So the first is the "Mechanical Turk" sideshow attraction built to look intelligent in a few situations and the second is modelling a known intelligent being at a biological level until the model is improved enough to act intelligent. Both sidestep finding out a definition of intelligence.
The myths that permeate western public understanding and popular depictions of robotics and AI are Frankenstein and Pinocchio. However, the Mechanical Turk and The Old Mill are much more accurate descriptions of what's going on in the workings of any current, apparently intelligent machine.
The "bottom-up" approach you talk about does exist, but as of today it only has the intelligence capabilities of amoeba and earthworms.
It is possible that in the future, huge technological advances make bottom-up a viable approach for artificial intelligence. But it would require a scientific breakthrough from what we know now and, above all, thousands of years of simulated evolution for fine-tuning. At which point, it would likely contain huge built-in bias induced by the training process, that would render it too dependent on human caring, and would lack true self-preservation traits that we get from hour biological heritage.
The traits we identify with intelligence in humans (flexible problem-solving, self-consciousness, autonomy based on self-created goals) are all but absent in current Artificial Intelligence techniques, even the ones based on the Connectionist paradigm. Any emergent behaviors appearing in an AI system are ultimately put there by the system builders' fine-tuning of input parameters.
The approaches that show the most promise are those following the "Augmented Intellect" school of thought (the one that brought us the notebook and the hypertext), where a human is put in the center of the complex data analysis system, as an orchestra director coordinating all the activity.
There, intelligence systems are seen as tools at the service of the human master, extending their capabilities to handle much more complex situations and overcoming their natural limits, allowing us to solve larger problems.
By keeping a human in the loop as the ultimate judge of how the system is behaving, any bias inherent in the techniques used to create the AI. It's a symbiotic approach where both human and AI system complement the shortcomings of the other half.
You do understand that even paperboys (and news stands, etc) can choose what papers they carry, right?
But they shouldn't fail to bring you the newspaper after they have committed to do it, and you always have an option to hire a different paperboy. The latter is not always an option with social networks, because of the network effect.
I very much prefer the term more widely used in French and Spanish, "Informatics".
It more precisely describes the common core of the discipline - information processing, not only for building code, but also for analyzing data, systems and business processes, which are also essential to the craft.
My e-mail provided the specific license agreement that was issued to Epic Records and specifically noted the section of my license agreement that pertained to copyright:
4. Copyright: Mitch Martinez, retains all right, title, and interest in and to the Stock Files not expressly granted by the License Grant above.
Unless the license for using the stock footage contained language allowing them to impersonate the author as the copyright owners, and deny him recognition in the video, this means that they were violating copyright law by doing just that.
How is "pinning" any different from any other type of hyperlink?
It uses a metaphor, so its basic usage is inherently easier to understand.
Non-developers greatly benefit from applying metaphors to computing elements in order to get how they are expected to be handled, and what are the implications of their extended . "A pinboard with clips of web pages" is much more intuitive than "a database of hyperlinks", even if they're technically the same.
So if woman are better at languages then there are differences (surprise) between the sexes. If you open that door, maybe men are better at programming.
Sure, as long as you're aware that those facts allow you to make inferences only about populations, not specific individuals.
Look, I haven't left this site yet because I haven't found a better alternative.
The big tech news are usually found one day earlier at Hacker News, which also gets a threaded comment system.
Political commentary and trolling are not allowed there, and downvotes actually hurt, so usually there are much less comments; but sometimes that's an advantage.
The only reason why I still lurk around here is because open source software and "your rights online" news are typically analyzed more in depth here - there's still enough people from the early days willing to post some insightful comment, and it's possible to find it between the noise thanks to the filters that let you read everything and follow interesting people.
VR is a dead end. How would you create a VR environment that is real? How can you walk, climb? Your inner ear is telling you about the real world. Your eyes are showing you the virtual world. The disconnection between the two is what causes people to get motion sickness. You will never solve that problem.
Maybe the doctor just needs a small script that saves a copy of each mail received into a folder that matches the a keyword in the mail subject, and backup all them to an external hard disk every night.
Not all tasks that merit automating are related to the expert's knowledge domain - most are routine actions that the user needs to make by hand every single time. The kind of repetitive tasks that a developer would create a simple script for, an end user needs to ask the software vendor to include them as a feature.
You're agreeing with me with mentioning incompatible apps - users often need to painfully transfer data between them with Copy-Paste, the universal data exchange standard that glues the whole User space together. If end users knew scripting, they could create their own transfer subroutines that automated most of their repetitive steps that they must perform by hand now.
