I've been following the matches with the same expectation and anger I felt in 1997 during the Kasparov & Deep Blue rematch. The final result has been similar, and although it has been well reasoned that chess and go are pretty different games and Deep Blue and AlphaGo are pretty different machines, the bittersweet sensation is identical. I had a naive hope in the human superiority just for a little more time.
I was pretty sad after the final game: Lee Sedol seemed really disappointed and sad himself. I can't imagine the pressure he's felt throughout the event, and his face -that's my impression- seemed to tell us "I've failed you all". He later told in the press conference that he felt he could have done more in the games -I'm sure he'd like to play more games to test himself again- and I wonder what could have happened if the matches would have been played without general knowledge. Feeling that kind of coverage must have been really stressful.
If you ever read this, Mr. Sedol, thank you. And please, don't ever feel disappointed, you've done a fantastic job.
He did seem visibly upset, as did Kasperov himself if I remember correctly. I don't blame him at all for losing - I think that he did an excellent job, and I agree with you that I'd love to see more. Ultimately though, we'll never know until we see it take on multiple would be champions, and maybe some rematches. I still don't think the computer has beat all of humanity yet - it hasn't had the history yet of being able to beat many people, and not just five or ten games, but consistently. Seeing it handle a luck based game would be really interesting, like Monopoly - it's not nearly as complicated as Go, but I'd be really interested how it can weigh decisions based on probability, where strategy alone isn't enough to win.
not just this extremely specialized one, it will turn out that Se-dol has quit a few other skills that AlphaGo has no chance to master, ever.
It won't turn out that Se-Dol has quite a few other skills. That's the problem. There's too much focus on brainpower to solve these highly restricted set of problems. That's the issue. What makes real creativity is not a mind like Lee Se Dol (with respect). It's the people that are capable of inveting somethng truly original. AI can't do that.. yet. That's true creativity, and it's not something Lee Se dol has, or something that you find very easily in Asia, generally.
How would Einstein do against Lee Se Dol? Not ver y good..
Who would you put your money on to contribute to meaningful, original science? Einstein.. every time.
Even just this last week, another of Einstein's theories has been verified - gravitational waves, as shown by the LIGO istrument. He has more "creativity" than the sum totoal of all these Go players.
Playing a game, and doing it well, requires real creativity. Arguably a lot more than science, actually. When you study science, all you're doing is discovering information already out there - water had its properties and was built by molecules long before it was classified as H2O, and nothing changed after. Doing well at Go can't be calculated cold and hard - much of it is subjective, and that's what makes this discovery so important. The computer didn't win by just repeating the same patterns or evaluations over and over, but actually learned from each game and was able to apply that to the future. That's the start of self learning AI.
Like a ton of people in the world (the majority most likely), you apply the no true scotsman argument to this debate. It's not real AI until it learns strategies not programmed into it? Oh wait, no, it's not true AI until it creates its own strategies? Oh wait, no, it's not a true AI until it can do this to something other than Go? What next, it has to socialize and disobey? The approach this machine used was incredible, and the insight was extremely important - being able to learn by studying a history of decisions, that's something that lays the groundwork for every future AI project from here on out.
This represents a massive step forward in artificial intelligence, by leaps and bounds, and the sad part is, you don't even know it.
Yes. Amazingly it IS really hard to do AI. In fact it is so hard we arent even close and may never achieve it.
Ah, so it's not intelligence at all unless it's human intelligence? It can never be sentient unless it engages in conversations exactly like we do, gives its own purpose just like we do, and only does tasks which humans can do? That doesn't sound very intelligent to me at all. "Oh sure, it's self aware and everything - but only if it does exactly this, behaves exactly like we do, and is completely like humans in every way shape and form." You seem to not like algorithms, even completely self-modifying, because they follow a set path. But aren't you setting it exactly one route, whose only purpose is to imitate us?
Perhaps a little analogy might help. You have a passing familiarity with bees and ants, yes? You are probably aware that there is one queen in the colony and that every other ant does everything they can to protect the queen. Would you consider those drones intelligent? Probably no, because they would obey orders without question and only do one thing. And yet, while not up to our level, you cannot deny that ants possess at least some level of understanding. They know who their queen is, they recognize each other. They understand their place in a society. They know that their life is worthless compared to their queen, and will lay down their lives to protect it. So why should the computer have to do everything that we do, exactly like we do, and only like we do? The computer may not socialize, and that's perfectly fine. But could you have done well at Go? I don't mean to play the game, but could you as a person physically evaluate all those moves? Can you grasp the meaning behind each one, the subtle shifts and changes?
The English word "intelligence" is a derivative of a Latin word "intellegere", which means "to understand". Could you understand all of that? I don't think you could. Sure, you could learn the rules, you could explain to me some basic plays, and after many years you might even beat a decent opponent. But I highly doubt you could ever understand the game at a level as this, and truly grasp the meaning behind each play. In other words, I don't think you could understand it, no matter how long you played, and indeed most people probably couldn't. We accept a common notion that some people are born with skills, that they have prodigious gifts, and that they see things the way we never will. Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking perceive the world much different than you or I do. This machine will never make friends, it will never betray someone for their own goals, and it will never grasp at a higher meaning in terms of existence. BUT, it DOES seek a higher meaning in this game - to evaluate it, to play it, to understand each and every little nuance. It evaluates possible moves, it could apparently learn from them, and it appeared to adapt well to its opponent during the fight. If you don't define seeking a higher understanding and self improvement as intelligent, then what, praytell, do you? Morals and ethics? Many psychopaths live in this world and are considered intelligent without them.
