Yes, we're very much at the start of the new tech hype cycle
Keep in mind that most tech hype is actually correct, even if premature. People laughed in the 1980s when hypers predicted that home computers would be popular, and in the workplace there would be a computer on every desk. But that is what happened. Likewise, people rolled their eyes in the 1990s at the notion that online shopping would be popular, and many people predicted that smartphones and social media were passing fads.
There's no reason why an intelligent computer would be any better at writing software than an intelligent human.
Better? Maybe not. Faster? Very likely. Cheaper? Well, that is the real goal.
It is likely that an AI and a human would make different errors. A human would likely be better at overall design and structure. An AI would likely be better at low level coding, and avoid silly syntax errors. So use AI-Human pair programming.
What you describe is already reality. I wouldn't describe it as artificial intelligence.
Yes, it is reality, and it certainly *is* AI. Image recognition is done using machine learning, and exactly the sort of thing that AI researchers work on.
I can understand the general public thinking that "AI" only means human level intelligence, because that is what they see in the movies. But it surprising how common this misperception is even on a nerd forum.
persuading little Timmy to stop punching his sister when he's throwing a fit
Perhaps little Timmy is throwing a fit and punching his sister because he has learned from his parents that violence is an acceptable solution to problems.
I have never physically punished my daughter. This is the number of times I have ever seen her hit her little brother: 0.
My son has initiated violence on a few occasions, and on a very few I resorted to physically punishing him for it, but I regret doing so, and I certainly don't think that whacking him made him a "better person".
If you really believe that the secret to success is having lots of employees and paying them well, then you should be able to get rich by starting such a business. Or you can invest in companies that do that, while shorting companies that focus on automation, streamlining and outsourcing. Good luck. So far the evidence is not on your side.
Your "short term" vs "long term" argument is also not backed by evidence. Walmart has been lean and paid low wages for 55 years. They aren't bankrupt yet. Meanwhile, plenty of companies that procrastinated at cutting the bloat are dead and gone.
Ford is smart to try to be more like Toyota and less like GM.
the money matters a bit but the hugest investment is time.
This why I prefer Netflix. If five minutes into a movie, it is obvious that it sucks, I can just switch to another. In the theater, that is much harder to do, especially if I am with other people.
Corporeal punishment works when it is for discipline not out of anger.
Citation? No? I didn't think so. Why should anyone take the word of a random guy spouting off an opinion that contradicts a mountain of scientific evidence to the contrary?
There is no level of physical punishment that has been shown to be positively correlated with better behavior.
Or maybe this is all a false flag operation. Cui bono? Disney is getting free publicity for the movie A 5 or maybe a 20 minute segment will actually increase demand for the theater release. My theory is that Disney made it all up and there was no real threat.
Confirmation will be when he goes for the patriotism angle by claiming the hackers are working for ISIS. So if you view the pirated version of the pirate movie, you are supporting terrorism. You heard it here first.
Look at the bright side. Ransomware is malware done right. In the olden days, malware led to botnets that afflicted everyone, and little of negative consequences were borne by those with the insecure systems causing the problems. But with ransomware, the full cost falls directly into the lap of those doing the least to keep their systems secure, giving them a direct financial incentive to change their ways.
It is not only not needed, it is counterproductive. There is overwhelming evidence that corporal punishment tends to produce kids that have worse behavior, poor impulse control, are more likely to resort to violience, and more likely to end up in prison.
Disclaimer: I have whacked my son a few times, but I am not proud of it. My daughter, never, not once.
Unmanaged switches? Just wait until the kids figure out that they can take down the entire network by plugging in both ends of an Ethernet cable to the wall jacks.
There are no "wall jacks" except in locked closets. Everything is WiFi.
And I keep wondering why USA doesn't score higher on the corruption index.
If you seriously wonder that, then you should get a passport and go see the world. While there are a a few countries that do better, most are far worse. When was the last time that you, as an American, had to pay a bribe to get a government clerk to do his job? For many people in other countries, that is a daily occurrence. In America, if you offer a cop a bribe at a traffic stop, he is more likely to throw you in jail than to let you off.
It is not just random chance that some countries are rich and others are poor. Poor countries are poor because they are corrupt. No one wants to work beyond subsistence, because if you build a profitable business that could potentially provide jobs and prosperity, you will be targeted by a corrupt government and they will steal your wealth.
There is a tremendous amount of waste in school IT systems. At my local elementary school the principal asked me to look at a proposal for their "IT infrastructure" that included racked Cisco switches, and would cost over $20k. I explained that for the amount of bandwidth they were using, a few $39 routers from the local Walmart would be more than adequate. They went with the Walmart option, and it worked fine.
The private market will always surpass the nationalized or state run model for all services.
Never say "always". Market solutions work well when there is competition and transparency, but when those are lacking, governments can often do better than a private monopoly or duopoly. There are many examples of this: America's privately run healthcare system is worse in both cost and outcome compared to any other developed country. Many cities in America have municipal power, water, and even Internet, and these tend to be at least as good as privately run monopolies in neighboring cities.
