taxpayers shouldn't play the role of venture capitalist
Some projects don't lend themselves to market capital funding. Take the interstate freeway system, for example. Clearly, the network offers a good profit to the economy and to the taxpayers who funded it, but it's not something that the free market can do well.
We only have so much money and so many resources. Would they best be put to use reducing the scale of the problem, or planning for and mitigating the problem as it arrives?
We'll still have to deal with phasing out fossil fuels when they run out, so why not start earlier ? The cost will be less.
Don't liquefy it then. Do I have to do all the thinking round here?
Good idea. Let's put all the fuel in a big cigar shaped tank that you carry on top of the plane. By virtue of being so light, it also helps to create extra lift.
computer models that rely on dat athat stops prior to 1976 isn't evidence. That's a broken model.
Well, I guess it's a good thing that there are also people running models with modern data. But that wasn't even my point. The point is that all the tools and data are there to show how the consensus is wrong. And yet, nobody's doing that. If you think the model is broken, please fix it, and show your results. You'll be famous.
The polar caps have melted and come back many times.
But not many times this has happened over a few decades. http://www.skepticalscience.co... while millions of people were living in coastal zone cities.
Why is that? They all claim to be "concerned" about it.
It's called the Tragedy of the Commons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Even if you know and understand the concept, and you want to fix the problem, it's pointless to do it by yourself, because somebody else will pick up your slack. The only effective solution is to impose mandatory controls for everybody.
So, what's stopping you ? You can start with the IPCC reports and all of its references to supporting literature. You can download source code of the models, and raw temperature data. If you don't believe in consensus, that's your right, but don't claim there's no evidence provided, and that it's all based on trust.
I completely understand that non-biologists, who don't understand biological complexity, can think that making an artificial brain is quite doable.
I remember chess grandmasters arguing in the 80's that chess computers would never be able to beat them, unless they found a way to understand how a grandmaster plays, and somehow put that in code. Botvinnik wrote a book in 1984 about how computer programs should formulate long term plans.
Now, with modern computer hardware, an expert programmer could write a chess program that would beat those grandmasters, while himself not possessing any more chess knowledge than can be picked up from a beginner's book. It shows that experts in a certain field may not be the best equipped to think outside their box.
It won't work if you are trying to make a simulated brain that works like a brain using silicon. It may imitate the brain in superficial ways, but that's about it.
That's entirely dependent on the accuracy of the simulation, and there's no theoretical limit to that.
But considering we are decades, if not centuries, away from even sort of understanding how the brain works
I don't think we ever will, at least not in detail. I also don't think it's necessary. Nobody understands how the AlphaGo neural net works, but it can still beat the best human players in the world. The net just taught itself, first by looking at examples and then by playing against itself.
just like simulating a brain in a computer is not going to give you anything like a mind
If you put a computer inside a robot skull, and attach its inputs to sensors and outputs to motor control, the distinction between a real mind and a simulated one disappears. It's just a different form of mapping the same information.
which will simultaneously make Google Maps work better and improve reCAPTCHA.
I don't know if reCAPTCHA will be improved. It will make it harder, for sure, but it's already dangerously close to the point where it's getting too hard for humans.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait....isn't it climate change now?
It's been climate change for a while now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
taxpayers shouldn't play the role of venture capitalist
Some projects don't lend themselves to market capital funding. Take the interstate freeway system, for example. Clearly, the network offers a good profit to the economy and to the taxpayers who funded it, but it's not something that the free market can do well.
What do you mean it's sinking ? My end is sticking 200 feet in the air.
We only have so much money and so many resources. Would they best be put to use reducing the scale of the problem, or planning for and mitigating the problem as it arrives?
We'll still have to deal with phasing out fossil fuels when they run out, so why not start earlier ? The cost will be less.
But making the car and batteries released twice the CO2 than making the non-hybrid car.
Citation required.
In both cases the problem does NOT come from wanting to reduce CO2, rather it's because of PRETENDING to.
Easily solved by taxing CO2 across the board, so that any CO2 used for manufacturing the car is also counted.
Don't liquefy it then. Do I have to do all the thinking round here?
