No, Neural Networks don't learn real world dynamics. They approximate the predefined results of a given training set. They are not capable of wondering whether the training they have been provided is accurate or not. In this case, the system is the neural network and all of the training data that has been supplied to it. It can find patterns within that information, but will never create new information of its own (like whether it was taught wrong).
Yes, but it didn't design the GPU, it merely rendered an image. A more complex system (a human) designed the GPU. This is an invalid argument because you incorrectly defined your system. Systems are entirely self contained. Therefore, in this example, the system was a GPU and a human.
Despite what Elon Musk keeps dreaming out loud, computers are not capable of novel thought. Genetic algorithms don't come up with novel solutions, they merely stocastically explore a multidimensional surface that has already been modeled by a human. Neural networks approximate the behaviors of inputs that have already been vetted as correct by humans (the training set). Even the most advanced neural networks like AlphaGo are still in the realm of passive learning. Generative learning and intuitive learning are so far beyond the bounds of computers that it isn't even funny.
Conservation of Information is a real thing, and while it isn't intuitive at first, the principle is sound.
It is capable of displaying anything it's been instructed to display. It can't generate those instruction on its own, though. Robots can only repair robots more complex than themselves if they've been instructed how to do so by a more complex system (a human). Neural networks can only learn based on what a human tells it is correct answers. Genetic algorithms can only come up with solutions to meet pre-programmed criteria. The novel thought (determining your own training sets, deciding on success criteria, new thought) are limited to extremely complex systems (like a human).
No, because the simulation was already capable of rendering whatever solution the genetic algorithm generated. Therefore the genetic algorithm and the simulation contained more information than the solution generated by them, and they are therefore more complex.
What we're talking about would be more like the genetic algorithm determining that the simulation it used to determine how well a solution performed was incorrect and writing a new simulation to tests its results against.
Companies are run by people who take advantage of other people. You're not going to change that reality. You cannot legislate morals and ethics. Add whatever regulations you want, CEOs are still going to find a way to take advantage of you. Therefore, rather than say they should stop (since they won't), you should find a way to be competitive. Employers really only care about three things when it comes to their employees: 1) how much work can I get out of you? 2) How good is the result of the work I can get out of you? 3) How much is that going to cost me?
If you want to remain employed, you have to find a way to compete in those 3 categories. You could offer to work for half your salary, but you probably don't want to (even though IT workers tend to have inflated salaries due to what was once a shortage of skilled IT workers), and even if you did, it would still be more than an Indian IT worker would be charging. You could offer to work 80 hr weeks, but that will probably end badly sooner rather than later, and the Indian IT worker is also already doing that. It's probably down to trying to make the proposition that you can do better work. There's nothing inherently better about that there is about an Indian, but you do have one competitive advantage in this arena. The Indian IT worker, as previously mentioned, is likely already working 80 hour weeks, while you are not. This means he has a lot less free time to improve his skills. While American labor laws and relative economic prosperity have put you at a disadvantage in the first two categories, they have also led us to the 40-60 hour work week, which leaves time to read trade journals, seek advanced degrees, contribute to open-source projects, learn about new languages, processes and technologies, or a wide range of activities that make you much better at your job than you were a month ago. IT workers in Indian sweat shops working 80 hour weeks really don't have that luxury, so you've found your competitive advantage!
I know you think you shouldn't have to do this. I know you feel you are entitled to employment. But that's not how the system works, and probably not how it's going to work any time soon. The reality is you have three choices. You can make yourself more valuable than the off-shore alternative, you can refuse to do so and accept the consequences, or you can choose to stop being an employee and start your own businesses. Whichever you choose, I wish you luck!
I suggest learning how to do something a robot can't. Perhaps designing new robots? Information theory states that a system cannot create something more complex than itself, so a robot cannot design a robot that is more complex than it is. There's one industry that'll be safe.
The problem with real-name policies is their speech-chilling effect. Better that 1000 bogus sights hide under anonymity than one legitimate individual feels too intimidated to share his views. And before you get all "Don't you think the government can figure out who you are anyway?", I'm not referring to intimidation and reprisal from three-letter agencies. I'm talking about the guy with views on local building ordinances that may not agree with his next door neighbor but doesn't want that neighbor leaving flaming bags of poo on his doorstep if he voices them.
