I like the suggested nomenclature changes...I think this is an area where any everyday techie or 'nerd' can make the world better for him/herself and everyone *and* make their job easier
make the words we use make sense! It helps **us** signal value to people outside of our in-group...
haha...if I was redesigning computing I'd start with the 'help' tab;)
Because the "deep learning" technologies use artificial neural networks with many more layers than traditionally, making them "deep architectures".
So, you admit 'deep' is a marketing buzzword...thank you. It's *obviously* not a technical term.
It is a discrete, ordinal description of a quantity...that's ALL the word 'deep' in this context means...which means it's a non-technical word...and non-technical words used to make non-existent distinctions in order to gain attention...
David Cameron is a total dishrag...the epitome of the 'empty suit'...maybe a Romney comparison isn't out of line
Cameron can and will **roll over** for any interest...he let Rupert Murdoch have his way with the entire country's phone system, now he's helping cover for him...
We have to take a firm hand with England politically....fuck them 2x I say...they should **know better**...hell 1984 was set in England for fuck's sake.
US policy should be almost antagonistic with England...we should work to have them join the EU in the future
Can you re-type your post? I honestly don't understand your intended message. From this: "(whispering to everyone else: this guy is a nutjob.)" I suspect that I am indeed said 'nutjob'
Which leads to the obvious question, why do you think my assertion about free will is related in any way to the 'religious right'?
I really have no idea how stating my reasoning about the human mind and the concept of free will makes me believe in god or a Republican.
If I said 'sapience' or 'sentience' would that make you feel better?
put that dictionary away. it's doing more harm than good.
Is it b/c I used the word 'transmogrify'?
1. Being pedantic doesn't disprove my point 2. I chose to use a word that sounded like a made up technical word b/c, if you read my post, I think the whole idea of making a 'thinking machine' is...well...silly and quasi-technical...just like the word 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transmogrify
I am looking forward to seeing how/. parses this question...I'm sure the answers will be beneficial.
As the for question itself, it is posed in a very superficial context. They use a lot of marketing buzzwords and quasi-coder jargon.
They also assume that everyone agrees that those two titles are the only two titles the people who write code have. I know of journalists, animators, artists, scientists and accountants who code **regularly** on a myriad of languages.
Coding is what is in question here. I *love* the idea of *finally* deciding on definitions for these terms across the industry. I do *not* think the context of the question is intellectually rigorous enough to provide that answer...good thought question though!
I'm *very* glad you made your comment...it highlights a serious mistake in computing...a mistake that costs **BILLIONS** and effects people directly...
"If this guy gets his way, then we may never have sentient computers."
The idea that Moore's "Law" is somehow a scientific predictor that indicates the ability and future inevitability of humans making 'sentient' computers is...well...it's ridiculous.
1. Computers execute instructions...humans are beyond that, we have *free will*...For humans to make 'sentient' computers the system would by definition cease to be a computer. Something that has *free will* is completely different from something that just **follows instructions**
We can never 'make' a sentient computer...and even if we **could**....
2. Moore's "Law" wouldn't predict when it would happen at all, because it is annecdotal, not quantitative in nature. It shows an **interesting trend** that could **become** a predictive 'law' if someone made a theory of it and tested it.
So there you have it. IMHO, geeks create fictions by transmogrifying anecdotal data into quantitative data...why? Simple, quantitative data has less uncertainty, and therefore is easier for a 'geek-minded' person to sythesize
however, anecdotal evidence must be seen and analyzed for what it is...continuous, non-quantitative, noisy, and information-rich
This could be someone in the Federal Government's bright idea...I'm thinking some guy doing a powerpoint talking about 'utilizing the open-source security community'
They might have even used the word 'crowdsourcing' or 'hacktivist'...
If true, I hope their plan works...the fed's geeks are the bottom third of the talent pool using arcane intelligence systems
While their backscattering my social network facial recognition identity index in 'real time' they might as well just scan my brain waves with real time fMRI and hell maybe throw in a kindly microwave auditory effect reminder if'n it looks like i'm going to get ornery;)
I looked through the full text of the research (http://stids.c4i.gmu.edu/papers/STIDSPapers/STIDS2012_T02_OltramariLebiere_CognitiveGroundedSystem.pdf)
It is bogus. Wouldn't get published. They say the system *predicts behavior* using a systematic behavior ontology. When it describes their theory of the ontology it lists three factors in the system.
