generalization over situations, and bayesian statistics?
I think the issue is that the AIs have not experienced / perceived / taken in data about enough different kinds of situations, and specifically, have not been aimed at the problem of "what if I am an agent with goals in all these different situation types."
Right now in AI, mostly we are training the "visual cortex" or the "language parsing centre" of the brain.
The algorithms are not being applied to the general agent problem. The low hanging fruit of constrained commercializable sub problems is being covered first.
Believing that it is is a "conservative" rule of thumb which works pretty well most of the time, but obviously it's an oversimplification which has exceptions where it's completely the wrong way to analyze.
The reason that sales are projected to decline this time is that the premise is that there is a shrinking human job pool for automation-displaced workers to move to. And the reason for the shrinking job pool hypothesis this time is that automation and AI are gradually but inexorably superceding human capabilities across the board this time, and that has never happened before.
So employment income will shrink this time around, as will mass market demand.
Two scenarios are plausible then: 1) The heavily defended exclusive economy of the 1%. In this scenario, the vastly enriched automated-production owners continue to sell to each other and their tiny cadre of remaining human helpers/consultants. Everyone else is left to rot in a subsistence economy, and the elites defend themselves and their possessions behind increasingly impregnable walls, and/or with automated weaponry.
2) Profit from automated production (or value-add by automated processes) is more heavily taxed than now, and the proceeds are distributed in a UBI scheme. The economy changes shape somewhat but is more similar to how it is now. People need to figure out why they exist and what to do with their time.
You just don't get it much, do you? AIs and robots will be building the equipment. If you can't see the trend, you're just blind to slightly slow processes. Aren't you the guy that also can't see global warming coming too. You should see a slow opthalmologist about that.
"Look, if you don't need to pay someone to do warehouse picking, then that money will go toward lower prices and/or higher dividends, putting that money into the pocket of someone else who will either spend it or invest it, thus generating jobs for other robots and AIs elsewhere in the economy."
So Google makes corporate net income from ad revenue based on UK users. Presumeably pays corporate income tax on that, yes? To which country? Ireland currently?
I believe that with adiabatic compressed air storage http://energystorage.org/advanced-adiabatic-compressed-air-energy-storage-aa-caes the design goal is about 70% round trip energy efficiency, which is comparable with, just slightly lower than, li-ion battery systems once you factor in thermal-management energy requirements of the latter. That is, if you have a big li-ion batter bank in a container, you have to heat and cool it depending on the season and climate etc.
Retaining 70% of generated wind energy and PV energy for off-hours use is a very economically valid prospect. If thinking continent-wide, just build 42% more wind farms and PV arrays than you otherwise would need and you're golden. That's cheap as borscht.
Income level is one of the strongest determinants of health. Generally, regular organic food purchasers will be above average income, no?
Did they control for other health-promoting or harming behaviours, which are likely to differ between organic food choosers and general population.
It could be the pesticides, but it could also be any number of other factors associated with lifestyle, unless these were carefully controlled for in the experiment.
Well you may be right of course since we don't really have it yet. Risk analysis (for cryptographically protected data and communications) would say: risk (real soon) = Medium or High because = probability=low x impact=ginormous (for now).
Also, I can see a group of natural philosophers sitting around 600 years ago in a drinking establishment (I drink therefore I am) listening to someone in a wooden armchair griping "You people have been yammering on about figuring out how things work for 2000 years now, and I don't see any progress."
The armchair wise-asses laughed at how lame Y2K was. Their pea-brains didn't understand that it was no big deal precisely because a lot of planning, time, and effort went into technical fixes and technology replacements to avoid the impacts of the problem. A lot of computing-related problems are still pretty binary. Either they'll happen, or if fixed, they won't. It can be all or nothing easily. E.g. a patch for a critical and easy to exploit OS security hole. Could be a laughable hype, if discovered and widely patched in time, or could be a widespread disaster.
