Which is why people never, say, get frost bite, as the super efficient blood supply means their toes stay toasty. Oh, hold on... Or why when people start having vascular problems they definitely don't have issues with blood flow to the... oh hold on.
The point of having no idea about the human body, e.g. how much blood flows through your feet and how much water you can evapourate via your skin:)
I provided you with references. You seem to have ignored what they said. To repeat, 30W loss from evaporation even when not sweating. Only a small fraction of the body's blood flow goes through the feet (10% would be generous). Having your feet in cold water cannot cool blood that hasn't even gone there. So you are look at, at rest, 100W output, 10W maximum through the feet, 30W evaporation even if not sweating It's an extra 10W of cooling, perhaps, but wetting your body would be more effective, which is why we sweat.
In terms of trying it, I already pointed out that I have. It feels nice. It doesn't mean it is effective, it's just an extra few Watts of cooling. The act of sitting down is probably as effective.
With SDCs software, in the traditional sense, is only part of it, as the choice of parameters for the ML and the training is also part of it. It's much more intertwined.
We won't see large scale adoption of SDCs until they can handle edge cases like poorly marked construction sites. That may take 10 years (I'd be surprised if it took less, but it's not impossible) or 20 years. There may be an additional regulatory hurdle after that, but there don't seem to have been many so far, and it might be done in parallel. I expect the legal issues to also be worked out largely in parallel.
I think it is highly likely they will appear in my lifetime. If might be ten years, or it might be twenty, but probably in that sort of time frame. There are plenty of issues to work out, such as general issues, such as dealing with edge cases (e.g. diversions, road works, flocks of sheep, processions, etc.) but also how to ensure that cars obey the rules, and the variety of rules in numerous countries and across countries. I am not sure how they deal with the latter via training sets or other options.
Cars create problems for those who do drive (pollution, accidents cause by others, accidents cause by cars when a driver isn't driving, etc.), as well as benefits (personal mobility, employment, economic activity, logistics)
Almost all things that happen in the world create an issue for someone who didn't ask for it. Not everyone can have a veto over everything they don't like, although I am all for the maximum freedoms given the need for others to exercise their freedoms, everyone to get along, and to have a functioning economy. Where the dividing line is between those is the difference between most parties in Western democracies.
Why shouldn't tax payers pay, as they gain the benefit via SDCs in this instance? Sat navs might also benefit from being able to read signs as an additional form of assistance.
In reality, reading individual warning signs or other directive signs in good light is relatively easy, but what is not simple is making sense of the multiple signs leading up to a junction, possibly with some missing or obscured, or incorrect, including significant amounts of text. That can be a problem for humans too, though, so the answer is fix the signage.
Is that $100k as an employee, or as an owner-operator? If the latter then presumably that comes with all sorts of costs to be paid out of that $100k? How does it stack up as take home after those costs compared to a standard employee in another industry?
Very few people said putting a man on the moon was impossible, just that it was very unlikely by the end of the 1960s. Chess is a bad example, though, as it is very controlled in terms of the allowable moves and does not have to be real time, unlike SDCs. But I think SDCs are coming, although the first researchers I met working on it were at a conference I was at in 1995, so it's taking a while.
Just because a car is self-driving doesn't mean it necessarily turns up empty to pick someone up. There are still vectors for attack of the vulnerable, unfortunately.
Great, then you should understand that these neural networks are not Turing complete.
Indeed, and I very nearly made that point in my previous post. I also noted that I wasn't talking about a single artificial neural network, but an assembly of them. That research has not yet does not mean that GI could not be an emergent property of an assembly of them. It may later be show that it is not possible, but the jury is pretty solidly out on them at present. The current neural networks do some limited functions extremely well, but there is a lot of work to do to emulate the complexity of a brain, which is our current model for intelligence, given the lack of a watertight definition on intelligence.
However, there's a worry that there is a god of the gaps argument emerging, as various tasks that were believed to require GI have been shown to be achievable without this. This doesn't mean that such tasks can't be achieved by using a more general intelligence, as obviously they can, but at one point it was assumed that they required it. Thus I would not be tempted to make absolutist statements about whether GI could or could not emerge from collections of pattern matchers, as if might be a poor bet.
Most of the people I know on low carbs live a very healthy lifestyle already and generally always have. The rest don't have the inclination to go to the effort of doing so. It's the old joke: you will live an extra year, but it is better than that, as it will feel like you've lived ten years longer.
If it wasn't for motorcycles then work on synthetic organs would need to be much more advanced.
I don't have an issue with motorcycles, as long as they have more than two wheels for stability, and maybe some sort of outer covering for poor weather, and a reasonable amount of luggage space. Maybe space for some friends to come along too. Air con would be great for hot days, or heating in winter.
The body basically knows what it needs - that is why some foods taste great!