"Causal Selectivity" #3 is the one that links **cause and effect** its the part of the equation where your action (reaching in pocket) is either interpreted as something threatening (trigger bomb) or non-threatening (scratch balls discretely in public).
Guess what...all they do is say "Will be addressed in further research"...!!!
The whole basis for their claim...'prediction' is explicitly not part of this research. They do not even address the link of one behavior to another, yet it is the whole premise of their claim!
From page two (emphasis added)
Ontology pattern matching - comparing events on the basis of the similarity between their respective pattern components: e.g., a person’s burying an object and a person’s digging a hole are similar because they both include some basic body movements as well as the act of removing the soil;
Conceptual packaging - eliciting the conceptual structure of actions in a scene through the identication of the roles played by the detected objects and trajectories: e.g. if you watch McCutchen hitting an homerun, the Pittsburgh Pirates’ player number 22 is the ‘agent’, the ball is the patient, the baseball bat is the ‘instrument’, toward the tribune is the ‘direction’, etc.).
Causal selectivity: attentional mechanisms drive the visual system in picking the causal aspects of a scene, i.e. selecting the most distinctive actions and discarding collateral or accidental events (e.g., in the above mentioned homerun scenario, focusing on the movements of the rst baseman is likely to be superuous). In the next section we describe how the Cognitive Engine realizes the rst two functionalites by means of combining the architectural features of ACT-R with ontological knowledge, while **Causal selectivity will be addressed in future work.**
Those "DARPA Grand Challenges" are total frauds...gamed from the start. The 'contest' is for publicity.
I put a few links below, also watch the Discovery Channel videos if you want to see it before you eyes. It really is a propaganda stunt...I felt really sad after I realized what was happening. Read between the lines.
I'm wondering if you think Diaspora ever will do any/all of the things you listed (AGPL, no peer review, etc)?
I want to one day set up a competing system to facebook.com and I contacted (briefly) some Diaspora people from a contact in grad school...they had their funding, signed their agreements, and were basically contract employees for the investors at that point. One could have easily predicted their doom.
However, the concept of a open/user controlled facebook option is obvious to any granny who every logs on to f/b to look at grandkid pics...the structure isn't insanely complicated...
I'm wondering if Diaspora could be part of that in its current iteration....
'Federated' is not a technical term with a concrete definition. Like the term 'the cloud.' It is useful in some contexts but if it is not specified further it will always just confound a discussion.
Yes, Diaspora may be 'federated'...but that doesn't mean it is an 'online social networking alternative to facebook'...Diaspora requires an additional step...the local node...for every node in the network.
That step is enough. It will *never* compete against facebook.com or google+ because the billions out there just **don't want to set up a fucking social networking server**
Everyday users would rather go without than have to use Diaspora.
It must be just as easy to access as facebook...just from a browser or it will **never** compete on scale.
I agree you cannot transmit classical 'information' that way...also agree getting close is worth investigating
I theorize that yes, it is possible to have true 'quantum communication'...I conjecture that what we know of as 'wormholes' may or may not exist, but I do know that, **if** some kind of 'action at a distance' of two quantum entangled systems can communicate in 1/1 instantaneous Bergsonian time...that thing would probably be like what we classically think of as a 'wormhole' between the two quantum systems...
so basically, my theory would predict a 'quantum communication wormhole' which would behave similar to the theorized space/time wormhole;)
No, you're just wrong...and you actually agreed with me when you said, "...will never happen."
See, you really need to read up on 'Action at a Distance' because it is *exactly* the phenomenon you, I, and particle physics thinks will not and cannot happen...
Yet, Einstein himself identified it as predicted in his models....seriously look it up
Interesting...IMHO what we call a 'photon' is essentially a different flavor of Higgs-Boson, not any sort of 'light packet' or somesuch...same for the 'graviton'...they are all just variations on the same thing...a thing that is **not** gravity
Essentially I'm saying maybe this means there are only two forces, strong/weak/electro/mag and gravity...