Technological progress is definitely not linear in general. It builds on itself and thus sometimes has a geometric or exponential progress. Often times, advances in multiple areas can combine to make a new revolutionary solution that was impractical before. e.g. Theoretical advances + materials research can lead to practical quantum computing, or maybe high temperature superconductivity etc, which then can be a foundation for a whole new layer of practical revolutionary and unpredicted technologies. It tends to have breakthroughs, tipping points etc, in other words, punctuated equilibrium.
So don't count on progress in quantum computing staying slow and incremental.
In general. parent is saying ECC is still probably safe, but can anyone reference or summarize other work in this? I know Vitalik Butarin was concerned about it and investigating, a few years ago, because apart from existing e-commerce and secure surfing etc this, quantum computer cryptanalysis would also destroy all existing blockchain implementations and cryptocurrencies.
I'm pretty sure "measurably" doesn't mean what you think it means, because "measurably" 3 of the last 4 years have been the hottest ones one record, going back 150 years or so.
The Google-funded SMU study in 2011 showed that the technical potential for geothermal in the US is about 10x the power generated by all the coal plants in the US.
That's a pretty good start, given that the power generated is 24/7 i.e. easily supports base load requirements.
That's more than enough to supply current electrical power needs AND the vast majority of transportation and heating energy too.
Slashdot Mirror
A human is just as inferior at the job at $10/hour as $15/hour.
At best this will mean a few years difference in when given job categories are replaced.
"why do we need me?"
and certainly have faster access to more information than any one of us.
robots are already stronger. They're getting more versatile and dexterous year over year as well.
Judging by your lack of insight into this and lack of judgement, they are particularly getting smarter than you.
generalization over situations, and bayesian statistics?
I think the issue is that the AIs have not experienced / perceived / taken in data about enough different kinds of situations, and specifically, have not been aimed at the problem of "what if I am an agent with goals in all these different situation types."
Right now in AI, mostly we are training the "visual cortex" or the "language parsing centre" of the brain.
The algorithms are not being applied to the general agent problem. The low hanging fruit of constrained commercializable sub problems is being covered first.
Believing that it is is a "conservative" rule of thumb which works pretty well most of the time, but obviously it's an oversimplification which has exceptions where it's completely the wrong way to analyze.
The reason that sales are projected to decline this time is that the premise is that there is a shrinking human job pool for automation-displaced workers to move to. And the reason for the shrinking job pool hypothesis this time is that automation and AI are gradually but inexorably superceding human capabilities across the board this time, and that has never happened before.
So employment income will shrink this time around, as will mass market demand.
Two scenarios are plausible then:
1) The heavily defended exclusive economy of the 1%. In this scenario, the vastly enriched automated-production owners continue to sell to each other and their tiny cadre of remaining human helpers/consultants. Everyone else is left to rot in a subsistence economy, and the elites defend themselves and their possessions behind increasingly impregnable walls, and/or with automated weaponry.
2) Profit from automated production (or value-add by automated processes) is more heavily taxed than now, and the proceeds are distributed in a UBI scheme. The economy changes shape somewhat but is more similar to how it is now. People need to figure out why they exist and what to do with their time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
You just don't get it much, do you? AIs and robots will be building the equipment.
If you can't see the trend, you're just blind to slightly slow processes.
Aren't you the guy that also can't see global warming coming too.
You should see a slow opthalmologist about that.
"Look, if you don't need to pay someone to do warehouse picking, then that money will go toward lower prices and/or higher dividends, putting that money into the pocket of someone else who will either spend it or invest it, thus generating jobs for other robots and AIs elsewhere in the economy."
Fixed that for you.
Rumors that humans are being replaced are false
Rumors that humans are being replaced are incorrect
Rumors that humans are being replaced are not true
Rumors that humans are being replaced are false
That I could program FOSS software on, I could replace my old MacBook Pro.
13 inch macbook air weighs 2.74 pounds. I much prefer my old 11 inch macbook air at 2.4 pounds and smaller size for travel.
What we really need is an update of the 2 pound macbook of 2015.
I guess the UK government is looking for emergency revenue sources now that the rest of the economy is going to be going away.
