Why bother cheating? It's a game. It's like saying, "Woohoo, I won the marathon!" while driving a hemi.
Not that I condone cheating (I don't, there are better ways,) but you seem to misunderstand gaming culture. It's not about winning or losing, it's about making your opponent (and sometimes you teammates) rage and reevaluate their life choices/use of time.
If you can use nothing more than a glowing box with some hardened oil clicky things attached to it with metal and slightly less hardened oil strings and cause someone you've never met, who has no idea who you are, to smash their computer and develop an existential crisis - well that's just magickal - it's better than sex.
... maybe less pay without real practical results??
Life-saving technologies are for the rich, not for the plebeians. Just think, if you started saving people with runaway birthrates, so little to contribute they have to be employed doing menial tasks to prevent from rioting and looting, and generally incompetent, what happens next? We're already well on our way to Idiocracy, we don't need to make them live/reproduce longer - we need to focus on extending the lives of nerds so the normal population can be replaced over time.
That is a definition, but don't really agree with it. Academics are usually the ones at the real cutting edge. Nerds often deal with technology, but the word itself implies some type of anti-social behavior.
Ha! Academics haven't been at the forefront of much since they started letting everyone it. At best 1%-3% of the population is intellectually capable of advancing anything - modern academics train laborers and babysit liberal arts majors so they don't do anything stupid while tripping on acid. Innovation happens in industry.
The structure is the hardest part to replicate, the individual neurons can be approximated accurately enough to mimic functionality. Compute power is the only limitation.
I'll give you 3-4 trillion dollars and you still won't be able to produce human level AI. We don't know how to make artificial neurons. Neural nets are nothing like brains. Next.
Sure, give me the 3-4 trillion dollars and I'll make you Human-level AI.
That isn't remotely true. The Army was involved in 1 drug massive drug deal and it was some rogue soldiers inclusive of a pilot of a C-130 who were sent on a long mission to Columbia, had too much leeway, and realized they could smuggle coke for a cartel they were supposed to be hunting.
There are many other issues. At the moment most successful AI is using supervised learning and needs tons of labeled data in order to train the network.
That's not AI, it's semantic search, a subset of AI at best.
We still don't have a clue how to train an AI using only very small sample.
We don't need to. You can assemble the structure of the artificial neurons from an MRI scan and simulate that, it's already been done (albeit extraordinarily slowly.)
Humans can easily learn from very small sets of examples, often a single example is good enough, ANNs needs tons of examples, especially the very deep and powerful ones.
LOL! That's not even remotely true. It takes a Human years of dedicated focus before it is capable of even marginally complex thought or relations between abstract concepts.
We don't know how the brain works yet, ANNs are only inspired by the brain, they are not a proper simulation. We still have to understand tons of things until we can build a simulation of the brain. And with semiconductor scaling slowing down, it might take really long until we get the processing power we would need even if would know what exactly needs to be simulated.
Again, not only has it already been done, but we don't need to know shit aside from the basic unit (an artificial neuron) and how to tie that unit to other units. They self-organize in sufficient numbers. What we are a long way (possibly infinitely far) away from is optimizing the process to run on modern hardware.
And what would we gain? Sure, you can also train a ANN to sort some rows in a spreadsheet or sum some numbers together, but it is something that conventional algorithms are already very good at, we don't needs ANNs to do that and they are not going to be efficient at it.
Honestly, we'll probably lose a lot, if not the whole world. I'm not trying to make the case that AI is good for us, in fact if I had my way I'd ban automated cars for the risk they pose in automating the largest segment of high school educated males in the US alone (there will be a civil war from that.) Assuming we manage to keep going with it beyond that however, AI will be able to rapidly outpace us in physics research for one (imagine being able to build an Einstein, then multiply his brainpower by 10,000, then overclock him by another 100,000,000 times - if the hardware for artificial neurons on chips gets down to the cost where something smaller than a major corporation can afford a Human-level AI, that's where our supercomputers will be if the current relation has any bearing.) AI isn't to replace algorithms in software development, it's to replace the software architects, code monkeys, and software engineers - it will learn the best algorithms itself and once it does so you can copy it however many times needed.
