Every year we keep stupidly claiming that AI is just around the corner. Every year we are disappointed.
The truth is we have tricked ourselves. The rapid pace of Moore's law (computing power keeps doubling) has created incredible simulations. But paintings and statues do NOT spontaneously come alive, no matter how accurately they simulate a person. Neither do computer chips.
There is a fundamental difference between real AI and what computer chips can do. The ability of computer chips to parse written, audio, and visual information is amazing, and keeps growing but it is NOT real AI and will never be.
Computers will shortly be able to accept input via camera and microphone as accurately as they get it from a keyboard or mouse. That is not real AI. Nor is the amazingly complex search functions and databases we have created.
They are useful, and worth investing in, but more money has been wasted on them than is appropriate.
Too often the people that fix things open up security holes. Most of the time IT departments 'training' consists of "This is how you google the solution to your problem." and "Call this Vendor for this problem."
For anything more than that, the help desk is useless but the Security department knows how to fix the issue.
Surgery is a science. We know exactly where everything is and what needs to be done. So we can program it ahead of time and trust the machine to do exactly what we already know is right.
But investing is an art. Ask 3 economic professors what to do and you will get FOUR different answers. In fact, the only thing we generally agree on is that humans tend to overdo things, economics wise.
Which means if we program a computer, it will do exactly what we told it too, which means it will overdo something.
I would trust a robot to operate on me, but not to pick all of my investments.
1) It is true that every year they reset the average IQ to be equal to 100.
2) But the questions in general do not change. Instead what they do is reset the number of correct answers neccessary to get a "100". That is, in 2016, getting say 87 right might give you a score of 100, but in 2017, you need to get 88 question right to get the same score of 100. This is called 'grading on a curve'.
3) This means that YES, the average has in fact been changing. Historically almost every year people have been doing better on the test.
4) So average results on an IQ test keeping getting BETTER, while the reported I score is not changed.
On a side note, there is some argument about whether the change in scoring method is indiciative of nature or nurture. That is, is it just better education, or are people actually getting smarter.
Considering that last year we had a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and that one of them won the popular election but the other won the electoral election, I would have to say that we are NOT GETTING SMARTER.
ALL the genes put together had a total of 5% impact on Intelligence. That means an IQ of 105 vs 100. That is a minor effect.
Worst of all, minor effects like this, are typical of false positives. That is, most scientific tests use a significance threshold of no more than 4%, which is one in 25. That means if you test 25 different random alcoholic drinks, one of them, by random chance, will be shown to cause a minor increase in intelligence. This would be a false positive.)
And they did over 300 tests. So if they are using a 4% significance, that would be 4*3= 12 false positives.
This article looks like the worst kind of fake science news. You know, the kind that a President would quote (Pick Trump/Obama, whichever your personal bias thinks would do that).
1) We hypothesize. 2) We test 3) We throw out the bad ideas and try again till we get it right.
Basic explanation of how partisans fools think.
1) They come up with an idea. 2) They defend it to the death, ignoring counter evidence. 3) They insult smart people for realizing they were wrong and fixing the problem.
Thank you for noticing that the environmentalists are intelligent scientists, rather than partisan fools.
Copyright protects any original idea. Which brings us to some limitations:
1) You have to prove it is original. Good luck with that, most jokes are derivative. They have to be, because by nature they are short, and people have making jokes for thousands of years.
2) You can't copyright the concept, i.e. the ingredients. Given the shortness of most jokes, that means that relatively minor changes can invalidate the copyright. Delivery alone might be sufficient.
3) Parody is a clear exception, which can be very likely for a joke. Making fun of someone else telling a joke may be "Meta", but it can work.
1) People drive motorcycles for fun, not for any other reason.
2) People buy muscle cars for fun, not for any other reason.
3) The same people that buy sports/ cars and motorcycles will continue to buy them and prevent the legal changes this idiot thinks will happen.
Cities, yes, they may outlaw human driven vehicles. But not suburban and rural areas. And states like TEXAS may use state laws to prevent cities from outlawing human driven vehicles.
