Re:What about my AIBO?
on
AI Going Nowhere?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Read Searle and Block's discussions on the Chinese Room argument -- it's a fascinating and eye opening read"
I've read it and must disagree with the conclusions put forth. IMO, the "intelligence" in the Chinese Room conjecture is not the person executing the rules. The intelligence is the rules AND the person (i.e. both together, not one or the other individually).
Remember, they were out to prove that intelligence and awareness is something special (IMO, that means the same thing as mystical and is no different than believing in souls, ghosts and spirits).
You also wrote: "the most we can hope for are machines that mindlessly ape intelligent behavior". Actually apes are VERY intelligent (relatively speaking). It has been shown that chimps can understand abstract concepts such as models (i.e. this thing represents that thing) and live in culturally rich societies. Hell, even dogs dream.
Intelligence and self-awareness are not on/off states. They exist on a spectrum. How self-aware is an ant? How about a large spider? A shark? A dolphin?
AI will not happen via a breakthrough. It will happen through slow incremental steps. We'll barely notice it and people will be complaining that we don't have "real AI" when some machines are smarter than us. Whatever that means.
MySQL's popularity can be traced back to the popularity of mSQL and MySQL's compatability with it. It's widespread use, however, is like the spread of Microsoft Windows or Visual Basic. Some people *believe* that MySQL is somehow "easier" or "faster", but that's just not the case.
If you are a MySQL user and don't understand why people who know databases don't like it, you simply have to consider MySQL's lack of common SQL DBMS features such as:
Transactions
Subselects
Views
Triggers
Constraints
Foreign Keys
Etc, etc, etc.
You may not understand why such features are important, but that doesn't mean that having them available for use when you do finally learn about them isn't important. A DBMS without such common features is like driving a car without seat belts and air bags. You may get where you want to go, but woe to you if you run into any trouble along the way.
BTW, yes, I know that Mysql supports foreign keys and transactions if you use innondb tables. But the point of using a SQL database is that you shouldn't have to worry about the underlying data representation.
Cheers, Rob
Re:Why do interviewers use "riddles"?
on
Tech-Interview Riddles
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A couple of years ago I was asked: How many gas stations are there in the US?
My answer: I don't know, I'd probably check a search engine.
This is why this is a good interview question. It provides insight into whether the prospective candidate is willing to think about answers to questions with very little available or non-obvious information. I wouldn't hire you because you refuse to THINK.
To "correct" answer is to use information that you know (i.e. population of the US) to come up with a "common sense" answer. For example:
200mil people in the US => about 100 mil cars @ $1 gas/car/day => $100 mil in sales/day => $30 bil sales/yr @ $1mil/station => 30,000 stations. Sanity check... that's 1 station for every 200,000/30 => 7,000 people...perhaps a bit too low. Fudge up to maybe 60,000 stations.
This is probably correct to an order of magnitude. But that doesn't even really matter. The *point* of these questions is to guage whether or not the person can *think* or not.
End of story.
The problem your firm seems to be facing is that you are mixing project management with system design/architecture. What's the difference you ask? Project management is the process of resource allocation, scheduling, budgeting and task tracking. System design/architecture is the process of figuring out what should be built and how it should be structured internally.
Good project managers need a different set of skills than system architects. Project managers think in terms of timelines, tasks and dollars. Architects think in terms of system components, their interactions, user requirements and technology. While there are some people who can do both well, they are quite rare as they require fairly different ways of thinking.
Anyway, I'll bet dollars to donuts that the resistance you face from upper management has more to deal with the fact that you put the system before the company. They want project managers that put the company (or client) first. Big suprise, eh? If you want to lead projects, explain how you (or rather, people like you) can help the company make more money or make the client happier while spending the same amount of money (which, should lead to more money for the company). It's pretty much as simple as that.
Cheers
The vast majority of Chineese people live in rural areas and are utterly uneducated. Only a relative few live in or near cities and have any sort of education or access to the internet in the first place.
This statement is indicative of western ignorance of modern China.
The literacy rate in China is 81.5% [CIA WorldFactbook], which when you consider the difficulty of memorizing 10's of thousands of ideograms is pretty good. There are over 11 mil university students in China right now, which means roughly 15% of people go on to university.
Second, agriculture represents only 15% of the chinese economy (50% industry and 35% services) [CIA WorldFactbook]. While apx. 50% of the population is still rural (far higher than in the US) that's far from "the vast majority".
