i love the new trend: a little square with 3 horizontal lines that lets you see an actual menu
it's so cross-platform!
i feel bad for you in a sense, being on a UX team as you describe...however, at least you (probably) get good work. I am a freelance designer and sometimes I feel I would trade the freedom I have to just do a good job and make a functional yet artistic design in order to have more consistency
it's always a trade-off
what if you started a culture of criticizing bad UX you see? like...idk...make a meme and post it around the office that demonstrates your idea...something to get a conversation started but won't seem like you criticizing other team member's work?
no one said gov't regulation was a "cure-all" for anything!
YOU said that...
everyone not an anarchist is in favor of government regulation, whether their rhetoric matches their functional beliefs or not
it's merely a question of **what kind of regulation**...there is no debate about the inherent existence of government regulation...yes libertards/GOP'ers use that language, but when they **vote** their actions don't match their rhetoric...they vote to give government money but no accountability because of corruption
that's it...a true anarchist is the only person who can claim to be truly 'anti-regulation'...and an anarchist isn't worth debating about the function of government, b/c their default is always to abolish government completely...b/c they're a true anarchist
everyone else is just debating how the government should regulate...GOP'ers and "libertarians" are most dishonest on this point
i love the hand-wringing and controversy over the 'Start' menu...it's the most abstract, marketing-based 'feature' and it just blows my mind that they spend, probably Million$ all told to develop these ridiculous over-complicated, over-built pointless features
imagine a traditional computer running a fully-detailed simulation of a human brain. This simulation is an exact replica of a real human brain, and simulates every neuron, every chemical reaction, etc. It even simulates the quantum uncertainty effects at the finest level of detail.
Why would that simulation not evince "free will" (whatever that is)?
right...that is a good question
"no" is the answer, if you use legal definitions of 'free will' (or concepts similar to in practice)
"yes" is the answer if it really, truly is what you say...and we have a public debate about it and have a true democratic/legal decision...which even then would have limitations...it would be in a room on a university campus...what if we let it control a drone? whole different story...
look, we're just going to have to agree to disagree about how actually feasable what you describe really is...it's just so far out there...it really is, from an engineering and psychology perspective, about as likely as humans being able to travel across the whole universe and through time...it's that level...but again...we can agree to disagree
excellent thoughts, overall! very interesting and you have a good take on a lot of things
if what you describe ever really is even on the horizon and we see that it may be done, then, IMHO, we can have a reason to have this debate for real...it's interesting for sure, but idk if humans would even still be 'human' in an evolutionary sense by the time we could do what you describe
We will only know if this thing is accurate when the new book comes out.
right
and he could be reading this thread, right now, taking notes
or, he could be in Thailand getting a massage while a team of writers crank out copy that GRRM just signs-off on
my example is Lost and Buffy the Vampire Slayer...both are examples of absolute hack writing that benefitted from using marketing tactics to create a cult fanbase
Joss Whedon admitted they would just improvise plot/story/dialogue on the spot in later seasons...they litterally just made it up as they went along...it's the ultimate in "hack" writing
Joss Whedon is a professional, i will grant him, but he still was a hack...same with Lost...they replace "fan service" with plot, storytelling, character development, world building, and meaningful action
so i guess this is me admitting that this is too complex a topic to make one general statement about
I like TFA, it is interesting and his methods are applicable to alot of different fields, for example: alot of music producers (particularly of pop music) have *very* sharply defined parameters for beats per minute (BPM) and timing of the 'hook' or chorus/refrain part of the song. I could see reversing this algorithm with a bank of keywords to plug in...basically hack writing that is automated
I do not think this is evidence that "machines can replace human writers"...
I think this is evidence that GoT is formulaic hack writing...writing so predictable a dumb machine with the right algorithm can nail it!