But more importantly, while robot cars are more likely to be electric, that is not a requirement. Don't confuse the two. There will be human driven electric cars like the Tesla sports car, and there will be robot driven gasoline powered cars.
Cops will almost certainly end up with robot driven gasoline cars, to give them the edge to catch criminals
First, if you think everyone always lifts correctly, then you need to learn a lot. But even when you lift right, it still puts a strain on your lower back. Or do you think the weight magically is transferred from your arms to the ground?
No. Even if you are lifting correctly, any weight you carry in your arms or back is transferred through your spine and that puts stress on it. Looking at it, this device clearly transfers weight from your upper back to your legs, bypassing your lower back.
It physically can not take weight off your legs, as it has no connection to the floor. It also has no connection to your hands, so it can't take weight off your arms.
Almost the ONLY thing this thing can do is to take strain off your lower back.
Generally this set up is beneficial to the worker as well as the company.
First of all, they tend to get paid more money. Not a straight percent increase - if they do 30% more work, they tend to get 20% more money. Also, the job itself moves closer to skilled labor, among other things.
Secondly, the conversion is rarely exactly equal, and is more often in the favor of the worker. If the machine eases human effort by 34%, they are often expect to work 30% more, but occasionally it goes the other way and they are expected to work 40%. If it goes the other way around, the employees give the machines a bad recommendation saying they don't do what they promise and the company stops using them.
Thirdly, even if that is not the case, the law of regression to the mean makes this helpful. That is, assume you set a goal that only the 20% strongest can achieve. Your employees would range from the top 19% to the top 1%, and the average worker would be in the top 10%, having a 10% 'easy job' factor. The machine gives a 50% increase in power, so now the average employee has a 15% 'easy job' factor.
No guarantee, but the odds are in the employees favor.
Or are you demanding I show that a new program that was just announced has previously been hacked? That is a stupid complaint on your part, indicating the total inability to make the simplest projections based on past experience
As for what my goal, I am trying to point out to corporations how invading their own employees privacy will also put at risks things the corporations value, in an attempt to educate and convince people to stop valuing privacy for a tenth of it's real value.
The fact that you don't see that is just as much a failure on might part to explain as it is on your part to understand.
Because of course, Microsoft will have absolutely perfect security, preventing any and all attempts to hack in and steal it.
You can absolutely trust them. So feel fine recording everything your employees do, allowing your competitors to buy the videos. Microsoft of course will try their very best to protect your company's most important data.
They will even refund the money you pay them after you lose millions. If you can figure out what happened.
You are totally right. So by your logic, we should raize all the houses in NYC and replace them with roads.
Jacobs didn't get rid of all roads. Moses however singlehandly destroyed Manhattan's Middle Class. He is why we have slums in Manhattan. He kicked out all the working class, and when the wealthy could not afford to buy up all of Manhattan, the slums took over.
That sounds pejorative to me. Most discoveries involve accidents - just ask Alexander Fleming, Christopher Colombus, or Doctor Spencer Silver (post it notes).
Like all of these men, this HERO, was investigating something not fully understood, stumbled by accident on something interesting, REALIZED that it was interesting and worked hard to understand exactly what it was. The realization and hard work are not common, they make the difference between a real discovery and a random day.
This is no more accidental than 90% of scientific discoveries.
It could be that dog's superior tracking is no related to the nose at all. For example:
1) Closeness to the ground/source is esesntial, which is one of the reasons that dogs with shorter legs and/or long floppy ears to gather scents near the nose are better scent trackers than other dogs
2) More nuerons biologically programmed to process the results of the nose. That is, it's not the genes for the nose, but the genes that focus the brain's growth on scent rather than sight.
3) Training - most scent dogs have been heavily trained to track. It could be that humans with similar training would do much better - just as blind humans can learn sonar
1) I agree that Zillow is not accurate. It consistently mis-priced my condo for a long time. Among other things, it doesn't account for the quality of the interior at all. Nor does it properly take into account 'equivalents', which in NYC may be restricted to other condos in a specific building, and not include condos across the street.
