I doubt Google translate is that close to state-of-the-art.
It's actually new and shiny technology, built in collaberation with Stanford. (Personally I think it produces worse results than the older method, but who knows.)
What's different about this round of automation is that the machines are "learning" to work without human supervision and assistance.
There's no machine that can do that. You can say that they do the job with much much less human supervision and assistance, but the same was true of the tractor when it was invented.
That A) sounds like the bullshit you get from the singularity community, and B) only sees one side of humanity. It is true humanity is bad, but humanity is also good and can cooperate when we need to. It's how we got here, after all.
all FDA approved brain medicines and return to the good old days of phrenology and homeopathy?
Brain medicine? Now you are talking about psychiatry. That's a totally different topic. Psychologists can't prescribe medicine.
Psychiatry is a little better, but it's basically at the same level as root doctors or herbal practitioners. "Head not working right? Try these amphetamines, they seemed to work for the last guy with similar symptoms."
The model of the mind used by the psychology community is so naÃve that it isn't useful for very much. And you can see that I'm the treatment cure rates.
Programmers by and large mostly deserve to be looked on with disgust. Not because of the low quality of their output, although the quality is low, but because they don't actually care.
It's one of those things, "You don't know until you try." I think everyone has a low expectation of finding that anti-matter behaves differently with gravity, but it's an experiment we can do, so why not do it?
We know there is something missing here (that is, why is matter so much more common than anti-matter?) so we need to keep experimenting, process of elimination, until we find the answer.
Experiments are often repeated, at least implicitly, if some process that previous experimenters followed must be followed again to pick up where they left off. And often it is worthwhile to repeat an experiment with improved equipment, to see whether additional insights can be found.
This is an extremely inefficient way of doing it, and it can take decades for the error to be corrected, even in a hard field like physics (Feynman gives the example of the oil drop experiment. It was also an example of incorrect previous studies leading newer studies astray).
In short, not double-checking studies can lead to wrong results for decades, or longer. Think of the confusion in nutritional science.
Chomsky wasn't wrong, the reports of lack of recursion were wrong. (Even if the reports were correct, it doesn't mean Chomsky was wrong, he merely said humans are capable of recursion, not that they use it all the time or need to use it)
Yeah, it basically doesn't matter. There is no way we are going to do what is necessary to get back to 350ppm in the atmosphere, which is the safe level to avoid a runaway climate scenario. So the warming is coming, and New York will be under water.
Me, how much software did you write 35 years ago that is still in use by millions of people today? (Hint: not as much as Stallman). And you're a jerk, yet for some reason people still hire you.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt Google translate is that close to state-of-the-art.
It's actually new and shiny technology, built in collaberation with Stanford. (Personally I think it produces worse results than the older method, but who knows.)
i.e. more training with better algorithms.
This is the solution to all cognitive problems, both human and machine.
What you are saying is that now we need to combine the Cyc style of AI (or Watson) with the deep learning methods in some way or another.
What's different about this round of automation is that the machines are "learning" to work without human supervision and assistance.
There's no machine that can do that. You can say that they do the job with much much less human supervision and assistance, but the same was true of the tractor when it was invented.
That A) sounds like the bullshit you get from the singularity community, and B) only sees one side of humanity. It is true humanity is bad, but humanity is also good and can cooperate when we need to. It's how we got here, after all.
The final era of innovation? Really? Why not log in to post that? It's unsubstantiated nonsense.
Then surveys wouldn't indicate that many, if not most, Americans support surveillance.
all FDA approved brain medicines and return to the good old days of phrenology and homeopathy?
Brain medicine? Now you are talking about psychiatry. That's a totally different topic. Psychologists can't prescribe medicine.
Psychiatry is a little better, but it's basically at the same level as root doctors or herbal practitioners. "Head not working right? Try these amphetamines, they seemed to work for the last guy with similar symptoms."
Look at it this way: watching the trailers means you don't have to waste your time watching the actual movie.
The model of the mind used by the psychology community is so naÃve that it isn't useful for very much. And you can see that I'm the treatment cure rates.
But what can you do about it?
Programmers by and large mostly deserve to be looked on with disgust. Not because of the low quality of their output, although the quality is low, but because they don't actually care.
It's one of those things, "You don't know until you try." I think everyone has a low expectation of finding that anti-matter behaves differently with gravity, but it's an experiment we can do, so why not do it?
We know there is something missing here (that is, why is matter so much more common than anti-matter?) so we need to keep experimenting, process of elimination, until we find the answer.
The forces push apart similar poles, and attract different poles and the net effect is an attraction only force.
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here. The forces push apart and attract, but the net effect is attraction? How does that work?
Experiments are often repeated, at least implicitly, if some process that previous experimenters followed must be followed again to pick up where they left off. And often it is worthwhile to repeat an experiment with improved equipment, to see whether additional insights can be found.
This is an extremely inefficient way of doing it, and it can take decades for the error to be corrected, even in a hard field like physics (Feynman gives the example of the oil drop experiment. It was also an example of incorrect previous studies leading newer studies astray).
In short, not double-checking studies can lead to wrong results for decades, or longer. Think of the confusion in nutritional science.
Real time learning allows you to ask questions.
Chomsky wasn't wrong, the reports of lack of recursion were wrong. (Even if the reports were correct, it doesn't mean Chomsky was wrong, he merely said humans are capable of recursion, not that they use it all the time or need to use it)
Yeah, it basically doesn't matter. There is no way we are going to do what is necessary to get back to 350ppm in the atmosphere, which is the safe level to avoid a runaway climate scenario. So the warming is coming, and New York will be under water.
I just checked......now the first search result links to spyware :)
Yes she knew it, and they had a long argument about it before she agreed to go back.
Worth mentioning that while they were in France she was a free person and didn't have to go back with him.
I don't know if that's really true. Android started open from the ground up, anyway
If you actually wanted to make a rebuttal you should have researched how Stillman defines "free" in this context.
Me, how much software did you write 35 years ago that is still in use by millions of people today? (Hint: not as much as Stallman). And you're a jerk, yet for some reason people still hire you.
Please read the second paragraph on this page, especially the last sentence of the paragraph: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...