In the example given all that is needed here is better pattern recognition which is really what we associate as meaning. If you say "pen" in a sentence referring to a pig, sheep etc. then we naturally tend to assume pen=small field. There is no reason that an AI cannot learn that through better pattern recognition i.e. more training with better algorithms. The AI can certainly know that 'pen' refers to different possible objects, just like we do, but if you talk about animals then our pattern recognition triggers the "small field" meaning and if you are talking about writing then it triggers the "ink-related" meaning.
Of course, it will need really good training and algorithms to figure out sentences like "I wrote about the pigs using my pen." but there is no reason to assume that there is some barrier to AI doing that. The compsci department round the corner has colleagues working on text and speech recognition and I'm sure this type of thing is something they are dealing with and I doubt Google translate is that close to state-of-the-art.
No, photons have no mass. "Relativistic mass" is a non-physical concept that is extremely misleading so much so that even Einstein himself warned against it.
As for anti-particles falling up you really have two choices. If they have a negative mass then we break special relativity because we know that matter+antimatter release energy proportional to their mass but with a negative mass this would be zero. The alternative is that they have a positive mass but fall up because antimatter couples differently to gravity in which case you have now broken general relativity which requires that gravity couple to the 4-momentum of particles and anti-particles alike.
It is also not hard to think of likely causal connections either: areas with high air pollution are either likely to be poorer and/or have more traffic which will mean less playing outside and fewer trips to the grocery store making processed foods with longer shelf lives more appealing than fresh produce. I wish journals would remember that correlation != causation and refuse to publish crap like this without actual evidence of cause.
This experiment will check this but it is overwhelmingly likely to find that anti-matter falls just like matter. If it doesn't then things as fundamental as special relativity and quantum mechanics are in for a very significant rewrite.
Association with certain colours is an example of what gender in the modern sense means.
Sorry but if that is true then the "modern sense" of gender is wrong and you have things backwards. Gender is not defined by fashion choices but those of a certain gender may make certain fashion choices depending on society's current norms. Just because those norms are a social construction does not make gender a social construction. If you transplant a person from one society to another then they are going to maintain their gender and start to conform to the new society's standards for that gender. They are not going to keep wearing and doing what they did before regardless and hence gender is cannot be a social construction because it transcends societies.
No, that's a concrete, undeniable example of how fashion changes. A boy is still a boy whether he is dressed in blue, pink, yellow, green or any other colour and the same is true for a girl. You cannot change your gender simply by changing your clothes any more than wearing a saddle would make you a horse.
Cool, but is this really any better than a video conference? Why would you simply not use an online video instead? Students can watch it multiple times to grasp harder concepts and they can watch it literally anywhere with mobile technology. I even did one for my physics students explaining Pepper's ghost. It might not be as cool as a hologram but I bet it is at least as effective pedagogically and since we had all the equipment already the cost was pretty much zero.
The numbers are very interesting from a scientific point of view
Really? One of the first rules of scientific data analysis is that correlation does not imply causation. So far there is literally nothing to see here scientifically. It only becomes interesting if they actually manage to find that the appendix has a role in causing Parkinsons. Given the tiny effect on the actual rate of the disease it is unlikely to have any sort of major role since you are only ~16% less likely to get it without your appendix. Indeed the very weak correlation suggests that either there are many different causes or it is something very different that may, itself, weakly correlate with having an appendectomy.
That's ok, Windows now comes with complete built-in Linux distributions (under Windows Linux Subsystem) allowing freeloading Windows losers to do work! He should sue!
Our system of justice was specifically designed to move slowly to reduce the chances of mistakes and failures.
Yes, but the problem is that this careful approach has been subverted with those able to afford large legal teams. That in no way makes the current mob-justice in any way acceptable but if the outcome of a trial depends significantly on the size of your bank account that is in no sense justice.
What we need to do is fix the justice system to maintain the care but remove the bias towards wealth before people get so angry with it that it gets torn down and replaced by something a lot less careful.
I disagree. They used to make substantially better equipment and user experiences. Yes, there was a certain BS angle in their marketing but the unibody macs, when they came out, were much superior to anything else at the time. They also had minor, but very useful and well-engineered features - like magsafe connectors - and while their prices were always high they always shipped with cutting-edge CPUs and GPUs so the comparison to a similarly spec'd PC was not so bad (~0-10%).
The problem is that other manufacturers caught on. Dell stopped making horrible plastic laptops and started shipping nice aluminium ones. Then Apple stopped updating their macs letting them fall 6 months to a year behind a cutting-edge PC (5 years for the Mac "pro"!) while, at the same time, raising their prices further making the comparison to similarly spec'd PCs incredibly jarring at 30-50% more expensive!