2) I also agree that Zillow should have a better 'user complaint' form, specifically if a licensed appraiser submits a value, they should willingly replace their estimate with it.
3) But requiring them to be licensed is silly.
4) Also, no serious buyer would use the Zillow price rather than a price a Realtor suggested. Realtors know about the issues in #1 and account for it. At most you will be eliminating those people too cheap to use a realtor.
This is not going to reduce your price sold by more than 3%, and is unlikely to increase it either (unless you get someone not using a realtor who is also foolish enough to ignore the licensed appraisal.)
First, cellphone is the worst two factor, not the advisable one.
Second you do NOT use the same password - two factor or otherwise for Facebook, Google, and work. If it is a work two factor, then there IS a password in the sim, because people aren't as stupid as you think they are.
Third, the time limit is pretty steep as you need to use most passwords daily. It is most likely attached to your keychain, not in your phone. In any case, It is extremely UNLIKELY that you won't notice it is gone within 12 hours, and one call cancels it.
Fourth, it is not a SINGLE factor token, it is a TWO FACTOR password. As in one factor is the token, and a second factor is a SEPARATE, short password that you have to memorize.along with possesing the token.
You are correct that two factor is not a magic bullet, but it is far better than the crap we currently use, especially the horrible password requirements that make it EASIER to be hacked, while making the foolish user think they are safer.
Any security system that is perfect will eventually make your data locked and unuseable. We are not looking for no risk, but a system that gets rid of the right risk. Current password systems get rid of the wrong risks.
A two factor system does a good job of getting rid of some of the right risks.
Those three things are often correlated, so causation may be falsely determined.
I.E. theoretically it could be (but isn't) that genetically the natives are subject to major diseases that reduce life expectancy.
Or, (almost as unlikely), that area could be infectred by a nasty disease.
Or most likely, it is a matter of money and education, both of which has been systematically denied to the members of the lower class that predominate in that area.
You do not understand what slavery is, and frankly your concept is insulting to real slavery.
1) The word was volunteer. As in you pick what you do.
2) The rule would be volunteer or do not get the basic income. that's called a job, not slavery.
Real slavery means you get locked up/physically hurt if you refuse to do something, not merely losing your job. Real slavery means you have no choice about what you do.
That is the difference between your ridiculous exaggeration confusing slavery with a job.
1) The language would be graphical, not English based. Not everyone speaks English and all languages, including English have in built issues. You want a loop, drag and drop (or use control keys to instantly create) a loop icon, don't type it. With speed not an issue, go for the fancy graphics.
2) The language would be interpreted, not compiled - infinite speed so no problem.
3) The language would be object oriented
4) The language would have no declarations or variable types (infinite speed so these things do not matter as much).
They only covered one type of fake news. The second type is far more common. Stuff that is accurate, but not NEWS. Half the articles are now opinion, not news. Or old crap recycled. Or totally true, but totally misleading (like talking about the dangers of sharks without mentioning how rare shark attacks are.)
All the news sources are now talking about Obama's instructions to Congress to "have courage." He is a former President, all the people that like him already are going to vote the way he wants them to, the rest are going to ignore him. This is NOT NEWS, it is gossip.
The true 'key' to fake news is that it almost always has a bias and it's not hard to detect. Basically ignore everything from the extreme sources say. Huffington Post and Brietbart are both obvious loads of crap. One I generally like their bias, one I hate, but I recognize that NEITHER produces real news.
Slashdot Mirror
Computer languages are almost all variations of English,(While, If, then, else, go, return, are all english words).
But human derived language, particularly alphabet based ones, s are not appropriate for coding.
Alphabet based languages are designed to represent an infinite set of words. Computer languages use a small set - often less than 100.
Every year we keep stupidly claiming that AI is just around the corner. Every year we are disappointed.
