If you want to be thought of as knowledgeable on a subject like this, you might consider learning the difference between silicone and silicon.
Also, for the record, your distinction between AI and MI is BS. There have been many varieties of AI research, some inspired more by ideas about human brain function or human cognition, and some inspired less directly by those and more focussed on best exploiting computer-of-the-day capabilities.
All attempts which are not purely theoretical are implemented, and have since day 1 been implemented, in computing machines (which, needless to say, are artificial), so you are splitting hairs.
Whether the advanced computing research specialization of the day gets called by its proponent part of AI or not has nothing to do with fundamental distinctions, and more to do with funding fads and buzzwords-du-jour.
The thing with complaining about government, see, is that it's equivalent to volunteering (to become part of a better government, or define and implement a better government system.)
Oh, you don't want any government?
Best of luck with that. Say hi to your new gang leader overlord (Mr. Ben Dover), and mind you stay on his good side.
A turing test is testing such human experience aspects as: - aculturation (what the person has been taught through education and socialization during their whole life up to that point) - bias in expression based on typical human likes, dislikes, needs, desires, avoidances
Tarzan / wolf-boy would probably fail the Turing test based on the first factor. Might be very intelligent though. Second aspect is just characteristic of a particular type of being that makes use of intelligence. Intelligent aliens would also have likes, dislikes, needs, desires, avoidances, simply based on also being self-interested "keep it together" beings, but the specifics might be very different, and would cause a fail of TT.
These experiential and situational and specific-agent-needs-desires-avoidances aspects have very little to do with the essence of intelligence. General intelligence is probably better assessed through specific carefully designed tests designed to assess: 1) Concept learning, procedure learning capability in arbitrarily general contexts 2) Prediction of situation outcomes with novelty in situation presentations. 3) Ability to answer questions or take actions that show comprehension of essential / invariant aspects of situations, after opportunity to learn similar situations through either direct sensory input or linguistic instruction.
Plus there's the wee matter of the halting problem, where it's not possible in general to prove whether a program will output something, never mind to prove what it will output.
Never mind the problem of bugs in the logic of your program correctness proof.
I prefer to just issue a disclaimer, for example: Imagine this in all caps:
The user and/or purchaser/lessee/licensee of this software agrees with the proposition that software is too complex to be warranteed for safety or fitness for use or purpose or sale. The user and/or purchaser/lessee/licensee agrees that all non-trivial software is likely to have undetected bugs and unknown consequences of known bugs. The user and/or purchaser/lessee/licensee waives the right to hold the software developer or vendor/lessor/licensor or operator liable for the presence or consequences of any software bug or behavior, known or unknown. Having this understanding of the nature of software, the user and/or purchaser/lessee/licensee accepts and uses the software as is and assumes all risk and liability for its use, and agrees to waive all claims upon the software developer and/or vendor/lessor/licensor or operator for damages due in whole or in part to failure or dangerous or damaging behavior of the software.
When analyzing a still picture/scene, your eye moves its high resolution central area of its camera around the low level visual features of the image. Thus the image is processed over time as many different images. The images in that time sequence occur at slightly different locations of the visual light-sensor array (visual field) and at slightly different angles and each image has considerably different pixel resolution trained on each part of the scene.
So that would still almost certainly give some robustness against these artifacts (unlucky particular images) being able to fool the system.
Time and motion are essential in disambiguating 3D/4D world with 2D imaging.
Also, I would guess that having learning algorithms that preferentially try to encode a wide diversity of different kinds of low level features would also protect against being able to be fooled, even by a single image, but particularly over a sequence of similar but not identical images of the same subject.
An electric car is a much simpler system than an internal combustion car. It has many fewer different parts.
If you applied the economy of scale cost reduction curve that happened with the expansion of regular vehicle sales volume to EVs, you should be able to sell them for less than regular cars.
All that's missing is the courage and vision to make the leap (oh, or a carbon tax, to provide a boot in the pants to the manufacturers that don't do the courage or vision thing.)
The real reason they don't want to sell them is there will be next to no money for the manufacturer and dealers in the maintenance lifecycle of EVs.