Now, this may start of conversation of "sheeple will consume anything" and that's another conversation...but yeah...I see this as one human using an algorithm to prove another is a hack writer...very interesting
so, maybe i can answer all by falsifying my argument...
the human brain does work *somehow*...IMHO we have really only just scratched the surface...really...and i hope we can agree that the whole singularity notion that because of some unscientific conjecture about processor speed that 'ai' is predictable is nonsense...
that said, i have to admit that theoretically the human mind works and is a system and therefore can (and this is very far-flung...pure conjecture) be constructed
i'm talking about Commander Data...
in my line of thinking, a Commander Data type creation would *not* be human...would be 'ai'...but would be allowed to be given rights similar to humans
it would be a **new third category** and we would confer rights on it the same way we confer rights on ourselves;) by democracy
look, even in this far-flung, completely fictional but theoretically possible scenario, the Commander Data is so complex that in the fictional narrative, the character is depicted as being impossible to re-create...virtually impossible anyway
my point is, to falsify my point you have to reach beyond any possible logic to pure fiction, where it all kind of breaks down
it is like having faster-than-light propulsion...the Albecurre Drive is an absolutely tantalizing theoretical possiblity, and people are giving it a serious look...but even then...best case scenario...humans will never explore **other galaxies**...there are just too many too far apart to explore given the time they take to change in their life cycle
it is not 'irriducable complexity' but until we meet a higher intelligence than ourselves it may be unquantifiable no matter what...our minds like the universe itself...yet totally in every humans' reach! all kinds of idiots make new humans every day!
also, you may want to brush up on your education theory, because it's made leaps and bounds in the last 15 years, incorporating the exact same neuroscience that AI learning tries to use
i got an MA in Education from CU-Boulder in 2007...don't teach now, but i was genuinely impressed with how teaching has advanced as a profession
i also taught snowboarding for 6 seasons...applying the "Facilitated Learning Model" and was developed by...wait for it...education theorists at CU-Boulder
Vygotsky and Csikszentmmihalyi formed the basis for the Facilitated Learning Model (which is more a application of theory for the classroom)...it makes a distinction between memorizing a list and learning
The "learning" happens in what Vygotsky called the "Zone of Proximal Development"
The facilitated learning model is the act of strategically placing instrisically motivated individual autonomous actors into positions where a teacher can model behavior while simultaneously reacting to the differing needs of each individual learner
the point is, human learning has advanced much...based on russian theorists who operated from the idea that humans have free will and that education is facilitating the learning that happens when one human is in the zone of proximal development
i admit, applying these theories to machine programming opens some intersting possibilities, but again, it's an adaptation to a command executed by a machine that **mimics** the behavior we see in humans in a machine for a specific task...in other words, yes, maybe we can use these theories to program better machines, but the act of doing so proves what i'm saying...machines are fundamentally different than humans
You seem to be implying that humans somehow learn differently than programs because the program is "programmed" and we're not. Do you have anything to support that assertion, besides "it's blatantly obvious to anyone with technical experience?" There's fairly good evidence that we've been "programmed" very effectively, and quite beyond what most of us would like to believe, by evolution.
now...what kind of evidence could I present that would satisfy your need?
if i had access, i could take Watson or another well known AI and show you the logic schematics then show you the codebase, then demonstrate how changing the codebase changes how Watson (or w/e) behaves with highly predictable results. I could have the engineers who made Watson walk you through their entire development process, and at each point of decision, explain to you how the decision effects how it works...
or, would you prefer some kind of academic study? i honestly don't know if such a study could even logically exist...my assertion are not provable -or- disprovable in that way
it's about having done the work of making a machine function...that's the experience/knowledge that i feel makes my assertion 'obvious'
now, humans being "programmed"...
i feel i know a bit too much about this...but yes, you can use technology, like chemistry or electricity or other E-M stuff, to alter human behavior
3 shots of whiskey or a 100K Volt cattle prod or some GHB...all can be said to "program" human behavior
the key here is consent...one human can "program" or control another but if it is without consent then it is abuse!
I know lots of people who go, but have no desire to go myself.
that part...
seriously...this was in '97 and we had a campus-wide ethernet with Pentiums in every dorm room...so the LAN battles in warcraft, quake, and starcraft were epic...so there was a reason
TFA is great...it's what *I* would want to see...i have burner friends and they always show me 200 pictures of their little group in the same areas...nothing that shows a general survey of what is happening
I know lots of people who go, but have no desire to go myself.