So Google makes corporate net income from ad revenue based on UK users. Presumeably pays corporate income tax on that, yes? To which country? Ireland currently?
Is this going to be double taxation?
I believe that with adiabatic compressed air storage http://energystorage.org/advanced-adiabatic-compressed-air-energy-storage-aa-caes the design goal is about 70% round trip energy efficiency, which is comparable with, just slightly lower than, li-ion battery systems once you factor in thermal-management energy requirements of the latter. That is, if you have a big li-ion batter bank in a container, you have to heat and cool it depending on the season and climate etc.
Retaining 70% of generated wind energy and PV energy for off-hours use is a very economically valid prospect. If thinking continent-wide, just build 42% more wind farms and PV arrays than you otherwise would need and you're golden. That's cheap as borscht.
Income level is one of the strongest determinants of health.
Generally, regular organic food purchasers will be above average income, no?
Did they control for other health-promoting or harming behaviours, which are likely to differ between organic food choosers and general population.
It could be the pesticides, but it could also be any number of other factors associated with lifestyle, unless these were carefully controlled for in the experiment.
"Trump - Whitehouse Apprentice" is now the top-rated reality comedy show in Russia.
Well you may be right of course since we don't really have it yet.
Risk analysis (for cryptographically protected data and communications) would say:
risk (real soon) = Medium or High because = probability=low x impact=ginormous (for now).
Also, I can see a group of natural philosophers sitting around 600 years ago in a drinking establishment (I drink therefore I am) listening to someone in a wooden armchair griping "You people have been yammering on about figuring out how things work for 2000 years now, and I don't see any progress."
The armchair wise-asses laughed at how lame Y2K was.
Their pea-brains didn't understand that it was no big deal precisely because a lot of planning, time, and effort went into technical fixes and technology replacements to avoid the impacts of the problem.
A lot of computing-related problems are still pretty binary. Either they'll happen, or if fixed, they won't. It can be all or nothing easily. E.g. a patch for a critical and easy to exploit OS security hole. Could be a laughable hype, if discovered and widely patched in time, or could be a widespread disaster.
Technological progress is definitely not linear in general.
It builds on itself and thus sometimes has a geometric or exponential progress.
Often times, advances in multiple areas can combine to make a new revolutionary solution that was impractical before.
e.g. Theoretical advances + materials research can lead to practical quantum computing, or maybe high temperature superconductivity etc,
which then can be a foundation for a whole new layer of practical revolutionary and unpredicted technologies.
It tends to have breakthroughs, tipping points etc, in other words, punctuated equilibrium.
So don't count on progress in quantum computing staying slow and incremental.
In general. parent is saying ECC is still probably safe, but can anyone reference or summarize other work in this?
I know Vitalik Butarin was concerned about it and investigating, a few years ago, because apart from existing e-commerce and secure surfing etc this, quantum computer cryptanalysis would also destroy all existing blockchain implementations and cryptocurrencies.
I'm pretty sure "measurably" doesn't mean what you think it means, because "measurably" 3 of the last 4 years have been the hottest ones one record, going back 150 years or so.
Look up "boiled frog syndrome".
is acting like you're just a helpless leaf tossed on the wind whichever way it blows.
You've got a brain and a pair of hands (assumption, I admit) so try to do something useful.
If we're all doomed in several billlion years, fine, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it a nice place til we all turn into entropy.
http://pubs.geothermal-library.org/lib/grc/1029452.pdf
A wider ranging summary by NREL: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51946.pdf
So you obviously do both. Switch to EVs and decarbonize the electricity supply.
If you have to do (A and B) to succeed, dissing A, and trying to slow the momentum of A is not helpful.
Instead, be an advocate of A and of B.
As they say, lead, follow, or get out of the way.
The Google-funded SMU study in 2011 showed that the technical potential for geothermal in the US is about 10x the power generated by all the coal plants in the US.
That's a pretty good start, given that the power generated is 24/7 i.e. easily supports base load requirements.
That's more than enough to supply current electrical power needs AND the vast majority of transportation and heating energy too.
"there being" not "their being". doh