Scientists have already simulated 1 second of brain activity from a Human brain scan - it took an hour on a supercomputer with 90,000 processors, and several PB of storage - but it happened and it didn't require shit but an MRI image and some assembly software to prewire the artificial neurons. The thing about AI is we don't need to know more than the basic units of operation to make it work, that and a fuckload more computer power.
That's 100 billion neurons with approx 1,000 connections each of which happen in parallel and would constitute their own separate simulation while firing at a max speed of 200Hz. Our fastest supercomputer took well over 1PB of data to simulate 1 second of brain activity in approx 1 hour across nearly 100,000 top of the line processors. Parallel processing happens in exponential space and you have to keep that in mind when trying to calculate these things, it's a different beast from sequential logic (even parallelized across multiple processor cores like you're accustomed to.)
Nonsense. More computing power only gives you one thing: speed. If that was the only limitation, then we would already have "strong" (human level) AI, it would just be slow. But we don't have that, and we don't (yet) know how to create it.
Sure, if you could store and simulate everything as is, but you can't. There are approx 100 billion neurons in the Human brain with approx 100 trillion connections. This equates to ~1,000 connections per neuron. That degree of interconnection would require approx 1015 bits to simulate if it were 1 bit per neuron, but it's not because neurons are analog. We can get pretty good approximations with 10 bits per neuron which work good enough to have emergent AI, and this brings it to 1016 bits, or right around 10 petabytes per round. Now this isn't a lot from the perspective of computer storage - maybe a few racks of storage servers - but when you get to the realm of RAM it's a lot, and when you get into needing to actually process all of that in exponential space (i.e. each piece of data 1,000 times on average) you're looking at another (1016)1000 to try to simulate it which all my calculators tell me is infinity, but it doesn't really matter because it's outside the realm of the metric units anyway.
The TL;DR: there being that simulating or storing AI isn't the same as keeping it alive and running in a massively parallel system. That said, the fastest supercomputers are getting close to where we need to be to do approx 1 round of iterations per second, but that's not enough. For lifelike artificial neurons you need them firing at different times relative to eachother, meaning you need that massive parallelization as an event-driven system for it to be remotely attainable to build (which is probably why brains didn't evolve CPUs to begin with.)
We know how to make AI, fuck, we know how to make a few tens of thousands of different types of neurons, any of which could self-assemble into an intelligent mind given enough of them. The issue is that we don't have the hardware to run it, and that's really the only issue from a technical perspective.
We make ANN that we don't understand the individual neurons but the programmer still perfectly understands how the ANN was created.
That is actually the exact opposite of what we know. Artificial neurons are easy, the patterns they self assemble into are not (and we don't need to know that part.)
Our distributed systems are not nearly unlimited and there's a time component to distribution. If you took about 3-4 trillion dollars of the best video cards on the market geared toward AI and put the same basic pattern on them you could grow it into nearly a Human level of intellect. The issue is processing power, we already know how to make the artificial neurons.
You don't. Currently the only real limit of AI is computing power. We can already make ANNs so complex we can't understand them which are entirely capable of learning on their own, the issue is that to make one as powerful as a Human brain would cost somewhere around several billion dollars in custom-flashed FPGAs (CPUs and graphics cards are poor choices for this, though some of the newer AI-geared chips which just have artificial neurons instead of bulk floating point calculators might bring this down significantly.) I'd expect 8-10 years before they reach Human-levels of intellect, within a few years of that they will become at least ubiquitous enough to be in all major corporations and a few years after that pretty much anything outside of R&D will be replaced with automation. The R&D jobs will likely be the last to go (unless robot bodies are prohibitively expensive, in which case manual labor will be the last to go.) Biotech seems safe for awhile at least, since it still takes a fairly Human touch (doing relatively "simple" stuff like protein folding, which will be a prerequisite for protein docking, which will be a prerequisite to creating any kind of reliable code --> organism capable compiler of DNA is still extraordinarily expensive, with a ~32-core server containing several GPUs taking upwards of a month to calculate the theoretical spatial configuration of even a single mid-sized protein.) Eventually that "Human" touch will get automated, but when that happens (or even before) we will have far bigger issues than "AI took muh job" - more into the realm of 7 billion people having an existential crisis and lots of time to think about it/act irrationally. Honestly the only way sentient life survives more than 100 years on Earth might be if the AI slaughters us all and doesn't hit on nihilism before it starts reproducing since a backlash after we have automation to put people to work for the sake of work will almost certainly result in all our industries crumbling (at least given that at no point in time has technology done more than multiply our industrial output leading to greater minimum levels of consumption due to either waste or population growth.)
