What happens is that segmentation is lost. They make one for everyone, rather than 10 for 10 different types of people. To some, there is no such thing as "too light" but for many there is. There is no such thing as "too big" for me. I had an 18.3 inch screen laptop for years, loved the size, but the rest of the laptop was shit. I'd have gone with a 23" laptop, if someone made it. But I'm back to 15.6, as the big screen laptops are either 3x the cost of one a few inches smaller, or weak-hinged and under-powered. Though, I have my eye on the 17.3" size that's getting more popular, when the right one comes to my area (I'm not in the US, and the one I want is in the US, but I'll buy local if I can, for the warranty), I'll get it.
But I realize I'm not the normal demographic. Some people care about some specs over others. Some will do work themselves (I almost always buy a laptop with 4G of ram, pull out the chip and throw it away and put in 2x8G, as that's almost always cheaper than buying the 16G version), and some just want it to work (which is a pretty low bar, but one that the makers still manage to miss).
HP did the sub-3 lb laptop almost 20 years ago. It didn't sell. It even had an integrated optional external battery for those who would rather carry more weight/thickenss for the battery life. It didn't sell. The laptop in general didn't sell because it was $6000, but the battery slice wasn't a popular feature.
I hear you. I understand you. But you aren't who they are trying to sell this to, so your opinion doesn't matter.
No, it's not. I, and millions like me, have moved countries. It's easier than "they" make you think. If everyone knew how easy it was, there would be much better global mobility.
The most expensive thing in the process (more than all other costs combined) was the health screening because the health care in the US is expensive (and poor quality), though I hear it's getting better.
So your aggressive-aggressive insults are better. I know more than you do, and you are wrong. The test is defined. It gives a goal. Having a goal has moved AI forward. If you knew even the tiniest bit about anything, you wouldn't be saying this.
Hipsters reject being the leading edge of anything; as soon as something becomes big, it is no longer hip.
Beard contests and skinny jeans on guys are "hip" and a sign of "hipster". A hipster, is like a Goth. Both trying hard to not fit in, by finding a subculture, and blindly following it without their own identity. Their identity is anti-mainstream, by trying hard to fit in to something perceived to be anti-mainstream, making their choice mainstream.
It was a forum. It was somewhere between a forum and a wiki. It was user-generated content to start them off. It wasn't until the studios were giving them direct (and often advanced) information that they could have even operated without millions of unpaid drones, entering in movies and the information about them.
So this stylized wiki one day cut off the access to the millions who built it. They've tried adding things like reviews, tips, errors, trivia, and all that, but the "value" is the same value people like me gave it for free (back in the pre-monetized days), not realizing we were working for free for someone else's profit.
No, the biggest problem is attempting to monetize a fairly long-established platform that is highly dependent on volunteers, who do not appreciate being disrespected despite their commitment, coupled with participants that do not like changes in things that they have grown accustomed to.
I'm talking about aiming for success in the test, not simply losing in the test.
I'm talking about aiming for success as well. Losing leads to winning. It does for real intelligence, yet you assert the opposite for artificial intelligence.
Yes, you test against the worst player you expect to lose to. Any easier, and you won't learn. Any harder and you will be beaten so overwhelmingly that any one mistake would have been inconsequential to the overall result.
Many small towns in Alaska have no connection to the outside world. No roads in or out. No power grid. No phone lines in or out. It's all done locally, with communications over satellite. The only places with no power at all, though, are generally locations that aren't in a town.
I've been to middle-of-nowhere New Mexico (up in the mountains), and there was power everywhere, and water was plentiful, but not as much municipal water. Generally you filtered river water or pumped from a well. So there's not much that doesn't have power. All the national parks I've been to had power, and some of those are pretty remote (Glacier National Park, Big Bend). Where isn't there power in the US?
The only mistake I made that cost money, nobody ever knew about. Had to put $5k on a personal credit card to re-buy an ISDN card. I was out of the country doing an install (I ordered the gear) and found out the hard way that the world is not uniform in ISDN standard. S/T vs U. Oops. Buy card locally, expense card. Leave both cards installed in router. Nobody noticed or cared enough to ever say anything about it. Relatively minor, but was a direct cost to a mistake.
Most people don't realize that 100/full on one side and Auto on the other should properly negotiate to 100/full and 100/half in a duplex mismatch. I've seen that problem many times.