Excellent question...I have thought much about it, as it used to be my job. Two electrons entangled in a true quantum state would be a perfect communication device...any change to the state of one would instantly change the other in the same way regardless of distance
In that **truly quantum** scenario, we would indeed have quantum signal transmission at a rate of 1/1...faster than the speed of light...instant over any distance...
That's **kind of** a big deal...Einstein called it "Spooky Action at a Distance"...it's definitely theoretically possible...and it definitely would turn particle physics on its head...and it most likely won't happen b/c the energy required to do it is probably equal to all the energy in the universe according to known science. (if you balance out the equations)
That's why I cringe every time I see 'quantum' used in reference to computing...its just marketing terms for a faster processor at this point
Others in this thread have responded to 'gronofer' very well....interesting stuff...
I just have a side note to add: The way some irrationally apply Turing reminds me of the Clovis Dogma that continues to be a bugaboo for people trying to do real science.
Ha, try putting that on an application for funding.
I love it....thanks for your comment...its funny b/c its true.
I used to work in Academia and the fact is, the truth of your joke has caused me much grief over the years. I do not want to set off some sort of grenade in the AI/Cybernetics/Computer Science fields or something like that...I want them to get shit-tons of funding...just for different research!
I love going over the literature on robotics and keeping up in the popular press. I think we should keep making faster, bigger/smaller, better, etc. technology...its the *design* of that technology that needs a huge revolution. We have the tech and economies of scale to have many very 'futuristic' technologies readily available to all in a modern society. It is concepts like planned obsolescence and military/industrial tom-foolery in academic research funding that has screwed up the perception so much that making 'thinking robots' is what gets funded.
"a step towards the ultimate goal of thinking robots"
**sigh** I thought we were past this stuff, even in mainstream media...."Thinking robots" is not a coherent concept or benchmark that can be accomplished.
"thinking robots"....most people mean 'artificial intelligence' when they use these words, but the idea of AI as independent thought is irrational. It is all programmed responses at some level. Even machines that are programed to process new data into existing algorythms for feedback processing are **still** doing that 'learning' according to a human-programed way of processing and integrating data...its all just machines executing complex instructions at the core!
Commander Data...some people contextualize "thinking robots" as a technical level at which a machine is so like beings with Sapience that it is immoral to deny them the rights of a humanoid. This is science fiction. It is helpful, but it is a scenario based in a world with several assumptions. Its not fit to apply to computing directly. We do not know how the human mind ultimately works...unless we have that, then there is nothing to accurately compare a non-human brain to consistently.
Ultimately, if neuroscience and AI converge, meaning we can map every thought in the human brain **AND** have the technical ability to construct an artificial system that enables what we know as 'free will' and 'thought' and 'choice' and especially 'self awareness'....THEN and ONLY THEN have we made something...
And what have we thus made? IMHO, its a **new** third thing. Not human, but at least equal to human and bound within the same social contract all humans are bound to.
I can think of several fundamental flaws with these kinds of studies...primarily the **complete lack of context or consistency**
List of factors that logically should be compared in a means test to 'texting while driving' in relation to cause of accidents:
> Applying make-up while driving > Eating while driving > Using [x device] while driving (some examples: car stereo, ipod, navigation system) > Reaching for something > Mental distraction (some people call these daydreams) > Interpersonal distraction (some people call these passengers)...especially intense conversation of any kind
For the rest of time, any study that doesn't **start** with defining and comparing factors like this to existing data is **absolutely worthless**
Correlation does not equal causation. Especially with fMRI...we just know they see **something** we don't know what it is or if it represents all that the brain does. This work represents the worst in trends in data interpretation.
Having a part of the brain light up on an fMRI does not mean anything more than there are (as others have said on this thread) more *connections* being accessed. This has **nothing** to do with any idea of intelligence as we think of it.
Connections between information are only one part of what we call intelligence or capability.
First, the information has to exist. Second the proper information must be remembered. Third, it must be applied to the current task or decision.
**Let me be clear** even if you can quantify all parts of thought for an event (which we can't at all) the fMRI data would still be only corrolary...it would absolutely not allow for any inference of causation!