Carbs taste great, on the whole. So you should eat as much of those as you want, right. Type 2 diabetes cannot possibly be the result as the 'body basically knows what it needs'
Assuming all sweat instantly vaporised, a typical adult could shed energy at a rate of 1kW through sweat, based on the energy required to do the phase transition and amount of sweat, but that's not realistic as not all of it evaporated. I calculated it independently, but also see http://c21.phas.ubc.ca/article..., but is likely to be around 100W as an order of magnitude, for actual evaporative loss, as 30W is about the base level even when not sweating. The metabolic output of a human is about 100W, but somewhat less if you are sitting down, which you need to do if you have your feet in water. Feet don't have great blood flow, and are only a small proportion of the body, so at rest you are only going to be losing maybe 10W through your feet in cold water, based on the blood flow through the feet. It's an order of magnitude less than from actually sweating, and a fraction of just overall evaporative loss when not even sweating. Wetting your body with extra water is effectively sweating from an energy balance point of view. The major effect of putting your feet in cold water is from how it feels, and the fact that you are definitely not exercising when doing it, so your heat generation has fallen.
The final irony, though, is that putting your feet in cold water is being suggested by some as a way to lose weight when you are not exercising, as it increases the metabolic rate (and heat output) over just sitting there with warm feet. I have no idea if it is actually effective.
So what was your point about my understanding of physics again?
It's definitely not am emergent property of building a lot of them, and we do know because it is provable.
I think you need to read what I wrote: "wired appropriately", which refers to the potential interfaces between them and the elements which are not pattern matchers. Also note the word of the word may, but to be fair, I should have emphasised the 'glue' elements again in that sentence, so I was a bit sloppy and my words don't fully reflect what I was trying to say, so I can understand some confusion.
I encourage you to read a book about AI and not read stupid articles. You are right that the brain has a lot of pattern matchers.
I've read several, and about the workings of the brain, as I was, for many years an AI researcher, and also worked with neuroscientists. One of my good friends is an AI researcher with a PhD in neuroscience. Maybe I will bounce a few ideas off him.
ATMs don't tend to have people logging onto them directly, so the compromise will typically come from inside the bank (all bets off), except for some really specialist hacks that come to light now-and-then. IoT, well, still no direct user access, but there security can be cut down as they are low power and it is assumed that lack of direct user access can save them. The risk from IoT seems to be more what ongoing hacks can be launched from them, in terms of gross financial damage, unless you have IoT door locks. Granted, it might turn your air con on full blast or something. A lot communicate over http, so whilst they don't have browsers, http vulnerabilities are still a concern. I'd be more concerned about cars.
Exactly, lol, sorry I think you missed my meaning, I am arguing that installed programs are a security issue of a greater magnitude than the security risks posed by just visiting a website.
On a home computer, unless the installed program compromises the web browser it may well be less of a threat as these days fewer people store important financial data or passwords on their computer. And whilst a key logger might be installed, it is much easier to harvest login details or CC numbers by using the web browser and its ability to detect the fields being used, and the URLs on which this is occurring, than using a key logger.
the idea that a sandboxed in the browser website is a potential risk, and a compiled binary program installed with full access to the CPU/RAM/HDD and OS is somehow less of a risk or a equal risk is utter shite.
It may be a lesser risk to the operating system, but most people care about the effects of a compromise, wherever it happens, not the technical details of the compromise. A system-wide compromise has a greater potential effect, but poor web browser and web security leading to your credit card details being stolen has a sufficiently bad effect on the domestic user it is a significant threat. And the threat comes in two main broad categories - nefarious plugins, and nefarious websites (which have multiple subcategories). It doesn't matter if the HDD has a trojan placed on it or not if your credit card details have already flown the nest - persistence isn't required in a technical sense as the damage (effect) is already sufficiently persistent for a user based on an essentially ephemeral event.
Where persistent attacks or OS compromises are a concern include those that ultimately attack personal data, or where it affects control equipment for hospitals, power generation, etc.
I think the point is related to the level of code review done. I suspect that it might easily be 200 or so in terms of those that might filter contributions before they are adopted, but the number of people who look at, and pass comment, on the code will be much greater than 200, but at least a couple of orders of magnitude, I would imagine.
A lot of the brain has many pattern matchers, so it is likely to be a prerequisite for GI, or may simply be an emergent property of a sufficient number of them, wired appropriately. We don't yet know, as actually building something with the complexity of the brain with feasible power budget is still difficult, and within a reasonable energy also difficult, and would result in slow thought. In a decade it may change and be at least possible. Another decade and GI may be demonstrated.
Slashdot Mirror
They have, that is the point.
Which is why people never, say, get frost bite, as the super efficient blood supply means their toes stay toasty. Oh, hold on... Or why when people start having vascular problems they definitely don't have issues with blood flow to the... oh hold on.