ha! this reminds me of freshmen year as an Electrical Engineering student (changed my major before classes formally began...yes, that fast)
i was friends with all EE and ME's b/c they put me in a dorm with a bunch of them (close to the Engineering Bldg) and also I was ROTC
every Friday night, "Hey guys, let's go do X"...and often heard the above quoted text in response
TFA is a good write up...I've never been myself, but i've camped in deserts, done psychadelics, been to a huge hippie festival...just not at the same time and for alot less money and hassle...i have friends who are "burners"
if you are at all interested, have another look at TFA, talk to some friends or whatever and if you're still curious and can afford it, go!
someone told me that DARPA types test out their latest mind control E-M gadgetry at Burning Man...
but to be more on-topic, Burning Man might be a good experience for a "geek"...
forget all the nonsense 'gift economy' techno-hippie blah blah...it's a bunch of artists, weird academics, ravers, drug experimenters, *rich people* who want to pretend to be those things at a high per-day cost, and of course creepers looking to scam or take advantage of people
it's camping in the desert with 60,000 people
now, in my observation, if you ask a typical burner "What is Burning Man all about?" you'll see an interesting linguistic phenomenon: recursive language ontology
the answer to the question is (all too often) not a fact or statement...the answer to "What is Burning Man all about?" is in part **the act of explaining the experience in a mystical, mysterious way**
it's the status of having been there, to say that you know what it's about, not the act of doing drugs or camping or looking at desert art
the idea is it's blatantly obvious to anyone with technical experience
however, i'd like to continue if you are, so tell me, what is acceptable "support" for that position?
remember, you quoted one phrase, but it was part of a larger conversation that started about machine vision...which I was told was an example of machines learning a new skill...which I disagreed with
it will probably be helpful for one of us to define "human learning" if we're going to really do this...i'll let you make the call
Once we do know how human learning works, we will be able to program machines to learn the same way.
this whole ontology, it's not science or engineering...it's language tricks to make us humans feel like we've accomplished something when really it's just coding...
'ai' is code...code written by humans
also, there is no specific line where we can say "we've learned everything about how humans learn"...you can't have a black/white dichotomy with an abstract idea like "learning"
"learning" is different to every human and always will be...every human is unique in the universe and has free will...no machine will ever have these characteristics...only the characteristics we linguistically ascribe to machine behavior that is ***entirely*** dependent and predictable by the human coding that instructs it
there is no "singularity"...humans are unique and have free will and civil rights...we are always dynamic and each human learns differently...
also, we understand alot about how humans learn...there are whole fields of inquiry in academia and professions devoted to it...you may have even met one of these people when you attended school...they study people like Vygotsky now...and integrate neuroscience into their learning models
the same neuroscience we programmers use to model computer architecture
humans are different from machines and always will be...there is no correlation between processor speed and 'AI' advancement towards being "like human"...you're reading too much sci-fi
the distinction is between a computer program that can play any game with a priori knowledge of the rules of the game....versus a program that has no programmed prior knowledge of the rules beyond what a score is, even if image recognition is removed. The latter is not simpler either.
again, misquoting me and using linguistics to make your case not engineering
the behavior you describe, a computer doing a task without 'a priori knowledge' is "machine learning"
my point, which you ignore, is that "play any game without 'a priori knowledge' is ***the computer running code*** that some dumb monkey ***programed** according to parameters
it's all coding...it's not "intelligence" and you're purposefully inventing linguistic distinctions to keep arguing
Your reply here doesn't address the criticism at all that very general algorithms that have to both determine the rules and then optimize them is a lot less explored than image recognition.