The final straw was when, instead of well-engineered useful minor features they started adding what at best are useless gimmicks and at worse reduce functionality: touch bar, butterfly keyboard, no magsafe, nothing but USB-C. The result is that their mac hardware is now substantially inferior and no better designed than a PC but yet is much more expensive. MacOS is still a far better OS than Windows but even there Windows has caught up enormously with Windows 10 and the Windows Subsystem for Linux.
No, they are not hard to do and that is the problem. Any idiot can collect data, mine it for a correlation and then publish it. Until journals start requiring evidence of causation and not just simple correlation scientifically useless studies like this will keep on being published and the media will keep on hyping them only to have them be contradicted or significantly altered by a later "result". This type of pseudo-science is why some people are starting to seriously question science which is bad for everyone.
No question Apple makes beautiful equipment and user experiences
They used to. Now. not so much unless carrying a pile of dongles and using a keyboard with no travel and no functions keys is your idea of a "beautiful" user experience.
I am typing this on a MacBook Pro, and I use and iPhone 8. What experience is sub par?
The stack of dongles to plug everything in, the insanely high price, the keyboard's lack of movement, the lack of function keys, the lack of a decent GPU, the less-than-cutting-edge CPU, the lack of a pro desktop whose design is less than 5 years old, the inability for the power cord to magnetically disconnect...and that's just off the top of my head. I used to use Apple and dropped them when they dropped the ball on their macs. The mac mini now only has two cores - that's less than their laptops! - and until the new update comes out they are still trying to peddle a 5 year old Mac Pro at full price!
Their iOS devices have faired better but they have not only dropped the ball with their Mac line they no longer even remember where the ball is or what it looks like.
Absolutely correct but Netflix is not like a normal business. In a normal business you borrow money to build infrastructure that will continue to have a value long after the original investment because it can still make/sell widgets. However, with Netflix the value of the content they create rapidly declines because their subscribers will only watch it once or twice. The result is that Netflix's income is related far more closely to the rate of investment than the total amount invested so, if their rate of investment is unsustainable it is likely to be far more damaging for them than for a typical company where income is more closely related to the total value invested.
Yes, they do need their own content but that content needs to be paid for by existing subscribers. At the moment it is being paid for by borrowing money plus subscribers. The problem is that if their subscriptions stop growing, they will not be able to borrow more and then the rate of content production will drop to what the subscriptions (minus debt repayments) will support. This drop in rate will mean that they are likely to lose existing subscribers further reducing the rate of new content, causing more to leave etc and your positive upward spiral fuelled by debt suddenly becomes a negative downward one.
Amazon sure looked like a ponzi scheme too by your definition.
Amazon's business is very different though. Their investments built a massive structure to support what is essentially an online shop. If they stop making new investments their money stream is not going to rapidly shrink because people will still keep on buying things from their existing infrastructure. Netflix is very different. If they suddenly stop making new content then their subscription base, and hence money stream, will rapidly collapse because those of us who have been subscribers for several years will suddenly have very little reason to continue since we have seen all their existing content that we want to watch.
...and no, it is not strictly a Ponzi scheme since that only really applies to investment schemes. This is why I only said that it is _like_ a Ponzi scheme in that they are currently borrowing at an unsustainable rate supported purely by the promise of increasing subscriptions. This is simply not sustainable: at some point, their subscription growth is going to slow and this will mean the flow of new content will also have to slow possibly greatly. If this triggers a collapse in subscribers then content will slow even more, causing more subscribers to flee and the whole house of cards could come tumbling down. The key will be managing their transition from insanely rapid growth to steady, stable operation and that transition is going to be far harder to get right for Netflix than it was for Amazon.
Their content is great but their business model is beginning to look something like a Ponzi scheme. They have to borrow more and more in order to make more new content to both attract new subscribers and maintain their existing ones. However, at some point, they will no longer be able to increase their subscription base fast enough to cover their ever-increasing debt at which point things are going to get very bad very fast as they will haemorrhage subscribers like crazy.
They really need to find a way to pay for the new content from our subscriptions. I would much rather have a lower rate of quality shows over the next 30 years than a huge glut of new material for a few years followed by nothing because their business model has imploded.
That's fine but Ecuador is not doing anything wrong here. If he wants to meet these people is he free to leave the embassy and meet them outside. Being a house guest does not mean you automatically get to invite whomever you want into the house as well. He should be grateful that Ecuador is sheltering him and frankly they deserve some sort of medal for sheltering this ungrateful git from what probably would be significant violation of his human rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on where you live. Here, there's no point in voting because the Democrat will win, every single time, by more than +30%.
It's thinking like that which gave us Brexit.
In the example given all that is needed here is better pattern recognition which is really what we associate as meaning. If you say "pen" in a sentence referring to a pig, sheep etc. then we naturally tend to assume pen=small field. There is no reason that an AI cannot learn that through better pattern recognition i.e. more training with better algorithms. The AI can certainly know that 'pen' refers to different possible objects, just like we do, but if you talk about animals then our pattern recognition triggers the "small field" meaning and if you are talking about writing then it triggers the "ink-related" meaning.
