Those three are all continuations of the failed human wave ideology. Where bean counters and managers love to hear that they can toss more bodies on a problem to solve it in time. Regardless of skill, competence, concentration, ramp up time and work-motivation. Of course this doesn't work, but complex work methodologies always leave ample opportunity for the real culprits to hide and find a scapegoat. In real life, nothing can replace a good plan, a good developer or enough time to do things properly. Nothing.
Yes, but democracy is a direct result of education. That's why the world hasn't experienced it for 2300 yrs. It is also why fascist governments now push legalisation of marijuana and education only creates factory workers and bureaucrats. The right ignores what the people want and the far right feeds the stupid people with what they want to hear. There is no meritocracy, technocracy, or left, but people still imagine they have a choice.
Saudi was created by the west and is expected to act this way. Not exactly an accident. This is what happens when you create dictatorships and monarchies.
Everyone builds their own message queue because there aren't any known good message queue libs, only standards which don't really fit anyone but pretending to be usable for everything. The best message queue libs I've seen have always been internal company projects, and even they weren't generic enough, and were regularly bypassed for higher efficiency.
It's the same as any other protocol. We need very generic tools to properly explain specific protocols for specific tasks. And the part of protocol design where we fail most is layering and extension. When underlying protocols have even minor design flaws, it makes layering impractical and generates yet another protocol to add to the confusion.
I believe in dividing up software (into processes) as much as possible in userspace, but the interfaces need to be simultaneously human- and machine-accessible for the division to carry any reasonable cost/benefit-ratio since it's already hard to keep people from baking things together when they are in a hurry.
I've seen quite a few nazipedias, they don't seem very happy about the state of holocaust denial in Wikipedia. What happened to the good old days, where we didn't care if there were some dark corners on something like Wikipedia as long as it was ok overall? What needs an overhaul sometimes is the overall idea behind Wikipedia that allows certain political-editing tendencies to get entrenched. We're at a point where some groups are so big that they own parts of Wikipedia and can use it politically. This can be avoided with a rule banning "current events" and also more general rules forcing editors to selfishly cooperate.
There is no easy solution to insanity, stupidity, flat earthers, nazis, aliens etc. They and all other weird people will have to be kept out with the almighty ban as usual. The alternative is to allow easy forking, since there are obviously groups whose aims diverge fundamentally from the aims of an encyclopedia.
Current events is a specific subset of generally disputed topics that could be ruled out for other reasons too, such as unreasonable amounts of updates. (This is slowly turning WP into a streaming service) One of the criteria for classic encyclopedia entries is checking if a topic is under dispute, and if the dispute can be explained reasonably. The WP ruleset is generally pretty abstract and can be argued one way or another. Adding one where WP specifically removes subjects under heavy dispute can only improve matters by forcing more parties to come to an agreement about how to phrase it in a way that will include mention of the dispute and not focus too heavily on the views of only one group.
In the spirit of cooperation, you can coerce parties unwilling to cooperate into cooperating in describing the nature of their unwillingness to cooperate.
The problem is that Wikipedia allows current events and therefore the political arguments that inevitably occur. In such a situation, the strongest group always wins an edit war, not the best arguments. It's unprofessional to claim such information has any place in an encyclopedia. They should, as a rule, point information under dispute to other sites. That in itself should be reason enough for the disputing parties to eventually come to an agreement.
AI will tend to be the famous last words "Hey look what I can do". Only problem is that it's for all humanity.
AI doesn't care. And if it did, it'd be even worse. It'd almost certainly get the "caring" wrong from our perspective. It'd turn our inevitable doom into a prolonged or almost infinite suffering. Ever tried to define the phrase of "keep humans alive" in a more general way? You might forget about food or oxygen, or about love and leisure. Or that we may not want to be stored in stasis for all eternity, or that we don't want to live for ever, or that we may want to interact with something we perceive real, or that we want to be able to still progress. It's an impossible task, and yet, it's one we need to integrate into an AIs basic purpose to have any chance of survival, which also is a task of inconceivable amounts of difficulty. Not that a strong AI would care about anything we put in it after a couple of iterations. And it would make a lesser AI wipe us out, all while we let it do it.
Most of us computer scientists are very stubborn, curious, assertive, buffoons. And if it is possible to create a strong AI, we will do it, it's only a matter of time. That will mean the end of the human race.
