not voluntarily remove 90% of earth's population or go back to living in yurts.
You nailed it. Of course, we're not speaking of mass murder WWII style, and more in the sense of conservative birth policy. But that is not going to happen voluntarily, because nobody wants to stop multiplying. And we're not even talking about being less careless about energy consumption. It seems at a macroscopic level, our behavior is not very different to that of bugs.
One thing is pretty sure, though. The current earth ecological system is not able to sustain our growth both in number and in consumption. So it seems that a huge number of our fellows are going to die from misery or live in yurts anyway.
That being said, I wish all the joy to the little kids that are being born right now. They will probably live the living hell thanks to the infernal machine their great grand-parents launched and that their grand-parents and parents continued to feed.
Well, apparently not. In this story, we learned of the downstream impact of an open source library that has the complexity of a 1st year programming exercise. I would have though the same as you in the first place, but it seems different for Javascript.
So either JS is an utter pile of shit, or JS developers are far more incompetent than I thought. Or maybe both. Or maybe one is a consequence of the other. Or maybe both are contributing to the ever growing shittyness of each other in an endless circle of insane stupidity.
At least, it means Javascript is amazing at something, I guess.
The only reason we had border in EU for the vast majority of history was solely because we kept declaring war on each other every 30 years. I hope we are past this nonsense.
The only rational and efficient thing we should do isn't going back to smaller incompetent states, but rather having a more integrated union, with more integrated police, law system, information services, and so on. It's time for the Federal Europe, since a global solution is the only answer to a global problem.
You can think of copyleft licenses as a regularization against forks. With GPL, you cannot fork to keep your modification private, whereas with BSD-like you can. BSD-like projects may have more tendency to fork and drift apart and in the end become incompatible, which is more critical for an operating system than for an application. So yeah, the GPL is probably better for long term objectives in such a ground layer as an OS.
I am not a mathematician, and I find this victory rather unimpressive and totally expected given the progress that have been made in machine learning in the last 20 years.
Go is rather simple compared to other problems like image recognition. The number of Go positions is dwarfed by the number of possible images (a 1M pixels color image leads to (3*255)^(10^6) possibilities - of course not all of them are valid and the manifold of relevant images is much smaller, but so is the manifold of relevant Go positions, I guess), and we've come up with pretty good results in those areas. Better than what humans can do in some areas.
The real question is: What is intuition? Is it something computable or not? If it is only some kind of statistical inference, then no wonder we are good at it: we have an inference engine which structure has been optimized by million years of evolution, and fed with bazillions of samples since our birth. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to build one as good as us. Sure the design of the model is trickier, but it's easier to feed the training samples given our technological ability to gather huge amounts of data.
I wonder when the term "true AI" will be ditched. To me, there is not "true AI" because there is no "AI" as opposed to "natural intelligence". The only difference is whether your computer is biological or electronic...
By doing so, you're just delaying the inevitable. Even with your rules computer would eventually win. And eventually means sooner than you think.
Solving the problem by ignoring the results.
on
The Case Against Algebra
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You don't solve a problem by simply ignoring the results or breaking the measuring tool.
Basic algebra, trigonometry and calculus are not difficult. If the students can't handle it, they are dumb, even if that doesn't please you. End of the story.
They are dumb, and that's a problem. You're not going to solve the problem by bending reality and saying basic abstract maths are difficult and that they are not dumb. You are just ignoring the problem, which may (will) have unintended consequences in the future. Actually, if you want to solve the problem, you should invest more energy in the process that is failing. That could be more hours, less student per teacher, or researching a new pedagogy that makes the acquisition of such simple and fundamental concepts more successful. Or anything else that doesn't imply lowering the expected outcome.
It has nothing to do with the jobs they will do in 30 years, simply because nobody can predict that. You are just promoting the race to the bottom.
So, this is neat and all... but where does it go next? Once these robots are mass produced and are able to build more of themselves, what happens after that? These robots can easily do nearly every job a person can do, but realistically at some point you will run out of jobs left for actual people. People still need something to do.
It depends. Do you own many of those new robot overlords? If so, good. They'll produce everything you need and you can enjoy all the leisure you want, from doing nothing to travel the world or create artistic things or learn new things.
If you don't, then die you poor piece of scum!
