But how much of that delay is visual processing the situation (character X is in location Y casting spell Z), and how much of that is mentally processing the situation?
I've read several, and about the workings of the brain, as I was, for many years an AI researcher, and also worked with neuroscientists. One of my good friends is an AI researcher with a PhD in neuroscience. Maybe I will bounce a few ideas off him.
Great, then you should understand that these neural networks are not Turing complete. You should also understand what it takes to make them Turing complete, and the drawbacks of doing so, and why those types of networks have not been as successful.
Of course, there are objective problems with a gold standard as you mention, but whether or more t it is addressed objectively better or worse, those reasons are not why governments moved to fiat currency. They moved because they were bankrupt and wanted to print their way out of the problem.
The problem with these logistical tracking in the block chain ideas is (among other things) how do you ensure that the physical item matches the coin? How do I ensure that when the coin is given to me, the physical item also is given (and if you have a technique that works, why not just use that instead of the block chain)? Furthermore, what happens if the key for the item's entry in the chain is lost, does that mean the item must also be destroyed? Upon further investigation, adding block chain just adds a layer of complexity with little benefit. Block chain is not going to prevent UPS from losing my packages.
I want to point out that many times in history non-marginalized people are the ones doing the most killing. Helots vs Spartans, Americans vs native Americans, etc.
It's definitely not am emergent property of building a lot of them, and we do know because it is provable. I encourage you to read a book about AI and not read stupid articles. You are right that the brain has a lot of pattern matchers.
We definitely have had computers that beat humans at games as complex as this one. I think you're going to really have to clarify your statement and reword it before it becomes a true one.
It's hard for me to comment on the details of strategy because I don't understand this particular game very well. But I have watched pros playing StarCraft quite a bit, and I can tell you that reaction times of 200ms are too fast for a human to keep up with.
It's provably false: these neural networks are pattern matchers, not Turing machines. This means that you can throw as much computing power as you want, they won't have general intelligence.
Is it cool just because of a neural network? No, but sometimes neural networks are cool. In this case, look at what they used to win: reaction time, elimination of difficult problems, and fast click speed. These are the things AIs always use. It wasn't like alpha go that made better decisions.
The latency is cheating. On paper it sounds good, but it misses the fact that the AI has API access that can immediately evaluate the situation without visual problems. Humans can hit 200ms or less when they are coming on a situation they understand, but watching programmers in StarCraft, reaction times of 500ms upon seeing something slightly different are more normal (or even a second). "Oh, the enemy is in my base, I need to switch my screen over there, figure out what's there, then respond with the appropriate amount of force." Whereas the AI sees units in base and 200ms later has the appropriate response. Again, it's been known for a long time that AI can win with faster key presses and response times. Just like aimbots.
Economics assumes for some reason that resources never deplete and growth can always continue.
Economics doesn't assume that. You should learn about economics so you don't come up with such stupid ideas. When resources start to run out, economics will explain how the economy responds to that scarcity.
Not to mention how "each is better off than at the beginning of the day" glosses over the massive advantage capital holds over labor in the modern day,
This is an interesting point: it's not nearly as true as it was even 50 years ago. The value of money as a loan (capital) has decreased over the years until it is almost nothing. In some cases we've actually seen it have negative value, as more and more people become capitalists. To the point that the majority of the people in the USA are in fact, mini-capitalists, owning stock, or the means of production.
At this point, money has value, but being able to correctly recognize good investments (like Lyft, what a steal from Andreeson-Horowitz) has much, much more value.
Slashdot Mirror
But how much of that delay is visual processing the situation (character X is in location Y casting spell Z), and how much of that is mentally processing the situation?
WTF are you talking about?
That means it has been *trained* to understand and play that game, not *programmed*.
Well, that was a really cool concept in the 1960s.
I can't figure out if you're insecure about the idea of AI, or just have a bone to pick with the OpenAI guys
Nah, I just get annoyed when people get excited about buzzwords. And yes, that means I get annoyed a lot.
I've read several, and about the workings of the brain, as I was, for many years an AI researcher, and also worked with neuroscientists. One of my good friends is an AI researcher with a PhD in neuroscience. Maybe I will bounce a few ideas off him.
