Western narrations about artificial intelligence are largely based upon the myths of either Galatea (think Pinocchio, the construct that becomes human) or Prometheus (Frankenstein, the dangers of bringing god-like power to humans).
However, the most realistic form of AI that we're going to interact with in the near future, works more like the Mechanical Turk: humans trying to fool humans into thinking that the puppet is life-like and has agency of it's own, while they pull the strings in the shadows.
In these times of Siris and Alexas, which largely are glorified chat bots scripted to make them look more intelligent than they are, it would be great if we had more stories approaching the subject from this angle. The Wizard of Oz is one such history, with it's "don't mind the man behind the curtain" is a good, well know one. I'd want to see many more modern examples of this story.
He was not prescient. Like Orwell with 1984, he was largely documenting contemporary trends of his time, just with enough insight to extrapolate their consequences.
The literary device of Science Fiction was used to strip it the narration of the emotional attachment to real world politics, which is how SF usually works.
Of course AI has creativity. In recent years we have seen an explosion of neural networks that generate images and videos from learned examples, and which are able to create novel imagery (original realistic faces, streets populated with objects, fill-in gaps in broken images...), with any novel combination of visual styles. If you ask me, that doesn't look much different from what many artists do, even in modern art.
(The most sophisticated networks are even capable of exploring the creation space and produce works of art with large variability by randomly changing their input parameters.)
What AI utterly lacks is discernment. To the algorithm, all its products have identical value; AI is incapable of separating the wheat from the chaff. Even adversary networks are only capable of discarding examples that do not fit a previous established style, much as conservative spectators do for artists.
The unique ability of the artist is being able to tell that one specific instance is worth more than the others.
This is done by finding a meaning for the specific feature of that image which are not present in the others, i.e. being able to tell a story on how that image relates to the general culture, and convincing the spectators that this meaning is valuable. Art is thus not created by creatively generating unique random objects, but by recognizing and nurturing the value they might possess.
I won't be the one to say that AI will never be capable of such discernment, but current techniques are unable to understand culture and assess how the meaning of images relate to their environment; so that final part is indeed missing from its capabilities.
Why should a game's content be censored for the sake of people that don't even want to play it? To attract people who might want to play the alternative. Duh.
Why should a classic and well established story trope like a "damsel in distress" be off-limits The point is not make it off-limits, it's not making it the *default* storyline. There was a time when about 80% of games with history followed that trope, or the lady warrior in scant armor, or both. No wonder people got tired of the stereotype, and started to ask for more varied characters.
Nobody opposes you keep making games with damsels in distress, and enjoy selling it to the small audience of people who are not bored of it to death.
Can we not just let people make the things they want and the things that people actually want? Apparently when companies do that, they get a huge backlash from people complaining that they choose to put a woman in a prominent role.
Itâ(TM)s also easy to read the genres in the chart and pin the cause solely on gender differences in gaming motivations-e.g., women simply donâ(TM)t like X or Y game mechanic, but there may be a lot more going on. For example, games on the bottom of the chart tend to not have female protagonists, tend to involve playing with strangers online, and tend to have a lot of rapid 3D movement which can lead to motion sickness (which women are more susceptible to). Low female gamer participation in certain genres may be a historical artifact of how motivations and presentation have been bundled together and marketed.
It's pity that the most insightful paragraph was placed last, when readers have already formed their conclusions. Correlation is not causation; that people from different genres play different games does not imply that the difference is caused by their physical gender.
The study doesn't show age; it's possible for example that in younger female gamers, with tastes educated in an environment with more varied games, will show more diverse preferences of genres. Also, within the same genre (i.e. similar themes and mechanics) there are games which are outliers, with much higher female gamers than the genre average. Is it surprising that those games come from companies which put care into creating female-friendly content? It makes economic sense to cater to females, that's why you're seeing a lot more of it from AAA publishers.
Because you've stripped away part of the development culture which makes the games "click" with their audiences.
So, because the number of women playing those genres is lower, it's OK to include features in the games that actively make the games unpleasant for women and minorities, or exclude any feature that they would like? (gameplay features like unmoderated voice chat, and also content decisions like implied rape, damsel in distress, stereotypical gender and race roles, and a total lack of genderqueer characters)?
Because that's the kind of content that's largely being opposed; and companies are making sure that the content appealing to women and minorities in their AAA titles are optional, so that the part of their fans who are misogynist won't need to interact with it. Is it that bad that they try to appeal to several audiences at the same time?
a) All content is "censored" in some way, in the sense that you choose to include whatever fits your values, and reject the rest. Also they say creativity thrives with constraints. b) That presupposes that there won't be enough qualified candidates coming from minorities and/or being women. c) Speak for yourself. The origin of this trend was that there was a very real shortage of commercial video games with diverse characters in prominent roles, with the stereotypical character overwhelmingly being the strong male and the sexy female; and a great many of us craved for an increased presence of varied characters.