The truth is we have tricked ourselves. The rapid pace of Moore's law (computing power keeps doubling) has created incredible simulations. But paintings and statues do NOT spontaneously come alive, no matter how accurately they simulate a person. Neither do computer chips.
There is a fundamental difference between real AI and what computer chips can do. The ability of computer chips to parse written, audio, and visual information is amazing, and keeps growing but it is NOT real AI and will never be.
Computers will shortly be able to accept input via camera and microphone as accurately as they get it from a keyboard or mouse. That is not real AI. Nor is the amazingly complex search functions and databases we have created.
They are useful, and worth investing in, but more money has been wasted on them than is appropriate.
Too often the people that fix things open up security holes. Most of the time IT departments 'training' consists of "This is how you google the solution to your problem." and "Call this Vendor for this problem."
For anything more than that, the help desk is useless but the Security department knows how to fix the issue.
Surgery is a science. We know exactly where everything is and what needs to be done. So we can program it ahead of time and trust the machine to do exactly what we already know is right.
But investing is an art. Ask 3 economic professors what to do and you will get FOUR different answers. In fact, the only thing we generally agree on is that humans tend to overdo things, economics wise.
Which means if we program a computer, it will do exactly what we told it too, which means it will overdo something.
I would trust a robot to operate on me, but not to pick all of my investments.
You have misunderstood what is going on.
1) It is true that every year they reset the average IQ to be equal to 100.
2) But the questions in general do not change. Instead what they do is reset the number of correct answers neccessary to get a "100". That is, in 2016, getting say 87 right might give you a score of 100, but in 2017, you need to get 88 question right to get the same score of 100. This is called 'grading on a curve'.
3) This means that YES, the average has in fact been changing. Historically almost every year people have been doing better on the test.
4) So average results on an IQ test keeping getting BETTER, while the reported I score is not changed.
On a side note, there is some argument about whether the change in scoring method is indiciative of nature or nurture. That is, is it just better education, or are people actually getting smarter.
Considering that last year we had a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and that one of them won the popular election but the other won the electoral election, I would have to say that we are NOT GETTING SMARTER.
To my mind, it has to be better education.
ALL the genes put together had a total of 5% impact on Intelligence. That means an IQ of 105 vs 100. That is a minor effect.
Worst of all, minor effects like this, are typical of false positives. That is, most scientific tests use a significance threshold of no more than 4%, which is one in 25. That means if you test 25 different random alcoholic drinks, one of them, by random chance, will be shown to cause a minor increase in intelligence. This would be a false positive.)
And they did over 300 tests. So if they are using a 4% significance, that would be 4*3= 12 false positives.
This article looks like the worst kind of fake science news. You know, the kind that a President would quote (Pick Trump/Obama, whichever your personal bias thinks would do that).
Basic explanation of how science works.
1) We hypothesize.
2) We test
3) We throw out the bad ideas and try again till we get it right.
Basic explanation of how partisans fools think.
1) They come up with an idea.
2) They defend it to the death, ignoring counter evidence.
3) They insult smart people for realizing they were wrong and fixing the problem.
Thank you for noticing that the environmentalists are intelligent scientists, rather than partisan fools.
Copyright protects any original idea. Which brings us to some limitations:
1) You have to prove it is original. Good luck with that, most jokes are derivative. They have to be, because by nature they are short, and people have making jokes for thousands of years.
2) You can't copyright the concept, i.e. the ingredients. Given the shortness of most jokes, that means that relatively minor changes can invalidate the copyright. Delivery alone might be sufficient.
3) Parody is a clear exception, which can be very likely for a joke. Making fun of someone else telling a joke may be "Meta", but it can work.
1) People drive motorcycles for fun, not for any other reason.
2) People buy muscle cars for fun, not for any other reason.
3) The same people that buy sports/ cars and motorcycles will continue to buy them and prevent the legal changes this idiot thinks will happen.
Cities, yes, they may outlaw human driven vehicles. But not suburban and rural areas. And states like TEXAS may use state laws to prevent cities from outlawing human driven vehicles.