As long as we realize that there's well over 1000x more money backing the "fossil fuels don't cause global warming" shills as those, if any, promoting the scientific view.
And that's only direct revenues to fossil fuel industry, compared to scientific climate research funding. It doesn't even include the monetary value of industries currently optimized to depend heavily on fossil fuel. Essentially, those with a stake in 2/3 of all kinds of economic activity have an incentive to lie and say everything is fine.
Those with most credibility are those who speak AGAINST their own short term interest. I benefit from the fossil fuel economy, I hypocritically use the products of it, but I still insist that we have to suck it up and change it radically starting yesterday. I'll take what disadvantage comes, because I know our current path is incredibly dumb, incredibly dangerous, an incredibly selfish FU to all future generations. It's so indefensible that people just deny it like it was a cancer diagnosis. LA LA LA LA can't hear you. My whole lifestyle is based on a completely indefensible way of doing things? Don't want to hear it. LA LA LA LA.
On the other hand, putting human beings (specifically, the shareholders of your company) ahead of entire eco-systems makes you a suicidal+ecocidal idiot and a nihilistic life-hater; kind of a super-villain.
Yes. The Northern part of the Canadian prairie provinces might make a shitload of money selling wheat and corn to the USA, whose own production will drop considerably. However, it's still illegal in Canada to sell you clean fresh water in large amounts, so start building those desalination plants now.
The problem with deniers and the oil companies' paid shills is that they don't understand (or fake that they don't understand) complex systems.
For example, it is well known that if forests are not allowed to have some small fires whenever they would occur, then when a fire does come, it will be significantly larger and more energy-intense. Simple, intuitive land management techniques, like fuel clearing, thinning, and forest fire fighting prevent small fires, and prematurely extinguish those that do occur. So these well intentioned techniques actually contribute to the number of large and more destructive fires. Counterintuitive to most, unfathomable to a dumbass, but true nonetheless. It's all about power law distributions of events of different amounts of stored-energy-release, in connected systems.
As another example, deniers and shills seem to not understand what statistics is all about. They take a scientific claim that the frequency and intensity of a phenomenon will increase, decade, over decade, and try to argue against it based on what the weather did last month, or that one time last year. And they make it look like the scientists are talking specifically about the specific fire last month, when they just made a statistical claim about long term averages.
It's almost as if these deniers and shills had an agenda. It's almost as if there was inconvenience and loss of profit at stake. It's almost as if they were insulting peoples' intelligence by appealing to the lowest common denominator with drunk barroom argument level logic.
Someone needs to create a platform which uncouples the discrete services that academic publishing houses do for authors:
1) Organized peer review process - a platform can automate the process of this. Peer recognition can be adequate compensation for some academics to lead the review process (made easier by the automation), and/or a relatively small fee can be charged to authors for freelance review-organizing editors found through a reputation network.
2) Final pre-publication copy editing - a distinct, freelance service (perhaps required to be used, to publish in prestige e-journals).
3) Layout refinement
4) Community/social management of dissemination of and commenting on the publication (mostly or entirely automated).
So if a car was to be made with Libre operating software, I guess that the buyer would have to at least sign a waiver, which states that in case the car is operated on modified software, the warranty is voided (at least for issues conceivably linked to control/monitoring system changes) and the car maker from liabilty for any damages caused even partially or conceivably by operation of the modified software.
Other than that sort of concern, I generally applaud the good fight for software user rights. Where would we be without this sort of tireless advocacy?
Every Sunday, we had to get up at 11 oclock at night, half an hour before we went to bed, Hike it down to the quarry. Mine rock slabs with our bare hands, then break our backs chiselling marks of 1s and 0s in the stone, Drag the stone cards down to the beach before sunrise, where an endless sea of tiny sand crabs would scuttle over the tablets, some of them settling into the depressions of the marks. Then one of us on each side of the beach would wave our arms up and down and startle the crabs in just such a way that legions of them would scuttle in an organized pattern one symbol to the left or right on the stones, while another of us recorded the orientation of the crabs and shouted out which startler should wave their arms next to have the crabs emulate the turing machine.
You tell the young people of today that, and they won't believe you. Nay nay.
