These quotes from the article are precious though:
“Sergey is pretty innovative and forward looking,” -----> Yeap, that's why he he decided on a technology that was discarded over half a century ago
“Trucks are only as good as your roads, trains can only go where you have rails, and planes need airports." --------> If only someone had invented helicopters. Nah, that'd never work
“Personally, I’d love to have airships going back and forth across the Atlantic. I couldn’t think of any better way of doing that journey.” ----------> No, airplane is better. Really. In fact, make it supersonic. There is nothing in the Atlantic that you want to see and storms suck.
The only reason to cross the Atlantic by zeppelin is because you hate people and your private island isn't doing it for you anymore.
Intelligence according to a dictionary definition is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". Surely the machine is doing that, and so are Chess computers.
No, that's a naive definition, good enough for a dictionary, I guess.
We are starting to see how machine intelligence is of a kind we don't understand and won't match. How long we can keep an edge in other types of intelligence is the only point left to debate.
AlphaGo is provably inferior to human intellect (the brief proof is that it's not a Turing machine). It is incapable of self-introspection: it will never understand that it was playing Go. It doesn't know who Ke Jie is, it doesn't even know what a Go board looks like.
For us to have general AI (AlphaGo is weak AI), we are going to need fundamental breakthroughs. The style of thinking that AlphaGo does won't take us there.
What is more likely is that other people will figure out how Google did it (especially since Google is going to release a paper saying how they did it), and soon make engines that are better than AlphaGo.
when the carefully crafted illusion of "intelligence" (a blatant lie) still holds.
It's just a calculating machine. It is weak AI. I used to tell people that it was not AI at all, but they got upset and argued, so now I just say it's not strong AI. No one can argue with that. It's not general intelligence.
Because the group of murderous thugs that I noted that 80s Bush was quite content to support, was also disastrous, a bloody reign of terror for the country. So blood one way, you speculate, but blood is what Bush delivered. To me, it seems clear that you want to ignore that, when it is exposing the blood-tainted hands of the US, and no matter how you cut it, I can't blame it all on Senile Old Reagan
Um, what exactly do you think he should have done? I'm an FMLN supporter, I have the t-shirt from a rally. But even I recognize that it would have been worse if they'd won the war.
Your post is really long and scattered. Not focused.:/
We agree on a lot of things. That Bush Jr was awful. That dictators in general are bad. That said:
Putin is not a Stalin-level dictator, not even close. I don't even think you believe it. Putin builds crappy churches, Stalin built crappy subways.
I was talking about the diplomacy around Desert Storm, but you changed the subject to whether the strategy of leaving at the end was good or not. It's a totally different topic. But seriously, do you think that Bush Sr should have occupied Iraq?
Also it's pretty clear you don't know anything about the end of the war in El Salvador lol. That's ok, most people don't, but it's hard to imagine a worse end. If the FMLN had won outright, it would have been disastrous for the country.
Let the record show that you think a tyrannical despot would make a strong ally, and that you think Bush Sr. had any diplomatic skill.
The easiest way to see Bush Sr's skill in diplomacy is to compare him to his son.
After Kuwait, Bush Sr after a lot of work managed to get every country in the middle east to work on the same side as Israel in the Middle East.
After 9/11, nearly every government in the world was on the side of the US. Bush Jr managed to turn them against the US in just a single month.
There was a lot that could have gone wrong in the aftermath of the soviet union, but all the worst problems were avoided. We can look at El Salvador since you brought up central America: Bush had a huge success ending the war there. And I can't say it was necessarily Bush, but his team did well.
The leaches that were still around in the foreign policy establishment by the time Bush Jr became president were pathetic, though. Rumsfeld was a garbage human. Powell was solid.
The laughter was because he was stating the incredibly obvious not because he was wrong.
Nah, in this case, they really were mocking him for being wrong (or more accurately, because they were partisans looking to mock). There are many examples still around. Here is one example. The NYT editorial page wrote, "His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics." That's a clear statement that they thought he was wrong (or maybe their article is just craven politics).
What other choice was there?
The NYT article gave examples of the "real" threats: "Al Qaeda and its imitators, Iran, North Korea, economic stresses."
I'll go on record saying I don't think Russia is a threat, and they could become a strong ally if we had a president with any diplomacy skill (Bush Sr did well in that regard. Clinton was decent).