Great, then you should understand that these neural networks are not Turing complete. You should also understand what it takes to make them Turing complete, and the drawbacks of doing so, and why those types of networks have not been as successful.
Of course, there are objective problems with a gold standard as you mention, but whether or more t it is addressed objectively better or worse, those reasons are not why governments moved to fiat currency. They moved because they were bankrupt and wanted to print their way out of the problem.
The problem with these logistical tracking in the block chain ideas is (among other things) how do you ensure that the physical item matches the coin? How do I ensure that when the coin is given to me, the physical item also is given (and if you have a technique that works, why not just use that instead of the block chain)? Furthermore, what happens if the key for the item's entry in the chain is lost, does that mean the item must also be destroyed? Upon further investigation, adding block chain just adds a layer of complexity with little benefit. Block chain is not going to prevent UPS from losing my packages.
I want to point out that many times in history non-marginalized people are the ones doing the most killing. Helots vs Spartans, Americans vs native Americans, etc.
There are enough resources to handle exponential growth for a while, as long as we keep developing new technologies.
It's definitely not am emergent property of building a lot of them, and we do know because it is provable. I encourage you to read a book about AI and not read stupid articles. You are right that the brain has a lot of pattern matchers.
That's too much micromanagement. You need to train your reports to let you know when something goes wrong.
For one thing I used to lose to the AI at StarCraft all the time.
We definitely have had computers that beat humans at games as complex as this one. I think you're going to really have to clarify your statement and reword it before it becomes a true one.
It's hard for me to comment on the details of strategy because I don't understand this particular game very well. But I have watched pros playing StarCraft quite a bit, and I can tell you that reaction times of 200ms are too fast for a human to keep up with.
It's provably false: these neural networks are pattern matchers, not Turing machines. This means that you can throw as much computing power as you want, they won't have general intelligence.
Is it cool just because of a neural network? No, but sometimes neural networks are cool. In this case, look at what they used to win: reaction time, elimination of difficult problems, and fast click speed. These are the things AIs always use. It wasn't like alpha go that made better decisions.
What particularly do you think is impressive about it? We've had computers that can beat humans at video games for ages.
The latency is cheating. On paper it sounds good, but it misses the fact that the AI has API access that can immediately evaluate the situation without visual problems. Humans can hit 200ms or less when they are coming on a situation they understand, but watching programmers in StarCraft, reaction times of 500ms upon seeing something slightly different are more normal (or even a second). "Oh, the enemy is in my base, I need to switch my screen over there, figure out what's there, then respond with the appropriate amount of force." Whereas the AI sees units in base and 200ms later has the appropriate response. Again, it's been known for a long time that AI can win with faster key presses and response times. Just like aimbots.
How often does that happen? I'll bet it's more common that hand-counters make a mistake.
Economics assumes for some reason that resources never deplete and growth can always continue.
Economics doesn't assume that. You should learn about economics so you don't come up with such stupid ideas. When resources start to run out, economics will explain how the economy responds to that scarcity.
Do you really think the tax cut somehow made CEOs 17.6% more productive
Of course they did. What do you think?
Right. Here's another one, that's a big clue to their problems: they don't give a margin of error. How far off are their estimates? They don't know.
Not to mention how "each is better off than at the beginning of the day" glosses over the massive advantage capital holds over labor in the modern day,
This is an interesting point: it's not nearly as true as it was even 50 years ago. The value of money as a loan (capital) has decreased over the years until it is almost nothing. In some cases we've actually seen it have negative value, as more and more people become capitalists. To the point that the majority of the people in the USA are in fact, mini-capitalists, owning stock, or the means of production.
At this point, money has value, but being able to correctly recognize good investments (like Lyft, what a steal from Andreeson-Horowitz) has much, much more value.
That's true in the same sense that the sun will one day explode. It will all end, but not in my lifetime. Not even close.
Your logic is truly dizzying and watertight. There can be no other explanation.
Yeah, that's another problem. The problems with taxes are infinite.
So - there is less supply and more demand .. but wages are staying stagnant, whats going on ?
That's a good question. Obviously there is some lag, but a lot of people are worried that wages will now start rising. Not me, I am hoping for it.