My wife and I work a considerable distance apart, and both of us are sticking to our current jobs until retirement. There's no way to have a house close to both.
I've had edits reverted, always for reasons. If you're just adding helpful facts, you probably aren't providing references, and that's what got my first edits reverted. Wikipedia has standards that it needs to maintain, and contributors have to adapt.
Crappy writing, but the header does explain what they are (in different ways, none of them really good) in simple terms. If you need more For general use, there really is no more you need to know about them.
which by definition is intended for the widest possible audience.
Except that that's not in the definition you cited, so it isn't by definition. It's what you want, which is not necessarily what anyone else wants.
Moreover, there are space limits in dead tree encyclopedias. There effectively are none for Wikipedia. There's no reason it can't have simple and complex explanations of things.
If you're complaining that some articles have inadequate simple descriptions, that's very likely. There's only one way they'll acquire good ones.
So, you're complaining about new words for QM concepts, and old words for QM concepts. Make up your mind. The concepts are very unlike what we're used to in our intermediate-scale world (too big to worry about most quantum mechanical effects, too small to worry much about relativistic effects), and so we don't have everyday words that explain QM. Hence, we need to either make up words ("lepton") or reuse old ones ("color").
If you can't understand math and physics with the jargon, you're not going to understand it without.
Actually, what they were saying is that Go is far more combinatorially complex than Chess. For a long time (I'm not up on the latest ones), chess programs would consider all possible moves to a certain depth and pick the one that worked the best. That was simply not possible with Go. Having twenty possible moves isn't the same as having three hundred possible moves (a legal Go move is, with some restrictions, putting a stone at some point in a 19x19 grid). Moreover, chess positions can change dramatically in a few moves, while that is much less true of Go.
I don't happen to know how the Go programs work, but I assume not the same way as Chess programs at least used to work.
There is reason to believe that that which can be done with biochemical machines can be done by silicon machines, since they obey the same laws of physics, and we've shown that digital processing can simulate analog processing. Unless you're claiming that people have something magical or mystical about them, then they're extremely complex machines.
We can make reliable software. Most people don't want to pay enough to get really reliable software, but those who do can get it.
As far as "wisdom" goes, we can't argue about whether computers can have it unless we can agree on what it is. It may be wide knowledge and an ability to make comparisons across different things, and in that case we've had software systems that have some of that.
Historically, we've had entire classes of people who didn't work, took pride in it, and in some cases were legally forbidden to work. These classes were not genetically different from people who did have to work in any significant manner. They lived their lives, not necessarily very well, but they did.
Mostly prehistorically, we have hunter-gatherer cultures that didn't seem to think work was all that important except as a way to get food. If there was enough food, no more work. If they went hungry because of a temporary fluctuation in food supply, they went hungry for a while.
Okay, what exactly is a thought? If you can't tell me, you can't convince me that electronic systems can't have them. If you define it as something people can have and computers can't, you're claiming some mystical way that biological machines are superior to silicon machines, and that's an unsupportable claim.
Does it matter whether computers have something you'd consider a thought? If the computer behaves like it's thinking, who cares?
Heck, I don't know that you have thoughts. I have thoughts, and you're probably biologically similar to me, but I can't tell if you've got thoughts or not. I assume other people have thoughts because they act like they do.
Not in this context. In this context, it's an economic question. How many things we pay people to do now could be done cheaper by machines? It's not necessary here to discuss whether machines think, only what they can do.
You also seem woefully unaware of the things software can do right now. There's software with creativity, that will come up with things not intentionally programmed in. It's currently limited, and it's not intelligent in the sense that I am, but if it can do your job cheaper than you can you won't care about the philosophy.
Yup. You make things miserable for most people, and more people will want to be CEOs of major corporations. The ones that work hard will succeed, of course, since that's the only way the right wing can justify people not making reasonable money. (After all, if it was possible to work hard and not succeed financially, they'd have to admit that they're not necessarily superior to people with less money, only luckier.)
If you look at the history of AI, you'll find that AI has, time and again, built systems that do things that people swore required intelligence. Chess is an obvious example: people used to say that playing a good game of chess would require intelligence. There are others. When good chess computers appeared, people looked at them and said it wasn't intelligence. I'm not saying it was, but what's obvious is that humans are really bad at selecting which tasks require true intelligence. (This works both ways. The original computer vision project was a couple of grad students that Newell and Simon asked to solve computer vision over the summer.)
Anyway, while it may take a long time to get strong AI, it doesn't mean it will take a long time to make machines that do various sorts of things that people think would require strong AI. If you think that a computer can't do your job, there's a reasonably good chance that you're wrong.
We know it's possible to make an intelligent machine out of organic molecules. There's billions out there right now.