Yes, but it is not common for senior advisors to be paid by Russia nor become an agent of Turkey.
There's a lot of corruption right now in the top levels of the military. Fat Leonard is one example. Flynn is more likely a symptom of that problem. Becoming an agent of Turkey seems like a problem (and I agree) but it's small compared to what else has been going on. This is the kind of thing that gets lost in the noise when people start spouting wild conspiracy theories and forget about the truth. I'll bet you didn't even hear about Fat Leonard.
I don't even see how it's possible to hack a pacemaker. How do you even connect to it? I doubt those things connect over wifi, the battery would get drained too fast.
Having worked on medical devices, I would suggest that FDA approval of software is basically useless. I've seen extremely crappy code pass their review.
Even the older system that beat Lee Sidol was not running on a humongous supercomputer.
It was over 1000 CPUs and over 200 GPUs. That's rather beefy, mate.
As recently as 2010, AI textbooks were typically writing that the field was 20-30 years away from creating a machine that could beat professional Go players
As you can see here, there was definitely an inflection point in Go progress around 2005 (when the monte carlo algorithm first was applied). And the trajectory continued that way (you'll have to look for your own graph though). 5 years wouldn't have been surprising at all. Anyone who predicted 20-30 years away wasn't paying attention to the field.
There were reasons why AI and go experts believed it would be 20 more years before a go program could best the top professionals. The AI techniques that made it possible are immensely exciting because they are definitely applicable in the area of artificial general intelligence. They are mostly not go specific.
I don't think many people were expecting it to take 20 years. Most estimates I've heard were between 5 and 10 years. Indeed Google got there faster than anyone expected, but.....they also threw more hardware at the problem than anyone expected.
Slashdot Mirror
You clearly don't understand the difference between weak AI and strong AI. Look it up, and your comments will be better.
These quotes from the article are precious though:
“Sergey is pretty innovative and forward looking,” -----> Yeap, that's why he he decided on a technology that was discarded over half a century ago
“Trucks are only as good as your roads, trains can only go where you have rails, and planes need airports." --------> If only someone had invented helicopters. Nah, that'd never work
“Personally, I’d love to have airships going back and forth across the Atlantic. I couldn’t think of any better way of doing that journey.” ----------> No, airplane is better. Really. In fact, make it supersonic. There is nothing in the Atlantic that you want to see and storms suck.
The only reason to cross the Atlantic by zeppelin is because you hate people and your private island isn't doing it for you anymore.
Intelligence according to a dictionary definition is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". Surely the machine is doing that, and so are Chess computers.
No, that's a naive definition, good enough for a dictionary, I guess.
If you want to understand the issue, you need to understand the difference between weak and strong AI. At least read the Wikipedia article, it will give you a good overview of the topic. AlphaGo is weak AI, not even the creators claim it is strong AI.
We are starting to see how machine intelligence is of a kind we don't understand and won't match. How long we can keep an edge in other types of intelligence is the only point left to debate.
AlphaGo is provably inferior to human intellect (the brief proof is that it's not a Turing machine). It is incapable of self-introspection: it will never understand that it was playing Go. It doesn't know who Ke Jie is, it doesn't even know what a Go board looks like.
For us to have general AI (AlphaGo is weak AI), we are going to need fundamental breakthroughs. The style of thinking that AlphaGo does won't take us there.
when the carefully crafted illusion of "intelligence" (a blatant lie) still holds.
It's just a calculating machine. It is weak AI. I used to tell people that it was not AI at all, but they got upset and argued, so now I just say it's not strong AI. No one can argue with that. It's not general intelligence.
Got any proof of that? From say chess?
Here's one example. There are plenty of others.
Because the group of murderous thugs that I noted that 80s Bush was quite content to support, was also disastrous, a bloody reign of terror for the country. So blood one way, you speculate, but blood is what Bush delivered. To me, it seems clear that you want to ignore that, when it is exposing the blood-tainted hands of the US, and no matter how you cut it, I can't blame it all on Senile Old Reagan
Um, what exactly do you think he should have done? I'm an FMLN supporter, I have the t-shirt from a rally. But even I recognize that it would have been worse if they'd won the war.
I belong to neither party. Last election I voted green.