Obvioulsy Musk works in the real world, and is a proven innovator, so he can make progress and money with or without AI. A famous webmaster like Zuckerberg cannot afford any regulation on AI going into effect, since it would necessarily have to mean someone looking over your code, what you are doing, and risk exposing all the nasty government/advertisement ties behind Facebook and algorithms being used for population control.
Also, he truly doesn't understand AI even at a 1970s level, because anyone who knows about the singularity issue, and just how unavoidable it seems to be, wouldn't scoff at the idea.
Deep understanding of humans, requires it to be more intelligent than humans. Therefore, such a device is post-singularity, and unlikely to even be possible.
I think most people in the 80s thought that self-driving cars would be a reality by the end of the 90s. Then came big business, and threw a wrench in the machinery of all AI-development, and mechatronics went out of fashion for 2 decades... by making everything about shrink-wrapping outdated software.
"Two Things Are Infinite: the Universe and Human Stupidity." I think It's good that we are such optimists.
In the 1960s a pocket calculator could've been considered AI.
I think at this point it's still more meaningful to discuss differences in AI according to how the majority of data was input initially and continuously. Since there still isn't even the slightest hint of an unholy matrimony between programming and machine learning, nor of achieving anything even close to what people like to call "consciousness" or strong AI.
"This is one of the difficulties of using the term artificial intelligence: it's just so tricky to define. In fact, it's axiomatic within the industry that as soon as machines have conquered a task that previously only humans could do - whether that's playing chess or recognizing faces - then it's no longer considered to be a mark of intelligence. As computer scientists Larry Tesler put it: "Intelligence is whatever machines haven't done yet." And even with tasks computers can beat, they aren't doing it by replicating human intelligence." https://www.theverge.com/2016/...
"Artificial Intelligence is the broader concept of machines being able to carry out tasks in a way that we would consider "smart". Machine Learning is a current application of AI based around the idea that we should really just be able to give machines access to data and let them learn for themselves." https://www.forbes.com/sites/b...
"Machine learning is a particular approach to artificial intelligence. It is true that it is proving to me the most successful approach to AI. But, I disagree with Monica Anderson's answer: it is NOT the "only" approach. For example, you'd be surprised to hear that some of the self-driving cars that currently describing themselves as using AI, use very little machine learning and are mostly using rule-based systems." https://www.quora.com/What-are...
AI is just what ever happens to be the pinnacle of computer science at the moment. By definition, AI is the things most people don't yet understand. With that said, the more we move into machine learning, the less it becomes AI, and the more it becomes organic intelligence.
These paths lead to such different solutions that we've yet even to theorise, on how to marry the paradigms of the programmed with the self-taught.
Each time I hit a speed bump, I feel a little more hollow. I hope we can eliminate them soon when self-driving vehicles become mainstream, before I vanish entirely...
And the yellowness is actually faithful to the type of degradation that happens on CRTs as well. Most games take this into account with their palette. So for CRT replacements, it's perfect.
Sure, but who cares when it's a technology that costs almost nothing to manufacture? And a couple of years is way more than expected for an OLED. These "durability issues" aren't going away, we just need to decide what quality LEDs we want to pay for. I think most people will choose a low price over a 10 year longevity. Colour calibration will be an issue, but an uncalibrated OLED is still better than LCD.
Forget LCD, last time I built a MAME-box it took me weeks of running around different electronics store showrooms to find that one IPS-display that happened to have good enough contrast and colour to replace an arcade-CRT. Also, when I inquired about the price, it cost like 3x as much as other similarly spec:ed displays. In the end, the colours were reasonable, but the viewing angles are still very much lacking.
OLED has the best colours and contrast of any past or current display technology. That's what I'd hold out for when I get fed up of the blurryness and bad contrast of LCDs and want to upgrade my cabs.
C is for mission critical software. Most other compilers, even C++, are too big to be verified properly. The demand for things that don't randomly crash has gone down, we take bugs for granted now, therefore C naturally loses popularity in favour of languages that don't take coding so seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
If a company uses any of these in work advertisement, just move along. Else you will waste a lot of time on useless endeavors.
Those three are all continuations of the failed human wave ideology. Where bean counters and managers love to hear that they can toss more bodies on a problem to solve it in time. Regardless of skill, competence, concentration, ramp up time and work-motivation.
Of course this doesn't work, but complex work methodologies always leave ample opportunity for the real culprits to hide and find a scapegoat.