Look, I'm not saying this machine is going to take over the world. I'm not saying it has the ability to wonder why it exists. But you have a very strict and narrow minded view of what "AI" should be, and you don't appear to have an open mind at all on this subject. If your machine seeks only to imitate our thoughts and behaviors, doesn't that make it less intelligent then this machine right here? This one at least does seek a higher purpose and is (partially) self aware - to improve itself, it had to learn where it went wrong and what mistakes it made. It didn't copy behaviors of humans, or absorb the mindset of the people who programmed it: it looked at millions of games and judged for itself what was a good play and what was a bad one, and in what situations to use each.
Across the ocean is this lovely land, where there are these cowboys living in a city called "Silicon Valley" while drinking sweet tea and clam chowder. The state is called Washington D.C , known for its perpetual rain and coffee production, while also being the site of the historic Paul Revere ride and the Native American Trail of Tears bordering Canada, as not far away the state of New York City grows its almonds in the intense sunlight of the Mississippi coast.
Contrary to popular belief, not all Germans are known as "Guenter Gottfried" and "Friedelumurr Gieselheart", just like there are many Americans with names like "Pierre" and "Midori".
Can anyone explain to me why Islam is considered a religion of peace? Most of the terror in the world today is committed by Muslims. They control many totalitarian states that are particularly abysmal with respect to human rights. Why are there so many apologists for Islam? There's much outrage when a Christian-owned bakery refuses to cater for an LGBT wedding but there's silence when Muslims commit acts of violence against nonbelievers. Why is Islam given a free pass when they do far worse things? Islam is far more repressive than Christianity, but somehow this is tolerated. Why?
Because you haven't mentioned Christian or Buddhist terrorists who do the same thing. Islam's beliefs are old fashioned and in my opinion not very well adapted to the modern world, but there are many perfectly normal and sane muslims who don't support terrorists. Islam is not the cause of terrorism, or else all muslims would be violent and psychopathic individuals: the cause of terrorism is hundreds of years of violence and some very horrible leaders, where blowing yourself up is probably viewed as a pleasant escape by many of the people who do it.
When your baker turns away an LGBT couple, he's doing so soley because of his religious beliefs, and for no other reason; when a Jihadist blows himself up, thinking that Islam is the sole cause is extremely short sighted and a sign of someone who's research extends as far as what appears on Fox news.
Just to be clear, I do not support terrorism or the horrible acts being committed in the middle east; I have absolutely no sympathy for ISIS, and anyone who would blow themselves up or torture people who don't "follow the faith" deserve to burn in their version of hell. However, I will not fall victim to discriminating, as seems to be very popular in the United States these days, and you should be ashamed of yourself for sinking to that level.
My elderly grandmother lives a secret double life as an SEO expert? Damn, her disguise is truly unbreakable...
On a more serious note, I don't work with SEO and search engine rankings at the moment, but did this toolbar really have a large impact on the field? I've never heard of people using IE's Google toolbar for anything more than a prank on a family member...
you realize he was trolling right?
I doubt he's a "patriot" at all. Just a basement dweller thinking he is accurately portraying the "other" Americans.
I know that full well. But I've encountered a suprisingly high number of people who think like this in real life, and they're not trolling, they honestly think like that. I don't give a crap about him, but hopefully if there's a single shred of reason in somebody left, they'll realize how stupid a view it is to hold. Probably won't change anything, you're right, but then at least I can say I've tried.
The reason is that the Japs, Chinks, and all the other Slant Eyes in the region can't get along with each other. The result is an arms race that threatens the security of the civilized nations that make up the West. The EU should conduct a few preemptive nuclear strikes against the Japs, the Chinks, and their buddies to put an end to the threat.
Most nations in the EU do not have nuclear weapons. Europe has no purpose involving itself in east asian affairs at the present time. China and Japan especially are extremely civilized and cultured countries, more so than most places in the world. The Chinese and Japanese are most certainly not friends, and I doubt you've even heard of the rest at all. You don't even make an allowance for foreigners living in Japan or American military members stationed here.
Japan is a very innovative and interesting country with a fascinating history, and it's contributed much to our world, and same with China. You're the worst kind of "patriot": you have no clue of the world outside your limited vision, you have the empathy of a psychopath, and you are a disgrace to whichever land you come from. Enjoy the depths of -1.
This would be a terrible idea. Bank fraud and laundering is still a pretty popular way to shuffle money around, even though it's riskier now than it used to be, and cash has no impact on that if it's all done electronically. Likewise, from what I've heard, many criminal enterprises will disguise money in physical property such as houses, or even run a legit business and shuffle the money into it. Even if this is (initially) aimed at larger bills, preserving the ability to use cash is an important part of our civil freedom because cash is still pretty much the only way to purchase something without being tracked. You also don't have to worry about people stealing your card and draining all of your life savings out of it, it can't fail because of a faulty magnetic reader, and it's much more convenient for smaller purchases. Larger bills are an easy way to spend money when you're on vacation, it serves a legitimate purpose, and I have trouble envisioning the mafia (or the yakuza) being unable to very easily adapt to this problem while we're all left out to dry.