Of course, it will need really good training and algorithms to figure out sentences like "I wrote about the pigs using my pen." but there is no reason to assume that there is some barrier to AI doing that. The compsci department round the corner has colleagues working on text and speech recognition and I'm sure this type of thing is something they are dealing with and I doubt Google translate is that close to state-of-the-art.
No, photons have no mass. "Relativistic mass" is a non-physical concept that is extremely misleading so much so that even Einstein himself warned against it.
As for anti-particles falling up you really have two choices. If they have a negative mass then we break special relativity because we know that matter+antimatter release energy proportional to their mass but with a negative mass this would be zero. The alternative is that they have a positive mass but fall up because antimatter couples differently to gravity in which case you have now broken general relativity which requires that gravity couple to the 4-momentum of particles and anti-particles alike.
None of these are trivial changes.
It is also not hard to think of likely causal connections either: areas with high air pollution are either likely to be poorer and/or have more traffic which will mean less playing outside and fewer trips to the grocery store making processed foods with longer shelf lives more appealing than fresh produce. I wish journals would remember that correlation != causation and refuse to publish crap like this without actual evidence of cause.
Or maybe it falls up?
This experiment will check this but it is overwhelmingly likely to find that anti-matter falls just like matter. If it doesn't then things as fundamental as special relativity and quantum mechanics are in for a very significant rewrite.
I happen to be pro-matter, you insensitive clod!
So is the entire universe. The real question is: why?
Association with certain colours is an example of what gender in the modern sense means.
Sorry but if that is true then the "modern sense" of gender is wrong and you have things backwards. Gender is not defined by fashion choices but those of a certain gender may make certain fashion choices depending on society's current norms. Just because those norms are a social construction does not make gender a social construction. If you transplant a person from one society to another then they are going to maintain their gender and start to conform to the new society's standards for that gender. They are not going to keep wearing and doing what they did before regardless and hence gender is cannot be a social construction because it transcends societies.
No, that's a concrete, undeniable example of how fashion changes. A boy is still a boy whether he is dressed in blue, pink, yellow, green or any other colour and the same is true for a girl. You cannot change your gender simply by changing your clothes any more than wearing a saddle would make you a horse.
Cool, but is this really any better than a video conference? Why would you simply not use an online video instead? Students can watch it multiple times to grasp harder concepts and they can watch it literally anywhere with mobile technology. I even did one for my physics students explaining Pepper's ghost. It might not be as cool as a hologram but I bet it is at least as effective pedagogically and since we had all the equipment already the cost was pretty much zero.
The numbers are very interesting from a scientific point of view
Really? One of the first rules of scientific data analysis is that correlation does not imply causation. So far there is literally nothing to see here scientifically. It only becomes interesting if they actually manage to find that the appendix has a role in causing Parkinsons. Given the tiny effect on the actual rate of the disease it is unlikely to have any sort of major role since you are only ~16% less likely to get it without your appendix. Indeed the very weak correlation suggests that either there are many different causes or it is something very different that may, itself, weakly correlate with having an appendectomy.
That's ok, Windows now comes with complete built-in Linux distributions (under Windows Linux Subsystem) allowing freeloading Windows losers to do work! He should sue!
Our system of justice was specifically designed to move slowly to reduce the chances of mistakes and failures.
Yes, but the problem is that this careful approach has been subverted with those able to afford large legal teams. That in no way makes the current mob-justice in any way acceptable but if the outcome of a trial depends significantly on the size of your bank account that is in no sense justice.
What we need to do is fix the justice system to maintain the care but remove the bias towards wealth before people get so angry with it that it gets torn down and replaced by something a lot less careful.
I disagree. They used to make substantially better equipment and user experiences. Yes, there was a certain BS angle in their marketing but the unibody macs, when they came out, were much superior to anything else at the time. They also had minor, but very useful and well-engineered features - like magsafe connectors - and while their prices were always high they always shipped with cutting-edge CPUs and GPUs so the comparison to a similarly spec'd PC was not so bad (~0-10%).
The problem is that other manufacturers caught on. Dell stopped making horrible plastic laptops and started shipping nice aluminium ones. Then Apple stopped updating their macs letting them fall 6 months to a year behind a cutting-edge PC (5 years for the Mac "pro"!) while, at the same time, raising their prices further making the comparison to similarly spec'd PCs incredibly jarring at 30-50% more expensive!
The final straw was when, instead of well-engineered useful minor features they started adding what at best are useless gimmicks and at worse reduce functionality: touch bar, butterfly keyboard, no magsafe, nothing but USB-C. The result is that their mac hardware is now substantially inferior and no better designed than a PC but yet is much more expensive. MacOS is still a far better OS than Windows but even there Windows has caught up enormously with Windows 10 and the Windows Subsystem for Linux.