Slashdot Mirror
I like the suggested nomenclature changes...I think this is an area where any everyday techie or 'nerd' can make the world better for him/herself and everyone *and* make their job easier
make the words we use make sense! It helps **us** signal value to people outside of our in-group...
haha...if I was redesigning computing I'd start with the 'help' tab ;)
Why do we need the adjective "deep"?
Because the "deep learning" technologies use artificial neural networks with many more layers than traditionally, making them "deep architectures".
So, you admit 'deep' is a marketing buzzword...thank you. It's *obviously* not a technical term.
It is a discrete, ordinal description of a quantity...that's ALL the word 'deep' in this context means...which means it's a non-technical word...and non-technical words used to make non-existent distinctions in order to gain attention...
well that's a marketing word...
It's the latter...one could assiduously identify common research buzzwords
From a neuroscience perspective, it's about transmission of signals continuously in a highly complex network...a **hardware limit**
The idea that there will be a 'fundamental advance' that allows for 'artificial intelligence' is really just hype.
All we can ever make is better things to follow our instructions.
David Cameron is a total dishrag...the epitome of the 'empty suit'...maybe a Romney comparison isn't out of line
Cameron can and will **roll over** for any interest...he let Rupert Murdoch have his way with the entire country's phone system, now he's helping cover for him...
We have to take a firm hand with England politically....fuck them 2x I say...they should **know better**...hell 1984 was set in England for fuck's sake.
US policy should be almost antagonistic with England...we should work to have them join the EU in the future
Can you re-type your post? I honestly don't understand your intended message. From this: "(whispering to everyone else: this guy is a nutjob.)" I suspect that I am indeed said 'nutjob'
Which leads to the obvious question, why do you think my assertion about free will is related in any way to the 'religious right'?
I really have no idea how stating my reasoning about the human mind and the concept of free will makes me believe in god or a Republican.
If I said 'sapience' or 'sentience' would that make you feel better?
put that dictionary away. it's doing more harm than good.
Is it b/c I used the word 'transmogrify'?
1. Being pedantic doesn't disprove my point
2. I chose to use a word that sounded like a made up technical word b/c, if you read my post, I think the whole idea of making a 'thinking machine' is...well...silly and quasi-technical...just like the word
3. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transmogrify
I am looking forward to seeing how /. parses this question...I'm sure the answers will be beneficial.
As the for question itself, it is posed in a very superficial context. They use a lot of marketing buzzwords and quasi-coder jargon.
They also assume that everyone agrees that those two titles are the only two titles the people who write code have. I know of journalists, animators, artists, scientists and accountants who code **regularly** on a myriad of languages.
Coding is what is in question here. I *love* the idea of *finally* deciding on definitions for these terms across the industry. I do *not* think the context of the question is intellectually rigorous enough to provide that answer...good thought question though!
I'm *very* glad you made your comment...it highlights a serious mistake in computing...a mistake that costs **BILLIONS** and effects people directly...
"If this guy gets his way, then we may never have sentient computers."
The idea that Moore's "Law" is somehow a scientific predictor that indicates the ability and future inevitability of humans making 'sentient' computers is...well...it's ridiculous.
1. Computers execute instructions...humans are beyond that, we have *free will*...For humans to make 'sentient' computers the system would by definition cease to be a computer. Something that has *free will* is completely different from something that just **follows instructions**
We can never 'make' a sentient computer...and even if we **could**....
2. Moore's "Law" wouldn't predict when it would happen at all, because it is annecdotal, not quantitative in nature. It shows an **interesting trend** that could **become** a predictive 'law' if someone made a theory of it and tested it.
So there you have it. IMHO, geeks create fictions by transmogrifying anecdotal data into quantitative data...why? Simple, quantitative data has less uncertainty, and therefore is easier for a 'geek-minded' person to sythesize
however, anecdotal evidence must be seen and analyzed for what it is...continuous, non-quantitative, noisy, and information-rich
This could be someone in the Federal Government's bright idea...I'm thinking some guy doing a powerpoint talking about 'utilizing the open-source security community'
They might have even used the word 'crowdsourcing' or 'hacktivist'...