Uhhhhh, maybe a Linux user like you wouldn't understand this, but minimizing the attack surface is one of the first things to do when securing anything. Yes, OpenBSD has a limited base system. That's the best thing you could ask for! That way you can install OpenBSD and know exactly what you're working with. There are no surprises. Then you layer on the additional functionality that you need. It's a small amount of effort, but the security payoff is massive. Linux distros often do it totally backward, where they install a bunch of shit by default that then needs to be removed. That's just plain dumb!
The problem OpenBSD has for security is the versions they use. Go ahead, search around online, and you'll see the version of Firefox their still using: version 39, I believe. The problem with being lax about new packages is that they're still using a vulnerable version of Firefox, which I don't think their built in features can protect, and that's a much bigger security risk than some handy W^X. And even W^X's usefulness is disputed, actually...
A shit ton of people in one of the world's most important countries.
Using 'people' as a currency/money is kind of creepy.
Is "potential customers" more appealing then? That's what (successful) business's have always called the general populace, and it wasn't creepy before.
Pretty much everybody and everything Google has acquired, they've pretty much killed off. They bought Picasa, and are finally killing it with a product that has FAR fewer features (and nothing to replace the capabilities of the desktop app at all).
They bought picnik a few years ago, made it the online editor for Picasa and google+ photos for a while, but then over time ditched ALL of it in favor of a handful of crappy instagram filters.
So all of the features, all of the tech, all of the MONEY in Picasa and Picnik is gone. Utterly gone. No legacy left. Google, once the most functional of photo online services out there, is now a second-hand copy of Apple's iCloud...just as everybody was basically complaining that Apple's online/mobile photo approach is damned annoying and nobody wants it and they're all out looking for something better.
At least Flickr has actually *added* functionality (as well as performance) in the last few years. I just hope whomever they get sold to will be able to keep it alive.
God I miss Picnik. Really really easy photo editing, but very powerful with some very useful features. It was excellent for touching up photos, and pretty convenient too. For anyone looking for a replacement, Ribbet is your man. It looks almost exactly like Picnik, has almost all of the old tools that made it great, and introduced some new ones too. The downside is that a bunch of stuff that used to be free is now paid - but given that I don't think Ribbet is owned by another company, they have to make money somehow.
How much money does 20 millions users in France translate to?
A shit ton of people in one of the world's most important countries. France isn't insisting Facebook change its worldwide TOS, but it does insist they change their TOS for France, which is not unreasonable at all. The world is not California, move out and you encounter different people with different philosophies. Between the constant complaining of why the world isn't as sympathetic to them as the US, the billion dollar tax dodges in a country they don't even pretend to be stationed in, their shifty user policies, and overall just horrible culture in general, Facebook doesn't really do a lot to make me feel sympathy for a country standing up for its citizen's rights. I suppose we've all forgotten what that's like in this age.
Except for the fact that last year it was the most insecure!
http://www.extremetech.com/com...
So, least secure last year, plus the statement "We wanted to focus on the browsers that have made serious security improvements in the last year" clearly indicates they think it is not worth the effort due to the insecure nature of the browser.
Ah, I was looking for something like this when writing my comment. It's rather hard to find an up-to-date review of web browser vulnerabilities, which is curiously strange. Even so though, these results are from beginning of 2014, which was almost two years ago. I'll grant you Firefox doesn't have the same track record, but my point still stands: I think they're mainly doing it because they don't have infinite money and the same web browser again isn't very sexy.
However, if I may bring up a point here: Firefox isn't super outstanding secure out of the box, but it has great support for extensions, and a few of the right ones can vastly improve its security. I don't know if Chrome can do the same (genuinely not sure, the last time I used it at all was ~2012). Also, because these all seem to depend on certain platforms, I wonder if/how many of these browser insecurities target the underlying OS as opposed to the browser itself?
I don't think the article ever says anywhere that they're not doing it because it's too easy. They're not doing it because all the other browsers introduced sexy new features and they want to focus their efforts on securing these first - since Firefox hasn't changed much under the hood, it's not very different from the last time they used it. It's one thing to add a little comment here and there, but try not to put words in other people's writing. After all, if they were worried it'd be too easy, they would have attempted exploits on a secured Linux distro or on a *BSD - which I don't see mentioned anywhere here at all.
Personally, I'd rather see robots kill each other as opposed to humans slaying each other. Not only does it make sense for the militaries involved (robots can't desert, they will never be afraid of gunfire, and you don't need to tell their family that they died in the war), but the civilians would prefer it too (you don't have to risk your life being shot, you won't have to abandon your home, etc.). Autonomous machines are an advantage for everyone involved, and would be a much more humane way to solve wars.
However, from a practical perspective, that may not be possible. The elephant in the room is that most wars are caused by resource or territorial disputes, and those are often a result of overpopulation. Autonomous wars don't kill people, and hence nothing is done about the core problem. Furthermore, traditional wars are oftentimes waged for... maybe a few decades? At most? I know of several exceptions, but I don't think we see contiguous conflicts last longer than that very often, because war is such a draining activity to be engaged in. Everyone dying tends to end wars because of public exhaustion, but with machines exploding instead, that never happens, and so we may potentially have to worry about wars dragging on for far longer than they used to.