I am pretty sure I was at the same institution as you 3 years later, and the blue "computer money" card system was still in place. We figured out a couple of hacks to it, however. One was you could re-use the computer money punch card on the faculty/administrative mainframe after using it on the student mainframe, so you could double your money (CPU time used) if you happened to know a student who'd had a summer job using the other system, not that any of us knew anyone like that of course.
Second was, say it was the last day before major 4th year AI program project was due at the end of the year. Being an AI program, with recursion and LISP and all that good stuff, it would need ridiculously more costly computing cycles than the average program, so.... the solution was to pull an all nighter, never letting your interactive account time out and log out, while the computer $ went hugely into negative (debt) territory. The trick was that the lack of punch card funds would only prevent you from logging on again (essentially ever, depending on size of the AI computation-cycles-debt), but your current session could stay on as long as you interacted with it every 10 minutes or so. This was ok, as long as you remembered to get a printout of your final assignment program code and results on the giant joined-paper-sheets-with--holes-on-sides-of-sheets printer before you accidentally let yourself be logged out forever. Did I mention it was last day of term 4th year.
Pathetic but true. I guess we thought it was ok because the capitalist computing scarcity model was though to be bogus for serious compsci students and particularly those trying to do AI assignments. Now with the cloud (the time-sharing mainframe in the sky), it's hard to imagine that in the short interim period, people had personal computers.
I wouldn't usually respond to such a blatant troll, but the level of personal insecurity you demonstrate can only be the result of being rejected by your mother when trying to obtain milk. Seek some help.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to be thought of as knowledgeable on a subject like this, you might consider learning the difference between silicone and silicon.
Also, for the record, your distinction between AI and MI is BS. There have been many varieties of AI research, some inspired more by ideas about human brain function or human cognition, and some inspired less directly by those and more focussed on best exploiting computer-of-the-day capabilities.
All attempts which are not purely theoretical are implemented, and have since day 1 been implemented, in computing machines (which, needless to say, are artificial), so you are splitting hairs.
Whether the advanced computing research specialization of the day gets called by its proponent part of AI or not has nothing to do with fundamental distinctions, and more to do with funding fads and buzzwords-du-jour.
The thing with complaining about government, see, is that it's equivalent to volunteering (to become part of a better government, or define and implement a better government system.)
Oh, you don't want any government?
Best of luck with that. Say hi to your new gang leader overlord (Mr. Ben Dover), and mind you stay on his good side.
A turing test is testing such human experience aspects as:
- aculturation (what the person has been taught through education and socialization during their whole life up to that point)
- bias in expression based on typical human likes, dislikes, needs, desires, avoidances
Tarzan / wolf-boy would probably fail the Turing test based on the first factor. Might be very intelligent though.
Second aspect is just characteristic of a particular type of being that makes use of intelligence. Intelligent aliens would also have likes, dislikes, needs, desires, avoidances, simply based on also being self-interested "keep it together" beings, but the specifics might be very different, and would cause a fail of TT.
These experiential and situational and specific-agent-needs-desires-avoidances aspects have very little to do with the essence of intelligence.
General intelligence is probably better assessed through specific carefully designed tests designed to assess:
1) Concept learning, procedure learning capability in arbitrarily general contexts
2) Prediction of situation outcomes with novelty in situation presentations.
3) Ability to answer questions or take actions that show comprehension of essential / invariant aspects of situations, after opportunity to learn similar situations through either direct sensory input or linguistic instruction.
Oh shit!
Who's there?
> Iran
Iran who?
> Iran away.
> Knock knock
Who's there?
>Iran
Iran who?
>Iran for office but as soon as I got there they locked the door and threw away the key.
is perfectly ambiguous sarcasm/non-sarcasm, for which a tag is really needed.
love the unbalanced sarcasm tag.
Plus there's the wee matter of the halting problem, where it's not possible in general to prove whether a program will output something, never mind to prove what it will output.
Never mind the problem of bugs in the logic of your program correctness proof.
I prefer to just issue a disclaimer, for example:
Imagine this in all caps:
The user and/or purchaser/lessee/licensee of this software agrees with the proposition that software is too complex to be warranteed for safety or fitness for use or purpose or sale.