The point of having no idea about the human body, e.g. how much blood flows through your feet and how much water you can evapourate via your skin :)
I provided you with references. You seem to have ignored what they said. To repeat, 30W loss from evaporation even when not sweating. Only a small fraction of the body's blood flow goes through the feet (10% would be generous). Having your feet in cold water cannot cool blood that hasn't even gone there. So you are look at, at rest, 100W output, 10W maximum through the feet, 30W evaporation even if not sweating It's an extra 10W of cooling, perhaps, but wetting your body would be more effective, which is why we sweat.
In terms of trying it, I already pointed out that I have. It feels nice. It doesn't mean it is effective, it's just an extra few Watts of cooling. The act of sitting down is probably as effective.
With SDCs software, in the traditional sense, is only part of it, as the choice of parameters for the ML and the training is also part of it. It's much more intertwined.
We won't see large scale adoption of SDCs until they can handle edge cases like poorly marked construction sites. That may take 10 years (I'd be surprised if it took less, but it's not impossible) or 20 years. There may be an additional regulatory hurdle after that, but there don't seem to have been many so far, and it might be done in parallel. I expect the legal issues to also be worked out largely in parallel.
I think it is highly likely they will appear in my lifetime. If might be ten years, or it might be twenty, but probably in that sort of time frame. There are plenty of issues to work out, such as general issues, such as dealing with edge cases (e.g. diversions, road works, flocks of sheep, processions, etc.) but also how to ensure that cars obey the rules, and the variety of rules in numerous countries and across countries. I am not sure how they deal with the latter via training sets or other options.
Cars create problems for those who do drive (pollution, accidents cause by others, accidents cause by cars when a driver isn't driving, etc.), as well as benefits (personal mobility, employment, economic activity, logistics)
Almost all things that happen in the world create an issue for someone who didn't ask for it. Not everyone can have a veto over everything they don't like, although I am all for the maximum freedoms given the need for others to exercise their freedoms, everyone to get along, and to have a functioning economy. Where the dividing line is between those is the difference between most parties in Western democracies.
Isn't a loose house only legal in Nevada?
Why shouldn't tax payers pay, as they gain the benefit via SDCs in this instance? Sat navs might also benefit from being able to read signs as an additional form of assistance. In reality, reading individual warning signs or other directive signs in good light is relatively easy, but what is not simple is making sense of the multiple signs leading up to a junction, possibly with some missing or obscured, or incorrect, including significant amounts of text. That can be a problem for humans too, though, so the answer is fix the signage.
Is that $100k as an employee, or as an owner-operator? If the latter then presumably that comes with all sorts of costs to be paid out of that $100k? How does it stack up as take home after those costs compared to a standard employee in another industry?
Citation needed - and no, the bible doesn't count.
Mathematical proofs that some things are impossible, and the laws of thermodynamics.
Very few people said putting a man on the moon was impossible, just that it was very unlikely by the end of the 1960s. Chess is a bad example, though, as it is very controlled in terms of the allowable moves and does not have to be real time, unlike SDCs. But I think SDCs are coming, although the first researchers I met working on it were at a conference I was at in 1995, so it's taking a while.
Just because a car is self-driving doesn't mean it necessarily turns up empty to pick someone up. There are still vectors for attack of the vulnerable, unfortunately.
Great, then you should understand that these neural networks are not Turing complete.
Indeed, and I very nearly made that point in my previous post. I also noted that I wasn't talking about a single artificial neural network, but an assembly of them. That research has not yet does not mean that GI could not be an emergent property of an assembly of them. It may later be show that it is not possible, but the jury is pretty solidly out on them at present. The current neural networks do some limited functions extremely well, but there is a lot of work to do to emulate the complexity of a brain, which is our current model for intelligence, given the lack of a watertight definition on intelligence.
However, there's a worry that there is a god of the gaps argument emerging, as various tasks that were believed to require GI have been shown to be achievable without this. This doesn't mean that such tasks can't be achieved by using a more general intelligence, as obviously they can, but at one point it was assumed that they required it. Thus I would not be tempted to make absolutist statements about whether GI could or could not emerge from collections of pattern matchers, as if might be a poor bet.
Most of the people I know on low carbs live a very healthy lifestyle already and generally always have. The rest don't have the inclination to go to the effort of doing so. It's the old joke: you will live an extra year, but it is better than that, as it will feel like you've lived ten years longer.
If it wasn't for motorcycles then work on synthetic organs would need to be much more advanced.
I don't have an issue with motorcycles, as long as they have more than two wheels for stability, and maybe some sort of outer covering for poor weather, and a reasonable amount of luggage space. Maybe space for some friends to come along too. Air con would be great for hot days, or heating in winter.