Apparently expanding your market reach beyond these stereotypes was seen as "political messaging", and a reactionary counter-movement learned how to troll the social networks to pose as a general trend. Go figure.
Read both articles, they're different technologies. The first one does use plasma only, without a moving particle. They tested it on leather, and they found that femtosecond laser bursts didn't burn it and was safe. Of course I wouldn't try projecting it on eyes, but that's fairly common advice wherever lasers are involved.
There are some laser "hologram" technologies able to draw some simple, small linear figures in the air, but they're nowhere "mobile" sized, and it's possible that they'll never be, because physics.
There will be a need to deliver generic 3D content through the web in VR, and fortunately, nowadays Chrome only works in Google's Daydream platform, while other developers are building their own alternative browser engines (with Firefox the only one aiming for multi-platform).
There's still hope that those competitors will maintain a viable browser in that environment, starting a new browser battle with some chance of fighting back and keeping web compatibility alive.
Just guessing: there are several levels of cache. If the lowest level is larger, it can perform more operations at this "deep" level without hitting a cache miss.
BTW I also thought about pipeline depth, but hey, that's marketing for you - unconstrained by earlier technical terms used in a different context.
it could be readily replaced with some other enjoyable activity
Maybe, but you consider this: there's a point where the activity you practice begins to define who you are. If you pursued different leisure activities, you would practice different skills, and meet different people. I wouldn't be the same nor have the same friends if instead of attending my roleplaying group sessions, I indulged in tennis lessons on weekends. Tell me how frivolous is that.
You can get the field farmed and iron forged with the the same results, whether it's you who do the farming or someone else; that's not true for improving yourself and positioning you in a social group.
Slashdot Mirror
Western narrations about artificial intelligence are largely based upon the myths of either Galatea (think Pinocchio, the construct that becomes human) or Prometheus (Frankenstein, the dangers of bringing god-like power to humans).
However, the most realistic form of AI that we're going to interact with in the near future, works more like the Mechanical Turk: humans trying to fool humans into thinking that the puppet is life-like and has agency of it's own, while they pull the strings in the shadows.
In these times of Siris and Alexas, which largely are glorified chat bots scripted to make them look more intelligent than they are, it would be great if we had more stories approaching the subject from this angle. The Wizard of Oz is one such history, with it's "don't mind the man behind the curtain" is a good, well know one. I'd want to see many more modern examples of this story.
Why do you blame UX people, when javascript libraries are squarely at the hands of developers?
Freedom of speech appears in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which act as the "standard" definition for those countries who have adopted it (the US is not among them, BTW).
Yeah, too bad the word statistically doesn't work like your anecdotes suggests.
Makes you wonder what would happen if people were offered a 20% pay increase for working five days per week but getting 20% more work done.
It would fail miserably. Pay increases have been generally shown to be a terrible work motivator above some bare minimum.
He was not prescient. Like Orwell with 1984, he was largely documenting contemporary trends of his time, just with enough insight to extrapolate their consequences.
The literary device of Science Fiction was used to strip it the narration of the emotional attachment to real world politics, which is how SF usually works.
Nice idea, but what happens to the false positives?
Yeah, the first part I had already figured out :-)
That's what every guy's brain is thinking.
I'm a DICK gay guy DICK, you insensitive DICK clod!
"Object X is able to create a product of type Y automatically" is anthropomorphizing now?
Of course AI has creativity. In recent years we have seen an explosion of neural networks that generate images and videos from learned examples, and which are able to create novel imagery (original realistic faces, streets populated with objects, fill-in gaps in broken images...), with any novel combination of visual styles. If you ask me, that doesn't look much different from what many artists do, even in modern art.
(The most sophisticated networks are even capable of exploring the creation space and produce works of art with large variability by randomly changing their input parameters.)
What AI utterly lacks is discernment. To the algorithm, all its products have identical value; AI is incapable of separating the wheat from the chaff. Even adversary networks are only capable of discarding examples that do not fit a previous established style, much as conservative spectators do for artists.
The unique ability of the artist is being able to tell that one specific instance is worth more than the others.
This is done by finding a meaning for the specific feature of that image which are not present in the others, i.e. being able to tell a story on how that image relates to the general culture, and convincing the spectators that this meaning is valuable. Art is thus not created by creatively generating unique random objects, but by recognizing and nurturing the value they might possess.
I won't be the one to say that AI will never be capable of such discernment, but current techniques are unable to understand culture and assess how the meaning of images relate to their environment; so that final part is indeed missing from its capabilities.
There's a touch of poetry in that.
Why should a game's content be censored for the sake of people that don't even want to play it?
To attract people who might want to play the alternative. Duh.