I know a lot of people don't like the theater, but I appreciate Cameron's sentiment: If you want people to give you money, give them something nobody else can. It's the same argument I make to people who call me a "bad consumer" for buying used cars. If car companies want me to buy a new car, they need to offer me something that I can't get out of a used car. Unfortunately, The car fundamentally hasn't changed much since Ford's time. Sure, they added fuel injection, A/C and newer sound systems, but there's really no innovation. I buy a new computer every few years, but that's because new computers do stuff my old one couldn't.
If his recommendation for fighting piracy is "Offer something that pirates can't provide", I'm all in.
If anyone other than the intended recipient can decrypt (including Apple), then everyone can. Apple having a back door into your stuff is a back door, even if the police don't have access to it. Unfortunately, the DA is going to sound very reasonable to anyone who doesn't understand encryption.
I'm a resident of Ammon, and I can't wait for this rollout. The two options we have are both terrible (one cable and one DSL provider). Spotty service, ever increasing prices, and horribly restrictive data caps. I can't wait for the ability to shop for exactly what I need (which is fairly low speeds, but high data caps. If they offered something 1/3 my current speed but with 3 times the data, I could do anything I want and still never notice network lag). Here's hoping this model keeps this municipal fiber from being sued out of existence like has happened so many times before...
I'm pretty sure the point was not to validate the people who already buy every year. It's because they want to make the 5-year-old-computer users feel like they aren't part of the "in" crowd, because it's easier to make you want to be part of the group than to make a product that's sufficiently different from 5 year old technology to convince people to upgrade.
The FBI is warning the public that it should take steps to protect itself from people breaking into computers? Isn't it in a legal battle with Apple because Apply is taking steps to protect consumers from people breaking into computers?
That's where the 5th amendment comes into play. FBI cannot sieze private property for public use without making just compensation. If they are willing to pay the hundreds of billions that iOS is thought to be worth by its investors, then 1) go ahead and 2) why, with so many other budget problems in the federal government, does the the FBI have hundreds of billions stashed away for something so trivial?
Remember that pesky clause at the end of the 5th ammendment? "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." According to the stock market today, "just compensation" for Apple's IP is somewhere in the $600 Billion range.
I'm referring to RSA's BSAFE library and the RNG backdoor, so it was admittedly a backdoor in the company's program, not in the RSA algorithm itself, so it has less to do with our "Godfather" than one may think, but this is the internet, so guilty by association is the de facto standard, right?
Pesky natives. I can't believe that after coercing them the U.S., transforming their homeland into an amusement park for tourists and virtually enslaving their people in the sugar plantations, they STILL feel like they have to be consulted before things happen on what little ground they have left. Didn't they get the message that they aren't valued? To think they want OUR MONEY when all we are trying to do is take over everything their culture remembers is preposterous. Honestly, we've been more than kind to them. They should look to the mainland and feel lucky we didn't treat them like we did the natives here.
What quality separates a series of lines that resemble something in the real world from a series of lines that represent abstract concepts that, when strung together, represent something in the real world? Emoji aren't words because they are more concrete than letters? Personally, I hate emoji. However, having codified meanings for the things that my coworkers use to fill the chat that I am obligated to watch since it occasionally contains work-related content would mean I would spend a lot less time with three of those abstract characters (W, T and F) running through my head.
If it's in Oxford, it's official. I can stop using "he or she" and just use "they". So much less work. I'm even willing to not be annoyed that emoji are in the dictionary if it means I get this.
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad for anyone willing to take on ISIS. My question is why did it take the Paris attacks clue in Anonymous and the rest of the world to how bad ISIS is? Hundreds are now dead or injured in Paris, but thousands of civilians have been tortured, raped, beheaded and crucified by ISIS in the middle east. Paris was absolutely a tragedy, and I don't mean to make it out to be any less so, but let's not claim it's the most brutal thing they have done in the last year and a half.
I fully realize that state players like the countries making up N.A.T.O. can only have limited involvement in a crisis that doesn't directly involve a member state, but that's not what Anonymous is. They could have responded to the atrocities that have been committed against Yazidis and Shiites? It just feels to me that so many people finally taking action, Anonymous included, are sending the message that western lives are worth more than others.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Neural Networks don't learn real world dynamics. They approximate the predefined results of a given training set. They are not capable of wondering whether the training they have been provided is accurate or not. In this case, the system is the neural network and all of the training data that has been supplied to it. It can find patterns within that information, but will never create new information of its own (like whether it was taught wrong).