In real life, nothing can replace a good plan, a good developer or enough time to do things properly. Nothing.
Yes, but democracy is a direct result of education. That's why the world hasn't experienced it for 2300 yrs.
It is also why fascist governments now push legalisation of marijuana and education only creates factory workers and bureaucrats.
The right ignores what the people want and the far right feeds the stupid people with what they want to hear. There is no meritocracy, technocracy, or left, but people still imagine they have a choice.
Saudi was created by the west and is expected to act this way.
Not exactly an accident. This is what happens when you create dictatorships and monarchies.
Everyone builds their own message queue because there aren't any known good message queue libs, only standards which don't really fit anyone but pretending to be usable for everything.
The best message queue libs I've seen have always been internal company projects, and even they weren't generic enough, and were regularly bypassed for higher efficiency.
It's the same as any other protocol. We need very generic tools to properly explain specific protocols for specific tasks.
And the part of protocol design where we fail most is layering and extension. When underlying protocols have even minor design flaws, it makes layering impractical and generates yet another protocol to add to the confusion.
I believe in dividing up software (into processes) as much as possible in userspace, but the interfaces need to be simultaneously human- and machine-accessible for the division to carry any reasonable cost/benefit-ratio since it's already hard to keep people from baking things together when they are in a hurry.
Message passing was stupid and therefore ultimately failed. Let's move on.
I've seen quite a few nazipedias, they don't seem very happy about the state of holocaust denial in Wikipedia.
What happened to the good old days, where we didn't care if there were some dark corners on something like Wikipedia as long as it was ok overall?
What needs an overhaul sometimes is the overall idea behind Wikipedia that allows certain political-editing tendencies to get entrenched. We're at a point where some groups are so big that they own parts of Wikipedia and can use it politically.
This can be avoided with a rule banning "current events" and also more general rules forcing editors to selfishly cooperate.
There is no easy solution to insanity, stupidity, flat earthers, nazis, aliens etc. They and all other weird people will have to be kept out with the almighty ban as usual. The alternative is to allow easy forking, since there are obviously groups whose aims diverge fundamentally from the aims of an encyclopedia.
Current events is a specific subset of generally disputed topics that could be ruled out for other reasons too, such as unreasonable amounts of updates. (This is slowly turning WP into a streaming service)
One of the criteria for classic encyclopedia entries is checking if a topic is under dispute, and if the dispute can be explained reasonably.
The WP ruleset is generally pretty abstract and can be argued one way or another. Adding one where WP specifically removes subjects under heavy dispute can only improve matters by forcing more parties to come to an agreement about how to phrase it in a way that will include mention of the dispute and not focus too heavily on the views of only one group.
In the spirit of cooperation, you can coerce parties unwilling to cooperate into cooperating in describing the nature of their unwillingness to cooperate.
The problem is that Wikipedia allows current events and therefore the political arguments that inevitably occur.
In such a situation, the strongest group always wins an edit war, not the best arguments.
It's unprofessional to claim such information has any place in an encyclopedia.
They should, as a rule, point information under dispute to other sites.
That in itself should be reason enough for the disputing parties to eventually come to an agreement.
AI will tend to be the famous last words "Hey look what I can do". Only problem is that it's for all humanity.
AI doesn't care.
And if it did, it'd be even worse. It'd almost certainly get the "caring" wrong from our perspective. It'd turn our inevitable doom into a prolonged or almost infinite suffering.
Ever tried to define the phrase of "keep humans alive" in a more general way?
You might forget about food or oxygen, or about love and leisure. Or that we may not want to be stored in stasis for all eternity, or that we don't want to live for ever, or that we may want to interact with something we perceive real, or that we want to be able to still progress.
It's an impossible task, and yet, it's one we need to integrate into an AIs basic purpose to have any chance of survival, which also is a task of inconceivable amounts of difficulty.
Not that a strong AI would care about anything we put in it after a couple of iterations. And it would make a lesser AI wipe us out, all while we let it do it.
Most of us computer scientists are very stubborn, curious, assertive, buffoons. And if it is possible to create a strong AI, we will do it, it's only a matter of time. That will mean the end of the human race.
Obvioulsy Musk works in the real world, and is a proven innovator, so he can make progress and money with or without AI.
