a quick browse of his paper shows a fairly routine research paper
Now, honestly (and I am trying hard to not even sound ironically), do you indeed think that this with all the effort involved is pure routine? If so, I would like you to give me a hint to a paper which is beyond, just in order to adjust my norm.
*Real* scientists who write for the record look into the original papers (linked from http://myweb.dal.ca/bworm/, a real intellectual endeavor to find) before commenting.
The very paranoid might look at the partnering with Novell/Suse as an attempt to poison the environment so that eventually the rest of the OSS people would be guilty of using MS technology without a proper license.
From Microsoft, Novell Make Peace over Linux:
In addition, Ballmer said Microsoft would not use its patent portfolio against any individual, nonprofit open-source software developer or against any OpenSUSE programmer whose code ended up in SUSE Linux.
You may well read this along the lines "In addition, Ballmer said Microsoft will use its patent portfolio against any individual, nonprofit open-source software developer or against any LINUX programmer whose code did not end up in SUSE Linux."
No, they constitute what is rated "normal". You may also look at it from a marketing perspective and may well extend it to general intelligence. </cynical>
Sequoia had made a good amount of money when Google agreed to buy YouTube for $1.65B. It is believed that Sequoia's $11M investment translated to 30% of the ownership.
"Then, in 1991, under pressure to reign in massive budget deficits, lawmakers passed (and President George H.W. Bush signed) a law that revolutionized the way the patent office does business. Borrowing ideas then in vogue among private sector consultants and CEOs to "reengineer" organizations to make them more "customer-driven," Congress instructed the patent office, which had always been funded from government revenues, to now pay its own way through fees charged to applicants, and to make the process of winning a patent easier on them."
Here I have a quote (from here) that puts my views in a better language.
"The most legitimate beef that I think the humanities have against engineers is the latter's tendencies to take the categories in which they work for granted, and to not see their own thinking and practice as part of a social and historical process - that they are too wed to the propositional value of statements and not aware of all the other elements that create discourse. Not to mention the lack of sophistication about aesthetics and conscious experience."
You may substitute "engineers" for "scientists".
there is not much respect for osteopathy or "eastern" medicines which do not withstand scientific scrutiny
At least if it comes to day-to-day practice, you may observe that there is not much scientific behavior involved. My wife has become bipolar about ten years ago, and treatment was nothing more but a trial and error process.
Secondly, you might consider that, especially within the context of medicine, strong financial interests lead to the invention of cicumscriptions of conditions of ill health that in turn lead to zillions of prescriptions. Metabolic Syndrome comes to mind, depression as well.
That you accept the placebo effect (to which "western" medicine preferably retracts to especially when it comes to acupuncture being significantly more effective than pharma-treatment (e.g. pain) to me introduces at least incompleteness into your (scientific) system of thoughts: your set of theories must be incomplete, as, though an effect can be observed, there is no explanation within the accepted framework.
technological advancements such as tech that allows for us to create more food and move it to where the people are
There must be a flaw in the system:
Quote:
Based on the Census Bureau survey, USDA estimates that in 2000, 10.5 million U.S. households were food insecure, meaning that they did not have access to enough food to meet their basic needs.
Now it is my turn to say "Dude" - I know - but back to the matrix as well. More seriously, I think that all the sciences are in an epistemological crisis - in short and very mundane (but also related to belief systems of sorts within which the scientist has to promote his issues) - due to funding policies. Regarding physics, I have observed a strong bias towards "big bang".
if an assumed axiom leads to contradictory conclusions
This of course happens if you try to inject a new one into an already existing system which is thought to be consistent. But what if you aim at a revolution? BTW, I believe:) that defining axioms cannot be false, only, as you said, contradictory.
The further ahead we get with science, the more obviously wrong the superstitions of the past seem to have been.
I am all with this, my point is that this will hold in the distant future as well - thus - there is no truth.
And I still don't understand what this great insight of yours is.