The user and/or purchaser/lessee/licensee agrees that all non-trivial software is likely to have undetected bugs and unknown consequences of known bugs.
The user and/or purchaser/lessee/licensee waives the right to hold the software developer or vendor/lessor/licensor or operator liable for the presence or consequences of any software bug or behavior, known or unknown.
Having this understanding of the nature of software, the user and/or purchaser/lessee/licensee accepts and uses the software as is and assumes all risk and liability for its use, and agrees to waive all claims upon the software developer and/or vendor/lessor/licensor or operator for damages due in whole or in part to failure or dangerous or damaging behavior of the software.
not so good for your hunting buddies.
(or bed partner for that matter.)
Don't shoot til you see the golds of their eyes.
When analyzing a still picture/scene, your eye moves its high resolution central area of its camera around the low level visual features of the image. Thus the image is processed over time as many different images.
The images in that time sequence occur at slightly different locations of the visual light-sensor array (visual field) and at slightly different angles and each image has considerably different pixel resolution trained on each part of the scene.
So that would still almost certainly give some robustness against these artifacts (unlucky particular images) being able to fool the system.
Time and motion are essential in disambiguating 3D/4D world with 2D imaging.
Also, I would guess that having learning algorithms that preferentially try to encode a wide diversity of different kinds of low level features would also protect against being able to be fooled, even by a single image, but particularly over a sequence of similar but not identical images of the same subject.
You evidently have no idea what a bacterial growth curve with finite resources is.
http://textbookofbacteriology....
An electric car is a much simpler system than an internal combustion car.
It has many fewer different parts.
If you applied the economy of scale cost reduction curve that happened with the expansion of regular vehicle sales volume to EVs, you should be able to sell them for less than regular cars.
All that's missing is the courage and vision to make the leap (oh, or a carbon tax, to provide a boot in the pants to the manufacturers that don't do the courage or vision thing.)
The real reason they don't want to sell them is there will be next to no money for the manufacturer and dealers in the maintenance lifecycle of EVs.
with a moron like that in charge.
enough said.
As long as we realize that there's well over 1000x more money backing the "fossil fuels don't cause global warming" shills as those, if any, promoting the scientific view.
And that's only direct revenues to fossil fuel industry, compared to scientific climate research funding. It doesn't even include the monetary value of industries currently optimized to depend heavily on fossil fuel.
Essentially, those with a stake in 2/3 of all kinds of economic activity have an incentive to lie and say everything is fine.
Those with most credibility are those who speak AGAINST their own short term interest. I benefit from the fossil fuel economy, I hypocritically use the products of it, but I still insist that we have to suck it up and change it radically starting yesterday. I'll take what disadvantage comes, because I know our current path is incredibly dumb, incredibly dangerous, an incredibly selfish FU to all future generations. It's so indefensible that people just deny it like it was a cancer diagnosis. LA LA LA LA can't hear you. My whole lifestyle is based on a completely indefensible way of doing things? Don't want to hear it. LA LA LA LA.
Technically, they are "like" the ones scorching Southern California. Hot, yellowish red, smoky.
Besides, it could be that as temperatures get hot, arsonists get ornery/horny. Just saying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
On the other hand, putting human beings (specifically, the shareholders of your company) ahead of entire eco-systems makes you a suicidal+ecocidal idiot and a nihilistic life-hater; kind of a super-villain.
Yes. The Northern part of the Canadian prairie provinces might make a shitload of money selling wheat and corn to the USA, whose own production will drop considerably. However, it's still illegal in Canada to sell you clean fresh water in large amounts, so start building those desalination plants now.
The problem with deniers and the oil companies' paid shills is that they don't understand (or fake that they don't understand) complex systems.
For example, it is well known that if forests are not allowed to have some small fires whenever they would occur, then when a fire does come, it will be significantly larger and more energy-intense. Simple, intuitive land management techniques, like fuel clearing, thinning, and forest fire fighting prevent small fires, and prematurely extinguish those that do occur. So these well intentioned techniques actually contribute to the number of large and more destructive fires. Counterintuitive to most, unfathomable to a dumbass, but true nonetheless. It's all about power law distributions of events of different amounts of stored-energy-release, in connected systems.