this is nonsense
you mention "determine rules" which is part of the "machine learning" linguistic contextualization
that's what my post was about...how every behavior that is called "machine learning" including when this particular machine determined the rules of this game, it was not in any way like "learning" that humans do...it is cod....well go back and read my post again it's all there
some dumb monkey had to tell that machine the parameters and conditions by which it contextualizes what is happening in the game
also, this annoys me to no end...not the least because I tried to assiduously avoid this predictable logic error/troll tactic...you said:
and implied that the rest was trivial
see, i anticipated people taking my criticism to the litteral extreme, just as you did...that's why I specifically took the time to type this in my comment:
from a complexity standpoint, think of the AI from a new P2P shooter's level of complexity vs a ghost in PacMan....again, making a robot arm to press buttons and move a joystick surely isn't "easy" but it is *simple* behavior for robotics programming
I did *not* imply that at all. As I explained in the above quoted text, it's simple vs complex, not "easy vs hard"...i know it may seem like a complex distinction at first but if you think about it, it's pretty easy to understand
from the technical side, the real hurdle is vision...the ability to compute the best move is relatively easy
here's why: video games are 'AI'...we program games to 'play' us all the time...which is reacting to continually changing parameters to choose the best option for input to control the game to 'win'
from a complexity standpoint, think of the AI from a new P2P shooter's level of complexity vs a ghost in PacMan
all of 'ai' is abstractions based on arbitrary choices...in this instance they define "artificial intelligence plays video game" to mean having an external visual processor that relays data...then a robot arm presses buttons
again, making a robot arm to press buttons and move a joystick surely isn't "easy" but it is *simple* behavior for robotics programming
so...what is this AI really doing? what is the real engineering and coding work being done? it's the vision...it's programing the "eye" of the computer to take in visual data in the best way, in this case from another screen
"computer vision" is interesting of course...but i'm not sure we need to bother with the whole "ai" aspect of this work...it's alot of language to describe coding
PhD's are the new bachelor's degree....yes....i hate it, but it's true.
Don't "hide" your PhD, highlight the work you did to get it!!!
Herein lies a problem: Most PhD graduates did nothing more than elaborate book reports to get their degree...no new research or project. This is often not the PhD student's fault...they do what their program tells them *or* they realize they need more concrete real world work products but their professors oppose them!
Academia is insane right now...especially PhD programs. It's anarchy.
To the question asker: Don't hide your PhD, but understand that you need to show **what you did to get it**
To anyone contemplating a PhD: Don't even think about it unless the program makes you do a capstone research project
Slashdot Mirror
Hamburger Button.
lol
ha!
i love the new trend: a little square with 3 horizontal lines that lets you see an actual menu
it's so cross-platform!
i feel bad for you in a sense, being on a UX team as you describe...however, at least you (probably) get good work. I am a freelance designer and sometimes I feel I would trade the freedom I have to just do a good job and make a functional yet artistic design in order to have more consistency
it's always a trade-off
what if you started a culture of criticizing bad UX you see? like...idk...make a meme and post it around the office that demonstrates your idea...something to get a conversation started but won't seem like you criticizing other team member's work?
no one said gov't regulation was a "cure-all" for anything!
YOU said that...
everyone not an anarchist is in favor of government regulation, whether their rhetoric matches their functional beliefs or not
it's merely a question of **what kind of regulation**...there is no debate about the inherent existence of government regulation...yes libertards/GOP'ers use that language, but when they **vote** their actions don't match their rhetoric...they vote to give government money but no accountability because of corruption
that's it...a true anarchist is the only person who can claim to be truly 'anti-regulation'...and an anarchist isn't worth debating about the function of government, b/c their default is always to abolish government completely...b/c they're a true anarchist
everyone else is just debating how the government should regulate...GOP'ers and "libertarians" are most dishonest on this point
Is a re-sizable tile like a window?
haha...oh man...
i love the hand-wringing and controversy over the 'Start' menu...it's the most abstract, marketing-based 'feature' and it just blows my mind that they spend, probably Million$ all told to develop these ridiculous over-complicated, over-built pointless features
i meant to type:
"no" is the answer, if you use current legal definitions of 'free will' (or concepts similar to in practice)
imagine a traditional computer running a fully-detailed simulation of a human brain. This simulation is an exact replica of a real human brain, and simulates every neuron, every chemical reaction, etc. It even simulates the quantum uncertainty effects at the finest level of detail.
Why would that simulation not evince "free will" (whatever that is)?
right...that is a good question
"no" is the answer, if you use legal definitions of 'free will' (or concepts similar to in practice)
"yes" is the answer if it really, truly is what you say...and we have a public debate about it and have a true democratic/legal decision...which even then would have limitations...it would be in a room on a university campus...what if we let it control a drone? whole different story...
look, we're just going to have to agree to disagree about how actually feasable what you describe really is...it's just so far out there...it really is, from an engineering and psychology perspective, about as likely as humans being able to travel across the whole universe and through time...it's that level...but again...we can agree to disagree
excellent thoughts, overall! very interesting and you have a good take on a lot of things
if what you describe ever really is even on the horizon and we see that it may be done, then, IMHO, we can have a reason to have this debate for real...it's interesting for sure, but idk if humans would even still be 'human' in an evolutionary sense by the time we could do what you describe
well, i'm not going to disagree...