Since comptuers can only understand what they know, and not infer on new understandings, they cannot, and never will be able to, create real art.
So, when a computer can infer on new understandings, they will be able to create art? Your tone makes it seem impossible, but your premise outlines conditions under which they can do it. All we need is an inference engine.
I can only seem "dry wit" comedy improving. Many of the jokes would be something like an allusion. It's a common phrase for someone to say a quote from Shakespeare as a joke, or to refer to the deeper meaning without spending time explaining. Often it's humorous as one is making fun of the trivial nature assigned to a deep thought. Someone trying to pick between a green and orange squishy drink, saying "to be or not to be" as if the selection was a life-and death manner would be funny (or at least an attempt to be so). That's subtle, and requires a contextual awareness and knowledge of the sum of human production (and associated likelihood that the audience would understand the reference). A similar reference to "Clouds" by Aristophanes would probably be funnier if the audience got it, but has a near-zero chance of having the joke understood.
That level of understanding of humor and audience is going to hold back good creativity.
Let's assume that the Turing Test is a good test for AI. It's debatable, but let's accept the premise. We don't have good AI yet, so what is the point in testing what we have against a test for good AI?
The same reason we tested inferior chess programs against grand masters. So we could learn the weaknesses, and improve upon them. So testing an AI improves the AI, like testing a chess program lead to improvements in the chess program.
When I was at school, we didn't set the high jump at olympic champion levels.
When I was at school, the pool was olympic length, and the high jump could be set at olympic heights, as well as lower ones. So you do what you can, and compare your failure to the desired levels. It's not just the pass-fail as given. But it lets you compare your failure to the ideal.
Like lasting longer in chess against a grand master, or fooling more people in a Turing test (or lasting longer in the question sequence until the tester correctly identifies the AI).
It's in your nature to eat, so you don't "want" to eat, you eat because it's in your nature.
What the AI researchers don't consider is that humans are driven by millions of (mostly conflicting) wants. Hierarchies of needs cover a small subset of those most prominent. But we aren't programming in behavioral parameters, just "intelligence", and that's why we'll fail. Humans have the desire to be liked, and to please others. How do you program that into a computer?
Right now I feel the problem is a range/cost issue.
I think the answer is unrelated to the tech.
Have you ever noticed here that anyone who mentions actual qualifications is shouted down as a fake argument from authority? That people look down on those with certifications as having worked for the cert, and not understanding that which they are certified in?
The US is firmly in the dark ages. People celebrate ignorance and backwardness. Educated people are more likely to see through the lies of the political elite (of both sides) and thus are attacked constantly in our society.
There's an elitism in being "dumb". The popularity of things like The Simple Life, where two highly ignorant people have their ignorance held up on display, indicates we celebrate ignorance. It makes us feel better.
And electric cars are something that we perceive as the rational people selecting, and that's a bad thing. It's generally not the 1% that are driving them around, but the rational 50%. And they are the worst members of society. Educated, and making more than the poor. We should hold them back. The 1% are afraid of them because they have the capability of pulling the 1% down, if they ever woke up.
So, it's classist, not ecomomic or practical reasons that holds back electric cars. When you can't tell the electric from the diesel (other than the cloud of soot behind them), then they will take off. Until then, they are targets for ridicule and hate.
All a byproduct of the classism in our society, not any rational reasons against electric.
Lawmakers aren't omniscient. They can't conceive of every possible misinterpretation from law-trolls looking to pick a fight. They try, but they do miss. So, do you enforce the law like the obvious missing comma is there, or do you effectively nullify a law through judicial activism? Apparently you are on the side of judicial activism.
Most people have more than one car. The average is about one car per person, and more than one person per household, so a "house" has more than one car. Only if you claim people will never share cars with family will your statement be true. And the sum of "exceptions" doesn't surpass the cost of rental for those purposes, so it's still cheaper to have a single electric that doesn't do what you want, and do whatever you want, whenever you want (but rent a different car to do it).
Electric cars are more practical. It's the oil-fueled cars that are the vanity vehicles.
Slashdot Mirror
What happens is that segmentation is lost. They make one for everyone, rather than 10 for 10 different types of people. To some, there is no such thing as "too light" but for many there is. There is no such thing as "too big" for me. I had an 18.3 inch screen laptop for years, loved the size, but the rest of the laptop was shit. I'd have gone with a 23" laptop, if someone made it. But I'm back to 15.6, as the big screen laptops are either 3x the cost of one a few inches smaller, or weak-hinged and under-powered. Though, I have my eye on the 17.3" size that's getting more popular, when the right one comes to my area (I'm not in the US, and the one I want is in the US, but I'll buy local if I can, for the warranty), I'll get it.