As another example, deniers and shills seem to not understand what statistics is all about. They take a scientific claim that the frequency and intensity of a phenomenon will increase, decade, over decade, and try to argue against it based on what the weather did last month, or that one time last year. And they make it look like the scientists are talking specifically about the specific fire last month, when they just made a statistical claim about long term averages.
It's almost as if these deniers and shills had an agenda. It's almost as if there was inconvenience and loss of profit at stake. It's almost as if they were insulting peoples' intelligence by appealing to the lowest common denominator with drunk barroom argument level logic.
Roughly, on the same amount of stored electrical energy.
So carbon fibre body components have a lot of potential to help make EVs range-competitive with fossil fuel cars.
We are definitely within reach of EVs that are practical for nearly every car driver.
1.5x better energy density batteries
1/3 vehicle weight reduction
1/3 price reduction
is all that's really needed from where we are now.
Someone needs to create a platform which uncouples the discrete services that academic publishing houses do for authors:
1) Organized peer review process - a platform can automate the process of this. Peer recognition can be adequate compensation for some academics to lead the review process (made easier by the automation), and/or a relatively small fee can be charged to authors for freelance review-organizing editors found through a reputation network.
2) Final pre-publication copy editing - a distinct, freelance service (perhaps required to be used, to publish in prestige e-journals).
3) Layout refinement
4) Community/social management of dissemination of and commenting on the publication (mostly or entirely automated).
5) Hardcopy publication (if at all necessary)
should read "car maker is released from liability"
So if a car was to be made with Libre operating software, I guess that the buyer would have to at least sign a waiver, which states that in case the car is operated on modified software, the warranty is voided (at least for issues conceivably linked to control/monitoring system changes) and the car maker from liabilty for any damages caused even partially or conceivably by operation of the modified software.
Other than that sort of concern, I generally applaud the good fight for software user rights. Where would we be without this sort of tireless advocacy?
Every Sunday, we had to get up at 11 oclock at night, half an hour before we went to bed,
Hike it down to the quarry. Mine rock slabs with our bare hands,
then break our backs chiselling marks of 1s and 0s in the stone,
Drag the stone cards down to the beach before sunrise, where an endless sea of tiny sand crabs would scuttle over the tablets, some of them settling into the depressions of the marks.
Then one of us on each side of the beach would wave our arms up and down and startle the crabs in just such a way that legions of them would scuttle in an organized pattern one symbol to the left or right on the stones, while another of us recorded the orientation of the crabs and shouted out which startler should wave their arms next to have the crabs emulate the turing machine.
You tell the young people of today that, and they won't believe you.
Nay nay.
I am pretty sure I was at the same institution as you 3 years later, and the blue "computer money" card system was still in place. We figured out a couple of hacks to it, however. One was you could re-use the computer money punch card on the faculty/administrative mainframe after using it on the student mainframe, so you could double your money (CPU time used) if you happened to know a student who'd had a summer job using the other system, not that any of us knew anyone like that of course.
Second was, say it was the last day before major 4th year AI program project was due at the end of the year. Being an AI program, with recursion and LISP and all that good stuff, it would need ridiculously more costly computing cycles than the average program, so.... the solution was to pull an all nighter, never letting your interactive account time out and log out, while the computer $ went hugely into negative (debt) territory. The trick was that the lack of punch card funds would only prevent you from logging on again (essentially ever, depending on size of the AI computation-cycles-debt), but your current session could stay on as long as you interacted with it every 10 minutes or so. This was ok, as long as you remembered to get a printout of your final assignment program code and results on the giant joined-paper-sheets-with--holes-on-sides-of-sheets printer before you accidentally let yourself be logged out forever. Did I mention it was last day of term 4th year.
Pathetic but true. I guess we thought it was ok because the capitalist computing scarcity model was though to be bogus for serious compsci students and particularly those trying to do AI assignments. Now with the cloud (the time-sharing mainframe in the sky), it's hard to imagine that in the short interim period, people had personal computers.
I wouldn't usually respond to such a blatant troll, but the level of personal insecurity you demonstrate can only be the result of being rejected by your mother when trying to obtain milk. Seek some help.