No human can play Go or Chess or any other game at a championship level with no experience and without being told the rules of the game. So why should a machine be able to do that? If that makes a machine "not intelligent", then no human is intelligent either. I really don't see what your point is.
If your point is that AlphaGo doesn't possess human-level Hollywood AI like you saw in a Will Smith movie, then you are just stating the obvious.
I think of the lost knowledge that was communicated by the Neanderthals in their survived paintings and carvings.
Neanderthals coexisted and interbred with H Sapiens, so it is likely they also talked to each other. So their knowledge wasn't lost, but passed on to their mongrel children.
Think about it: it's only going to be as good as your training data.
Obvious counter-example: Alpha-Go Zero, which used NO training data, and was far better at its assigned task than any of its programmers.
There is no reason to believe that an AI's capabilities are inherently limited by training data. Nor is there any reason to believe that it can't surpass the abilities of its creators. That makes as little sense as saying children can never be more intelligent than their parents.
I should be able to get into a contractual relationship with anyone I want as long as the business itself is legal (so prostitution would not count).
A long term contract exchanging sexual intimacy for financial support is known as a "marriage" and they are legal, even though the legal enforcement is only on the "financial support" side of the deal.
Short term deals, such as SeekingArrangement.com, are legal as long as there is a "relationship", and it is not purely a one-time sex-for-money transaction.
The Chinese government doesn't need to lie. They WANT their citizens to know they are being watched. Chinese censorship works mostly through deterrence.
The bill will likely not pass, but it will get the opponents on record as voting against it, which can be used against them in the November mid-terms. 80% of voters support NN, so this should be a winning issue for the Democrats in an election where many Republicans incumbents are already struggling.
I was stunned and humbled to find out how many of the kids literally had no permanent home. They'd move throughout the school district several times a year because their families were couch-surfing from house to house.
Open defecation is different from the other problems. It is not merely a lack of resources or infrastructure. It is also deeply cultural. The Indian government has actually had better luck getting the poor to use communal toilets and latrines than their better off neighbors. They don't want to be seen using the same facilities as a bunch of dirty Dalits.
Bangladesh has nearly eliminated open defecation, and has seen a seven-fold drop in early childhood mortality from diarrhea. They are doing better than India despite being a poorer country.
Algae blooms block sunlight and when they die, sink, and rot, deeper layers are deprived of oxygen. Coral reefs are very sensitive to water quality.
What does land management have to do with the ocean?
A lot. Erosion and runoff carry silt, phosphates, and iron into the ocean.
Isn't this just feel-good stuff?
Getting local people involved and changing attitudes can make a big difference.
Also, no mention of global warming?
Get a grip. AGW is an enormous global problem that will take generations to fix. That is not something that Australia can do on their own, and certainly not with $379M.
Is The Shape of Water not considered a sci fi film ? It just won Best Picture and Best Director.
Indeed. In addition to winning plenty of Oscars, Sci-fi has been the most financially successful genre over the last 40 years. Of the 10 highest grossing films 8 are sci-fi. Saying that sci-fi doesn't have "mainstream acceptance" is absurd.
Maybe it would be better to call it automatic programming than artificial intelligence.
A tensor of weights are data not "programming".
Researchers have been using the term "artificial intelligence" since 1956. They shouldn't have to stop just because Hollywood later started using the term to mean something else.
If you get confused when terms you first heard in movies are used differently in real life, perhaps you should just accept that your opinion doesn't really matter very much. Why should the research community change their terminology to accommodate you?
how about having a physics degree, having more knowledge of computers and science than you
Most programming has nothing to do with physical science, and there is no particular need for a programmer to know how computers work at the physical level. Ask most programmers how CMOS gates work, and they will have no idea. Those that do know are no more likely to be better programmers.
yet refusing to take ur stupid test because i think you are a jackass
That is another benefit of the test. In addition to filtering out the incompetent, it also filters out the prima donnas who think that demonstrating actual skills are beneath them. Those people don't make good teammates.
Someone could Google the problem with the phone then step up and solve the challenge.