Why should a classic and well established story trope like a "damsel in distress" be off-limits
The point is not make it off-limits, it's not making it the *default* storyline. There was a time when about 80% of games with history followed that trope, or the lady warrior in scant armor, or both. No wonder people got tired of the stereotype, and started to ask for more varied characters.
Nobody opposes you keep making games with damsels in distress, and enjoy selling it to the small audience of people who are not bored of it to death.
Can we not just let people make the things they want and the things that people actually want?
Apparently when companies do that, they get a huge backlash from people complaining that they choose to put a woman in a prominent role.
Did you read the article in full?
Itâ(TM)s also easy to read the genres in the chart and pin the cause solely on gender differences in gaming motivations-e.g., women simply donâ(TM)t like X or Y game mechanic, but there may be a lot more going on. For example, games on the bottom of the chart tend to not have female protagonists, tend to involve playing with strangers online, and tend to have a lot of rapid 3D movement which can lead to motion sickness (which women are more susceptible to). Low female gamer participation in certain genres may be a historical artifact of how motivations and presentation have been bundled together and marketed.
It's pity that the most insightful paragraph was placed last, when readers have already formed their conclusions. Correlation is not causation; that people from different genres play different games does not imply that the difference is caused by their physical gender.
The study doesn't show age; it's possible for example that in younger female gamers, with tastes educated in an environment with more varied games, will show more diverse preferences of genres. Also, within the same genre (i.e. similar themes and mechanics) there are games which are outliers, with much higher female gamers than the genre average. Is it surprising that those games come from companies which put care into creating female-friendly content? It makes economic sense to cater to females, that's why you're seeing a lot more of it from AAA publishers.
Because you've stripped away part of the development culture which makes the games "click" with their audiences.
So, because the number of women playing those genres is lower, it's OK to include features in the games that actively make the games unpleasant for women and minorities, or exclude any feature that they would like? (gameplay features like unmoderated voice chat, and also content decisions like implied rape, damsel in distress, stereotypical gender and race roles, and a total lack of genderqueer characters)?
Because that's the kind of content that's largely being opposed; and companies are making sure that the content appealing to women and minorities in their AAA titles are optional, so that the part of their fans who are misogynist won't need to interact with it. Is it that bad that they try to appeal to several audiences at the same time?
a) All content is "censored" in some way, in the sense that you choose to include whatever fits your values, and reject the rest. Also they say creativity thrives with constraints.
b) That presupposes that there won't be enough qualified candidates coming from minorities and/or being women.
c) Speak for yourself. The origin of this trend was that there was a very real shortage of commercial video games with diverse characters in prominent roles, with the stereotypical character overwhelmingly being the strong male and the sexy female; and a great many of us craved for an increased presence of varied characters.
Apparently expanding your market reach beyond these stereotypes was seen as "political messaging", and a reactionary counter-movement learned how to troll the social networks to pose as a general trend. Go figure.
Read both articles, they're different technologies. The first one does use plasma only, without a moving particle. They tested it on leather, and they found that femtosecond laser bursts didn't burn it and was safe. Of course I wouldn't try projecting it on eyes, but that's fairly common advice wherever lasers are involved.
Also, these.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...
The "projection on a fan" thing might be the most viable to be embedded in a phone.
There are some laser "hologram" technologies able to draw some simple, small linear figures in the air, but they're nowhere "mobile" sized, and it's possible that they'll never be, because physics.
https://www.popsci.com/secret-...
https://www.sciencenews.org/ar...
True, but that helps with how not to get into trouble, not how to get out of trouble - i.e. it doesn't help someone already with a gmail.com address.
It's actually relatively easy to switch your email away from Google
It's really only the @gmail.com address that is an issue
So, switching email providers if you ignore the single one thing that makes it difficult?
There will be a need to deliver generic 3D content through the web in VR, and fortunately, nowadays Chrome only works in Google's Daydream platform, while other developers are building their own alternative browser engines (with Firefox the only one aiming for multi-platform).
There's still hope that those competitors will maintain a viable browser in that environment, starting a new browser battle with some chance of fighting back and keeping web compatibility alive.
Religion has always been a nerdy topic, as well as mind-altering drugs. Combining them is uber-nerdy.
Just guessing: there are several levels of cache. If the lowest level is larger, it can perform more operations at this "deep" level without hitting a cache miss.
BTW I also thought about pipeline depth, but hey, that's marketing for you - unconstrained by earlier technical terms used in a different context.
it could be readily replaced with some other enjoyable activity
Maybe, but you consider this: there's a point where the activity you practice begins to define who you are. If you pursued different leisure activities, you would practice different skills, and meet different people. I wouldn't be the same nor have the same friends if instead of attending my roleplaying group sessions, I indulged in tennis lessons on weekends. Tell me how frivolous is that.
You can get the field farmed and iron forged with the the same results, whether it's you who do the farming or someone else; that's not true for improving yourself and positioning you in a social group.