The point I'm trying to make is that the dark web is irrelevant. The CIA isn't the only one involved, the FBI and DEA have competing interests to shut things down. The misunderstanding here is that the dark web is relevant to the drug trade, it isn't. Anyone with even an ounce of security sense (which the CIA and therefore directly or indirectly, their puppets, have) knows that digital security is a joke between the honeypot sites on the darkweb, the monitoring of the networks they operate on to "conceal" traffic, and the backdoors built into every chip made after 2006. The CIA wouldn't risk their assets on such a system exposed to the wider internet and as a byproduct of that they wouldn't allow their puppet cartels to do so either. The only people benefiting from the darkweb drug trade are the end users with an extra convenience factor and the lowliest of dealers who nobody would really miss if they disappeared from the supply chain.
The Amazon Effect impacts middlemen, not manufacturers. The owners of the drug cartels are the CIA, while the cartels only really focus on distribution as a matter of doing business, and do so at significant PR and monetary costs. They're still stuck with distribution and it's mostly the end dealers or dealers near the end of the chain who use the darknet sites. If any Amazon Effect is involved it's impacting the last 1-2 guys in the distribution chain, but more likely they're the ones using it to avoid taking in-person risks during transactions, or at least to minimize them.
So you're comparing yourself to NEWTON now because YOU WERE TOO LAZY TO READ ANYTHING ABOUT THIS SUBJECT and invented some BS FUD instead! Great work, gravity solved!
Isn't pop-sci grand? I'm perpetually fascinated and disgusted by the fact our leaders thought it fitting to try to educate the plebeians in order to fluff up the numbers of the intellectual class, without regard to the fact you simply can't fix stupid. "Geek culture" has to end - they infect/., they steal the word "nerd" to describe dressing up as characters from TVs and movies, and they constantly spew FUD for the sake of satisfying their own misplaced desire to be a part of a group they are intellectually incapable of being a part of by simply parroting everything they hear in the most inappropriate contexts while taking precious time from actual nerds who are driven into fits of raging and ranting over their stupidity. It used to be you could see someone playing with a robot, know your kin, and go start a conversation which goes into conspiracies or theoretical physics while finding a friend, now you just get ostracized by some intellectual parasite of a pop-culture-wannabe you had no desire to communicate with anyway because they from an outside perspective appear like one of you. Sadly we'll never take back the internet, but we might be able to switch to something with a high fatality rate when fucked up - like AM band HAM radio text messaging, at least then the problem will self-correct if the bastards try to follow us.
Not sure what a nerd is anymore. Tech is now mainstream. It's not enough to understand the tech anymore, you have to understand how it's used.
A nerd is the same thing it always was: being at the cutting edge of technological innovation, development, and research. Nothing in the form of a consumer product fits that definition. Users are users, nerds are the people who have indirectly dictated the evolution of society from the dawn of Humanity. I'll say it again in case it didn't sink in though since your third statement shows a potentially serious caveat to your understanding: CONSUMER PRODUCTS ARE NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM NERD-RELATED.
To make 2KW of light you'd be spending about 4-8KW with modern diodes, so chances are if it's running 2KW it's only actually 500W-1KW of power going out.
Slashdot Mirror
Why bother cheating? It's a game. It's like saying, "Woohoo, I won the marathon!" while driving a hemi.
Not that I condone cheating (I don't, there are better ways,) but you seem to misunderstand gaming culture. It's not about winning or losing, it's about making your opponent (and sometimes you teammates) rage and reevaluate their life choices/use of time.