Your post is really long and scattered. Not focused. :/
We agree on a lot of things. That Bush Jr was awful. That dictators in general are bad. That said:
Putin is not a Stalin-level dictator, not even close. I don't even think you believe it. Putin builds crappy churches, Stalin built crappy subways.
I was talking about the diplomacy around Desert Storm, but you changed the subject to whether the strategy of leaving at the end was good or not. It's a totally different topic. But seriously, do you think that Bush Sr should have occupied Iraq?
Also it's pretty clear you don't know anything about the end of the war in El Salvador lol. That's ok, most people don't, but it's hard to imagine a worse end. If the FMLN had won outright, it would have been disastrous for the country.
Samba existed before Microsoft implemented SMB.
You're looking for polemic.
Let the record show that you think a tyrannical despot would make a strong ally, and that you think Bush Sr. had any diplomatic skill.
The easiest way to see Bush Sr's skill in diplomacy is to compare him to his son.
After Kuwait, Bush Sr after a lot of work managed to get every country in the middle east to work on the same side as Israel in the Middle East.
After 9/11, nearly every government in the world was on the side of the US. Bush Jr managed to turn them against the US in just a single month.
There was a lot that could have gone wrong in the aftermath of the soviet union, but all the worst problems were avoided. We can look at El Salvador since you brought up central America: Bush had a huge success ending the war there. And I can't say it was necessarily Bush, but his team did well.
The leaches that were still around in the foreign policy establishment by the time Bush Jr became president were pathetic, though. Rumsfeld was a garbage human. Powell was solid.
The laughter was because he was stating the incredibly obvious not because he was wrong.
Nah, in this case, they really were mocking him for being wrong (or more accurately, because they were partisans looking to mock). There are many examples still around. Here is one example. The NYT editorial page wrote, "His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics." That's a clear statement that they thought he was wrong (or maybe their article is just craven politics).
What other choice was there?
The NYT article gave examples of the "real" threats: "Al Qaeda and its imitators, Iran, North Korea, economic stresses."
I'll go on record saying I don't think Russia is a threat, and they could become a strong ally if we had a president with any diplomacy skill (Bush Sr did well in that regard. Clinton was decent).
Yes, but it is not common for senior advisors to be paid by Russia nor become an agent of Turkey.
There's a lot of corruption right now in the top levels of the military. Fat Leonard is one example. Flynn is more likely a symptom of that problem. Becoming an agent of Turkey seems like a problem (and I agree) but it's small compared to what else has been going on. This is the kind of thing that gets lost in the noise when people start spouting wild conspiracy theories and forget about the truth. I'll bet you didn't even hear about Fat Leonard.
In court, push back hard now, even if you know you will lose, and make your opponent reticent about making requests in the future.
I don't even see how it's possible to hack a pacemaker. How do you even connect to it? I doubt those things connect over wifi, the battery would get drained too fast.
Having worked on medical devices, I would suggest that FDA approval of software is basically useless. I've seen extremely crappy code pass their review.
Also worth mentioning that it's a pain for crops that blossom early in the season (like almonds). Harder to get bees delivered to your farm.
Being anti-Elsevier is being pro-science.
Even the older system that beat Lee Sidol was not running on a humongous supercomputer.
It was over 1000 CPUs and over 200 GPUs. That's rather beefy, mate.
As recently as 2010, AI textbooks were typically writing that the field was 20-30 years away from creating a machine that could beat professional Go players
As you can see here, there was definitely an inflection point in Go progress around 2005 (when the monte carlo algorithm first was applied). And the trajectory continued that way (you'll have to look for your own graph though). 5 years wouldn't have been surprising at all. Anyone who predicted 20-30 years away wasn't paying attention to the field.
There were reasons why AI and go experts believed it would be 20 more years before a go program could best the top professionals. The AI techniques that made it possible are immensely exciting because they are definitely applicable in the area of artificial general intelligence. They are mostly not go specific.
I don't think many people were expecting it to take 20 years. Most estimates I've heard were between 5 and 10 years. Indeed Google got there faster than anyone expected, but.....they also threw more hardware at the problem than anyone expected.
I can't find the malware, or how the hack happened. Does anyone have real information about this hack?
5:38 wrote an article on high tuition recently. As you mention, it's a combination of issues.
I want affordable housing for everyone, but I don't want the value of my house to go down.
Eat a soup kitchen, spend your food money on dope. Or beer.
At least, that's how homeless people I know do it.