Whenever possible, rather than directly providing services, the government should focus on making markets more competitive and transparent. We have government owned roads and ports, but the government doesn't own the cars, trucks, and ships. Likewise for Internet, the government should provide wide conduits so any bonded company can pull fiber. Since trenching is by far the biggest cost, this will allow more companies to enter markets at greatly reduced cost.
you don't need an embeded interpreter.. you are already "interpreting it" to jvm
Languages like Java and C can be compiled into a fixed stream of bytecode or machine instructions. Perl, like Lisp and Javascript, doesn't work that way. These languages can assemble snippets of their own source code at run time, and then interpret and run them on the fly. This is very common in Lisp, and runtime evaluation happens in most Lisp programs. In Javascript, runtime evaluation is considered to be bad style, and many bug detectors like "JSHint" will complain about it. Perl is in between. Most Perl programs don't do it, but it is fairly common, and most perl hackers will be familiar with it.
A few people are disproportionately going to own large amounts of the machinery that runs society
Except that is the opposite of what is actually happening. Machinery to make stuff is getting cheaper and more accessible. I have a CNC mill in my garage, and I could build an autoloader for it if there was a need. I have have access to laser cutters, 3D printers, injection molders, etc.
The most successful companies in America are Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Amazon. None of them "make stuff with machinery".
your only "in" will be to work as servants to those people for whatever they think you're good for.
These "service" jobs already make up 80% of our economy. So you are predicting something that has already happened.
And the time before that, and the time before... oh wait, there was no time before that because the industrial revolution is barely 200 years old.
There were many times before that. In the neolithic times agriculture put millions of hunter-gathers out of work. Since a farmer could produce more food than a hunter or gather, there was obviously no where for those workers to go. Then 3000 years ago the Hittites figured out how to forge Iron, and suddenly all the farmers using stone tools were redundant. Then humans invented concrete, steel, water wheels, printing presses, movable sails, etc.
The problem with offshoring is that humor and drama are culture dependent. We think the British are funny, but that view is not reciprocated. Germany doesn't even have a concept of "humor". Hitler started out as a standup-comic, and had a gig in a Munich beer hall. But people took him seriously, so he went into politics instead.
A better plan is to develop an AI that can generate scripts. It could have a few deep layers to apply cultural context. How hard can it be?
But many people didn't know that at the time. They had no magic crystal ball. Neither do you.
If we really do develop "Hard AI" that can do anything a human can do, that will cause changes to our society even more profound than the transition from agriculture to manufacturing. Your predictions about what will "obviously" happen will be just as silly as prognostications from the 1800s.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, we're very much at the start of the new tech hype cycle
Keep in mind that most tech hype is actually correct, even if premature. People laughed in the 1980s when hypers predicted that home computers would be popular, and in the workplace there would be a computer on every desk. But that is what happened. Likewise, people rolled their eyes in the 1990s at the notion that online shopping would be popular, and many people predicted that smartphones and social media were passing fads.
There's no reason why an intelligent computer would be any better at writing software than an intelligent human.
Better? Maybe not.
Faster? Very likely.
Cheaper? Well, that is the real goal.
It is likely that an AI and a human would make different errors. A human would likely be better at overall design and structure. An AI would likely be better at low level coding, and avoid silly syntax errors. So use AI-Human pair programming.
Nothing we're seeing these days is actually AI.
You should try to learn what "AI" actually means. Lookup "Strong AI" and "Weak AI", also referred to as "Hard AI" and "Soft AI".
We're seeing complex decision trees based on statistics, not AI.
No, what NVidia is talking about is not "decision trees".
What you describe is already reality. I wouldn't describe it as artificial intelligence.
Yes, it is reality, and it certainly *is* AI. Image recognition is done using machine learning, and exactly the sort of thing that AI researchers work on.
I can understand the general public thinking that "AI" only means human level intelligence, because that is what they see in the movies. But it surprising how common this misperception is even on a nerd forum.
persuading little Timmy to stop punching his sister when he's throwing a fit
Perhaps little Timmy is throwing a fit and punching his sister because he has learned from his parents that violence is an acceptable solution to problems.
I have never physically punished my daughter. This is the number of times I have ever seen her hit her little brother: 0.
My son has initiated violence on a few occasions, and on a very few I resorted to physically punishing him for it, but I regret doing so, and I certainly don't think that whacking him made him a "better person".
All of the major brands (domestic, Asian -- even Korean) have pretty much reached parity in quality.
In terms of customer satisfaction, Tesla is out in front. Considering the price, they ought to be. Fiat is the worst. Ford does pretty well.
I have a Honda Odyssey Minivan, and I am very happy with it. My wife has a Tesla and is very happy with it.