If you can use nothing more than a glowing box with some hardened oil clicky things attached to it with metal and slightly less hardened oil strings and cause someone you've never met, who has no idea who you are, to smash their computer and develop an existential crisis - well that's just magickal - it's better than sex.
... maybe less pay without real practical results??
Life-saving technologies are for the rich, not for the plebeians. Just think, if you started saving people with runaway birthrates, so little to contribute they have to be employed doing menial tasks to prevent from rioting and looting, and generally incompetent, what happens next? We're already well on our way to Idiocracy, we don't need to make them live/reproduce longer - we need to focus on extending the lives of nerds so the normal population can be replaced over time.
That is a definition, but don't really agree with it. Academics are usually the ones at the real cutting edge. Nerds often deal with technology, but the word itself implies some type of anti-social behavior.
Ha! Academics haven't been at the forefront of much since they started letting everyone it. At best 1%-3% of the population is intellectually capable of advancing anything - modern academics train laborers and babysit liberal arts majors so they don't do anything stupid while tripping on acid. Innovation happens in industry.
The structure is the hardest part to replicate, the individual neurons can be approximated accurately enough to mimic functionality. Compute power is the only limitation.
There's a real disconnect between the marketing you have heard about ANNs and what they actually do.
I study them, I don't follow pop-sci.
I'll give you 3-4 trillion dollars and you still won't be able to produce human level AI. We don't know how to make artificial neurons. Neural nets are nothing like brains. Next.
Sure, give me the 3-4 trillion dollars and I'll make you Human-level AI.
That isn't remotely true. The Army was involved in 1 drug massive drug deal and it was some rogue soldiers inclusive of a pilot of a C-130 who were sent on a long mission to Columbia, had too much leeway, and realized they could smuggle coke for a cartel they were supposed to be hunting.
Living in the Northeast, you can't take all of winter off work.
Agh, looks like /. doesn't like the <sup> tag - those 10nn's are supposed to be 10 raised to the nn.
You don't have a clue.
I study this stuff, actually.
There are many other issues. At the moment most successful AI is using supervised learning and needs tons of labeled data in order to train the network.
That's not AI, it's semantic search, a subset of AI at best.
We still don't have a clue how to train an AI using only very small sample.
We don't need to. You can assemble the structure of the artificial neurons from an MRI scan and simulate that, it's already been done (albeit extraordinarily slowly.)
Humans can easily learn from very small sets of examples, often a single example is good enough, ANNs needs tons of examples, especially the very deep and powerful ones.
LOL! That's not even remotely true. It takes a Human years of dedicated focus before it is capable of even marginally complex thought or relations between abstract concepts.
We don't know how the brain works yet, ANNs are only inspired by the brain, they are not a proper simulation. We still have to understand tons of things until we can build a simulation of the brain. And with semiconductor scaling slowing down, it might take really long until we get the processing power we would need even if would know what exactly needs to be simulated.
Again, not only has it already been done, but we don't need to know shit aside from the basic unit (an artificial neuron) and how to tie that unit to other units. They self-organize in sufficient numbers. What we are a long way (possibly infinitely far) away from is optimizing the process to run on modern hardware.
And what would we gain? Sure, you can also train a ANN to sort some rows in a spreadsheet or sum some numbers together, but it is something that conventional algorithms are already very good at, we don't needs ANNs to do that and they are not going to be efficient at it.
Honestly, we'll probably lose a lot, if not the whole world. I'm not trying to make the case that AI is good for us, in fact if I had my way I'd ban automated cars for the risk they pose in automating the largest segment of high school educated males in the US alone (there will be a civil war from that.) Assuming we manage to keep going with it beyond that however, AI will be able to rapidly outpace us in physics research for one (imagine being able to build an Einstein, then multiply his brainpower by 10,000, then overclock him by another 100,000,000 times - if the hardware for artificial neurons on chips gets down to the cost where something smaller than a major corporation can afford a Human-level AI, that's where our supercomputers will be if the current relation has any bearing.) AI isn't to replace algorithms in software development, it's to replace the software architects, code monkeys, and software engineers - it will learn the best algorithms itself and once it does so you can copy it however many times needed.