Not an insight - more a nuisance. According to my perception, empirical sciences these days market themselves as "giving proof" - not evidence. Besides, I did not argue that the universe is an illusion (though exclusively created by the senses and instrumentation that we use), but that the instance that we perceive is depending on the means of measurement - this seems trivial, but it is obviously not.
vocabulary games
To me, "working assumption" vs. "belief"(-system) is different levels, the first touching day-to-day activities, the second - say - epistemology related issues (or maybe - the vision that the scientific community - if such an entity may be postulated - has). Though, admittedly, I like to play those games. If it comes to overturning - there was a time when (western) societies believed in religion, which is not the case anymore, but gaines ground again, especially in the US.
Has some author convinced you to change your world view?
No, I always thought up the world at first and then found supporting references (much easier and saves a lot of time:) - well, this indeed is a result of personal experience linked to practicing Tai Chi (yes, I was a real hard-core scientist who believed that it would be possible to create a purely silicon based AI to pass Turing). The main turning point came when I realized how much socially induced predetermination is shaping life (and thus science as well, as the actors are individuals). Secondly, on the basis of a "new" somesthetic perception, I analyzed the medical treatment that I received over the years (e.g. braces, spectacles, treatment of lacerations etc.) as well as the effects of impaired posture (30yrs@kbd) - keeping in mind that western medicine is rated science and thereby reinventing osteopathy (which is in rather low esteem here). The bottom line is that I became aware that quite a mighty set of biases of sorts determined my life.
Isn't the internet wonderful?
Yes, indeed. But believe me, it is not much better here if you are a phased out academic, though I live in a town with 1.75mio inhabitants (Hamburg).
CC.
P.S.: Realizing that I am a little out of practice with regard to writing properly, I shall see whether I can find a paper that depicts my position.
There's a mathematical proof that compressing natural language text implies being able to pass the Turing test
I cannot see it.
From the article in question:
What Hutter proved is that the optimal behavior of an agent is to guess that the environment is controlled by the shortest program that is consistent with all of the interaction observed so far.
Wisely avoiding to mention that the agent is dealing with a computable environment, just to make things clear. Besides, this feels like a guise of Kolmogorov complexity. Finally, none of the caveats that Hutter addresses are named.
... Shannon capacity theorem states that the optimal (shortest average) code for s has length log2 1/P(s) bits
average pointwise entropy? p(s)?
Our two assumptions state that both humans would answer any given question the same way
Simple question: What is your name?
However humans must implicitly know P(s) because our speech and writing, by definition, follows this distribution.
So I implicitly, by definition, knew the probability of your answers so far?
Now suppose that the machine can compute P(s) for all s.
p(s) or P(s) without "for all s" - anyway - strong assumption, at best.
... The article is bogus. It does not at all link to the imitation game abd does not give any hint at WSD.
However, thank you for giving me the motivation to dive into the past and have fun with the associated nostalgia.
philosophers haven't put that question to rest yet?
As I recognize it, it's more the physicists that are unrestful these days.
we axiomatically assume the universe exists
An axiom might be seen as a part of a belief system. And what about dark energy?
Also, as a scientist, I like to avoid even using the word "believe.
"Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." A.E.
All that is not to say that I do not appreciate your position as practical in order to cope with routine processes, I myself did so for long years.
If you have a reductionist approach, you should name it.
Secondly, there is definitely more to consider if you talk about intelligence, be it artificial or not.
Third, a set of reasons for the state (better the dynamics) of AI research that certainly still applies was given by Drew McDermott thirty years ago: "Artificial intelligence meets natural stupidity".
Slashdot Mirror
a quick browse of his paper shows a fairly routine research paper
Now, honestly (and I am trying hard to not even sound ironically), do you indeed think that this with all the effort involved is pure routine? If so, I would like you to give me a hint to a paper which is beyond, just in order to adjust my norm.
CC.
nontrivial calculations
And me in my utter dumbness believed it was conclusions.
CC.
*Real* scientists who write for the record look into the original papers (linked from http://myweb.dal.ca/bworm/, a real intellectual endeavor to find) before commenting.
CC.
It looks like we might have a problem. I'd rather not find out the hard way
Don't bother, there is always "Soylent Green". </cynical>
CC.
How can a public resource not be an asset?
This is obvious, as there is no shareholders value. The public is not authorized to gain from resources. </cynical>
CC.
but you're legally killing off the old ones or forcing them to completely alter their models
There is a thing called "change management". Let them do their homework.