The kind of coding that a doctor may benefit from is akin to listening to an event in a data stream or setting an alarm, not building a fancy new application from scratch. You should not need to hire a professional clockmaker to wake up in the morning.
> I don't understand the big push to get everyone to code -- not everyone *wants* to code, nor should they have to.
Not everyone wants to write novels, why would they want to learn to write?
There's a sense of freedom in being able to solve your own problems without having to delegate the solution to a professional. There are lots of small, day-to-day tasks that could benefit from being automated, i.e. triggered under conditions set up by the users themselves (anything beyond "set an alarm off" is beyond the reach of average users with current tools).
There are some mobile apps that allow users to set such rules, but they are too difficult to use and little known. The alternative is letting Google build all such automations for you in the form of Google Now, at the cost of:
1) only having those automations that the Google guys put in the system, 2) being unable to alter their behavior if it doesn't fit your needs, and of course 3) revealing your whole life to Google so that they can make it work.
A really easy coding tool plus some coding literacy would allow people to reap all the benefits of Google Now without selling your soul to the company.
If everyone could code, there would be no need for 1000 people to download a program made by someone else, they would buld their own from scratch. Therefore reusability would be not as important as it is now.
No, I think it's just you... you must have a huge problem when using any GUI interface these days--"OK or Cancel? OK to what?? Cancel what??? I have no idea what it's talking about!"
This is modded insightful??? For any non-degenerate case, the buttons OK and Cancel will be placed on a dialog that provides the context of what they are about, so their meaning can still be inferred from the whole interface they are connected with. If you are really interested in the scientific basis of how all this works, search for any literature in the intersections of "semantics" and "human-computer interaction" - there's much more to it than the average developer knows about.
BTW, in most cases the recommended text for buttons in dialogs is to summarize the effect they will have if pressed (like "Save" or "Delete all files" or "Stop the autodestruction sequence"), not merely "OK".
The internet never forgets. Even if they learn to purge/hide their stuff, it's extremely likely that it's referenced or stored somewhere else, especially if the person had some level of notoriety before running for office.
Maybe, but deleting them when they're still not well known (as in this case) would make it much less likely than the content can be found; and if such content is still recovered from archives, it would be obvious to anyone that an extra effort was paid to dig in the dirt to find anything juicy or salacious. (It was obvious in this case to anyone who understand Twitter, but that is still a minority of the general population).
When I've read "web support" I though "Cool! I will finally get good support to run QT apps on a standard browser". But alas, it just means running a Chromium engine embedded in a QT app. Who wants to run web sites in an app nowadays instead of opening them directly in a browser?
Slashdot Mirror
The myths that permeate western public understanding and popular depictions of robotics and AI are Frankenstein and Pinocchio. However, the Mechanical Turk and The Old Mill are much more accurate descriptions of what's going on in the workings of any current, apparently intelligent machine.
The "bottom-up" approach you talk about does exist, but as of today it only has the intelligence capabilities of amoeba and earthworms.
It is possible that in the future, huge technological advances make bottom-up a viable approach for artificial intelligence. But it would require a scientific breakthrough from what we know now and, above all, thousands of years of simulated evolution for fine-tuning. At which point, it would likely contain huge built-in bias induced by the training process, that would render it too dependent on human caring, and would lack true self-preservation traits that we get from hour biological heritage.
The traits we identify with intelligence in humans (flexible problem-solving, self-consciousness, autonomy based on self-created goals) are all but absent in current Artificial Intelligence techniques, even the ones based on the Connectionist paradigm. Any emergent behaviors appearing in an AI system are ultimately put there by the system builders' fine-tuning of input parameters.
The approaches that show the most promise are those following the "Augmented Intellect" school of thought (the one that brought us the notebook and the hypertext), where a human is put in the center of the complex data analysis system, as an orchestra director coordinating all the activity.
There, intelligence systems are seen as tools at the service of the human master, extending their capabilities to handle much more complex situations and overcoming their natural limits, allowing us to solve larger problems.
By keeping a human in the loop as the ultimate judge of how the system is behaving, any bias inherent in the techniques used to create the AI. It's a symbiotic approach where both human and AI system complement the shortcomings of the other half.
But they shouldn't fail to bring you the newspaper after they have committed to do it, and you always have an option to hire a different paperboy. The latter is not always an option with social networks, because of the network effect.
Any field with "science" in it's name isn't one.
I very much prefer the term more widely used in French and Spanish, "Informatics".
It more precisely describes the common core of the discipline - information processing, not only for building code, but also for analyzing data, systems and business processes, which are also essential to the craft.