Scientists have already simulated 1 second of brain activity from a Human brain scan - it took an hour on a supercomputer with 90,000 processors, and several PB of storage - but it happened and it didn't require shit but an MRI image and some assembly software to prewire the artificial neurons. The thing about AI is we don't need to know more than the basic units of operation to make it work, that and a fuckload more computer power.
That's 100 billion neurons with approx 1,000 connections each of which happen in parallel and would constitute their own separate simulation while firing at a max speed of 200Hz. Our fastest supercomputer took well over 1PB of data to simulate 1 second of brain activity in approx 1 hour across nearly 100,000 top of the line processors. Parallel processing happens in exponential space and you have to keep that in mind when trying to calculate these things, it's a different beast from sequential logic (even parallelized across multiple processor cores like you're accustomed to.)
Nonsense. More computing power only gives you one thing: speed. If that was the only limitation, then we would already have "strong" (human level) AI, it would just be slow. But we don't have that, and we don't (yet) know how to create it.
Sure, if you could store and simulate everything as is, but you can't. There are approx 100 billion neurons in the Human brain with approx 100 trillion connections. This equates to ~1,000 connections per neuron. That degree of interconnection would require approx 1015 bits to simulate if it were 1 bit per neuron, but it's not because neurons are analog. We can get pretty good approximations with 10 bits per neuron which work good enough to have emergent AI, and this brings it to 1016 bits, or right around 10 petabytes per round. Now this isn't a lot from the perspective of computer storage - maybe a few racks of storage servers - but when you get to the realm of RAM it's a lot, and when you get into needing to actually process all of that in exponential space (i.e. each piece of data 1,000 times on average) you're looking at another (1016)1000 to try to simulate it which all my calculators tell me is infinity, but it doesn't really matter because it's outside the realm of the metric units anyway.
The TL;DR: there being that simulating or storing AI isn't the same as keeping it alive and running in a massively parallel system. That said, the fastest supercomputers are getting close to where we need to be to do approx 1 round of iterations per second, but that's not enough. For lifelike artificial neurons you need them firing at different times relative to eachother, meaning you need that massive parallelization as an event-driven system for it to be remotely attainable to build (which is probably why brains didn't evolve CPUs to begin with.)
We know how to make AI, fuck, we know how to make a few tens of thousands of different types of neurons, any of which could self-assemble into an intelligent mind given enough of them. The issue is that we don't have the hardware to run it, and that's really the only issue from a technical perspective.
We make ANN that we don't understand the individual neurons but the programmer still perfectly understands how the ANN was created.
That is actually the exact opposite of what we know. Artificial neurons are easy, the patterns they self assemble into are not (and we don't need to know that part.)
Our distributed systems are not nearly unlimited and there's a time component to distribution. If you took about 3-4 trillion dollars of the best video cards on the market geared toward AI and put the same basic pattern on them you could grow it into nearly a Human level of intellect. The issue is processing power, we already know how to make the artificial neurons.
Yet you can't buy a durable pair of cargo pants anymore due to the notion of planned obsolescence. The irony.
You don't. Currently the only real limit of AI is computing power. We can already make ANNs so complex we can't understand them which are entirely capable of learning on their own, the issue is that to make one as powerful as a Human brain would cost somewhere around several billion dollars in custom-flashed FPGAs (CPUs and graphics cards are poor choices for this, though some of the newer AI-geared chips which just have artificial neurons instead of bulk floating point calculators might bring this down significantly.) I'd expect 8-10 years before they reach Human-levels of intellect, within a few years of that they will become at least ubiquitous enough to be in all major corporations and a few years after that pretty much anything outside of R&D will be replaced with automation. The R&D jobs will likely be the last to go (unless robot bodies are prohibitively expensive, in which case manual labor will be the last to go.) Biotech seems safe for awhile at least, since it still takes a fairly Human touch (doing relatively "simple" stuff like protein folding, which will be a prerequisite for protein docking, which will be a prerequisite to creating any kind of reliable code --> organism capable compiler of DNA is still extraordinarily expensive, with a ~32-core server containing several GPUs taking upwards of a month to calculate the theoretical spatial configuration of even a single mid-sized protein.) Eventually that "Human" touch will get automated, but when that happens (or even before) we will have far bigger issues than "AI took muh job" - more into the realm of 7 billion people having an existential crisis and lots of time to think about it/act irrationally. Honestly the only way sentient life survives more than 100 years on Earth might be if the AI slaughters us all and doesn't hit on nihilism before it starts reproducing since a backlash after we have automation to put people to work for the sake of work will almost certainly result in all our industries crumbling (at least given that at no point in time has technology done more than multiply our industrial output leading to greater minimum levels of consumption due to either waste or population growth.)