But more importantly, while robot cars are more likely to be electric, that is not a requirement. Don't confuse the two. There will be human driven electric cars like the Tesla sports car, and there will be robot driven gasoline powered cars.
Cops will almost certainly end up with robot driven gasoline cars, to give them the edge to catch criminals
First, if you think everyone always lifts correctly, then you need to learn a lot. But even when you lift right, it still puts a strain on your lower back. Or do you think the weight magically is transferred from your arms to the ground?
No. Even if you are lifting correctly, any weight you carry in your arms or back is transferred through your spine and that puts stress on it. Looking at it, this device clearly transfers weight from your upper back to your legs, bypassing your lower back.
It physically can not take weight off your legs, as it has no connection to the floor. It also has no connection to your hands, so it can't take weight off your arms.
Almost the ONLY thing this thing can do is to take strain off your lower back.
Generally this set up is beneficial to the worker as well as the company.
First of all, they tend to get paid more money. Not a straight percent increase - if they do 30% more work, they tend to get 20% more money. Also, the job itself moves closer to skilled labor, among other things.
Secondly, the conversion is rarely exactly equal, and is more often in the favor of the worker. If the machine eases human effort by 34%, they are often expect to work 30% more, but occasionally it goes the other way and they are expected to work 40%. If it goes the other way around, the employees give the machines a bad recommendation saying they don't do what they promise and the company stops using them.
Thirdly, even if that is not the case, the law of regression to the mean makes this helpful. That is, assume you set a goal that only the 20% strongest can achieve. Your employees would range from the top 19% to the top 1%, and the average worker would be in the top 10%, having a 10% 'easy job' factor. The machine gives a 50% increase in power, so now the average employee has a 15% 'easy job' factor.
No guarantee, but the odds are in the employees favor.
It's not just that. It also saves the spine. It transfers the weight directly from your arms to your legs, saving your back a LOT of work.
Did you ask if II have any evidence of Microsoft being Hacked before? Because I do:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo...
Or are you demanding I show that a new program that was just announced has previously been hacked? That is a stupid complaint on your part, indicating the total inability to make the simplest projections based on past experience
As for what my goal, I am trying to point out to corporations how invading their own employees privacy will also put at risks things the corporations value, in an attempt to educate and convince people to stop valuing privacy for a tenth of it's real value.
The fact that you don't see that is just as much a failure on might part to explain as it is on your part to understand.
Because of course, Microsoft will have absolutely perfect security, preventing any and all attempts to hack in and steal it.
You can absolutely trust them. So feel fine recording everything your employees do, allowing your competitors to buy the videos. Microsoft of course will try their very best to protect your company's most important data.
They will even refund the money you pay them after you lose millions. If you can figure out what happened.
You are totally right. So by your logic, we should raize all the houses in NYC and replace them with roads.
Jacobs didn't get rid of all roads. Moses however singlehandly destroyed Manhattan's Middle Class. He is why we have slums in Manhattan. He kicked out all the working class, and when the wealthy could not afford to buy up all of Manhattan, the slums took over.
That sounds pejorative to me. Most discoveries involve accidents - just ask Alexander Fleming, Christopher Colombus, or Doctor Spencer Silver (post it notes).
Like all of these men, this HERO, was investigating something not fully understood, stumbled by accident on something interesting, REALIZED that it was interesting and worked hard to understand exactly what it was. The realization and hard work are not common, they make the difference between a real discovery and a random day.
This is no more accidental than 90% of scientific discoveries.
It could be that dog's superior tracking is no related to the nose at all.
For example:
1) Closeness to the ground/source is esesntial, which is one of the reasons that dogs with shorter legs and/or long floppy ears to gather scents near the nose are better scent trackers than other dogs
2) More nuerons biologically programmed to process the results of the nose. That is, it's not the genes for the nose, but the genes that focus the brain's growth on scent rather than sight.