But I realize I'm not the normal demographic. Some people care about some specs over others. Some will do work themselves (I almost always buy a laptop with 4G of ram, pull out the chip and throw it away and put in 2x8G, as that's almost always cheaper than buying the 16G version), and some just want it to work (which is a pretty low bar, but one that the makers still manage to miss).
http://news.cnet.com/HP-releas...
HP did the sub-3 lb laptop almost 20 years ago. It didn't sell. It even had an integrated optional external battery for those who would rather carry more weight/thickenss for the battery life. It didn't sell. The laptop in general didn't sell because it was $6000, but the battery slice wasn't a popular feature.
I hear you. I understand you. But you aren't who they are trying to sell this to, so your opinion doesn't matter.
No, it's not. I, and millions like me, have moved countries. It's easier than "they" make you think. If everyone knew how easy it was, there would be much better global mobility.
The most expensive thing in the process (more than all other costs combined) was the health screening because the health care in the US is expensive (and poor quality), though I hear it's getting better.
Tell me, how can you obey the law when the law changes according to the arresting officer's and the judge's opinion of what the spirit of the law is?
Then you need to move from a Common Law country to a Civil Law country.
So your aggressive-aggressive insults are better. I know more than you do, and you are wrong. The test is defined. It gives a goal. Having a goal has moved AI forward. If you knew even the tiniest bit about anything, you wouldn't be saying this.
Hipsters reject being the leading edge of anything; as soon as something becomes big, it is no longer hip.
Beard contests and skinny jeans on guys are "hip" and a sign of "hipster". A hipster, is like a Goth. Both trying hard to not fit in, by finding a subculture, and blindly following it without their own identity. Their identity is anti-mainstream, by trying hard to fit in to something perceived to be anti-mainstream, making their choice mainstream.
It was a forum. It was somewhere between a forum and a wiki. It was user-generated content to start them off. It wasn't until the studios were giving them direct (and often advanced) information that they could have even operated without millions of unpaid drones, entering in movies and the information about them.
So this stylized wiki one day cut off the access to the millions who built it. They've tried adding things like reviews, tips, errors, trivia, and all that, but the "value" is the same value people like me gave it for free (back in the pre-monetized days), not realizing we were working for free for someone else's profit.
User content created news aggregation site screws up big.
When weren't we talking about Slashdot?
No, the biggest problem is attempting to monetize a fairly long-established platform that is highly dependent on volunteers, who do not appreciate being disrespected despite their commitment, coupled with participants that do not like changes in things that they have grown accustomed to.
Worked for IMDB.
Don't play dumb with me.
Just trying to reply in a manner you understand.
I'm talking about aiming for success in the test, not simply losing in the test.
I'm talking about aiming for success as well. Losing leads to winning. It does for real intelligence, yet you assert the opposite for artificial intelligence.
Yes, you test against the worst player you expect to lose to. Any easier, and you won't learn. Any harder and you will be beaten so overwhelmingly that any one mistake would have been inconsequential to the overall result.
Many small towns in Alaska have no connection to the outside world. No roads in or out. No power grid. No phone lines in or out. It's all done locally, with communications over satellite. The only places with no power at all, though, are generally locations that aren't in a town.
I've been to middle-of-nowhere New Mexico (up in the mountains), and there was power everywhere, and water was plentiful, but not as much municipal water. Generally you filtered river water or pumped from a well. So there's not much that doesn't have power. All the national parks I've been to had power, and some of those are pretty remote (Glacier National Park, Big Bend). Where isn't there power in the US?
Is there any indication that having your chess program lose to a grand master lead to improvements in the chess performance?
The only mistake I made that cost money, nobody ever knew about. Had to put $5k on a personal credit card to re-buy an ISDN card. I was out of the country doing an install (I ordered the gear) and found out the hard way that the world is not uniform in ISDN standard. S/T vs U. Oops. Buy card locally, expense card. Leave both cards installed in router. Nobody noticed or cared enough to ever say anything about it. Relatively minor, but was a direct cost to a mistake.