Good idea. Let's put all the fuel in a big cigar shaped tank that you carry on top of the plane. By virtue of being so light, it also helps to create extra lift.
Send me US$170million in unmarked bills so I can buy the computer I'll need to run it.
Since your efforts will save us billions of dollars in mitigation, I'm sure that funding can be obtained. Have you tried contacting Shell or Exxon ?
Vulcanism. Tectonics. Solar flares. Asteroids. Tidal forces. Precession. Whale farts.
Go ahead and show how any of these mechanisms is responsible for last 50 years of warming.
yet the people who run the models refuse to do it
Why are you waiting for them ? Download the models and do it yourself.
And he's right.
Thank you for proving my point. Funny how you didn't respond to parent post saying that you're one of the people denying climate change.
So what if you can't afford climate change ?
computer models that rely on dat athat stops prior to 1976 isn't evidence. That's a broken model.
Well, I guess it's a good thing that there are also people running models with modern data. But that wasn't even my point. The point is that all the tools and data are there to show how the consensus is wrong. And yet, nobody's doing that. If you think the model is broken, please fix it, and show your results. You'll be famous.
"It doesn't exist." to "It's not our fault." to "Well so what if it is our fault, it's not such a big deal anyway."
Followed by "it's too late to do anything about it now"
WE BELIEVE YOU.
Maybe YOU do, but a considerable number of people don't. You can start by educating them.
The polar caps have melted and come back many times.
But not many times this has happened over a few decades. http://www.skepticalscience.co... while millions of people were living in coastal zone cities.
Why is that? They all claim to be "concerned" about it.
It's called the Tragedy of the Commons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Even if you know and understand the concept, and you want to fix the problem, it's pointless to do it by yourself, because somebody else will pick up your slack. The only effective solution is to impose mandatory controls for everybody.
I want to hear about evidence and models
So, what's stopping you ? You can start with the IPCC reports and all of its references to supporting literature. You can download source code of the models, and raw temperature data. If you don't believe in consensus, that's your right, but don't claim there's no evidence provided, and that it's all based on trust.
I don't think anyone doubts climate change.
Ted Cruz does. He's arguing that the global temperature hasn't gone up in the last 2 decades, for example.
I completely understand that non-biologists, who don't understand biological complexity, can think that making an artificial brain is quite doable.
I remember chess grandmasters arguing in the 80's that chess computers would never be able to beat them, unless they found a way to understand how a grandmaster plays, and somehow put that in code. Botvinnik wrote a book in 1984 about how computer programs should formulate long term plans. Now, with modern computer hardware, an expert programmer could write a chess program that would beat those grandmasters, while himself not possessing any more chess knowledge than can be picked up from a beginner's book. It shows that experts in a certain field may not be the best equipped to think outside their box.
Time to crack open some rodents and wire them up.
I wonder how many Manhattans of wire that would take.
It won't work if you are trying to make a simulated brain that works like a brain using silicon. It may imitate the brain in superficial ways, but that's about it.
That's entirely dependent on the accuracy of the simulation, and there's no theoretical limit to that.
But considering we are decades, if not centuries, away from even sort of understanding how the brain works
I don't think we ever will, at least not in detail. I also don't think it's necessary. Nobody understands how the AlphaGo neural net works, but it can still beat the best human players in the world. The net just taught itself, first by looking at examples and then by playing against itself.
So you think that the ANN is thinking like a person does?
Probably not, but I also don't think that two human Go players think the same way, so I wouldn't consider it a critical point.
I am sure that it would be a self aware, thinking, feeling robot
As long as your simulation is good enough, you'll get a good representation of all the things you mentioned, yes.
Stating something is going to work, and getting something to actually work are very different things
I know. But you said it wasn't going to work, so I'm only arguing the first part, not the second.
just like simulating a brain in a computer is not going to give you anything like a mind
If you put a computer inside a robot skull, and attach its inputs to sensors and outputs to motor control, the distinction between a real mind and a simulated one disappears. It's just a different form of mapping the same information.
which will simultaneously make Google Maps work better and improve reCAPTCHA.
I don't know if reCAPTCHA will be improved. It will make it harder, for sure, but it's already dangerously close to the point where it's getting too hard for humans.