A wider issue is the general trend for devices with behaviour that is remotely changed after you buy them thanks to software updates. What is the situation if you bought an e-reader you were happy with and could use comfortably, but then after this kind of update it no longer works for you because, for example, your eyesight isn't good enough to read the new font? It's obvious why hardware and software vendors might want this kind of capability, but how do we protect the buyers who are using the products to make sure they're still getting what they paid for when they decided to buy?
Ultimately, the only way to do that is to give power to the users, and the only way to do that is to offer them a choice or a setting. I'm sad to say that the modern trend is to instead make the choice for the user, because this is not the only problem that results from this philosophy. What I don't understand is why nobody puts in an "advanced mode" or something like that into these devices, to allow that kind of crazy customizability, while still keeping the simple and minimalistic version for those who want or need that. Android has a good example with its developer mode; most of the population might not need to simulate GPS locations or load programs through a USB connection, and using a slightly obscure trick like the repeated button taps ensures that the people who find it will be the people who need it. Then, you can appeal to both the casual user or UX lover as well as the obsessive nerds such as myself.
If you get really good at something, or have a lot of success, you are proud of yourself and define yourself for it. When faced with losing, you're much more motivated to cheat to win because it's more important to you than it would be if you had lost and presumed that it's not your thing, hence not caring nearly as much about it.
And that's the problem with political correctness, racism and sexism. White people cop a lot of flak for it (and rightly so, discrimination based on race or gender is ridiculous), but honestly I think it is a small minority of white people that will get up on a podium and espouse their beliefs of racial superiority. Then exactly the same happens from minority groups - and even smaller minority of that group gets up and espouses their ridiculous beliefs of racial superiority, but people "have" to listen because safe spaces and needing to give minority speakers a voice.
If your ideas are discriminatory, you should be called out on it. Regardless of your gender, colour, ancestry or personal history - none of these preclude you from being able to be a racist/sexist pig.
Unfortunately, I'm all out of mod points, but this AC raises a very good point. Racists come from all sides, and I wish as a society we were more interested in living together peacefully than pissing on each other.
This is very interesting, but part of the article mentions that some rats were more predispositioned to benefit than others through genetics. If that applies to humans as well, that means this running will benefit only some of us with an increased hippocampus size. However, one should be getting aerobic exercise anyway, although many of us don't; the health benefits are well worth it.
It's no laughing matter, good sir, at least in my opinion. Between frequent dupes, failing to correct grammatical and spelling errors (the most basic duty of an editor), lack of even basic source / fact checking, and edits/titling to make articles more "clickbait-y", the quality of the articles has diminished greatly since/.'s heyday. It is good articles that elicit interest and discussion that are the lifeblood of this site.
That's his point, it's kind of funny / kind of sad when an editor actually does his job around here, something the previous ones never did. The news for the last week or two has been pretty good, and hopefully we'll see Slashdot improve to the best it can reasonably be; our new masters have been a hell of a lot better so far than our old ones, and that is such a breath of fresh air.
Really? Ok, put it in site ToS for both publishers and the users/downloaders, that
1) you will never never NEEEVER bundle ANYTHING or in ANY WAY try to alter the files placed there by uploaders/project owners.
2) also NEVER you will post ADs that could be mistaken for The Download, and in addition all ads will be very clearly marked e.g. with red border and red
text saying "3rd party advertisement". And any banner/AD will lead first to outgoing banner saying clearly "You are now leaving sourceforge.net! and going to xyz.com - we take no responsibility for that site or any downloads on it"
3) of course you can never delete or take over a project then e.g. to kick out legitimate owner and push own "enriched" versions
Put that it in ToS and guarantee e.g. up to 10,000$ per project damages.
Then we could talk.
Btw. anyway what imo could be more interesting now, would be an guthub.com clone, just like github but without the SJW nuttery that results in censorship that is going in there. How ever I doubt you could do it, as Slashdot seems quite leftist too, with frequest bullshit stories about "closing the technical gap" and other anti-white-male whiny propagana bullshit.
But sure - feel free to impress us on these fields, we will see.
Honestly, I don't understand your viewpoint. They've made progress towards improving both sites they bought - this is a huge step forward for Sourceforge, and Slashdot's quality of news has drastically increased. We're actually getting News for Nerds, and I for one have greatly enjoyed reading stories that are actually pretty interesting for once. They've answered many questions patiently, they've taken the abuse expected from a cynical community, and Whiplash and Co. haven't done anything yet that would make my eyebrows raise. Why would you write such a puerile response for a site whose old owners have left, and a new owner is actually trying to breathe some life back into it? This is a good thing, and I'd love some competition to Github. If BizX turns into what Dice was, then we'll talk, but so far they've shown that they actually do care about the site and are interested in our community. Hell, if you look through, you can see that Whiplash has actually read a lot of posts here, or at least responded to some that aren't close to the top.