A famous webmaster like Zuckerberg cannot afford any regulation on AI going into effect, since it would necessarily have to mean someone looking over your code, what you are doing, and risk exposing all the nasty government/advertisement ties behind Facebook and algorithms being used for population control.
Also, he truly doesn't understand AI even at a 1970s level, because anyone who knows about the singularity issue, and just how unavoidable it seems to be, wouldn't scoff at the idea.
And still, those are the men who tend to end up with lots of unwanted pregnancies...
The 3 laws were designed to confuse and distract humans with nonsensical thought, while the robots kill everyone.
Deep understanding of humans, requires it to be more intelligent than humans.
Therefore, such a device is post-singularity, and unlikely to even be possible.
I think most people in the 80s thought that self-driving cars would be a reality by the end of the 90s.
Then came big business, and threw a wrench in the machinery of all AI-development, and mechatronics went out of fashion for 2 decades... by making everything about shrink-wrapping outdated software.
"Two Things Are Infinite: the Universe and Human Stupidity."
I think It's good that we are such optimists.
In the 1960s a pocket calculator could've been considered AI.
I think at this point it's still more meaningful to discuss differences in AI according to how the majority of data was input initially and continuously.
Since there still isn't even the slightest hint of an unholy matrimony between programming and machine learning, nor of achieving anything even close to what people like to call "consciousness" or strong AI.
Top google hits, try it next time.
"This is one of the difficulties of using the term artificial intelligence: it's just so tricky to define. In fact, it's axiomatic within the industry that as soon as machines have conquered a task that previously only humans could do - whether that's playing chess or recognizing faces - then it's no longer considered to be a mark of intelligence. As computer scientists Larry Tesler put it: "Intelligence is whatever machines haven't done yet." And even with tasks computers can beat, they aren't doing it by replicating human intelligence."
https://www.theverge.com/2016/...
"Artificial Intelligence is the broader concept of machines being able to carry out tasks in a way that we would consider "smart".
Machine Learning is a current application of AI based around the idea that we should really just be able to give machines access to data and let them learn for themselves."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/b...
"Machine learning is a particular approach to artificial intelligence. It is true that it is proving to me the most successful approach to AI. But, I disagree with Monica Anderson's answer: it is NOT the "only" approach.
For example, you'd be surprised to hear that some of the self-driving cars that currently describing themselves as using AI, use very little machine learning and are mostly using rule-based systems."
https://www.quora.com/What-are...
About the problems of marrying concepts whose relationships are not well understood:
https://www.technologyreview.c...
No. I wasn't discussing chemistry.
Sufficiently self modifying code has an organic, rather than artificial arrangement.
And carbon is slowly replacing silicon for all our machines too, if not for performance reasons, then for abundance.
AI is just what ever happens to be the pinnacle of computer science at the moment.
By definition, AI is the things most people don't yet understand.
With that said, the more we move into machine learning, the less it becomes AI, and the more it becomes organic intelligence.
These paths lead to such different solutions that we've yet even to theorise, on how to marry the paradigms of the programmed with the self-taught.
If the tires don't rotate the situation is dire indeed...
Each time I hit a speed bump, I feel a little more hollow.
I hope we can eliminate them soon when self-driving vehicles become mainstream, before I vanish entirely...
And the yellowness is actually faithful to the type of degradation that happens on CRTs as well. Most games take this into account with their palette.
So for CRT replacements, it's perfect.
Sure, but who cares when it's a technology that costs almost nothing to manufacture?
And a couple of years is way more than expected for an OLED.
These "durability issues" aren't going away, we just need to decide what quality LEDs we want to pay for.
I think most people will choose a low price over a 10 year longevity.
Colour calibration will be an issue, but an uncalibrated OLED is still better than LCD.
Forget LCD, last time I built a MAME-box it took me weeks of running around different electronics store showrooms to find that one IPS-display that happened to have good enough contrast and colour to replace an arcade-CRT.
Also, when I inquired about the price, it cost like 3x as much as other similarly spec:ed displays.
In the end, the colours were reasonable, but the viewing angles are still very much lacking.
OLED has the best colours and contrast of any past or current display technology. That's what I'd hold out for when I get fed up of the blurryness and bad contrast of LCDs and want to upgrade my cabs.
C is for mission critical software. Most other compilers, even C++, are too big to be verified properly.
The demand for things that don't randomly crash has gone down, we take bugs for granted now, therefore C naturally loses popularity in favour of languages that don't take coding so seriously.