If true, I hope their plan works...the fed's geeks are the bottom third of the talent pool using arcane intelligence systems
I say this in light of this article: "Want a security pro? For starters, get politically incorrect and understand geek culture"
I will add the following:
While their backscattering my social network facial recognition identity index in 'real time' they might as well just scan my brain waves with real time fMRI and hell maybe throw in a kindly microwave auditory effect reminder if'n it looks like i'm going to get ornery ;)
I looked through the full text of the research (http://stids.c4i.gmu.edu/papers/STIDSPapers/STIDS2012_T02_OltramariLebiere_CognitiveGroundedSystem.pdf)
It is bogus. Wouldn't get published. They say the system *predicts behavior* using a systematic behavior ontology. When it describes their theory of the ontology it lists three factors in the system.
"Causal Selectivity" #3 is the one that links **cause and effect** its the part of the equation where your action (reaching in pocket) is either interpreted as something threatening (trigger bomb) or non-threatening (scratch balls discretely in public).
Guess what...all they do is say "Will be addressed in further research"...!!!
The whole basis for their claim...'prediction' is explicitly not part of this research. They do not even address the link of one behavior to another, yet it is the whole premise of their claim!
From page two (emphasis added)
Those "DARPA Grand Challenges" are total frauds...gamed from the start. The 'contest' is for publicity.
I put a few links below, also watch the Discovery Channel videos if you want to see it before you eyes. It really is a propaganda stunt...I felt really sad after I realized what was happening. Read between the lines.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2003/11/61030
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxAv4Pm3z40 (link to promo video...the full vid of the Science Channel show is readily available)
I'm wondering if you think Diaspora ever will do any/all of the things you listed (AGPL, no peer review, etc)?
I want to one day set up a competing system to facebook.com and I contacted (briefly) some Diaspora people from a contact in grad school...they had their funding, signed their agreements, and were basically contract employees for the investors at that point. One could have easily predicted their doom.
However, the concept of a open/user controlled facebook option is obvious to any granny who every logs on to f/b to look at grandkid pics...the structure isn't insanely complicated...
I'm wondering if Diaspora could be part of that in its current iteration....
Everybody; because it's federated.
Just like Windows Zune is 'interoperable'...
'Federated' is not a technical term with a concrete definition. Like the term 'the cloud.' It is useful in some contexts but if it is not specified further it will always just confound a discussion.
Yes, Diaspora may be 'federated'...but that doesn't mean it is an 'online social networking alternative to facebook'...Diaspora requires an additional step...the local node...for every node in the network.
That step is enough. It will *never* compete against facebook.com or google+ because the billions out there just **don't want to set up a fucking social networking server**
Everyday users would rather go without than have to use Diaspora.
It must be just as easy to access as facebook...just from a browser or it will **never** compete on scale.
That said, I appreciate their effort.
thnx anon and others...
I agree you cannot transmit classical 'information' that way...also agree getting close is worth investigating
I theorize that yes, it is possible to have true 'quantum communication'...I conjecture that what we know of as 'wormholes' may or may not exist, but I do know that, **if** some kind of 'action at a distance' of two quantum entangled systems can communicate in 1/1 instantaneous Bergsonian time...that thing would probably be like what we classically think of as a 'wormhole' between the two quantum systems...
so basically, my theory would predict a 'quantum communication wormhole' which would behave similar to the theorized space/time wormhole ;)
No, you're just wrong...and you actually agreed with me when you said, "...will never happen."
See, you really need to read up on 'Action at a Distance' because it is *exactly* the phenomenon you, I, and particle physics thinks will not and cannot happen...
Yet, Einstein himself identified it as predicted in his models....seriously look it up
Interesting...IMHO what we call a 'photon' is essentially a different flavor of Higgs-Boson, not any sort of 'light packet' or somesuch...same for the 'graviton'...they are all just variations on the same thing...a thing that is **not** gravity
Essentially I'm saying maybe this means there are only two forces, strong/weak/electro/mag and gravity...