So you kill processes with avada kedavra and open file streams with alohomora? What else?
I'm pretty sure much less people would have heard about the incident.
The article also explains the following:
Unless the license for using the stock footage contained language allowing them to impersonate the author as the copyright owners, and deny him recognition in the video, this means that they were violating copyright law by doing just that.
It uses a metaphor, so its basic usage is inherently easier to understand.
Non-developers greatly benefit from applying metaphors to computing elements in order to get how they are expected to be handled, and what are the implications of their extended . "A pinboard with clips of web pages" is much more intuitive than "a database of hyperlinks", even if they're technically the same.
Sure, as long as you're aware that those facts allow you to make inferences only about populations, not specific individuals.
What's wrong with Blendle?
Look, I haven't left this site yet because I haven't found a better alternative.
The big tech news are usually found one day earlier at Hacker News, which also gets a threaded comment system.
Political commentary and trolling are not allowed there, and downvotes actually hurt, so usually there are much less comments; but sometimes that's an advantage.
The only reason why I still lurk around here is because open source software and "your rights online" news are typically analyzed more in depth here - there's still enough people from the early days willing to post some insightful comment, and it's possible to find it between the noise thanks to the filters that let you read everything and follow interesting people.
More like "Plain Wall 10 IoT"
Are you absolutely 100% percent sure about that?
But logging into the shell is an OS-level function.
Maybe the doctor just needs a small script that saves a copy of each mail received into a folder that matches the a keyword in the mail subject, and backup all them to an external hard disk every night.
Not all tasks that merit automating are related to the expert's knowledge domain - most are routine actions that the user needs to make by hand every single time. The kind of repetitive tasks that a developer would create a simple script for, an end user needs to ask the software vendor to include them as a feature.
You're agreeing with me with mentioning incompatible apps - users often need to painfully transfer data between them with Copy-Paste, the universal data exchange standard that glues the whole User space together. If end users knew scripting, they could create their own transfer subroutines that automated most of their repetitive steps that they must perform by hand now.
The kind of coding that a doctor may benefit from is akin to listening to an event in a data stream or setting an alarm, not building a fancy new application from scratch. You should not need to hire a professional clockmaker to wake up in the morning.
You said all that as if it was a bad thing.
> I don't understand the big push to get everyone to code -- not everyone *wants* to code, nor should they have to.
Not everyone wants to write novels, why would they want to learn to write?
There's a sense of freedom in being able to solve your own problems without having to delegate the solution to a professional. There are lots of small, day-to-day tasks that could benefit from being automated, i.e. triggered under conditions set up by the users themselves (anything beyond "set an alarm off" is beyond the reach of average users with current tools).
There are some mobile apps that allow users to set such rules, but they are too difficult to use and little known. The alternative is letting Google build all such automations for you in the form of Google Now, at the cost of:
1) only having those automations that the Google guys put in the system,
2) being unable to alter their behavior if it doesn't fit your needs, and of course
3) revealing your whole life to Google so that they can make it work.
A really easy coding tool plus some coding literacy would allow people to reap all the benefits of Google Now without selling your soul to the company.
If everyone could code, there would be no need for 1000 people to download a program made by someone else, they would buld their own from scratch. Therefore reusability would be not as important as it is now.
> Basic understanding doesn't equate to daily use
That's what medieval monks said with respect to everybody being able to read and write.
This is modded insightful??? For any non-degenerate case, the buttons OK and Cancel will be placed on a dialog that provides the context of what they are about, so their meaning can still be inferred from the whole interface they are connected with. If you are really interested in the scientific basis of how all this works, search for any literature in the intersections of "semantics" and "human-computer interaction" - there's much more to it than the average developer knows about.
BTW, in most cases the recommended text for buttons in dialogs is to summarize the effect they will have if pressed (like "Save" or "Delete all files" or "Stop the autodestruction sequence"), not merely "OK".
No one will be able to find the jewels among the ocean of crap.
Documentation is part of the overall UX design.
Maybe, but deleting them when they're still not well known (as in this case) would make it much less likely than the content can be found; and if such content is still recovered from archives, it would be obvious to anyone that an extra effort was paid to dig in the dirt to find anything juicy or salacious. (It was obvious in this case to anyone who understand Twitter, but that is still a minority of the general population).
When I've read "web support" I though "Cool! I will finally get good support to run QT apps on a standard browser". But alas, it just means running a Chromium engine embedded in a QT app. Who wants to run web sites in an app nowadays instead of opening them directly in a browser?