The body basically knows what it needs - that is why some foods taste great!
Carbs taste great, on the whole. So you should eat as much of those as you want, right. Type 2 diabetes cannot possibly be the result as the 'body basically knows what it needs'
Assuming all sweat instantly vaporised, a typical adult could shed energy at a rate of 1kW through sweat, based on the energy required to do the phase transition and amount of sweat, but that's not realistic as not all of it evaporated. I calculated it independently, but also see http://c21.phas.ubc.ca/article..., but is likely to be around 100W as an order of magnitude, for actual evaporative loss, as 30W is about the base level even when not sweating. The metabolic output of a human is about 100W, but somewhat less if you are sitting down, which you need to do if you have your feet in water. Feet don't have great blood flow, and are only a small proportion of the body, so at rest you are only going to be losing maybe 10W through your feet in cold water, based on the blood flow through the feet. It's an order of magnitude less than from actually sweating, and a fraction of just overall evaporative loss when not even sweating. Wetting your body with extra water is effectively sweating from an energy balance point of view. The major effect of putting your feet in cold water is from how it feels, and the fact that you are definitely not exercising when doing it, so your heat generation has fallen.
The final irony, though, is that putting your feet in cold water is being suggested by some as a way to lose weight when you are not exercising, as it increases the metabolic rate (and heat output) over just sitting there with warm feet. I have no idea if it is actually effective.
So what was your point about my understanding of physics again?
It's definitely not am emergent property of building a lot of them, and we do know because it is provable.
I think you need to read what I wrote: "wired appropriately", which refers to the potential interfaces between them and the elements which are not pattern matchers. Also note the word of the word may, but to be fair, I should have emphasised the 'glue' elements again in that sentence, so I was a bit sloppy and my words don't fully reflect what I was trying to say, so I can understand some confusion.
I encourage you to read a book about AI and not read stupid articles. You are right that the brain has a lot of pattern matchers.
I've read several, and about the workings of the brain, as I was, for many years an AI researcher, and also worked with neuroscientists. One of my good friends is an AI researcher with a PhD in neuroscience. Maybe I will bounce a few ideas off him.
ATMs don't tend to have people logging onto them directly, so the compromise will typically come from inside the bank (all bets off), except for some really specialist hacks that come to light now-and-then. IoT, well, still no direct user access, but there security can be cut down as they are low power and it is assumed that lack of direct user access can save them. The risk from IoT seems to be more what ongoing hacks can be launched from them, in terms of gross financial damage, unless you have IoT door locks. Granted, it might turn your air con on full blast or something. A lot communicate over http, so whilst they don't have browsers, http vulnerabilities are still a concern. I'd be more concerned about cars.
Exactly, lol, sorry I think you missed my meaning, I am arguing that installed programs are a security issue of a greater magnitude than the security risks posed by just visiting a website.
On a home computer, unless the installed program compromises the web browser it may well be less of a threat as these days fewer people store important financial data or passwords on their computer. And whilst a key logger might be installed, it is much easier to harvest login details or CC numbers by using the web browser and its ability to detect the fields being used, and the URLs on which this is occurring, than using a key logger.
the idea that a sandboxed in the browser website is a potential risk, and a compiled binary program installed with full access to the CPU/RAM/HDD and OS is somehow less of a risk or a equal risk is utter shite.
It may be a lesser risk to the operating system, but most people care about the effects of a compromise, wherever it happens, not the technical details of the compromise. A system-wide compromise has a greater potential effect, but poor web browser and web security leading to your credit card details being stolen has a sufficiently bad effect on the domestic user it is a significant threat. And the threat comes in two main broad categories - nefarious plugins, and nefarious websites (which have multiple subcategories). It doesn't matter if the HDD has a trojan placed on it or not if your credit card details have already flown the nest - persistence isn't required in a technical sense as the damage (effect) is already sufficiently persistent for a user based on an essentially ephemeral event.
Where persistent attacks or OS compromises are a concern include those that ultimately attack personal data, or where it affects control equipment for hospitals, power generation, etc.
I think the point is related to the level of code review done. I suspect that it might easily be 200 or so in terms of those that might filter contributions before they are adopted, but the number of people who look at, and pass comment, on the code will be much greater than 200, but at least a couple of orders of magnitude, I would imagine.
I've run it on the desktop. It was very nice.
A lot of the brain has many pattern matchers, so it is likely to be a prerequisite for GI, or may simply be an emergent property of a sufficient number of them, wired appropriately. We don't yet know, as actually building something with the complexity of the brain with feasible power budget is still difficult, and within a reasonable energy also difficult, and would result in slow thought. In a decade it may change and be at least possible. Another decade and GI may be demonstrated.
why must there be a repeat story on /.?
Because there is new information?/p?