Steve Jobs would say they're not too big, but the people there (especially the executives) lack vision. That is the problem. A lot of the good people quit in the aftermath of the iphone.
If he were honest he might also say that the ideas don't need to be invented at Apple, they just need to be implemented there.
there were no people of average intelligence allowed anywhere near a computer originally.
Why do you even think that? Do you have some kind of research to demonstrate it? We're talking about the late 50s and 60s btw, not when the only computers in existence were at the Institute for Advanced Study or something. Despite what you may believe, not everyone in those days was like Mel.
It reminds me of when Windows Phone 7 came out. Instead of releasing sales numbers, Microsoft released the number of downloads of its SDK, which was around 10million IIRC. At that time, I had already personally downloaded the SDK two or three times for work.
In the end, I think there were more SDK downloads than phones sold. Again, that is certainly true in my own case, I didn't buy a single one.
simply being able to write software meant you were much smarter than average.
That's definitely not true. IBM tried at one time to hire programmers based on chess ability, but that was definitely not widespread. When Knuth wrote AoCP some of his readers were shocked at the idea that they could write their own data structures and algorithms for common things, instead of using the vendor supplied packages.
It's always been that way. 45 years ago it was a bunch of COBOL programmers who couldn't write a linked-list to save their life. There have always been a core of a few programmers who are really good, with a huge mass who spend their lives implementing business logic, and never learn anything else. Even in the 50s when you had to stick wires into plugboards, there were a lot of people who didn't know what they were doing.
(Implementing business logic in itself isn't necessarily bad, it pays the bills).
Good call.
The downside would be that the selection would have a heavy bias towards people who are willing to buy lottery tickets, but that's definitely a smaller distortion than the one in current and previous experiments; and would be easier to control for.
I would love to see a reference for that. This is the best I could come up with. They do a good job floating over football stadiums, I will agree with that.
I don't think pilot studies are worth much, because people will act drastically differently when given a guaranteed income for a few years, compared to a guaranteed income for life.
Downside of that solution is that in any society, if the non-voters get too pissed, they start a violent revolution. The benefit of democracy is to allow social change without violence.
You have presented one reasonable hypothesis. Maybe you are right, and strong AI is merely finding the correct combination of weak AIs, and finding a nice coordination algorithm. Maybe the only missing piece is a nice coordination algorithm, but it's still missing. I would personally suggest that before we get to that, the biggest missing piece is understanding how human memory works.
Regardless, Alphago is firmly in the weak AI category, and by itself will never decide to play tic-tac-toe.
You're the idiot who says, "Yes, this is weak AI, but it's still qualitatively the same as a human brain, just not as powerful." No, weak AI is different than strong AI. You're the one who believes this is like a human brain, even though the creators themselves don't claim that. You believe it is like a human brain, even though it is provably weaker in important ways.
You want it to be intelligent, so you close your eyes when people point out its not.
I know the difference, but weak AI still has an "I" in it.
Obviously you didn't understand what you read. There is a fundamental gap between AlphaGo and Chicken brain, much greater than between a human and a cockroach.
I tried to give you clues, but you closed your mind and continue to spout nonsense because of your lack of understanding.
Nah, you're guessing, and poorly. You think AlphaGo doesn't have any bugs? Really?
Once people have a chance to play against these kinds of computers, they'll find the bugs.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, you didn't see this happen to Air Koryo, did you? That's what I thought.
C99 _is_ modern. Not to you, not to me, but to some people.
And to Microsoft, too. I still don't think they've implemented some parts.
I would like to say that OSX is not innovation. It's just a unix system with a decent UI. How hard is that?
Unfortunately it seems very hard, based on the experience of a lot of other systems. Things are starting to get better now in the Linux world, though.
Is that even possible?
The -- mark before the commas indicates that he was making a list. He should have used a colon, but using the word 'all' clarifies the meaning.