Yes, but it didn't design the GPU, it merely rendered an image. A more complex system (a human) designed the GPU. This is an invalid argument because you incorrectly defined your system. Systems are entirely self contained. Therefore, in this example, the system was a GPU and a human. Despite what Elon Musk keeps dreaming out loud, computers are not capable of novel thought. Genetic algorithms don't come up with novel solutions, they merely stocastically explore a multidimensional surface that has already been modeled by a human. Neural networks approximate the behaviors of inputs that have already been vetted as correct by humans (the training set). Even the most advanced neural networks like AlphaGo are still in the realm of passive learning. Generative learning and intuitive learning are so far beyond the bounds of computers that it isn't even funny. Conservation of Information is a real thing, and while it isn't intuitive at first, the principle is sound.
It is capable of displaying anything it's been instructed to display. It can't generate those instruction on its own, though. Robots can only repair robots more complex than themselves if they've been instructed how to do so by a more complex system (a human). Neural networks can only learn based on what a human tells it is correct answers. Genetic algorithms can only come up with solutions to meet pre-programmed criteria. The novel thought (determining your own training sets, deciding on success criteria, new thought) are limited to extremely complex systems (like a human).
No, because the simulation was already capable of rendering whatever solution the genetic algorithm generated. Therefore the genetic algorithm and the simulation contained more information than the solution generated by them, and they are therefore more complex. What we're talking about would be more like the genetic algorithm determining that the simulation it used to determine how well a solution performed was incorrect and writing a new simulation to tests its results against.
Companies are run by people who take advantage of other people. You're not going to change that reality. You cannot legislate morals and ethics. Add whatever regulations you want, CEOs are still going to find a way to take advantage of you. Therefore, rather than say they should stop (since they won't), you should find a way to be competitive. Employers really only care about three things when it comes to their employees: 1) how much work can I get out of you? 2) How good is the result of the work I can get out of you? 3) How much is that going to cost me? If you want to remain employed, you have to find a way to compete in those 3 categories. You could offer to work for half your salary, but you probably don't want to (even though IT workers tend to have inflated salaries due to what was once a shortage of skilled IT workers), and even if you did, it would still be more than an Indian IT worker would be charging. You could offer to work 80 hr weeks, but that will probably end badly sooner rather than later, and the Indian IT worker is also already doing that. It's probably down to trying to make the proposition that you can do better work. There's nothing inherently better about that there is about an Indian, but you do have one competitive advantage in this arena. The Indian IT worker, as previously mentioned, is likely already working 80 hour weeks, while you are not. This means he has a lot less free time to improve his skills. While American labor laws and relative economic prosperity have put you at a disadvantage in the first two categories, they have also led us to the 40-60 hour work week, which leaves time to read trade journals, seek advanced degrees, contribute to open-source projects, learn about new languages, processes and technologies, or a wide range of activities that make you much better at your job than you were a month ago. IT workers in Indian sweat shops working 80 hour weeks really don't have that luxury, so you've found your competitive advantage! I know you think you shouldn't have to do this. I know you feel you are entitled to employment. But that's not how the system works, and probably not how it's going to work any time soon. The reality is you have three choices. You can make yourself more valuable than the off-shore alternative, you can refuse to do so and accept the consequences, or you can choose to stop being an employee and start your own businesses. Whichever you choose, I wish you luck!
I suggest learning how to do something a robot can't. Perhaps designing new robots? Information theory states that a system cannot create something more complex than itself, so a robot cannot design a robot that is more complex than it is. There's one industry that'll be safe.
If it makes more intelligent bots, I'm on board! https://xkcd.com/810/ (warning, there's offensive language).
I think this is an amazing idea. That being said, I only read the Slashdot summary, not the article, so I guess that makes me a hypocrite.
The problem with real-name policies is their speech-chilling effect. Better that 1000 bogus sights hide under anonymity than one legitimate individual feels too intimidated to share his views. And before you get all "Don't you think the government can figure out who you are anyway?", I'm not referring to intimidation and reprisal from three-letter agencies. I'm talking about the guy with views on local building ordinances that may not agree with his next door neighbor but doesn't want that neighbor leaving flaming bags of poo on his doorstep if he voices them.
North Korea might be wanting to steal the plans, as this is more powerful and successful than any of their rocket launches...