If given a spec, someone can consistently cobble together working code by Googling, then I would love to hire them. That is the most productive way to get things done.
There is nothing wrong with using external references. When I am coding, I have three windows open: an editor, a testing window, and a browser with a Stackoverflow tab open.
Then you get someone good at sorting arrays while picking out prime numbers, but potentially not much else.
The point of the test is not to identify the perfect candidate, but to filter out the clearly incompetent. If you can't sort an array and write a function to identify a prime number, I certainly would not hire you. Passing the test doesn't get you a job, but it may get you an interview... where there will be other tests.
If you go to a bar you are going to meet people that like to drink and hang out in bars. I have zero interest in doing either.
If I go on-line, and filter for "technical/scientific/engineering" in the "profession" field, I can see pages and pages of nerdy women. Just to be sure, I ask for a code sample before the first meet-up.
Slashdot Mirror
China has 10x the population as the US
China has 4x the population of the US.
In theory China should be able to be the #1 Economy in the world, but it isn't.
China's economy is the world's biggest by PPP, which is the most sensible measurement of national production.
If you measure by exchange rates instead, then on current trends, China will surpass the US within ten years.
China has a lot of policies and rules that are extremely oppressive
They do indeed. But an American citizen is FOUR TIMES more likely to be arrested and imprisoned by their government.
How do you score a translation and handwriting recognition program?
By checking to see if the reading makes syntactic and semantic sense.
You have to have its output compared to that of humans to validate the results.
Do you think humans learn to read without knowing any rules or seeing any examples?
Then why do we not know exactly what the paintings communicated?
We also don't know what exactly what ancient cave paintings by H. Sapiens communicated.
No human can play Go or Chess or any other game at a championship level with no experience and without being told the rules of the game. So why should a machine be able to do that? If that makes a machine "not intelligent", then no human is intelligent either. I really don't see what your point is.
If your point is that AlphaGo doesn't possess human-level Hollywood AI like you saw in a Will Smith movie, then you are just stating the obvious.
I think of the lost knowledge that was communicated by the Neanderthals in their survived paintings and carvings.
Neanderthals coexisted and interbred with H Sapiens, so it is likely they also talked to each other. So their knowledge wasn't lost, but passed on to their mongrel children.
Think about it: it's only going to be as good as your training data.
Obvious counter-example: Alpha-Go Zero, which used NO training data, and was far better at its assigned task than any of its programmers.
There is no reason to believe that an AI's capabilities are inherently limited by training data. Nor is there any reason to believe that it can't surpass the abilities of its creators. That makes as little sense as saying children can never be more intelligent than their parents.
According to TFS, the library is inaccessible because it hasn't been scanned. ... scanning.
So their solution is to use AI driven OCR, which requires
Have you read the proposed bill?
No. Why should I? It is not going to pass, so it doesn't matter what it says.
Then how on earth can you be for or against it?
I am not for or against it.
I should be able to get into a contractual relationship with anyone I want as long as the business itself is legal (so prostitution would not count).
A long term contract exchanging sexual intimacy for financial support is known as a "marriage" and they are legal, even though the legal enforcement is only on the "financial support" side of the deal.
Short term deals, such as SeekingArrangement.com, are legal as long as there is a "relationship", and it is not purely a one-time sex-for-money transaction.
The Chinese government doesn't need to lie. They WANT their citizens to know they are being watched. Chinese censorship works mostly through deterrence.
The bill will likely not pass, but it will get the opponents on record as voting against it, which can be used against them in the November mid-terms. 80% of voters support NN, so this should be a winning issue for the Democrats in an election where many Republicans incumbents are already struggling.
There is no Zero cost, it costs someone, somewhere.
It may not be zero cost, but the cost of running a VPS hosting some static PDFs is negligible. My VPS costs $10 per month.
The hard part is the peer reviews, for which, under the current system, the journals DO NOT PAY.
Before you give more reasons why Open Access is impossible, you should explain why the physics community is already doing it and it is working well.
If research is funded in full or in part with public funds, then the data and results should be available to the public.