Frankly, Mr. Freeman, you are coming off as a troll and that doesn't help anyone. A clause against backdoor additions or advertisement bundling would be nice, but that whole damages spiel is unnecessary, and you're in no position to make demands of someone who will host your programs, maintain a site, foot the monthly internet bill, and provide tools to help you with your open source project for free.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been following the matches with the same expectation and anger I felt in 1997 during the Kasparov & Deep Blue rematch. The final result has been similar, and although it has been well reasoned that chess and go are pretty different games and Deep Blue and AlphaGo are pretty different machines, the bittersweet sensation is identical. I had a naive hope in the human superiority just for a little more time. I was pretty sad after the final game: Lee Sedol seemed really disappointed and sad himself. I can't imagine the pressure he's felt throughout the event, and his face -that's my impression- seemed to tell us "I've failed you all". He later told in the press conference that he felt he could have done more in the games -I'm sure he'd like to play more games to test himself again- and I wonder what could have happened if the matches would have been played without general knowledge. Feeling that kind of coverage must have been really stressful. If you ever read this, Mr. Sedol, thank you. And please, don't ever feel disappointed, you've done a fantastic job.
He did seem visibly upset, as did Kasperov himself if I remember correctly. I don't blame him at all for losing - I think that he did an excellent job, and I agree with you that I'd love to see more. Ultimately though, we'll never know until we see it take on multiple would be champions, and maybe some rematches. I still don't think the computer has beat all of humanity yet - it hasn't had the history yet of being able to beat many people, and not just five or ten games, but consistently. Seeing it handle a luck based game would be really interesting, like Monopoly - it's not nearly as complicated as Go, but I'd be really interested how it can weigh decisions based on probability, where strategy alone isn't enough to win.
It won't turn out that Se-Dol has quite a few other skills. That's the problem. There's too much focus on brainpower to solve these highly restricted set of problems. That's the issue. What makes real creativity is not a mind like Lee Se Dol (with respect). It's the people that are capable of inveting somethng truly original. AI can't do that .. yet. That's true creativity, and it's not something Lee Se dol has, or something that you find very easily in Asia, generally.
How would Einstein do against Lee Se Dol? Not ver y good..
Who would you put your money on to contribute to meaningful, original science? Einstein .. every time.
Even just this last week, another of Einstein's theories has been verified - gravitational waves, as shown by the LIGO istrument. He has more "creativity" than the sum totoal of all these Go players.
Playing a game, and doing it well, requires real creativity. Arguably a lot more than science, actually. When you study science, all you're doing is discovering information already out there - water had its properties and was built by molecules long before it was classified as H2O, and nothing changed after. Doing well at Go can't be calculated cold and hard - much of it is subjective, and that's what makes this discovery so important. The computer didn't win by just repeating the same patterns or evaluations over and over, but actually learned from each game and was able to apply that to the future. That's the start of self learning AI.
Like a ton of people in the world (the majority most likely), you apply the no true scotsman argument to this debate. It's not real AI until it learns strategies not programmed into it? Oh wait, no, it's not true AI until it creates its own strategies? Oh wait, no, it's not a true AI until it can do this to something other than Go? What next, it has to socialize and disobey? The approach this machine used was incredible, and the insight was extremely important - being able to learn by studying a history of decisions, that's something that lays the groundwork for every future AI project from here on out.
This represents a massive step forward in artificial intelligence, by leaps and bounds, and the sad part is, you don't even know it.
Yes. Amazingly it IS really hard to do AI. In fact it is so hard we arent even close and may never achieve it.
Ah, so it's not intelligence at all unless it's human intelligence? It can never be sentient unless it engages in conversations exactly like we do, gives its own purpose just like we do, and only does tasks which humans can do? That doesn't sound very intelligent to me at all. "Oh sure, it's self aware and everything - but only if it does exactly this, behaves exactly like we do, and is completely like humans in every way shape and form." You seem to not like algorithms, even completely self-modifying, because they follow a set path. But aren't you setting it exactly one route, whose only purpose is to imitate us?
Perhaps a little analogy might help. You have a passing familiarity with bees and ants, yes? You are probably aware that there is one queen in the colony and that every other ant does everything they can to protect the queen. Would you consider those drones intelligent? Probably no, because they would obey orders without question and only do one thing. And yet, while not up to our level, you cannot deny that ants possess at least some level of understanding. They know who their queen is, they recognize each other. They understand their place in a society. They know that their life is worthless compared to their queen, and will lay down their lives to protect it. So why should the computer have to do everything that we do, exactly like we do, and only like we do? The computer may not socialize, and that's perfectly fine. But could you have done well at Go? I don't mean to play the game, but could you as a person physically evaluate all those moves? Can you grasp the meaning behind each one, the subtle shifts and changes?
The English word "intelligence" is a derivative of a Latin word "intellegere", which means "to understand". Could you understand all of that? I don't think you could. Sure, you could learn the rules, you could explain to me some basic plays, and after many years you might even beat a decent opponent. But I highly doubt you could ever understand the game at a level as this, and truly grasp the meaning behind each play. In other words, I don't think you could understand it, no matter how long you played, and indeed most people probably couldn't. We accept a common notion that some people are born with skills, that they have prodigious gifts, and that they see things the way we never will. Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking perceive the world much different than you or I do. This machine will never make friends, it will never betray someone for their own goals, and it will never grasp at a higher meaning in terms of existence. BUT, it DOES seek a higher meaning in this game - to evaluate it, to play it, to understand each and every little nuance. It evaluates possible moves, it could apparently learn from them, and it appeared to adapt well to its opponent during the fight. If you don't define seeking a higher understanding and self improvement as intelligent, then what, praytell, do you? Morals and ethics? Many psychopaths live in this world and are considered intelligent without them.