I know a lot of people don't like the theater, but I appreciate Cameron's sentiment: If you want people to give you money, give them something nobody else can. It's the same argument I make to people who call me a "bad consumer" for buying used cars. If car companies want me to buy a new car, they need to offer me something that I can't get out of a used car. Unfortunately, The car fundamentally hasn't changed much since Ford's time. Sure, they added fuel injection, A/C and newer sound systems, but there's really no innovation. I buy a new computer every few years, but that's because new computers do stuff my old one couldn't. If his recommendation for fighting piracy is "Offer something that pirates can't provide", I'm all in.
If anyone other than the intended recipient can decrypt (including Apple), then everyone can. Apple having a back door into your stuff is a back door, even if the police don't have access to it. Unfortunately, the DA is going to sound very reasonable to anyone who doesn't understand encryption.
Headline: "Volkswagon Electric Cars Cheat on Emmissions Test -- Actually burning diesel"
I'm a resident of Ammon, and I can't wait for this rollout. The two options we have are both terrible (one cable and one DSL provider). Spotty service, ever increasing prices, and horribly restrictive data caps. I can't wait for the ability to shop for exactly what I need (which is fairly low speeds, but high data caps. If they offered something 1/3 my current speed but with 3 times the data, I could do anything I want and still never notice network lag). Here's hoping this model keeps this municipal fiber from being sued out of existence like has happened so many times before...
I'm pretty sure the point was not to validate the people who already buy every year. It's because they want to make the 5-year-old-computer users feel like they aren't part of the "in" crowd, because it's easier to make you want to be part of the group than to make a product that's sufficiently different from 5 year old technology to convince people to upgrade.
The FBI is warning the public that it should take steps to protect itself from people breaking into computers? Isn't it in a legal battle with Apple because Apply is taking steps to protect consumers from people breaking into computers?
That's where the 5th amendment comes into play. FBI cannot sieze private property for public use without making just compensation. If they are willing to pay the hundreds of billions that iOS is thought to be worth by its investors, then 1) go ahead and 2) why, with so many other budget problems in the federal government, does the the FBI have hundreds of billions stashed away for something so trivial?
Remember that pesky clause at the end of the 5th ammendment? "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." According to the stock market today, "just compensation" for Apple's IP is somewhere in the $600 Billion range.
I'm referring to RSA's BSAFE library and the RNG backdoor, so it was admittedly a backdoor in the company's program, not in the RSA algorithm itself, so it has less to do with our "Godfather" than one may think, but this is the internet, so guilty by association is the de facto standard, right?
Given that RSA has been known to sacrifice security for greater government cooperation, is this stance in any way surprising?
Why don't they just inject subcutaneous GPS trackers in all of us at birth and be done with it?
Pesky natives. I can't believe that after coercing them the U.S., transforming their homeland into an amusement park for tourists and virtually enslaving their people in the sugar plantations, they STILL feel like they have to be consulted before things happen on what little ground they have left. Didn't they get the message that they aren't valued? To think they want OUR MONEY when all we are trying to do is take over everything their culture remembers is preposterous. Honestly, we've been more than kind to them. They should look to the mainland and feel lucky we didn't treat them like we did the natives here.
What quality separates a series of lines that resemble something in the real world from a series of lines that represent abstract concepts that, when strung together, represent something in the real world? Emoji aren't words because they are more concrete than letters? Personally, I hate emoji. However, having codified meanings for the things that my coworkers use to fill the chat that I am obligated to watch since it occasionally contains work-related content would mean I would spend a lot less time with three of those abstract characters (W, T and F) running through my head.
If it's in Oxford, it's official. I can stop using "he or she" and just use "they". So much less work. I'm even willing to not be annoyed that emoji are in the dictionary if it means I get this.
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad for anyone willing to take on ISIS. My question is why did it take the Paris attacks clue in Anonymous and the rest of the world to how bad ISIS is? Hundreds are now dead or injured in Paris, but thousands of civilians have been tortured, raped, beheaded and crucified by ISIS in the middle east. Paris was absolutely a tragedy, and I don't mean to make it out to be any less so, but let's not claim it's the most brutal thing they have done in the last year and a half. I fully realize that state players like the countries making up N.A.T.O. can only have limited involvement in a crisis that doesn't directly involve a member state, but that's not what Anonymous is. They could have responded to the atrocities that have been committed against Yazidis and Shiites? It just feels to me that so many people finally taking action, Anonymous included, are sending the message that western lives are worth more than others.