Excellent question...I have thought much about it, as it used to be my job. Two electrons entangled in a true quantum state would be a perfect communication device...any change to the state of one would instantly change the other in the same way regardless of distance
In that **truly quantum** scenario, we would indeed have quantum signal transmission at a rate of 1/1...faster than the speed of light...instant over any distance...
That's **kind of** a big deal...Einstein called it "Spooky Action at a Distance"...it's definitely theoretically possible...and it definitely would turn particle physics on its head...and it most likely won't happen b/c the energy required to do it is probably equal to all the energy in the universe according to known science. (if you balance out the equations)
That's why I cringe every time I see 'quantum' used in reference to computing...its just marketing terms for a faster processor at this point
Others in this thread have responded to 'gronofer' very well....interesting stuff...
I just have a side note to add: The way some irrationally apply Turing reminds me of the Clovis Dogma that continues to be a bugaboo for people trying to do real science.
Ha, try putting that on an application for funding.
I love it....thanks for your comment...its funny b/c its true.
I used to work in Academia and the fact is, the truth of your joke has caused me much grief over the years. I do not want to set off some sort of grenade in the AI/Cybernetics/Computer Science fields or something like that...I want them to get shit-tons of funding...just for different research!
I love going over the literature on robotics and keeping up in the popular press. I think we should keep making faster, bigger/smaller, better, etc. technology...its the *design* of that technology that needs a huge revolution. We have the tech and economies of scale to have many very 'futuristic' technologies readily available to all in a modern society. It is concepts like planned obsolescence and military/industrial tom-foolery in academic research funding that has screwed up the perception so much that making 'thinking robots' is what gets funded.
I mean...friend...i hear you...
"a step towards the ultimate goal of thinking robots"
**sigh** I thought we were past this stuff, even in mainstream media...."Thinking robots" is not a coherent concept or benchmark that can be accomplished.
"thinking robots"....most people mean 'artificial intelligence' when they use these words, but the idea of AI as independent thought is irrational. It is all programmed responses at some level. Even machines that are programed to process new data into existing algorythms for feedback processing are **still** doing that 'learning' according to a human-programed way of processing and integrating data...its all just machines executing complex instructions at the core!
Commander Data...some people contextualize "thinking robots" as a technical level at which a machine is so like beings with Sapience that it is immoral to deny them the rights of a humanoid. This is science fiction. It is helpful, but it is a scenario based in a world with several assumptions. Its not fit to apply to computing directly. We do not know how the human mind ultimately works...unless we have that, then there is nothing to accurately compare a non-human brain to consistently.
Ultimately, if neuroscience and AI converge, meaning we can map every thought in the human brain **AND** have the technical ability to construct an artificial system that enables what we know as 'free will' and 'thought' and 'choice' and especially 'self awareness'....THEN and ONLY THEN have we made something...
And what have we thus made? IMHO, its a **new** third thing. Not human, but at least equal to human and bound within the same social contract all humans are bound to.
I can think of several fundamental flaws with these kinds of studies...primarily the **complete lack of context or consistency**
List of factors that logically should be compared in a means test to 'texting while driving' in relation to cause of accidents:
> Applying make-up while driving
> Eating while driving
> Using [x device] while driving (some examples: car stereo, ipod, navigation system)
> Reaching for something
> Mental distraction (some people call these daydreams)
> Interpersonal distraction (some people call these passengers)...especially intense conversation of any kind
For the rest of time, any study that doesn't **start** with defining and comparing factors like this to existing data is **absolutely worthless**
Seriously...pseudoscience alert
alot of 7-digit usernames and AC's on this thread....
Correlation does not equal causation. Especially with fMRI...we just know they see **something** we don't know what it is or if it represents all that the brain does. This work represents the worst in trends in data interpretation.
Having a part of the brain light up on an fMRI does not mean anything more than there are (as others have said on this thread) more *connections* being accessed. This has **nothing** to do with any idea of intelligence as we think of it.
Connections between information are only one part of what we call intelligence or capability.
First, the information has to exist. Second the proper information must be remembered. Third, it must be applied to the current task or decision.
**Let me be clear** even if you can quantify all parts of thought for an event (which we can't at all) the fMRI data would still be only corrolary...it would absolutely not allow for any inference of causation!
Thanks for the clarification.