Look, I'm not saying this machine is going to take over the world. I'm not saying it has the ability to wonder why it exists. But you have a very strict and narrow minded view of what "AI" should be, and you don't appear to have an open mind at all on this subject. If your machine seeks only to imitate our thoughts and behaviors, doesn't that make it less intelligent then this machine right here? This one at least does seek a higher purpose and is (partially) self aware - to improve itself, it had to learn where it went wrong and what mistakes it made. It didn't copy behaviors of humans, or absorb the mindset of the people who programmed it: it looked at millions of games and judged for itself what was a good play and what was a bad one, and in what situations to use each.
And that, sir, is pretty damn intelligent.
Is this AI software written in Rust?
Obviously, they used Go to play Go.
(Just kidding, I think it was C++ actually)
That's a name belonging to a German scientist?
Across the ocean is this lovely land, where there are these cowboys living in a city called "Silicon Valley" while drinking sweet tea and clam chowder. The state is called Washington D.C , known for its perpetual rain and coffee production, while also being the site of the historic Paul Revere ride and the Native American Trail of Tears bordering Canada, as not far away the state of New York City grows its almonds in the intense sunlight of the Mississippi coast.
Contrary to popular belief, not all Germans are known as "Guenter Gottfried" and "Friedelumurr Gieselheart", just like there are many Americans with names like "Pierre" and "Midori".
Can anyone explain to me why Islam is considered a religion of peace? Most of the terror in the world today is committed by Muslims. They control many totalitarian states that are particularly abysmal with respect to human rights. Why are there so many apologists for Islam? There's much outrage when a Christian-owned bakery refuses to cater for an LGBT wedding but there's silence when Muslims commit acts of violence against nonbelievers. Why is Islam given a free pass when they do far worse things? Islam is far more repressive than Christianity, but somehow this is tolerated. Why?
Because you haven't mentioned Christian or Buddhist terrorists who do the same thing. Islam's beliefs are old fashioned and in my opinion not very well adapted to the modern world, but there are many perfectly normal and sane muslims who don't support terrorists. Islam is not the cause of terrorism, or else all muslims would be violent and psychopathic individuals: the cause of terrorism is hundreds of years of violence and some very horrible leaders, where blowing yourself up is probably viewed as a pleasant escape by many of the people who do it.
When your baker turns away an LGBT couple, he's doing so soley because of his religious beliefs, and for no other reason; when a Jihadist blows himself up, thinking that Islam is the sole cause is extremely short sighted and a sign of someone who's research extends as far as what appears on Fox news.
Just to be clear, I do not support terrorism or the horrible acts being committed in the middle east; I have absolutely no sympathy for ISIS, and anyone who would blow themselves up or torture people who don't "follow the faith" deserve to burn in their version of hell. However, I will not fall victim to discriminating, as seems to be very popular in the United States these days, and you should be ashamed of yourself for sinking to that level.
IE Google toolbar
responsible for all the SEO spam we see today
My elderly grandmother lives a secret double life as an SEO expert? Damn, her disguise is truly unbreakable...
On a more serious note, I don't work with SEO and search engine rankings at the moment, but did this toolbar really have a large impact on the field? I've never heard of people using IE's Google toolbar for anything more than a prank on a family member...
IE Google toolbar
responsible for all the SEO spam we see today
My elderly grandmother lives a secret double life as an SEO expert? Damn, her disguise is truly unbreakable...
you realize he was trolling right? I doubt he's a "patriot" at all. Just a basement dweller thinking he is accurately portraying the "other" Americans.
I know that full well. But I've encountered a suprisingly high number of people who think like this in real life, and they're not trolling, they honestly think like that. I don't give a crap about him, but hopefully if there's a single shred of reason in somebody left, they'll realize how stupid a view it is to hold. Probably won't change anything, you're right, but then at least I can say I've tried.
The reason is that the Japs, Chinks, and all the other Slant Eyes in the region can't get along with each other. The result is an arms race that threatens the security of the civilized nations that make up the West. The EU should conduct a few preemptive nuclear strikes against the Japs, the Chinks, and their buddies to put an end to the threat.
Most nations in the EU do not have nuclear weapons. Europe has no purpose involving itself in east asian affairs at the present time. China and Japan especially are extremely civilized and cultured countries, more so than most places in the world. The Chinese and Japanese are most certainly not friends, and I doubt you've even heard of the rest at all. You don't even make an allowance for foreigners living in Japan or American military members stationed here.
Japan is a very innovative and interesting country with a fascinating history, and it's contributed much to our world, and same with China. You're the worst kind of "patriot": you have no clue of the world outside your limited vision, you have the empathy of a psychopath, and you are a disgrace to whichever land you come from. Enjoy the depths of -1.
This would be a terrible idea. Bank fraud and laundering is still a pretty popular way to shuffle money around, even though it's riskier now than it used to be, and cash has no impact on that if it's all done electronically. Likewise, from what I've heard, many criminal enterprises will disguise money in physical property such as houses, or even run a legit business and shuffle the money into it. Even if this is (initially) aimed at larger bills, preserving the ability to use cash is an important part of our civil freedom because cash is still pretty much the only way to purchase something without being tracked. You also don't have to worry about people stealing your card and draining all of your life savings out of it, it can't fail because of a faulty magnetic reader, and it's much more convenient for smaller purchases. Larger bills are an easy way to spend money when you're on vacation, it serves a legitimate purpose, and I have trouble envisioning the mafia (or the yakuza) being unable to very easily adapt to this problem while we're all left out to dry.
who is paying you for your evil words ?
or is it just the common devil worshipping of your culture?