Most people don't realize that 100/full on one side and Auto on the other should properly negotiate to 100/full and 100/half in a duplex mismatch. I've seen that problem many times.
Since comptuers can only understand what they know, and not infer on new understandings, they cannot, and never will be able to, create real art.
So, when a computer can infer on new understandings, they will be able to create art? Your tone makes it seem impossible, but your premise outlines conditions under which they can do it. All we need is an inference engine.
I can only seem "dry wit" comedy improving. Many of the jokes would be something like an allusion. It's a common phrase for someone to say a quote from Shakespeare as a joke, or to refer to the deeper meaning without spending time explaining. Often it's humorous as one is making fun of the trivial nature assigned to a deep thought. Someone trying to pick between a green and orange squishy drink, saying "to be or not to be" as if the selection was a life-and death manner would be funny (or at least an attempt to be so). That's subtle, and requires a contextual awareness and knowledge of the sum of human production (and associated likelihood that the audience would understand the reference). A similar reference to "Clouds" by Aristophanes would probably be funnier if the audience got it, but has a near-zero chance of having the joke understood.
That level of understanding of humor and audience is going to hold back good creativity.
Let's assume that the Turing Test is a good test for AI. It's debatable, but let's accept the premise. We don't have good AI yet, so what is the point in testing what we have against a test for good AI?
The same reason we tested inferior chess programs against grand masters. So we could learn the weaknesses, and improve upon them. So testing an AI improves the AI, like testing a chess program lead to improvements in the chess program.
When I was at school, we didn't set the high jump at olympic champion levels.
When I was at school, the pool was olympic length, and the high jump could be set at olympic heights, as well as lower ones. So you do what you can, and compare your failure to the desired levels. It's not just the pass-fail as given. But it lets you compare your failure to the ideal.
Like lasting longer in chess against a grand master, or fooling more people in a Turing test (or lasting longer in the question sequence until the tester correctly identifies the AI).
It's in your nature to eat, so you don't "want" to eat, you eat because it's in your nature.
What the AI researchers don't consider is that humans are driven by millions of (mostly conflicting) wants. Hierarchies of needs cover a small subset of those most prominent. But we aren't programming in behavioral parameters, just "intelligence", and that's why we'll fail. Humans have the desire to be liked, and to please others. How do you program that into a computer?
Right now I feel the problem is a range/cost issue.
I think the answer is unrelated to the tech.
Have you ever noticed here that anyone who mentions actual qualifications is shouted down as a fake argument from authority? That people look down on those with certifications as having worked for the cert, and not understanding that which they are certified in?
The US is firmly in the dark ages. People celebrate ignorance and backwardness. Educated people are more likely to see through the lies of the political elite (of both sides) and thus are attacked constantly in our society.
There's an elitism in being "dumb". The popularity of things like The Simple Life, where two highly ignorant people have their ignorance held up on display, indicates we celebrate ignorance. It makes us feel better.
And electric cars are something that we perceive as the rational people selecting, and that's a bad thing. It's generally not the 1% that are driving them around, but the rational 50%. And they are the worst members of society. Educated, and making more than the poor. We should hold them back. The 1% are afraid of them because they have the capability of pulling the 1% down, if they ever woke up.
So, it's classist, not ecomomic or practical reasons that holds back electric cars. When you can't tell the electric from the diesel (other than the cloud of soot behind them), then they will take off. Until then, they are targets for ridicule and hate.
All a byproduct of the classism in our society, not any rational reasons against electric.
Lawmakers aren't omniscient. They can't conceive of every possible misinterpretation from law-trolls looking to pick a fight. They try, but they do miss. So, do you enforce the law like the obvious missing comma is there, or do you effectively nullify a law through judicial activism? Apparently you are on the side of judicial activism.
He's in rural WV, he doesn't have running water or electricity at his house.
Only for the people who have no friends or family. But that seems to apply to you.
Most people have more than one car. The average is about one car per person, and more than one person per household, so a "house" has more than one car. Only if you claim people will never share cars with family will your statement be true. And the sum of "exceptions" doesn't surpass the cost of rental for those purposes, so it's still cheaper to have a single electric that doesn't do what you want, and do whatever you want, whenever you want (but rent a different car to do it).
Electric cars are more practical. It's the oil-fueled cars that are the vanity vehicles.
Brake fluid? Who needs brake fluid? Mechanically activated 4-wheel drum brakes works for me.