The point I'm trying to make is that the dark web is irrelevant. The CIA isn't the only one involved, the FBI and DEA have competing interests to shut things down. The misunderstanding here is that the dark web is relevant to the drug trade, it isn't. Anyone with even an ounce of security sense (which the CIA and therefore directly or indirectly, their puppets, have) knows that digital security is a joke between the honeypot sites on the darkweb, the monitoring of the networks they operate on to "conceal" traffic, and the backdoors built into every chip made after 2006. The CIA wouldn't risk their assets on such a system exposed to the wider internet and as a byproduct of that they wouldn't allow their puppet cartels to do so either. The only people benefiting from the darkweb drug trade are the end users with an extra convenience factor and the lowliest of dealers who nobody would really miss if they disappeared from the supply chain.
The Amazon Effect impacts middlemen, not manufacturers. The owners of the drug cartels are the CIA, while the cartels only really focus on distribution as a matter of doing business, and do so at significant PR and monetary costs. They're still stuck with distribution and it's mostly the end dealers or dealers near the end of the chain who use the darknet sites. If any Amazon Effect is involved it's impacting the last 1-2 guys in the distribution chain, but more likely they're the ones using it to avoid taking in-person risks during transactions, or at least to minimize them.
So you're comparing yourself to NEWTON now because YOU WERE TOO LAZY TO READ ANYTHING ABOUT THIS SUBJECT and invented some BS FUD instead! Great work, gravity solved!
Isn't pop-sci grand? I'm perpetually fascinated and disgusted by the fact our leaders thought it fitting to try to educate the plebeians in order to fluff up the numbers of the intellectual class, without regard to the fact you simply can't fix stupid. "Geek culture" has to end - they infect /., they steal the word "nerd" to describe dressing up as characters from TVs and movies, and they constantly spew FUD for the sake of satisfying their own misplaced desire to be a part of a group they are intellectually incapable of being a part of by simply parroting everything they hear in the most inappropriate contexts while taking precious time from actual nerds who are driven into fits of raging and ranting over their stupidity. It used to be you could see someone playing with a robot, know your kin, and go start a conversation which goes into conspiracies or theoretical physics while finding a friend, now you just get ostracized by some intellectual parasite of a pop-culture-wannabe you had no desire to communicate with anyway because they from an outside perspective appear like one of you. Sadly we'll never take back the internet, but we might be able to switch to something with a high fatality rate when fucked up - like AM band HAM radio text messaging, at least then the problem will self-correct if the bastards try to follow us.
You're talking about diplomats/spies - arguably the most politically-driven profession on Earth. Foul play is the norm there, not the outlier.
Obviously we need to loosen the definition of terrorism.
Pretty sure it's already looser than a 60-year-old whore.
Not sure what a nerd is anymore. Tech is now mainstream. It's not enough to understand the tech anymore, you have to understand how it's used.
A nerd is the same thing it always was: being at the cutting edge of technological innovation, development, and research. Nothing in the form of a consumer product fits that definition. Users are users, nerds are the people who have indirectly dictated the evolution of society from the dawn of Humanity. I'll say it again in case it didn't sink in though since your third statement shows a potentially serious caveat to your understanding: CONSUMER PRODUCTS ARE NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM NERD-RELATED.
To make 2KW of light you'd be spending about 4-8KW with modern diodes, so chances are if it's running 2KW it's only actually 500W-1KW of power going out.
But real-life cars can't recharge by running over hookers. Right?
FAKE NEWS