Give me a couple minutes and I can script up a bot that dominates players. That's not hard. And it's not even fun.
In just a few minutes you can write a script that can watch a rectangular array of pixels as a projection of a simulated 3D environment, and then automatically operate the proper controls to navigate this without constantly banging into walls ? You must have very impressive skills.
It'll be hard to say if something is actually an AI if we don't agree on what "AI" is or what standards to apply in order to gauge its level of sentience.
AI is not a binary thing, it's a multidimensional space. You can have intelligent behavior in very specific fields, or in many different ones, and you can have very basic skills and very refined ones. For instance, a dog has intelligence in a wide range of fields, but you can never teach a dog to drive a car as well as Google's AI system. But if you throw a ball, the dog is better at finding it.
As AI systems get more advanced, there will be a growing number of people who would consider that "real AI", but there will never be a properly agreed-upon definition, because the subject is just too complicated and fuzzy.
But I do think that we'll be able to fake it well enough so that it'll effectively work as a "real" AI would
There's no difference between "fake" AI and "real" AI, as long as they achieve the same results. During our ancestor's evolution, they were only driven by fitness (i.e. how well they could solve real world problems in order to survive), without any attempt to make a distinction between "fake" and "real" intelligence.
He posted a link comparing 1988 data with 2018 data and showed a difference. However, no evidence was supplied to indicate that the 1988 data was actually superior.
The government doesn't want to actually solve the problem of global warming, they just want to be able to use the threat of global warming as an excuse for what they want to do.
Funny how all the governments in the world want the same thing, supported by all their scientists.
So tell me, what game is anyone playing that caps out racks and racks of GPUs 24/7/365? Oh, people only play a game for at most a few hours and it is uncommon for it to completely max out a single card as doing so kills the framerate? Huh, they don't appear to be similar at all, do they?
There are only a few people using racks and racks of GPUs for mining. There are millions of people gaming.
If they can't change the rules to something more sensible using modern standards, what makes you think you won't be required to put a sticker on your e-plate ?
Suppose you want to buy a stock which is traded on a couple of exchanges, with constantly varying prices on each of them. As a regular investor you'd like to buy for the lowest of these prices, but you don't want to put a lot of effort in it. You just want to buy from your normal broker, on your normal exchange.
Right now, we have a bunch of high frequency traders that will constantly buy stock on the exchange where it's cheap and sell it on the exchange where it's more expensive. By doing this, the low price goes up, and the high price goes down, until they are all (almost perfectly) in sync.
If there was a minimum hold time of 30 seconds, these traders would be required to take more risk. To offset the risk, they would have to increase their margin, making the stock more expensive for you.
Why do you think they're willing to spend megabucks to shave off fractions of a microsecond?
Because they make money doing it.
Why do you think Amazon spends megabucks to make their order picking more efficient ? More profit for them, but also allows them to compete better, which benefits the consumer in the end.
Same with arbitrage. Suppose you want to buy a stock in New York currently trading for $15.00, and for one brief second that same stock sells for $14.98 in Frankfurt. Do you want to spend your time with 5 open windows, fingers on the mouse, ready to cancel your order in New York, and quickly replace it with an order in Frankfurt (or any other exchange) ? Most people would agree that their time is better spend on something more productive.
The HF trader will have systems automatically set up to detect the discrepancy. They'll buy the stock in Frankfurt for $14.98 and quickly sell it in New York for $14.99. You benefit because you can now buy it for $14.99. They make $0.01 in profit. You both win. The seller in Frankfurt also wins, because their order is processed quicker.
Slashdot Mirror
If the answer to any of these is "no", the term for you is "future victim"
I just need a bigger weapon to take all of your stuff.
If that means they finally treat climate change and environmental destruction as the serious problems they really are, then I'm all for it.
All of these problems disappear after you eliminate 99.99% of the people, and have a bunch of robots take care of you instead.
Give me a couple minutes and I can script up a bot that dominates players. That's not hard. And it's not even fun.
In just a few minutes you can write a script that can watch a rectangular array of pixels as a projection of a simulated 3D environment, and then automatically operate the proper controls to navigate this without constantly banging into walls ? You must have very impressive skills.
That's exactly what a simulated consciousness would say. You're not fooling us.
It'll be hard to say if something is actually an AI if we don't agree on what "AI" is or what standards to apply in order to gauge its level of sentience.