I was stunned and humbled to find out how many of the kids literally had no permanent home. They'd move throughout the school district several times a year because their families were couch-surfing from house to house.
We clearly need better contraceptives.
Open defecation is different from the other problems. It is not merely a lack of resources or infrastructure. It is also deeply cultural. The Indian government has actually had better luck getting the poor to use communal toilets and latrines than their better off neighbors. They don't want to be seen using the same facilities as a bunch of dirty Dalits.
Bangladesh has nearly eliminated open defecation, and has seen a seven-fold drop in early childhood mortality from diarrhea. They are doing better than India despite being a poorer country.
Is fertilizers even the problem here?
Algae blooms block sunlight and when they die, sink, and rot, deeper layers are deprived of oxygen. Coral reefs are very sensitive to water quality.
What does land management have to do with the ocean?
A lot. Erosion and runoff carry silt, phosphates, and iron into the ocean.
Isn't this just feel-good stuff?
Getting local people involved and changing attitudes can make a big difference.
Also, no mention of global warming?
Get a grip. AGW is an enormous global problem that will take generations to fix. That is not something that Australia can do on their own, and certainly not with $379M.
Is The Shape of Water not considered a sci fi film ? It just won Best Picture and Best Director .
Indeed. In addition to winning plenty of Oscars, Sci-fi has been the most financially successful genre over the last 40 years. Of the 10 highest grossing films 8 are sci-fi. Saying that sci-fi doesn't have "mainstream acceptance" is absurd.
Maybe it would be better to call it automatic programming than artificial intelligence.
A tensor of weights are data not "programming".
Researchers have been using the term "artificial intelligence" since 1956. They shouldn't have to stop just because Hollywood later started using the term to mean something else.
If you get confused when terms you first heard in movies are used differently in real life, perhaps you should just accept that your opinion doesn't really matter very much. Why should the research community change their terminology to accommodate you?
Try to teach a chimp to translate Chinese to English...
Try to teach a computer to peel a banana.
Which male directors specially were selected in part because of their sex?
How many female directors would want to work for Harvey Weinstein? He have may have been the worst, but there are plenty of his ilk in Hollywood.
how about having a physics degree, having more knowledge of computers and science than you
Most programming has nothing to do with physical science, and there is no particular need for a programmer to know how computers work at the physical level. Ask most programmers how CMOS gates work, and they will have no idea. Those that do know are no more likely to be better programmers.
yet refusing to take ur stupid test because i think you are a jackass
That is another benefit of the test. In addition to filtering out the incompetent, it also filters out the prima donnas who think that demonstrating actual skills are beneath them. Those people don't make good teammates.
It's not really artificial intelligence yet.
Yes it is. When researchers and practitioners say "AI" they don't mean human-level Hollywood AI. Machine learning is a subset of AI.
That makes it a bit smarter than a chimp perhaps, but "intelligent"?
State-of-the-art AI is nowhere near the intelligence of a chimp. Not even close.
Most neural nets are just a cascading if-then directed acyclic-graph and a weight assigned to each.
True. But the important point is that they learn those weights on their own, from examples, rather than being explicitly told.
Someone could Google the problem with the phone then step up and solve the challenge.
If given a spec, someone can consistently cobble together working code by Googling, then I would love to hire them. That is the most productive way to get things done.
There is nothing wrong with using external references. When I am coding, I have three windows open: an editor, a testing window, and a browser with a Stackoverflow tab open.
Then you get someone good at sorting arrays while picking out prime numbers, but potentially not much else.
The point of the test is not to identify the perfect candidate, but to filter out the clearly incompetent. If you can't sort an array and write a function to identify a prime number, I certainly would not hire you. Passing the test doesn't get you a job, but it may get you an interview ... where there will be other tests.
If you go to a bar you are going to meet people that like to drink and hang out in bars. I have zero interest in doing either.
If I go on-line, and filter for "technical/scientific/engineering" in the "profession" field, I can see pages and pages of nerdy women. Just to be sure, I ask for a code sample before the first meet-up.