CC.
This is British understatement. They did not want to occupy the first rank.
CC.
The very paranoid might look at the partnering with Novell/Suse as an attempt to poison the environment so that eventually the rest of the OSS people would be guilty of using MS technology without a proper license.
From Microsoft, Novell Make Peace over Linux: In addition, Ballmer said Microsoft would not use its patent portfolio against any individual, nonprofit open-source software developer or against any OpenSUSE programmer whose code ended up in SUSE Linux.
You may well read this along the lines "In addition, Ballmer said Microsoft will use its patent portfolio against any individual, nonprofit open-source software developer or against any LINUX programmer whose code did not end up in SUSE Linux."
How paranoid am I (given M$s history)?
CC.
No. See answer to other poster. Additionally, consider sampling in a production process and imagine that consumers are fabricated.
CC.
thus 19 in 20 are errors
No, they constitute what is rated "normal". You may also look at it from a marketing perspective and may well extend it to general intelligence. </cynical>
CC.
The whole deal is just downright strange.
Not so.
Sequoia had made a good amount of money when Google agreed to buy YouTube for $1.65B. It is believed that Sequoia's $11M investment translated to 30% of the ownership.
cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoia_Capital
CC.
"Then, in 1991, under pressure to reign in massive budget deficits, lawmakers passed (and President George H.W. Bush signed) a law that revolutionized the way the patent office does business. Borrowing ideas then in vogue among private sector consultants and CEOs to "reengineer" organizations to make them more "customer-driven," Congress instructed the patent office, which had always been funded from government revenues, to now pay its own way through fees charged to applicants, and to make the process of winning a patent easier on them."
0 6.roth.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/05
CC.
I would say about 1 in 20 customers actually have a clue
.05 is customarily treated as a "border-line acceptable" error level.
In many areas of research, the p-value of
*scratching head*
CC.
You use my long established "subline". I'll sue you :)
CC.
Date first seen December 1996 -> http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http:/ /www.utube.com
CC.
Here I have a quote (from here) that puts my views in a better language.
"The most legitimate beef that I think the humanities have against engineers is the latter's tendencies to take the categories in which they work for granted, and to not see their own thinking and practice as part of a social and historical process - that they are too wed to the propositional value of statements and not aware of all the other elements that create discourse. Not to mention the lack of sophistication about aesthetics and conscious experience."
You may substitute "engineers" for "scientists".
there is not much respect for osteopathy or "eastern" medicines which do not withstand scientific scrutiny
At least if it comes to day-to-day practice, you may observe that there is not much scientific behavior involved. My wife has become bipolar about ten years ago, and treatment was nothing more but a trial and error process.
Secondly, you might consider that, especially within the context of medicine, strong financial interests lead to the invention of cicumscriptions of conditions of ill health that in turn lead to zillions of prescriptions. Metabolic Syndrome comes to mind, depression as well.
That you accept the placebo effect (to which "western" medicine preferably retracts to especially when it comes to acupuncture being significantly more effective than pharma-treatment (e.g. pain) to me introduces at least incompleteness into your (scientific) system of thoughts: your set of theories must be incomplete, as, though an effect can be observed, there is no explanation within the accepted framework.
CC.
technological advancements such as tech that allows for us to create more food and move it to where the people are
There must be a flaw in the system:
Quote:
Based on the Census Bureau survey, USDA estimates that in 2000, 10.5 million U.S. households were food insecure, meaning that they did not have access to enough food to meet their basic needs.
CC.
Don't get trapped into their terminology. What you think of is partisan.
CC.
Hmm, I always suspected there are undercover moderators here.
CC.
I'd just like to make something that could solve problems ... the kind of work where emotion actually gets in the way.
If you are on the right track? Indeed?
CC.
Hah, great, this is from my local TV-station, NDR.
There is more here.
CC.
The term "metaphysics" lends a false sense ...
:) that defining axioms cannot be false, only, as you said, contradictory.
