What we are learning is that some things can be faked or actually done without intelligence. Chess and Go are current examples. These machines are not intelligent, they just managed to scale to a level where somewhat refined brute-force can beat a not-too-well prepared human expert player
So you're of the "if it can be done by a machine, it's not intelligence" crowd? I'm pretty sure that we'll eventually discover that there's no such thing as intelligence in the first place one day this way.
I thought it used to mean the field that tries to build systems that perform such tasks that if they were done by a human, we'd take it as a sign of his intelligence, but that's just me (and Minsky).
and all our physical needs have been met a long time ago
I'm sure the ultrarich disagree; you still need to get more productive for them to grift some more money from you. So there's still a lot of productivity pressure.
China had 39 launches (one failed) in 2018, the US had 34. Is five more "far more"? Furthermore, I suspect that the US tonnage to space is actually still higher because of higher payload mass capabilities of US launch vehicles.
Ah, you (probably?) mean the US? In that case, not much has changed from my perspective; for example, the ban on female drivers in Saudi Arabia ended last year, so logically, no taxi drivers. Chances are that somewhere in the world, there's still something wrong in this respect.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but he doesn't exactly have a silicon processing lab in his basement. So he's definitely not toying with silicon processing.
If I am able to design a pattern of atoms into the solar cell, which causes a higher number of photons to have their energy transferred to electrons, then I have created a nano-scale 'concentrator' which has nothing in common with traditional concentrators.
That's called "increasing module-level efficiency". Yes, that is being done, for example by patterning the surface of the PV wafer with nanostructures.
Then, on the plus side, you'd have a about a $250 saving per kW - perhaps a 15% saving on the capital costs in the US, somewhat less in total costs. On the minus side, you'd have significantly decreased performance in diffuse lighting conditions and significantly higher transportation costs (since a great number of flat panels fits into the volume that the 3D structure of these funnel-like collectors occupies for just one panel. At best it seems like a wash, even if you optimistically expect that your 1:10 concentration system won't need extra cooling (more of those $10s) *and* won't have diminished lifetime due to operating at higher temperatures despite that.
If a cheap system was designed that allowed collecting the light over a smaller area and then delivering it to PV cells that could for instance be stacked.
...then it would be a solar diffuser, and it would generate even less power for even more money.
I don't have to "know exactly what he's doing" or to "have long been educated on this exact one specific matter being discussed". First principles are sufficient to show what constraints such a solution would have to satisfy to be an improvement over what we have available today. It can't increase the light flux entering into an area (that's a constant), so at best it can allow us to use more expensive, more efficient multi-junction cells (at high levels of concentration), or to use a smaller area of the existing cells (at low levels of concentration). The problem is that the cost component of the PV junctions is so low nowadays that replacing a flat panel with a concentrating solution doesn't do for the total costs anything like what it did twenty or thirty years ago. Even worse, concentrating solutions work *worse* for like 90 % of land or so, perhaps more. Here you're hitting the problem that other solutions need to be employed in the remaining 90%+ of the world, which means they will be developed anyway, which means that you'll competing with cheap adequate solutions even in those <10% of the world where concentrating solar is perhaps meaningfully usable because nothing prevents you from using them everywhere. These facts don't require any special education, they're common sense.
Negativity and "we already know everything" attitudes.
Oh, please continue misconstruing me pointing out that entirely different problems such as power electronics and storage need to be solved in the PV field to improve it substantially as "negativity". It's loads of fun!
How will optical solar concentrators (a complete non-problem in modern photovoltaics) help with cheaper, more long-lived power electronics (a problem for modern photovoltaics now that solar panels last for thirty years but inverters last maybe a third of that)?
There's material science and material science. The things that need to be solved in photovoltaics such as decreasing light-induced or potential-induced degradation in bulk c-Si structures are not going to be helped by any sort of tweezers.
Slashdot Mirror
So your saying that philosophy of mind is a solved problem? Interesting! I must have missed that.
I'm not sure why the term "insight" should be any more specific or objectively defined than "intelligence".
In one of the Carolinas it's illegal to sing off key.
The voice print database will be especially useful over there.
What we are learning is that some things can be faked or actually done without intelligence. Chess and Go are current examples. These machines are not intelligent, they just managed to scale to a level where somewhat refined brute-force can beat a not-too-well prepared human expert player
So you're of the "if it can be done by a machine, it's not intelligence" crowd? I'm pretty sure that we'll eventually discover that there's no such thing as intelligence in the first place one day this way.
AI used to mean AGI
I thought it used to mean the field that tries to build systems that perform such tasks that if they were done by a human, we'd take it as a sign of his intelligence, but that's just me (and Minsky).
and all our physical needs have been met a long time ago
I'm sure the ultrarich disagree; you still need to get more productive for them to grift some more money from you. So there's still a lot of productivity pressure.
United Nations
You don't say!
Do you honestly believe if Mozilla had 99% market share, they wouldn't be abusing it?
They never will, so how is this in any way relevant?
I came out slashdot retirement for this
I presume that is supposed to be one of those things that have gone wrong?
China had 39 launches (one failed) in 2018, the US had 34. Is five more "far more"? Furthermore, I suspect that the US tonnage to space is actually still higher because of higher payload mass capabilities of US launch vehicles.
Doesn't using OTP bit sequences for symmetric session keys work well enough?
Ah, you (probably?) mean the US? In that case, not much has changed from my perspective; for example, the ban on female drivers in Saudi Arabia ended last year, so logically, no taxi drivers. Chances are that somewhere in the world, there's still something wrong in this respect.
You mean "crawltime"?
Oh, snap!
It's no more illogical or wrong than English. You know, Englsh, the language that raped the Latin alphabet?
Uh...what's so special about 47 years ago?
Could you please point out the "completely false statement" you're referring to?
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but he doesn't exactly have a silicon processing lab in his basement. So he's definitely not toying with silicon processing.
If I am able to design a pattern of atoms into the solar cell, which causes a higher number of photons to have their energy transferred to electrons, then I have created a nano-scale 'concentrator' which has nothing in common with traditional concentrators.
That's called "increasing module-level efficiency". Yes, that is being done, for example by patterning the surface of the PV wafer with nanostructures.
This worked thirty years ago, when the PV cells cost $10/W and not $0.2/W like they do today.
Then, on the plus side, you'd have a about a $250 saving per kW - perhaps a 15% saving on the capital costs in the US, somewhat less in total costs. On the minus side, you'd have significantly decreased performance in diffuse lighting conditions and significantly higher transportation costs (since a great number of flat panels fits into the volume that the 3D structure of these funnel-like collectors occupies for just one panel. At best it seems like a wash, even if you optimistically expect that your 1:10 concentration system won't need extra cooling (more of those $10s) *and* won't have diminished lifetime due to operating at higher temperatures despite that.
If a cheap system was designed that allowed collecting the light over a smaller area and then delivering it to PV cells that could for instance be stacked.
...then it would be a solar diffuser, and it would generate even less power for even more money.
Negativity and "we already know everything" attitudes.
Oh, please continue misconstruing me pointing out that entirely different problems such as power electronics and storage need to be solved in the PV field to improve it substantially as "negativity". It's loads of fun!
How will optical solar concentrators (a complete non-problem in modern photovoltaics) help with cheaper, more long-lived power electronics (a problem for modern photovoltaics now that solar panels last for thirty years but inverters last maybe a third of that)?
There's material science and material science. The things that need to be solved in photovoltaics such as decreasing light-induced or potential-induced degradation in bulk c-Si structures are not going to be helped by any sort of tweezers.