We can make electronic neurons. We don't know how to do it now really accurately (artificial neural nets model only some basic behavior), but we're learning. Therefore, we can make an electronic brain. There's got to be better ways to do it, but this will do for a possibility proof.
Last I looked (quite a few years ago) you could get randomness creators based on radioactive decay or thermal noise for several hundred dollars. They were small and plugged into USB ports. According to Wikipedia, they appear to be a lot less expensive now.
Obviously, a CPU isn't likely to come with random number generation, but operating systems do. Linux grabs random bits from operations that aren't completely deterministic, for example.
True randomness produced locally is necessary for cryptography, and extremely useful for Monte Carlo applications. It can be used for various sorts of approximation algorithms.
Bill Gates, on being notified by his parents that IBM was looking for an 8086 OS, bought QDOS from the Seattle Computer Club with an exclusive license and gave IBM a nonexclusive license for QDOS after a quick cleanup job and name change. This meant that, when other computer companies were able to make good clones (basically a BIOS that did the same things as IBM's), they could buy their OS from Microsoft instead of IBM.
I'm not aware that there were any illegalities in here, although it was definitely a case of Gates doing everything he could to enrich Microsoft regardless of the effects on anybody else.
A self-sustaining civilization off Earth isn't going to happen in my lifetime, and almost certainly not in my son's lifetime. It isn't a reasonable response for any short-term threat.
Actually, the lack of respect for education is the problem. It's really helpful for people to be able to recognize that scientists actually do know more than they do about their fields, and are not part of a global conspiracy to oppress the less educated.
The plan is to not allow new cars with emissions starting 2025, which is a bit aggressive.
If people want to keep their gasoline burners longer, they can. Given the EU, I can't see market conditions in the Netherlands dominating the price for a commodity.
Electric cars may cost more than gasoline to make, but they are in general more economical to run. They're less complex, and don't rely on oil pumping and refineries and international relations.
If there aren't enough electric used cars in 2025, people will buy used gasoline and diesel cars. No real problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Make Automata Great Again!
So my mad earwiggling skillz will finally be in demand!
My wife and I work a considerable distance apart, and both of us are sticking to our current jobs until retirement. There's no way to have a house close to both.
I've had edits reverted, always for reasons. If you're just adding helpful facts, you probably aren't providing references, and that's what got my first edits reverted. Wikipedia has standards that it needs to maintain, and contributors have to adapt.
Why multiple articles? Currently, an article has a few opening paragraphs and then a table of contents. I can easily find the level I want.
The problem with multiple articles is that people have to write them.
Crappy writing, but the header does explain what they are (in different ways, none of them really good) in simple terms. If you need more For general use, there really is no more you need to know about them.
Except that that's not in the definition you cited, so it isn't by definition. It's what you want, which is not necessarily what anyone else wants.
Moreover, there are space limits in dead tree encyclopedias. There effectively are none for Wikipedia. There's no reason it can't have simple and complex explanations of things.
If you're complaining that some articles have inadequate simple descriptions, that's very likely. There's only one way they'll acquire good ones.
Then edit the page, putting measurements in SI units in parentheses after measurements in other units. This is Wikipedia.
The Universe is not limited by your imagination or intellectual capacity.
So, you're complaining about new words for QM concepts, and old words for QM concepts. Make up your mind. The concepts are very unlike what we're used to in our intermediate-scale world (too big to worry about most quantum mechanical effects, too small to worry much about relativistic effects), and so we don't have everyday words that explain QM. Hence, we need to either make up words ("lepton") or reuse old ones ("color").
If you can't understand math and physics with the jargon, you're not going to understand it without.
Actually, what they were saying is that Go is far more combinatorially complex than Chess. For a long time (I'm not up on the latest ones), chess programs would consider all possible moves to a certain depth and pick the one that worked the best. That was simply not possible with Go. Having twenty possible moves isn't the same as having three hundred possible moves (a legal Go move is, with some restrictions, putting a stone at some point in a 19x19 grid). Moreover, chess positions can change dramatically in a few moves, while that is much less true of Go.
I don't happen to know how the Go programs work, but I assume not the same way as Chess programs at least used to work.
Because we don't believe in magic leaps.
There is reason to believe that that which can be done with biochemical machines can be done by silicon machines, since they obey the same laws of physics, and we've shown that digital processing can simulate analog processing. Unless you're claiming that people have something magical or mystical about them, then they're extremely complex machines.
We can make reliable software. Most people don't want to pay enough to get really reliable software, but those who do can get it.
As far as "wisdom" goes, we can't argue about whether computers can have it unless we can agree on what it is. It may be wide knowledge and an ability to make comparisons across different things, and in that case we've had software systems that have some of that.