:) - well, this indeed is a result of personal experience linked to practicing Tai Chi (yes, I was a real hard-core scientist who believed that it would be possible to create a purely silicon based AI to pass Turing). The main turning point came when I realized how much socially induced predetermination is shaping life (and thus science as well, as the actors are individuals). Secondly, on the basis of a "new" somesthetic perception, I analyzed the medical treatment that I received over the years (e.g. braces, spectacles, treatment of lacerations etc.) as well as the effects of impaired posture (30yrs@kbd) - keeping in mind that western medicine is rated science and thereby reinventing osteopathy (which is in rather low esteem here). The bottom line is that I became aware that quite a mighty set of biases of sorts determined my life.
Now it is my turn to say "Dude" - I know - but back to the matrix as well. More seriously, I think that all the sciences are in an epistemological crisis - in short and very mundane (but also related to belief systems of sorts within which the scientist has to promote his issues) - due to funding policies. Regarding physics, I have observed a strong bias towards "big bang".
if an assumed axiom leads to contradictory conclusions
This of course happens if you try to inject a new one into an already existing system which is thought to be consistent. But what if you aim at a revolution? BTW, I believe
The further ahead we get with science, the more obviously wrong the superstitions of the past seem to have been.
I am all with this, my point is that this will hold in the distant future as well - thus - there is no truth.
And I still don't understand what this great insight of yours is.
Not an insight - more a nuisance. According to my perception, empirical sciences these days market themselves as "giving proof" - not evidence. Besides, I did not argue that the universe is an illusion (though exclusively created by the senses and instrumentation that we use), but that the instance that we perceive is depending on the means of measurement - this seems trivial, but it is obviously not.
vocabulary games
To me, "working assumption" vs. "belief"(-system) is different levels, the first touching day-to-day activities, the second - say - epistemology related issues (or maybe - the vision that the scientific community - if such an entity may be postulated - has). Though, admittedly, I like to play those games. If it comes to overturning - there was a time when (western) societies believed in religion, which is not the case anymore, but gaines ground again, especially in the US.
Has some author convinced you to change your world view?
No, I always thought up the world at first and then found supporting references (much easier and saves a lot of time
Isn't the internet wonderful?
Yes, indeed. But believe me, it is not much better here if you are a phased out academic, though I live in a town with 1.75mio inhabitants (Hamburg).
CC.
P.S.: Realizing that I am a little out of practice with regard to writing properly, I shall see whether I can find a paper that depicts my position.
There's a mathematical proof that compressing natural language text implies being able to pass the Turing test
... Shannon capacity theorem states that the optimal (shortest average) code for s has length log2 1/P(s) bits
... The article is bogus. It does not at all link to the imitation game abd does not give any hint at WSD.
I cannot see it.
From the article in question:
What Hutter proved is that the optimal behavior of an agent is to guess that the environment is controlled by the shortest program that is consistent with all of the interaction observed so far.
Wisely avoiding to mention that the agent is dealing with a computable environment, just to make things clear. Besides, this feels like a guise of Kolmogorov complexity. Finally, none of the caveats that Hutter addresses are named.
average pointwise entropy? p(s)?
Our two assumptions state that both humans would answer any given question the same way
Simple question: What is your name?
However humans must implicitly know P(s) because our speech and writing, by definition, follows this distribution.
So I implicitly, by definition, knew the probability of your answers so far?
Now suppose that the machine can compute P(s) for all s.
p(s) or P(s) without "for all s" - anyway - strong assumption, at best.
However, thank you for giving me the motivation to dive into the past and have fun with the associated nostalgia.
CC.
philosophers haven't put that question to rest yet?
As I recognize it, it's more the physicists that are unrestful these days.
we axiomatically assume the universe exists
An axiom might be seen as a part of a belief system. And what about dark energy?
Also, as a scientist, I like to avoid even using the word "believe.
"Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
A.E.
All that is not to say that I do not appreciate your position as practical in order to cope with routine processes, I myself did so for long years.
CC.
If you have a reductionist approach, you should name it.
Secondly, there is definitely more to consider if you talk about intelligence, be it artificial or not.
Third, a set of reasons for the state (better the dynamics) of AI research that certainly still applies was given by Drew McDermott thirty years ago: "Artificial intelligence meets natural stupidity".
CC.