Steve Jobs would say they're not too big, but the people there (especially the executives) lack vision. That is the problem. A lot of the good people quit in the aftermath of the iphone.
If he were honest he might also say that the ideas don't need to be invented at Apple, they just need to be implemented there.
there were no people of average intelligence allowed anywhere near a computer originally.
Why do you even think that? Do you have some kind of research to demonstrate it? We're talking about the late 50s and 60s btw, not when the only computers in existence were at the Institute for Advanced Study or something. Despite what you may believe, not everyone in those days was like Mel.
Seriously, look at this code and tell me that it was good. I've seen ugly Javascript but never that bad.
It reminds me of when Windows Phone 7 came out. Instead of releasing sales numbers, Microsoft released the number of downloads of its SDK, which was around 10million IIRC. At that time, I had already personally downloaded the SDK two or three times for work.
In the end, I think there were more SDK downloads than phones sold. Again, that is certainly true in my own case, I didn't buy a single one.
simply being able to write software meant you were much smarter than average.
That's definitely not true. IBM tried at one time to hire programmers based on chess ability, but that was definitely not widespread. When Knuth wrote AoCP some of his readers were shocked at the idea that they could write their own data structures and algorithms for common things, instead of using the vendor supplied packages.
I admit I personally have two accounts.
It's always been that way. 45 years ago it was a bunch of COBOL programmers who couldn't write a linked-list to save their life. There have always been a core of a few programmers who are really good, with a huge mass who spend their lives implementing business logic, and never learn anything else. Even in the 50s when you had to stick wires into plugboards, there were a lot of people who didn't know what they were doing.
(Implementing business logic in itself isn't necessarily bad, it pays the bills).
I don't know much about the Kurzweil definition, is it worth checking out?
If I changed my beliefs to match reality, then I'm doing good.
Also, you want a different term than "AI" if you want to mean consciousness.
No, I want the term strong AI.
Who do you imagine thinks it will? Who do you imagine wants it to? Certainly not the researchers.
Maybe you don't, the researchers definitely don't.......but plenty of people on this forum do think it will.
Good call.
The downside would be that the selection would have a heavy bias towards people who are willing to buy lottery tickets, but that's definitely a smaller distortion than the one in current and previous experiments; and would be easier to control for.
I would love to see a reference for that. This is the best I could come up with. They do a good job floating over football stadiums, I will agree with that.
I don't think pilot studies are worth much, because people will act drastically differently when given a guaranteed income for a few years, compared to a guaranteed income for life.
ok, you have no reasonable answer lol
Downside of that solution is that in any society, if the non-voters get too pissed, they start a violent revolution. The benefit of democracy is to allow social change without violence.
You have presented one reasonable hypothesis. Maybe you are right, and strong AI is merely finding the correct combination of weak AIs, and finding a nice coordination algorithm. Maybe the only missing piece is a nice coordination algorithm, but it's still missing. I would personally suggest that before we get to that, the biggest missing piece is understanding how human memory works.
Regardless, Alphago is firmly in the weak AI category, and by itself will never decide to play tic-tac-toe.
Nice, thx
You're the idiot who says, "Yes, this is weak AI, but it's still qualitatively the same as a human brain, just not as powerful." No, weak AI is different than strong AI. You're the one who believes this is like a human brain, even though the creators themselves don't claim that. You believe it is like a human brain, even though it is provably weaker in important ways.
You want it to be intelligent, so you close your eyes when people point out its not.
What game is it? Looks kind of cool.
I know the difference, but weak AI still has an "I" in it.
Obviously you didn't understand what you read. There is a fundamental gap between AlphaGo and Chicken brain, much greater than between a human and a cockroach.
I tried to give you clues, but you closed your mind and continue to spout nonsense because of your lack of understanding.
Nah, you're guessing, and poorly. You think AlphaGo doesn't have any bugs? Really?
Once people have a chance to play against these kinds of computers, they'll find the bugs.