Third, in 1990, China had 102 cities with populations over 1 million [UN Statistics Division] and probably a lot more today given China's rapid urbanization (which creates a lot of problems). In fact, as many people (apx. 210 mil in 1990) live in China's "large" (1mil+) cities as in the entire United States.
China is, of course, still relatively poor compared to the US and Western Europe. And large regions of western China are still underdeveloped. Given income levels, it is no suprise that that only a small percentage use the Internet (it's not suprising that A/C's, TV's and other modern conveniences are purchased first). But we should try to update outdated views of China as we start the 21st century.
It is in fact very possible to have a dictatorship that is ruling a capitalist state. And it is also possible for a capitalism to be centrally commanded. (Ie, the gov't decides what to produce, but private enterprises are the one's that produce it).
Umm...that's called National Socialism. Otherwise known as fascism. The nazi party was officially the "National Socialist German Workers Party" and the word "nazi" itself is a contraction of the german "Nationalsozialismus".
While no one can dispute that Pinochet was a brutal military dictator, most people forget how bad things were in Chile before Pinochet took power.
Chile was a nation with a crumbling economy, where the central bank was printing money so fast inflation exceeded all imaginable proportions. People were out of work and the economy was basically dying.
Soon after Pinochet took power, his regime instituted market reforms, reduced the size of government and generally improved things. While their reforms were far from perfect, Pinochet's regime transformed Chile from a basket case into one of South America's most vibrant economies. They dramatically raised the standard of living for most Chileans, reduced inflation, etc, etc, etc.
I don't mean to minimize the valor and courage of those who opposed Pinochet or died at the hands of his secret police. However, in the end, for most Chileans, Pinochet's rule was probably a good thing.
Mr. Katz's article seems to pine for the good 'ole days when corporations took care of their employees with a fatherly hand. Those days once existed (sort of) and employees weren't exactly thrilled by it.
Way back when, Henry Ford paid his workers well (relatively speaking), provided housing, schools for their children, loans, etc. He even once went to the wall to pay his workers bonuses instead of giving dividends to shareholders (sadly, the shareholders sued and won in court).
In general, however, people did not like the way Ford ran things. They felt that it was patronizing and condescending. It allowed Ford to excersize excessive control over employees' private lives and he could not resist the temptation. When you ask your employer to play parent, they will.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Today, the deal is "do your work, get paid." It's a fairly simple deal and most people understand it. Hoping for a fat severence equivalent to several months salary is understandable, but the associated costs are so high that even more people would be laid off if a company chose that option.
Layoffs are hard, both for those let go and those who remain, but it is a fact of life and I don't see how being bitter can be of any help. Instead, true professionals will keep on top of the changes in the industry and learn what is necessary to stay competative. This threat of failure is what forces both companys and individuals to constantly improve. And that improvement will, in the long run, lead to a better life for everyone.
In short, life is hard and it will only get harder. Thank god -- because if life were easy, we'd all be living in sod shacks worrying if there's enough food to stay alive during the coming winter.
Slashdot Mirror
I've read it and must disagree with the conclusions put forth. IMO, the "intelligence" in the Chinese Room conjecture is not the person executing the rules. The intelligence is the rules AND the person (i.e. both together, not one or the other individually).
Remember, they were out to prove that intelligence and awareness is something special (IMO, that means the same thing as mystical and is no different than believing in souls, ghosts and spirits).
You also wrote: "the most we can hope for are machines that mindlessly ape intelligent behavior". Actually apes are VERY intelligent (relatively speaking). It has been shown that chimps can understand abstract concepts such as models (i.e. this thing represents that thing) and live in culturally rich societies. Hell, even dogs dream.
Intelligence and self-awareness are not on/off states. They exist on a spectrum. How self-aware is an ant? How about a large spider? A shark? A dolphin?
AI will not happen via a breakthrough. It will happen through slow incremental steps. We'll barely notice it and people will be complaining that we don't have "real AI" when some machines are smarter than us. Whatever that means.
If you are a MySQL user and don't understand why people who know databases don't like it, you simply have to consider MySQL's lack of common SQL DBMS features such as:
- Transactions
- Subselects
- Views
- Triggers
- Constraints
- Foreign Keys
- Etc, etc, etc.
You may not understand why such features are important, but that doesn't mean that having them available for use when you do finally learn about them isn't important. A DBMS without such common features is like driving a car without seat belts and air bags. You may get where you want to go, but woe to you if you run into any trouble along the way.BTW, yes, I know that Mysql supports foreign keys and transactions if you use innondb tables. But the point of using a SQL database is that you shouldn't have to worry about the underlying data representation.