We will only know if this thing is accurate when the new book comes out.
right
and he could be reading this thread, right now, taking notes
or, he could be in Thailand getting a massage while a team of writers crank out copy that GRRM just signs-off on
my example is Lost and Buffy the Vampire Slayer...both are examples of absolute hack writing that benefitted from using marketing tactics to create a cult fanbase
Joss Whedon admitted they would just improvise plot/story/dialogue on the spot in later seasons...they litterally just made it up as they went along...it's the ultimate in "hack" writing
Joss Whedon is a professional, i will grant him, but he still was a hack...same with Lost...they replace "fan service" with plot, storytelling, character development, world building, and meaningful action
so i guess this is me admitting that this is too complex a topic to make one general statement about
I like TFA, it is interesting and his methods are applicable to alot of different fields, for example: alot of music producers (particularly of pop music) have *very* sharply defined parameters for beats per minute (BPM) and timing of the 'hook' or chorus/refrain part of the song. I could see reversing this algorithm with a bank of keywords to plug in...basically hack writing that is automated
I do not think this is evidence that "machines can replace human writers"...
I think this is evidence that GoT is formulaic hack writing...writing so predictable a dumb machine with the right algorithm can nail it!
Now, this may start of conversation of "sheeple will consume anything" and that's another conversation...but yeah...I see this as one human using an algorithm to prove another is a hack writer...very interesting
ha!
that's quite a few questions
so, maybe i can answer all by falsifying my argument...
the human brain does work *somehow*...IMHO we have really only just scratched the surface...really...and i hope we can agree that the whole singularity notion that because of some unscientific conjecture about processor speed that 'ai' is predictable is nonsense...
that said, i have to admit that theoretically the human mind works and is a system and therefore can (and this is very far-flung...pure conjecture) be constructed
i'm talking about Commander Data...
in my line of thinking, a Commander Data type creation would *not* be human...would be 'ai'...but would be allowed to be given rights similar to humans
it would be a **new third category** and we would confer rights on it the same way we confer rights on ourselves ;) by democracy
look, even in this far-flung, completely fictional but theoretically possible scenario, the Commander Data is so complex that in the fictional narrative, the character is depicted as being impossible to re-create...virtually impossible anyway
my point is, to falsify my point you have to reach beyond any possible logic to pure fiction, where it all kind of breaks down
it is like having faster-than-light propulsion...the Albecurre Drive is an absolutely tantalizing theoretical possiblity, and people are giving it a serious look...but even then...best case scenario...humans will never explore **other galaxies**...there are just too many too far apart to explore given the time they take to change in their life cycle
it is not 'irriducable complexity' but until we meet a higher intelligence than ourselves it may be unquantifiable no matter what...our minds like the universe itself...yet totally in every humans' reach! all kinds of idiots make new humans every day!
also, you may want to brush up on your education theory, because it's made leaps and bounds in the last 15 years, incorporating the exact same neuroscience that AI learning tries to use
i got an MA in Education from CU-Boulder in 2007...don't teach now, but i was genuinely impressed with how teaching has advanced as a profession
i also taught snowboarding for 6 seasons...applying the "Facilitated Learning Model" and was developed by...wait for it...education theorists at CU-Boulder
Vygotsky and Csikszentmmihalyi formed the basis for the Facilitated Learning Model (which is more a application of theory for the classroom)...it makes a distinction between memorizing a list and learning
The "learning" happens in what Vygotsky called the "Zone of Proximal Development"
The facilitated learning model is the act of strategically placing instrisically motivated individual autonomous actors into positions where a teacher can model behavior while simultaneously reacting to the differing needs of each individual learner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z...