I guess we are nearing the gruesome time where the lucky 1% get rid of the useless 99%. On the bright side, it might be better for the environment...
The approach of "with robots, we don't need lower class labor" is spoken from an upper class perspective- what about "with robots, we no longer need capitalism to motivate people" or "with robots, we can replace most managerial positions"?
What about "with robots, the true form of capitalism comes to life: the capitalists invest in our new robotic overlords and enjoy the mighty ROI, the poor others that don't have any capital cannot access our new robotic overlords and live in misery.
Doesn't need a lot of divination skills to see where all this is going to...
Yes, machines will displace a lot more than half of all human employment rather soon. No, it will not cause harm to the economies of nations unless they want it to. Yes, people who do not get paid do not support businesses nor do they pay any taxes.
Here is what must occur. ASll economic systems will be forced to drop their traditional economic and social beliefs. Socialism is the only possible form of government that can exist. People must receive paychecks from the government and they must be decent sized paychecks. Taxes will be paid by businesses and by the wealthy only.
The real and absolute tipping point is when a company exists without any employees or human management or ownership. Profits from the business would simply be plowed back into the business to enable it to produce more or better products. Society can actually improve rather than decline through AI and advanced technology. But that qualifier is an acceptance of socialism as a fundamental requirement for
human survival.
That can only work with a rather strict birth control policy, otherwise you have the illusion of a sustainable system that encourages you to multiply, only to collapse after a while. The uneducated majority will never understand that. So yeah, there will be the socialist leisure society utopia, but only for the 1%. the 99% remaining will just die starving in prehistoric style.
I'm guessing you don't actually know any real economists.
I suppose you don't consider Friedrich Hayek as a real economist, even though he got the nobel. Because, you may have noticed many of his bold predictions are now revealed for what they were: a political agenda and not actual science.
If you're not French and don't know Royale, you may believe this. Otherwise, you know it's just crappy PR from one of the most mediocre politician France ever had. Don't get excited by this, it's just one of her usual "big words, big failure" things.
Every machine need less people working on it than the number of people needed to perform the task in the first place. That's automation: allowing fewer people to perform the same amount of work, including the guys needed to maintain the machines.
If it were different, there would be no automation going on. But there is, and it's steadily moving massive amounts of people to unemployment.
Can't it be both? Like, it's flat, but if you dig long enough you reach the secret subterranean world of joy and paradise that our disguised lizard overlords are hiding? Sort of a "lasagna world", if you want.
Anyway, the better truth will probably be told in iron sky 2.
To tell us how this planet oscillates the chemtrails so the 911 nuclear aliens can open up communications with the illuminati and space lizards to bring on the new world order and force us into fema camps.
No problem. We'll just flee and hide in the center of earth, since it's hollow...
Actually, you need far less people today to produce more work than were needed 100 years ago. Many people are just plain useless for today's society. Less people is the opportunity to have less useless people, that is less angry dudes that don't have a clue of what to do with their life. Unemployment will eventually back down. Overall happiness will probably increase.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok. It's pretty clear you never were in East Germany, nor knew anybody from there. You're just inverting stuff just to comfort your ideology.
I'm not saying DDR was the dreamland, but just that it wasn't as bad as you're trying to portray it. You should go to Leipzig or Dresden (both are beautiful cities, very worth the trip) and speak with people in their 50s/60s, it might hurt your convictions.
Ask the people in East Germany before they were set free from your idea of utopia if they think their lifestyles - as empowered by mandatory collectivist wonderfulness - was more or less corrupt, or polluted, or impoverished than was the lifestyle in West Germany.
I was born in DDR. Let's be honest, there was as much corruption and pollution. However, at the collapse of the regime, many (most?) people lost a lot. They lost their jobs, their home, their hopes for the future. Most of the people I know had huge regret. You're trying to make it very one-sided, truth isn't that clear...
Well, to be honest, there is no other human choice.
What is the percentage of people that are useless? 30%, 40%? It has to be higher than the unemployment rate, given the amount of bullshit jobs that exist nowadays. This percentage is increasing thanks to the machine intelligence going on. One guy with modern tools can do the same work as many guys that hadn't those tools back then. Most of the population cannot become PhDs (lack of capabilities, money, lust, whatever), and even if they could, we just don't need 10^9 PhDs. What will be that percentage in 30 years? 80% 90%?