AI is not a binary thing, it's a multidimensional space. You can have intelligent behavior in very specific fields, or in many different ones, and you can have very basic skills and very refined ones. For instance, a dog has intelligence in a wide range of fields, but you can never teach a dog to drive a car as well as Google's AI system. But if you throw a ball, the dog is better at finding it.
As AI systems get more advanced, there will be a growing number of people who would consider that "real AI", but there will never be a properly agreed-upon definition, because the subject is just too complicated and fuzzy.
But I do think that we'll be able to fake it well enough so that it'll effectively work as a "real" AI would
There's no difference between "fake" AI and "real" AI, as long as they achieve the same results. During our ancestor's evolution, they were only driven by fitness (i.e. how well they could solve real world problems in order to survive), without any attempt to make a distinction between "fake" and "real" intelligence.
Funny how all the dictatorships in the world want to take America's wealth, supported by all their government employed scientists.
Most climate scientists are in the US and Europe. When is the last time you counted dictatorships in those places ?
He posted a link comparing 1988 data with 2018 data and showed a difference. However, no evidence was supplied to indicate that the 1988 data was actually superior.
When you can adjust away the past, then you can dictate the present.
So that's how the trees in the TV recordings extended their growing season ? Because NASA adjusted the thermometers ?
The government doesn't want to actually solve the problem of global warming, they just want to be able to use the threat of global warming as an excuse for what they want to do.
Funny how all the governments in the world want the same thing, supported by all their scientists.
The economic migrants come to your country for a better life. They integrate well into society.
No they don't. Many of them just want free benefits.
most large companies have multi-gigabit wan links
And then set up their internal network so that a handful of people could saturate it ?
The proper word is "migrants", not refugees.
Exactly. A couple thousand views is hardly a significant loss of potential sales.
The issue is that people can't afford to have the food distributed to them.
Cryptocurrency is wasting energy for nothing, there are better ways to go than proof-of-work.
Problem solved then. If there are better ways, they will soon take over.
Video games can't be implemented any other way.
But you don't have to play them.
So tell me, what game is anyone playing that caps out racks and racks of GPUs 24/7/365? Oh, people only play a game for at most a few hours and it is uncommon for it to completely max out a single card as doing so kills the framerate? Huh, they don't appear to be similar at all, do they?
There are only a few people using racks and racks of GPUs for mining. There are millions of people gaming.
Headline doesn't mention Bitcoin. Plenty of alt coins are down much more than BTC, and it's some of those alts that are mined on graphics cards.
You made it sound like BTC vs USD was relevant for graphics card price.
Graphics cards aren't used to mine Bitcoin.
Should we also outlaw video games which are also wasting energy in huge amounts ? Think of the planet, and play a board game instead.
Join the Leela Chess Zero project, and help create the world best chess program.
http://lczero.org/
It just needs to be desalinated
Don't forget transportation. Not all farmland is right next to the coast.
If they can't change the rules to something more sensible using modern standards, what makes you think you won't be required to put a sticker on your e-plate ?
Suppose you want to buy a stock which is traded on a couple of exchanges, with constantly varying prices on each of them. As a regular investor you'd like to buy for the lowest of these prices, but you don't want to put a lot of effort in it. You just want to buy from your normal broker, on your normal exchange.
Right now, we have a bunch of high frequency traders that will constantly buy stock on the exchange where it's cheap and sell it on the exchange where it's more expensive. By doing this, the low price goes up, and the high price goes down, until they are all (almost perfectly) in sync.
If there was a minimum hold time of 30 seconds, these traders would be required to take more risk. To offset the risk, they would have to increase their margin, making the stock more expensive for you.
Why do you think they're willing to spend megabucks to shave off fractions of a microsecond?
Because they make money doing it.
Why do you think Amazon spends megabucks to make their order picking more efficient ? More profit for them, but also allows them to compete better, which benefits the consumer in the end.
Same with arbitrage. Suppose you want to buy a stock in New York currently trading for $15.00, and for one brief second that same stock sells for $14.98 in Frankfurt. Do you want to spend your time with 5 open windows, fingers on the mouse, ready to cancel your order in New York, and quickly replace it with an order in Frankfurt (or any other exchange) ? Most people would agree that their time is better spend on something more productive.
The HF trader will have systems automatically set up to detect the discrepancy. They'll buy the stock in Frankfurt for $14.98 and quickly sell it in New York for $14.99. You benefit because you can now buy it for $14.99. They make $0.01 in profit. You both win. The seller in Frankfurt also wins, because their order is processed quicker.