the point is, human learning has advanced much...based on russian theorists who operated from the idea that humans have free will and that education is facilitating the learning that happens when one human is in the zone of proximal development
i admit, applying these theories to machine programming opens some intersting possibilities, but again, it's an adaptation to a command executed by a machine that **mimics** the behavior we see in humans in a machine for a specific task...in other words, yes, maybe we can use these theories to program better machines, but the act of doing so proves what i'm saying...machines are fundamentally different than humans
hey thanks for the comments
You seem to be implying that humans somehow learn differently than programs because the program is "programmed" and we're not. Do you have anything to support that assertion, besides "it's blatantly obvious to anyone with technical experience?" There's fairly good evidence that we've been "programmed" very effectively, and quite beyond what most of us would like to believe, by evolution.
now...what kind of evidence could I present that would satisfy your need?
if i had access, i could take Watson or another well known AI and show you the logic schematics then show you the codebase, then demonstrate how changing the codebase changes how Watson (or w/e) behaves with highly predictable results. I could have the engineers who made Watson walk you through their entire development process, and at each point of decision, explain to you how the decision effects how it works...
or, would you prefer some kind of academic study? i honestly don't know if such a study could even logically exist...my assertion are not provable -or- disprovable in that way
it's about having done the work of making a machine function...that's the experience/knowledge that i feel makes my assertion 'obvious'
now, humans being "programmed"...
i feel i know a bit too much about this...but yes, you can use technology, like chemistry or electricity or other E-M stuff, to alter human behavior
3 shots of whiskey or a 100K Volt cattle prod or some GHB...all can be said to "program" human behavior
the key here is consent...one human can "program" or control another but if it is without consent then it is abuse!
absolutely not...you've been reading too much Richard Dawkins...put his books down forever he's a troll on academia
**secular humanism** also holds to this same essentially...
"every human is unique in the universe and has free will...no machine will ever have these characteristics"
not the last part about machines, but the free will aspect of human existence is **NOT TIED TO RELIGION**
here is the UN declaration of human rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
it is not religious in nature at all
that said, thanks for your insightful comments!
I know lots of people who go, but have no desire to go myself.
that part...
seriously...this was in '97 and we had a campus-wide ethernet with Pentiums in every dorm room...so the LAN battles in warcraft, quake, and starcraft were epic...so there was a reason
TFA is great...it's what *I* would want to see...i have burner friends and they always show me 200 pictures of their little group in the same areas...nothing that shows a general survey of what is happening
I know lots of people who go, but have no desire to go myself.
ha! this reminds me of freshmen year as an Electrical Engineering student (changed my major before classes formally began...yes, that fast)
i was friends with all EE and ME's b/c they put me in a dorm with a bunch of them (close to the Engineering Bldg) and also I was ROTC
every Friday night, "Hey guys, let's go do X"...and often heard the above quoted text in response
TFA is a good write up...I've never been myself, but i've camped in deserts, done psychadelics, been to a huge hippie festival...just not at the same time and for alot less money and hassle...i have friends who are "burners"
if you are at all interested, have another look at TFA, talk to some friends or whatever and if you're still curious and can afford it, go!
someone told me that DARPA types test out their latest mind control E-M gadgetry at Burning Man...
but to be more on-topic, Burning Man might be a good experience for a "geek"...
forget all the nonsense 'gift economy' techno-hippie blah blah...it's a bunch of artists, weird academics, ravers, drug experimenters, *rich people* who want to pretend to be those things at a high per-day cost, and of course creepers looking to scam or take advantage of people
it's camping in the desert with 60,000 people
now, in my observation, if you ask a typical burner "What is Burning Man all about?" you'll see an interesting linguistic phenomenon: recursive language ontology
the answer to the question is (all too often) not a fact or statement...the answer to "What is Burning Man all about?" is in part **the act of explaining the experience in a mystical, mysterious way**
it's the status of having been there, to say that you know what it's about, not the act of doing drugs or camping or looking at desert art
behold: http://www.burningman.com/what...
now, that said...if you're curious, GO FOR IT!
just do your thing and enjoy the nonsense for what it is...there is some really cool art and tech on display
the idea is it's blatantly obvious to anyone with technical experience
however, i'd like to continue if you are, so tell me, what is acceptable "support" for that position?
remember, you quoted one phrase, but it was part of a larger conversation that started about machine vision...which I was told was an example of machines learning a new skill...which I disagreed with
it will probably be helpful for one of us to define "human learning" if we're going to really do this...i'll let you make the call
this whole ontology, it's not science or engineering...it's language tricks to make us humans feel like we've accomplished something when really it's just coding...