What do we do of these people? Let them starve and have social unrest? Give them what it takes to smoke pot and play video games and have most of the population happy?
We built all our previous civilizations on the value of human work. You have to realize that the value human work is very rapidly plunging towards zero. This is unprecedented in history. Do you really think we can continue business as usual and it will be fine?
You don't seem to actually know anything about religion, therefore your opinion doesn't count for shit. And I say that as a non-religious person.
What an argumentation! I'm impressed. Vague affirmation, false consequence, vulgarity, and finally false authority. You managed to use 4 fallacies in only 2 sentences, I suppose you have to be right...
The Flying Spaghetti Monster Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement," and thus not a "real" religion.
I though all religion were work of satire meant to entertain. The main broad difference is that FSM is indeed making a political statement whereas other religion are not meant to be anything else than pure entertainment, or when they are making political statement, it's most of the time not in the good direction.
Humans will simply not voluntarily remove 90% of earth's population or go back to living in yurts.
You nailed it. Of course, we're not speaking of mass murder WWII style, and more in the sense of conservative birth policy. But that is not going to happen voluntarily, because nobody wants to stop multiplying. And we're not even talking about being less careless about energy consumption. It seems at a macroscopic level, our behavior is not very different to that of bugs.
One thing is pretty sure, though. The current earth ecological system is not able to sustain our growth both in number and in consumption. So it seems that a huge number of our fellows are going to die from misery or live in yurts anyway.
That being said, I wish all the joy to the little kids that are being born right now. They will probably live the living hell thanks to the infernal machine their great grand-parents launched and that their grand-parents and parents continued to feed.
Try to explain that to the nazis...
Well, apparently not. In this story, we learned of the downstream impact of an open source library that has the complexity of a 1st year programming exercise. I would have though the same as you in the first place, but it seems different for Javascript.
So either JS is an utter pile of shit, or JS developers are far more incompetent than I thought. Or maybe both. Or maybe one is a consequence of the other. Or maybe both are contributing to the ever growing shittyness of each other in an endless circle of insane stupidity.
At least, it means Javascript is amazing at something, I guess.
The only reason we had border in EU for the vast majority of history was solely because we kept declaring war on each other every 30 years. I hope we are past this nonsense.
The only rational and efficient thing we should do isn't going back to smaller incompetent states, but rather having a more integrated union, with more integrated police, law system, information services, and so on. It's time for the Federal Europe, since a global solution is the only answer to a global problem.
You can think of copyleft licenses as a regularization against forks. With GPL, you cannot fork to keep your modification private, whereas with BSD-like you can. BSD-like projects may have more tendency to fork and drift apart and in the end become incompatible, which is more critical for an operating system than for an application. So yeah, the GPL is probably better for long term objectives in such a ground layer as an OS.
I am not a mathematician, and I find this victory rather unimpressive and totally expected given the progress that have been made in machine learning in the last 20 years.
Go is rather simple compared to other problems like image recognition. The number of Go positions is dwarfed by the number of possible images (a 1M pixels color image leads to (3*255)^(10^6) possibilities - of course not all of them are valid and the manifold of relevant images is much smaller, but so is the manifold of relevant Go positions, I guess), and we've come up with pretty good results in those areas. Better than what humans can do in some areas.
The real question is: What is intuition? Is it something computable or not? If it is only some kind of statistical inference, then no wonder we are good at it: we have an inference engine which structure has been optimized by million years of evolution, and fed with bazillions of samples since our birth. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to build one as good as us. Sure the design of the model is trickier, but it's easier to feed the training samples given our technological ability to gather huge amounts of data.
I wonder when the term "true AI" will be ditched. To me, there is not "true AI" because there is no "AI" as opposed to "natural intelligence". The only difference is whether your computer is biological or electronic...
By doing so, you're just delaying the inevitable. Even with your rules computer would eventually win. And eventually means sooner than you think.
You don't solve a problem by simply ignoring the results or breaking the measuring tool.
Basic algebra, trigonometry and calculus are not difficult. If the students can't handle it, they are dumb, even if that doesn't please you. End of the story.