Historically, we've had entire classes of people who didn't work, took pride in it, and in some cases were legally forbidden to work. These classes were not genetically different from people who did have to work in any significant manner. They lived their lives, not necessarily very well, but they did.
Mostly prehistorically, we have hunter-gatherer cultures that didn't seem to think work was all that important except as a way to get food. If there was enough food, no more work. If they went hungry because of a temporary fluctuation in food supply, they went hungry for a while.
Okay, what exactly is a thought? If you can't tell me, you can't convince me that electronic systems can't have them. If you define it as something people can have and computers can't, you're claiming some mystical way that biological machines are superior to silicon machines, and that's an unsupportable claim.
Does it matter whether computers have something you'd consider a thought? If the computer behaves like it's thinking, who cares?
Heck, I don't know that you have thoughts. I have thoughts, and you're probably biologically similar to me, but I can't tell if you've got thoughts or not. I assume other people have thoughts because they act like they do.
Not in this context. In this context, it's an economic question. How many things we pay people to do now could be done cheaper by machines? It's not necessary here to discuss whether machines think, only what they can do.
You also seem woefully unaware of the things software can do right now. There's software with creativity, that will come up with things not intentionally programmed in. It's currently limited, and it's not intelligent in the sense that I am, but if it can do your job cheaper than you can you won't care about the philosophy.
Yup. You make things miserable for most people, and more people will want to be CEOs of major corporations. The ones that work hard will succeed, of course, since that's the only way the right wing can justify people not making reasonable money. (After all, if it was possible to work hard and not succeed financially, they'd have to admit that they're not necessarily superior to people with less money, only luckier.)
If you look at the history of AI, you'll find that AI has, time and again, built systems that do things that people swore required intelligence. Chess is an obvious example: people used to say that playing a good game of chess would require intelligence. There are others. When good chess computers appeared, people looked at them and said it wasn't intelligence. I'm not saying it was, but what's obvious is that humans are really bad at selecting which tasks require true intelligence. (This works both ways. The original computer vision project was a couple of grad students that Newell and Simon asked to solve computer vision over the summer.)
Anyway, while it may take a long time to get strong AI, it doesn't mean it will take a long time to make machines that do various sorts of things that people think would require strong AI. If you think that a computer can't do your job, there's a reasonably good chance that you're wrong.
We know it's possible to make an intelligent machine out of organic molecules. There's billions out there right now.
We can make electronic neurons. We don't know how to do it now really accurately (artificial neural nets model only some basic behavior), but we're learning. Therefore, we can make an electronic brain. There's got to be better ways to do it, but this will do for a possibility proof.
Last I looked (quite a few years ago) you could get randomness creators based on radioactive decay or thermal noise for several hundred dollars. They were small and plugged into USB ports. According to Wikipedia, they appear to be a lot less expensive now.
Obviously, a CPU isn't likely to come with random number generation, but operating systems do. Linux grabs random bits from operations that aren't completely deterministic, for example.
True randomness produced locally is necessary for cryptography, and extremely useful for Monte Carlo applications. It can be used for various sorts of approximation algorithms.
Bill Gates, on being notified by his parents that IBM was looking for an 8086 OS, bought QDOS from the Seattle Computer Club with an exclusive license and gave IBM a nonexclusive license for QDOS after a quick cleanup job and name change. This meant that, when other computer companies were able to make good clones (basically a BIOS that did the same things as IBM's), they could buy their OS from Microsoft instead of IBM.
I'm not aware that there were any illegalities in here, although it was definitely a case of Gates doing everything he could to enrich Microsoft regardless of the effects on anybody else.
A self-sustaining civilization off Earth isn't going to happen in my lifetime, and almost certainly not in my son's lifetime. It isn't a reasonable response for any short-term threat.
Actually, the lack of respect for education is the problem. It's really helpful for people to be able to recognize that scientists actually do know more than they do about their fields, and are not part of a global conspiracy to oppress the less educated.
And, since not having a Facebook account works for you, it works for everyone. Otherwise, what you said is irrelevant.
I've been in the same place as other people lots of times without forming connections, so I'm not quite sure about that.
In any case, I find it unreasonable to expect someone to have good spycraft in order to use Facebook safely.
The plan is to not allow new cars with emissions starting 2025, which is a bit aggressive.
If people want to keep their gasoline burners longer, they can. Given the EU, I can't see market conditions in the Netherlands dominating the price for a commodity.
Electric cars may cost more than gasoline to make, but they are in general more economical to run. They're less complex, and don't rely on oil pumping and refineries and international relations.
If there aren't enough electric used cars in 2025, people will buy used gasoline and diesel cars. No real problem.