'ai' is code...code written by humans
also, there is no specific line where we can say "we've learned everything about how humans learn"...you can't have a black/white dichotomy with an abstract idea like "learning"
"learning" is different to every human and always will be...every human is unique in the universe and has free will...no machine will ever have these characteristics...only the characteristics we linguistically ascribe to machine behavior that is ***entirely*** dependent and predictable by the human coding that instructs it
there is no "singularity"...humans are unique and have free will and civil rights...we are always dynamic and each human learns differently...
also, we understand alot about how humans learn...there are whole fields of inquiry in academia and professions devoted to it...you may have even met one of these people when you attended school...they study people like Vygotsky now...and integrate neuroscience into their learning models
the same neuroscience we programmers use to model computer architecture
humans are different from machines and always will be...there is no correlation between processor speed and 'AI' advancement towards being "like human"...you're reading too much sci-fi
again, misquoting me and using linguistics to make your case not engineering
the behavior you describe, a computer doing a task without 'a priori knowledge' is "machine learning"
my point, which you ignore, is that "play any game without 'a priori knowledge' is ***the computer running code*** that some dumb monkey ***programed** according to parameters
it's all coding...it's not "intelligence" and you're purposefully inventing linguistic distinctions to keep arguing
this is nonsense
you mention "determine rules" which is part of the "machine learning" linguistic contextualization
that's what my post was about...how every behavior that is called "machine learning" including when this particular machine determined the rules of this game, it was not in any way like "learning" that humans do...it is cod....well go back and read my post again it's all there
some dumb monkey had to tell that machine the parameters and conditions by which it contextualizes what is happening in the game
also, this annoys me to no end...not the least because I tried to assiduously avoid this predictable logic error/troll tactic...you said:
see, i anticipated people taking my criticism to the litteral extreme, just as you did...that's why I specifically took the time to type this in my comment:
from a complexity standpoint, think of the AI from a new P2P shooter's level of complexity vs a ghost in PacMan....again, making a robot arm to press buttons and move a joystick surely isn't "easy" but it is *simple* behavior for robotics programming
I did *not* imply that at all. As I explained in the above quoted text, it's simple vs complex, not "easy vs hard"...i know it may seem like a complex distinction at first but if you think about it, it's pretty easy to understand
"machine learning" is the same as every other machine behavior: it is the product of coding instructions from humans
i don't have a problem with the language, but it's not the same as "human learning" at all
when people say a machine "learned" what they really mean is that its optimization algorithm did its programmed task effectively
"learning" = optimization over time based on parameters set by humans
hey...i came to the exact opposite conclusion as you...my comment is above you can check it out and tell me what you think
from the technical side, the real hurdle is vision...the ability to compute the best move is relatively easy
here's why: video games are 'AI'...we program games to 'play' us all the time...which is reacting to continually changing parameters to choose the best option for input to control the game to 'win'
from a complexity standpoint, think of the AI from a new P2P shooter's level of complexity vs a ghost in PacMan
all of 'ai' is abstractions based on arbitrary choices...in this instance they define "artificial intelligence plays video game" to mean having an external visual processor that relays data...then a robot arm presses buttons
again, making a robot arm to press buttons and move a joystick surely isn't "easy" but it is *simple* behavior for robotics programming
so...what is this AI really doing? what is the real engineering and coding work being done? it's the vision...it's programing the "eye" of the computer to take in visual data in the best way, in this case from another screen
"computer vision" is interesting of course...but i'm not sure we need to bother with the whole "ai" aspect of this work...it's alot of language to describe coding
PhD's are the new bachelor's degree....yes....i hate it, but it's true.
Don't "hide" your PhD, highlight the work you did to get it!!!
Herein lies a problem: Most PhD graduates did nothing more than elaborate book reports to get their degree...no new research or project. This is often not the PhD student's fault...they do what their program tells them *or* they realize they need more concrete real world work products but their professors oppose them!
Academia is insane right now...especially PhD programs. It's anarchy.
To the question asker: Don't hide your PhD, but understand that you need to show **what you did to get it**
To anyone contemplating a PhD: Don't even think about it unless the program makes you do a capstone research project