They are dumb, and that's a problem. You're not going to solve the problem by bending reality and saying basic abstract maths are difficult and that they are not dumb. You are just ignoring the problem, which may (will) have unintended consequences in the future. Actually, if you want to solve the problem, you should invest more energy in the process that is failing. That could be more hours, less student per teacher, or researching a new pedagogy that makes the acquisition of such simple and fundamental concepts more successful. Or anything else that doesn't imply lowering the expected outcome.
It has nothing to do with the jobs they will do in 30 years, simply because nobody can predict that. You are just promoting the race to the bottom.
March 2016, still UTF8 errors on /.
What jobs are safest?
Capitalist with a good portfolio.
So, this is neat and all... but where does it go next? Once these robots are mass produced and are able to build more of themselves, what happens after that? These robots can easily do nearly every job a person can do, but realistically at some point you will run out of jobs left for actual people. People still need something to do.
It depends. Do you own many of those new robot overlords? If so, good. They'll produce everything you need and you can enjoy all the leisure you want, from doing nothing to travel the world or create artistic things or learn new things.
If you don't, then die you poor piece of scum!
I guess we are nearing the gruesome time where the lucky 1% get rid of the useless 99%. On the bright side, it might be better for the environment...
The approach of "with robots, we don't need lower class labor" is spoken from an upper class perspective- what about "with robots, we no longer need capitalism to motivate people" or "with robots, we can replace most managerial positions"?
What about "with robots, the true form of capitalism comes to life: the capitalists invest in our new robotic overlords and enjoy the mighty ROI, the poor others that don't have any capital cannot access our new robotic overlords and live in misery.
Doesn't need a lot of divination skills to see where all this is going to...
Yes, machines will displace a lot more than half of all human employment rather soon. No, it will not cause harm to the economies of nations unless they want it to. Yes, people who do not get paid do not support businesses nor do they pay any taxes.
Here is what must occur. ASll economic systems will be forced to drop their traditional economic and social beliefs. Socialism is the only possible form of government that can exist. People must receive paychecks from the government and they must be decent sized paychecks. Taxes will be paid by businesses and by the wealthy only.
The real and absolute tipping point is when a company exists without any employees or human management or ownership. Profits from the business would simply be plowed back into the business to enable it to produce more or better products. Society can actually improve rather than decline through AI and advanced technology. But that qualifier is an acceptance of socialism as a fundamental requirement for
human survival.
That can only work with a rather strict birth control policy, otherwise you have the illusion of a sustainable system that encourages you to multiply, only to collapse after a while. The uneducated majority will never understand that. So yeah, there will be the socialist leisure society utopia, but only for the 1%. the 99% remaining will just die starving in prehistoric style.
I'm guessing you don't actually know any real economists.
I suppose you don't consider Friedrich Hayek as a real economist, even though he got the nobel. Because, you may have noticed many of his bold predictions are now revealed for what they were: a political agenda and not actual science.
If you're not French and don't know Royale, you may believe this. Otherwise, you know it's just crappy PR from one of the most mediocre politician France ever had. Don't get excited by this, it's just one of her usual "big words, big failure" things.
Every machine need less people working on it than the number of people needed to perform the task in the first place. That's automation: allowing fewer people to perform the same amount of work, including the guys needed to maintain the machines.
If it were different, there would be no automation going on. But there is, and it's steadily moving massive amounts of people to unemployment.
This is inevitable. Our society needs to figure out how to deal with it, instead of inciting fear that the world is doomed because of it.
This is why the universal basic income is inevitable at some point. It either that or massive riots to protest the organised poverty.
Can't it be both? Like, it's flat, but if you dig long enough you reach the secret subterranean world of joy and paradise that our disguised lizard overlords are hiding? Sort of a "lasagna world", if you want.
Anyway, the better truth will probably be told in iron sky 2.
To tell us how this planet oscillates the chemtrails so the 911 nuclear aliens can open up communications with the illuminati and space lizards to bring on the new world order and force us into fema camps.
No problem. We'll just flee and hide in the center of earth, since it's hollow...
Actually, you need far less people today to produce more work than were needed 100 years ago. Many people are just plain useless for today's society. Less people is the opportunity to have less useless people, that is less angry dudes that don't have a clue of what to do with their life. Unemployment will eventually back down. Overall happiness will probably increase.