3) Training - most scent dogs have been heavily trained to track. It could be that humans with similar training would do much better - just as blind humans can learn sonar
1) I agree that Zillow is not accurate. It consistently mis-priced my condo for a long time. Among other things, it doesn't account for the quality of the interior at all. Nor does it properly take into account 'equivalents', which in NYC may be restricted to other condos in a specific building, and not include condos across the street.
2) I also agree that Zillow should have a better 'user complaint' form, specifically if a licensed appraiser submits a value, they should willingly replace their estimate with it.
3) But requiring them to be licensed is silly.
4) Also, no serious buyer would use the Zillow price rather than a price a Realtor suggested. Realtors know about the issues in #1 and account for it. At most you will be eliminating those people too cheap to use a realtor.
This is not going to reduce your price sold by more than 3%, and is unlikely to increase it either (unless you get someone not using a realtor who is also foolish enough to ignore the licensed appraisal.)
First, cellphone is the worst two factor, not the advisable one.
Second you do NOT use the same password - two factor or otherwise for Facebook, Google, and work. If it is a work two factor, then there IS a password in the sim, because people aren't as stupid as you think they are.
Third, the time limit is pretty steep as you need to use most passwords daily. It is most likely attached to your keychain, not in your phone. In any case, It is extremely UNLIKELY that you won't notice it is gone within 12 hours, and one call cancels it.
Fourth, it is not a SINGLE factor token, it is a TWO FACTOR password. As in one factor is the token, and a second factor is a SEPARATE, short password that you have to memorize.along with possesing the token.
You are correct that two factor is not a magic bullet, but it is far better than the crap we currently use, especially the horrible password requirements that make it EASIER to be hacked, while making the foolish user think they are safer.
Any security system that is perfect will eventually make your data locked and unuseable. We are not looking for no risk, but a system that gets rid of the right risk. Current password systems get rid of the wrong risks.
A two factor system does a good job of getting rid of some of the right risks.
Honestly, if you aren't doing two factor at a MINIMUM, then you are wasting massive amounts of time and money in security theater.
By combining a physical token, even a cellphone, you get far more security then depending on something that is most likely written down.
Those three things are often correlated, so causation may be falsely determined.
I.E. theoretically it could be (but isn't) that genetically the natives are subject to major diseases that reduce life expectancy.
Or, (almost as unlikely), that area could be infectred by a nasty disease.
Or most likely, it is a matter of money and education, both of which has been systematically denied to the members of the lower class that predominate in that area.
You do not understand what slavery is, and frankly your concept is insulting to real slavery.
1) The word was volunteer. As in you pick what you do.
2) The rule would be volunteer or do not get the basic income. that's called a job, not slavery.
Real slavery means you get locked up/physically hurt if you refuse to do something, not merely losing your job. Real slavery means you have no choice about what you do.
That is the difference between your ridiculous exaggeration confusing slavery with a job.
1) The language would be graphical, not English based. Not everyone speaks English and all languages, including English have in built issues. You want a loop, drag and drop (or use control keys to instantly create) a loop icon, don't type it. With speed not an issue, go for the fancy graphics.
2) The language would be interpreted, not compiled - infinite speed so no problem.
3) The language would be object oriented
4) The language would have no declarations or variable types (infinite speed so these things do not matter as much).
They only covered one type of fake news. The second type is far more common. Stuff that is accurate, but not NEWS. Half the articles are now opinion, not news. Or old crap recycled. Or totally true, but totally misleading (like talking about the dangers of sharks without mentioning how rare shark attacks are.)
All the news sources are now talking about Obama's instructions to Congress to "have courage." He is a former President, all the people that like him already are going to vote the way he wants them to, the rest are going to ignore him. This is NOT NEWS, it is gossip.
The true 'key' to fake news is that it almost always has a bias and it's not hard to detect. Basically ignore everything from the extreme sources say. Huffington Post and Brietbart are both obvious loads of crap. One I generally like their bias, one I hate, but I recognize that NEITHER produces real news.
The children need to be protected from this idea, not with this idea.