No, that's the other BSD :-)
And when it comes to our operating systems of choice, it's not a religion. Far more faith than one.
Uhhhhh, maybe a Linux user like you wouldn't understand this, but minimizing the attack surface is one of the first things to do when securing anything. Yes, OpenBSD has a limited base system. That's the best thing you could ask for! That way you can install OpenBSD and know exactly what you're working with. There are no surprises. Then you layer on the additional functionality that you need. It's a small amount of effort, but the security payoff is massive. Linux distros often do it totally backward, where they install a bunch of shit by default that then needs to be removed. That's just plain dumb!
The problem OpenBSD has for security is the versions they use. Go ahead, search around online, and you'll see the version of Firefox their still using: version 39, I believe. The problem with being lax about new packages is that they're still using a vulnerable version of Firefox, which I don't think their built in features can protect, and that's a much bigger security risk than some handy W^X. And even W^X's usefulness is disputed, actually...
Using 'people' as a currency/money is kind of creepy.
Is "potential customers" more appealing then? That's what (successful) business's have always called the general populace, and it wasn't creepy before.
Pretty much everybody and everything Google has acquired, they've pretty much killed off. They bought Picasa, and are finally killing it with a product that has FAR fewer features (and nothing to replace the capabilities of the desktop app at all).
They bought picnik a few years ago, made it the online editor for Picasa and google+ photos for a while, but then over time ditched ALL of it in favor of a handful of crappy instagram filters.
So all of the features, all of the tech, all of the MONEY in Picasa and Picnik is gone. Utterly gone. No legacy left. Google, once the most functional of photo online services out there, is now a second-hand copy of Apple's iCloud...just as everybody was basically complaining that Apple's online/mobile photo approach is damned annoying and nobody wants it and they're all out looking for something better.
At least Flickr has actually *added* functionality (as well as performance) in the last few years. I just hope whomever they get sold to will be able to keep it alive.
God I miss Picnik. Really really easy photo editing, but very powerful with some very useful features. It was excellent for touching up photos, and pretty convenient too. For anyone looking for a replacement, Ribbet is your man. It looks almost exactly like Picnik, has almost all of the old tools that made it great, and introduced some new ones too. The downside is that a bunch of stuff that used to be free is now paid - but given that I don't think Ribbet is owned by another company, they have to make money somehow.
How much money does 20 millions users in France translate to?
A shit ton of people in one of the world's most important countries. France isn't insisting Facebook change its worldwide TOS, but it does insist they change their TOS for France, which is not unreasonable at all. The world is not California, move out and you encounter different people with different philosophies. Between the constant complaining of why the world isn't as sympathetic to them as the US, the billion dollar tax dodges in a country they don't even pretend to be stationed in, their shifty user policies, and overall just horrible culture in general, Facebook doesn't really do a lot to make me feel sympathy for a country standing up for its citizen's rights. I suppose we've all forgotten what that's like in this age.
Except for the fact that last year it was the most insecure! http://www.extremetech.com/com... So, least secure last year, plus the statement "We wanted to focus on the browsers that have made serious security improvements in the last year" clearly indicates they think it is not worth the effort due to the insecure nature of the browser.
Ah, I was looking for something like this when writing my comment. It's rather hard to find an up-to-date review of web browser vulnerabilities, which is curiously strange. Even so though, these results are from beginning of 2014, which was almost two years ago. I'll grant you Firefox doesn't have the same track record, but my point still stands: I think they're mainly doing it because they don't have infinite money and the same web browser again isn't very sexy.
However, if I may bring up a point here: Firefox isn't super outstanding secure out of the box, but it has great support for extensions, and a few of the right ones can vastly improve its security. I don't know if Chrome can do the same (genuinely not sure, the last time I used it at all was ~2012). Also, because these all seem to depend on certain platforms, I wonder if/how many of these browser insecurities target the underlying OS as opposed to the browser itself?
I don't think the article ever says anywhere that they're not doing it because it's too easy. They're not doing it because all the other browsers introduced sexy new features and they want to focus their efforts on securing these first - since Firefox hasn't changed much under the hood, it's not very different from the last time they used it. It's one thing to add a little comment here and there, but try not to put words in other people's writing. After all, if they were worried it'd be too easy, they would have attempted exploits on a secured Linux distro or on a *BSD - which I don't see mentioned anywhere here at all.
Personally, I'd rather see robots kill each other as opposed to humans slaying each other. Not only does it make sense for the militaries involved (robots can't desert, they will never be afraid of gunfire, and you don't need to tell their family that they died in the war), but the civilians would prefer it too (you don't have to risk your life being shot, you won't have to abandon your home, etc.). Autonomous machines are an advantage for everyone involved, and would be a much more humane way to solve wars.
However, from a practical perspective, that may not be possible. The elephant in the room is that most wars are caused by resource or territorial disputes, and those are often a result of overpopulation. Autonomous wars don't kill people, and hence nothing is done about the core problem. Furthermore, traditional wars are oftentimes waged for... maybe a few decades? At most? I know of several exceptions, but I don't think we see contiguous conflicts last longer than that very often, because war is such a draining activity to be engaged in. Everyone dying tends to end wars because of public exhaustion, but with machines exploding instead, that never happens, and so we may potentially have to worry about wars dragging on for far longer than they used to.