Cheers,
Rob
A couple of years ago I was asked: How many gas stations are there in the US? My answer: I don't know, I'd probably check a search engine. This is why this is a good interview question. It provides insight into whether the prospective candidate is willing to think about answers to questions with very little available or non-obvious information. I wouldn't hire you because you refuse to THINK. To "correct" answer is to use information that you know (i.e. population of the US) to come up with a "common sense" answer. For example: 200mil people in the US => about 100 mil cars @ $1 gas/car/day => $100 mil in sales/day => $30 bil sales/yr @ $1mil/station => 30,000 stations. Sanity check... that's 1 station for every 200,000/30 => 7,000 people...perhaps a bit too low. Fudge up to maybe 60,000 stations. This is probably correct to an order of magnitude. But that doesn't even really matter. The *point* of these questions is to guage whether or not the person can *think* or not. End of story.
Good project managers need a different set of skills than system architects. Project managers think in terms of timelines, tasks and dollars. Architects think in terms of system components, their interactions, user requirements and technology. While there are some people who can do both well, they are quite rare as they require fairly different ways of thinking.
Anyway, I'll bet dollars to donuts that the resistance you face from upper management has more to deal with the fact that you put the system before the company. They want project managers that put the company (or client) first. Big suprise, eh? If you want to lead projects, explain how you (or rather, people like you) can help the company make more money or make the client happier while spending the same amount of money (which, should lead to more money for the company). It's pretty much as simple as that. Cheers
This statement is indicative of western ignorance of modern China.
The literacy rate in China is 81.5% [CIA WorldFactbook], which when you consider the difficulty of memorizing 10's of thousands of ideograms is pretty good. There are over 11 mil university students in China right now, which means roughly 15% of people go on to university.
Second, agriculture represents only 15% of the chinese economy (50% industry and 35% services) [CIA WorldFactbook]. While apx. 50% of the population is still rural (far higher than in the US) that's far from "the vast majority".
Third, in 1990, China had 102 cities with populations over 1 million [UN Statistics Division] and probably a lot more today given China's rapid urbanization (which creates a lot of problems). In fact, as many people (apx. 210 mil in 1990) live in China's "large" (1mil+) cities as in the entire United States.
China is, of course, still relatively poor compared to the US and Western Europe. And large regions of western China are still underdeveloped. Given income levels, it is no suprise that that only a small percentage use the Internet (it's not suprising that A/C's, TV's and other modern conveniences are purchased first). But we should try to update outdated views of China as we start the 21st century.
Umm...that's called National Socialism. Otherwise known as fascism. The nazi party was officially the "National Socialist German Workers Party" and the word "nazi" itself is a contraction of the german "Nationalsozialismus".
Chile was a nation with a crumbling economy, where the central bank was printing money so fast inflation exceeded all imaginable proportions. People were out of work and the economy was basically dying.
Soon after Pinochet took power, his regime instituted market reforms, reduced the size of government and generally improved things. While their reforms were far from perfect, Pinochet's regime transformed Chile from a basket case into one of South America's most vibrant economies. They dramatically raised the standard of living for most Chileans, reduced inflation, etc, etc, etc.
I don't mean to minimize the valor and courage of those who opposed Pinochet or died at the hands of his secret police. However, in the end, for most Chileans, Pinochet's rule was probably a good thing.
Way back when, Henry Ford paid his workers well (relatively speaking), provided housing, schools for their children, loans, etc. He even once went to the wall to pay his workers bonuses instead of giving dividends to shareholders (sadly, the shareholders sued and won in court).
In general, however, people did not like the way Ford ran things. They felt that it was patronizing and condescending. It allowed Ford to excersize excessive control over employees' private lives and he could not resist the temptation. When you ask your employer to play parent, they will.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Today, the deal is "do your work, get paid." It's a fairly simple deal and most people understand it. Hoping for a fat severence equivalent to several months salary is understandable, but the associated costs are so high that even more people would be laid off if a company chose that option.
Layoffs are hard, both for those let go and those who remain, but it is a fact of life and I don't see how being bitter can be of any help. Instead, true professionals will keep on top of the changes in the industry and learn what is necessary to stay competative. This threat of failure is what forces both companys and individuals to constantly improve. And that improvement will, in the long run, lead to a better life for everyone.
In short, life is hard and it will only get harder. Thank god -- because if life were easy, we'd all be living in sod shacks worrying if there's enough food to stay alive during the coming winter.
Cheers,
Rob