These studies are really hard to do.
No, they are not hard to do and that is the problem. Any idiot can collect data, mine it for a correlation and then publish it. Until journals start requiring evidence of causation and not just simple correlation scientifically useless studies like this will keep on being published and the media will keep on hyping them only to have them be contradicted or significantly altered by a later "result". This type of pseudo-science is why some people are starting to seriously question science which is bad for everyone.
No question Apple makes beautiful equipment and user experiences
They used to. Now. not so much unless carrying a pile of dongles and using a keyboard with no travel and no functions keys is your idea of a "beautiful" user experience.
I am typing this on a MacBook Pro, and I use and iPhone 8. What experience is sub par?
The stack of dongles to plug everything in, the insanely high price, the keyboard's lack of movement, the lack of function keys, the lack of a decent GPU, the less-than-cutting-edge CPU, the lack of a pro desktop whose design is less than 5 years old, the inability for the power cord to magnetically disconnect...and that's just off the top of my head. I used to use Apple and dropped them when they dropped the ball on their macs. The mac mini now only has two cores - that's less than their laptops! - and until the new update comes out they are still trying to peddle a 5 year old Mac Pro at full price!
Their iOS devices have faired better but they have not only dropped the ball with their Mac line they no longer even remember where the ball is or what it looks like.
Boring, difficult tasks are where they bill most of their hours.
Not for much longer if these AIs become available to the public.
The document used for testing was not created by an AI, was it?
No clue but if it was created by a lawyer would you then claim that this would have given lawyers an advantage?
It seems absurd that one of the functions of the court is to divine the intentions of the law's author.
You have to have something like that otherwise how do you resolve the conflict between two competing interpretations of the same text?
Discovery is set a decade before the Original Series
Yes, but unfortunately the characters seem to be drawn from the 1960s given their belief in magic mushrooms.
That's the normal way business works.
Absolutely correct but Netflix is not like a normal business. In a normal business you borrow money to build infrastructure that will continue to have a value long after the original investment because it can still make/sell widgets. However, with Netflix the value of the content they create rapidly declines because their subscribers will only watch it once or twice. The result is that Netflix's income is related far more closely to the rate of investment than the total amount invested so, if their rate of investment is unsustainable it is likely to be far more damaging for them than for a typical company where income is more closely related to the total value invested.
Yes, they do need their own content but that content needs to be paid for by existing subscribers. At the moment it is being paid for by borrowing money plus subscribers. The problem is that if their subscriptions stop growing, they will not be able to borrow more and then the rate of content production will drop to what the subscriptions (minus debt repayments) will support. This drop in rate will mean that they are likely to lose existing subscribers further reducing the rate of new content, causing more to leave etc and your positive upward spiral fuelled by debt suddenly becomes a negative downward one.
Amazon sure looked like a ponzi scheme too by your definition.
Amazon's business is very different though. Their investments built a massive structure to support what is essentially an online shop. If they stop making new investments their money stream is not going to rapidly shrink because people will still keep on buying things from their existing infrastructure. Netflix is very different. If they suddenly stop making new content then their subscription base, and hence money stream, will rapidly collapse because those of us who have been subscribers for several years will suddenly have very little reason to continue since we have seen all their existing content that we want to watch.
...and no, it is not strictly a Ponzi scheme since that only really applies to investment schemes. This is why I only said that it is _like_ a Ponzi scheme in that they are currently borrowing at an unsustainable rate supported purely by the promise of increasing subscriptions. This is simply not sustainable: at some point, their subscription growth is going to slow and this will mean the flow of new content will also have to slow possibly greatly. If this triggers a collapse in subscribers then content will slow even more, causing more subscribers to flee and the whole house of cards could come tumbling down. The key will be managing their transition from insanely rapid growth to steady, stable operation and that transition is going to be far harder to get right for Netflix than it was for Amazon.
Their content is great but their business model is beginning to look something like a Ponzi scheme. They have to borrow more and more in order to make more new content to both attract new subscribers and maintain their existing ones. However, at some point, they will no longer be able to increase their subscription base fast enough to cover their ever-increasing debt at which point things are going to get very bad very fast as they will haemorrhage subscribers like crazy.
They really need to find a way to pay for the new content from our subscriptions. I would much rather have a lower rate of quality shows over the next 30 years than a huge glut of new material for a few years followed by nothing because their business model has imploded.
The point is to stand up for principles.
That's fine but Ecuador is not doing anything wrong here. If he wants to meet these people is he free to leave the embassy and meet them outside. Being a house guest does not mean you automatically get to invite whomever you want into the house as well. He should be grateful that Ecuador is sheltering him and frankly they deserve some sort of medal for sheltering this ungrateful git from what probably would be significant violation of his human rights.