A wider issue is the general trend for devices with behaviour that is remotely changed after you buy them thanks to software updates. What is the situation if you bought an e-reader you were happy with and could use comfortably, but then after this kind of update it no longer works for you because, for example, your eyesight isn't good enough to read the new font? It's obvious why hardware and software vendors might want this kind of capability, but how do we protect the buyers who are using the products to make sure they're still getting what they paid for when they decided to buy?
Ultimately, the only way to do that is to give power to the users, and the only way to do that is to offer them a choice or a setting. I'm sad to say that the modern trend is to instead make the choice for the user, because this is not the only problem that results from this philosophy. What I don't understand is why nobody puts in an "advanced mode" or something like that into these devices, to allow that kind of crazy customizability, while still keeping the simple and minimalistic version for those who want or need that. Android has a good example with its developer mode; most of the population might not need to simulate GPS locations or load programs through a USB connection, and using a slightly obscure trick like the repeated button taps ensures that the people who find it will be the people who need it. Then, you can appeal to both the casual user or UX lover as well as the obsessive nerds such as myself.
If you get really good at something, or have a lot of success, you are proud of yourself and define yourself for it. When faced with losing, you're much more motivated to cheat to win because it's more important to you than it would be if you had lost and presumed that it's not your thing, hence not caring nearly as much about it.
And that's the problem with political correctness, racism and sexism. White people cop a lot of flak for it (and rightly so, discrimination based on race or gender is ridiculous), but honestly I think it is a small minority of white people that will get up on a podium and espouse their beliefs of racial superiority. Then exactly the same happens from minority groups - and even smaller minority of that group gets up and espouses their ridiculous beliefs of racial superiority, but people "have" to listen because safe spaces and needing to give minority speakers a voice.
If your ideas are discriminatory, you should be called out on it. Regardless of your gender, colour, ancestry or personal history - none of these preclude you from being able to be a racist/sexist pig.
Unfortunately, I'm all out of mod points, but this AC raises a very good point. Racists come from all sides, and I wish as a society we were more interested in living together peacefully than pissing on each other.
This is very interesting, but part of the article mentions that some rats were more predispositioned to benefit than others through genetics. If that applies to humans as well, that means this running will benefit only some of us with an increased hippocampus size. However, one should be getting aerobic exercise anyway, although many of us don't; the health benefits are well worth it.
Haha
It's no laughing matter, good sir, at least in my opinion. Between frequent dupes, failing to correct grammatical and spelling errors (the most basic duty of an editor), lack of even basic source / fact checking, and edits/titling to make articles more "clickbait-y", the quality of the articles has diminished greatly since /.'s heyday. It is good articles that elicit interest and discussion that are the lifeblood of this site.
That's his point, it's kind of funny / kind of sad when an editor actually does his job around here, something the previous ones never did. The news for the last week or two has been pretty good, and hopefully we'll see Slashdot improve to the best it can reasonably be; our new masters have been a hell of a lot better so far than our old ones, and that is such a breath of fresh air.
Really? Ok, put it in site ToS for both publishers and the users/downloaders, that 1) you will never never NEEEVER bundle ANYTHING or in ANY WAY try to alter the files placed there by uploaders/project owners. 2) also NEVER you will post ADs that could be mistaken for The Download, and in addition all ads will be very clearly marked e.g. with red border and red text saying "3rd party advertisement". And any banner/AD will lead first to outgoing banner saying clearly "You are now leaving sourceforge.net! and going to xyz.com - we take no responsibility for that site or any downloads on it" 3) of course you can never delete or take over a project then e.g. to kick out legitimate owner and push own "enriched" versions Put that it in ToS and guarantee e.g. up to 10,000$ per project damages. Then we could talk. Btw. anyway what imo could be more interesting now, would be an guthub.com clone, just like github but without the SJW nuttery that results in censorship that is going in there. How ever I doubt you could do it, as Slashdot seems quite leftist too, with frequest bullshit stories about "closing the technical gap" and other anti-white-male whiny propagana bullshit. But sure - feel free to impress us on these fields, we will see.
Honestly, I don't understand your viewpoint. They've made progress towards improving both sites they bought - this is a huge step forward for Sourceforge, and Slashdot's quality of news has drastically increased. We're actually getting News for Nerds, and I for one have greatly enjoyed reading stories that are actually pretty interesting for once. They've answered many questions patiently, they've taken the abuse expected from a cynical community, and Whiplash and Co. haven't done anything yet that would make my eyebrows raise. Why would you write such a puerile response for a site whose old owners have left, and a new owner is actually trying to breathe some life back into it? This is a good thing, and I'd love some competition to Github. If BizX turns into what Dice was, then we'll talk, but so far they've shown that they actually do care about the site and are interested in our community. Hell, if you look through, you can see that Whiplash has actually read a lot of posts here, or at least responded to some that aren't close to the top.
Frankly, Mr. Freeman, you are coming off as a troll and that doesn't help anyone. A clause against backdoor additions or advertisement bundling would be nice, but that whole damages spiel is unnecessary, and you're in no position to make demands of someone who will host your programs, maintain a site, foot the monthly internet bill, and provide tools to help you with your open source project for free.