Here are the rankings:
1 Tesla 91%
2 Porsche 84%
3 Audi 77%
4 Subaru 76%
5 Toyota 76%
6 Honda 75%
7 Mazda 74%
8 Chrysler 73%
9 Chevrolet 73%
10 Lexus 73%
11 GMC 73%
12 Lincoln 73%
13 Hyundai 73%
14 BMW 72%
15 Ford 72%
16 Mini 71%
17 Ram 70%
18 Kia 70%
19 Mercedes-Benz 69%
20 Volvo 69%
21 Buick 68%
22 Cadillac 68%
23 Dodge 66%
24 Volkswagen 64%
25 Jeep 60%
26 Acura 58%
27 Infiniti 58%
28 Nissan 58%
29 Fiat 53%
If you really believe that the secret to success is having lots of employees and paying them well, then you should be able to get rich by starting such a business. Or you can invest in companies that do that, while shorting companies that focus on automation, streamlining and outsourcing. Good luck. So far the evidence is not on your side.
Your "short term" vs "long term" argument is also not backed by evidence. Walmart has been lean and paid low wages for 55 years. They aren't bankrupt yet. Meanwhile, plenty of companies that procrastinated at cutting the bloat are dead and gone.
Ford is smart to try to be more like Toyota and less like GM.
the money matters a bit but the hugest investment is time.
This why I prefer Netflix. If five minutes into a movie, it is obvious that it sucks, I can just switch to another. In the theater, that is much harder to do, especially if I am with other people.
Corporeal punishment works when it is for discipline not out of anger.
Citation? No? I didn't think so.
Why should anyone take the word of a random guy spouting off an opinion that contradicts a mountain of scientific evidence to the contrary?
There is no level of physical punishment that has been shown to be positively correlated with better behavior.
Or maybe this is all a false flag operation.
Cui bono?
Disney is getting free publicity for the movie
A 5 or maybe a 20 minute segment will actually increase demand for the theater release.
My theory is that Disney made it all up and there was no real threat.
Confirmation will be when he goes for the patriotism angle by claiming the hackers are working for ISIS.
So if you view the pirated version of the pirate movie, you are supporting terrorism.
You heard it here first.
Look at the bright side. Ransomware is malware done right. In the olden days, malware led to botnets that afflicted everyone, and little of negative consequences were borne by those with the insecure systems causing the problems. But with ransomware, the full cost falls directly into the lap of those doing the least to keep their systems secure, giving them a direct financial incentive to change their ways.
so stealing is a civil infraction and not a criminal one?
No, nothing was "stolen". Copyright violations are generally a civil infraction, as are violations of NDAs and employment contracts.
The potential criminal infraction would be violating an order from a federal judge.
There are similar problems with children who are never punished and let run wild as well.
You can punish a child without resorting to hitting them, and "letting them run wild" is not the only alternative.
I don't agree that you need a belt either.
It is not only not needed, it is counterproductive. There is overwhelming evidence that corporal punishment tends to produce kids that have worse behavior, poor impulse control, are more likely to resort to violience, and more likely to end up in prison.
Disclaimer: I have whacked my son a few times, but I am not proud of it. My daughter, never, not once.
Unmanaged switches? Just wait until the kids figure out that they can take down the entire network by plugging in both ends of an Ethernet cable to the wall jacks.
There are no "wall jacks" except in locked closets. Everything is WiFi.
And I keep wondering why USA doesn't score higher on the corruption index.
If you seriously wonder that, then you should get a passport and go see the world. While there are a a few countries that do better, most are far worse. When was the last time that you, as an American, had to pay a bribe to get a government clerk to do his job? For many people in other countries, that is a daily occurrence. In America, if you offer a cop a bribe at a traffic stop, he is more likely to throw you in jail than to let you off.
It is not just random chance that some countries are rich and others are poor. Poor countries are poor because they are corrupt. No one wants to work beyond subsistence, because if you build a profitable business that could potentially provide jobs and prosperity, you will be targeted by a corrupt government and they will steal your wealth.
There is a tremendous amount of waste in school IT systems. At my local elementary school the principal asked me to look at a proposal for their "IT infrastructure" that included racked Cisco switches, and would cost over $20k. I explained that for the amount of bandwidth they were using, a few $39 routers from the local Walmart would be more than adequate. They went with the Walmart option, and it worked fine.
The private market will always surpass the nationalized or state run model for all services.
Never say "always". Market solutions work well when there is competition and transparency, but when those are lacking, governments can often do better than a private monopoly or duopoly. There are many examples of this: America's privately run healthcare system is worse in both cost and outcome compared to any other developed country. Many cities in America have municipal power, water, and even Internet, and these tend to be at least as good as privately run monopolies in neighboring cities.
Whenever possible, rather than directly providing services, the government should focus on making markets more competitive and transparent. We have government owned roads and ports, but the government doesn't own the cars, trucks, and ships. Likewise for Internet, the government should provide wide conduits so any bonded company can pull fiber. Since trenching is by far the biggest cost, this will allow more companies to enter markets at greatly reduced cost.
you don't need an embeded interpreter.. you are already "interpreting it" to jvm
Languages like Java and C can be compiled into a fixed stream of bytecode or machine instructions. Perl, like Lisp and Javascript, doesn't work that way. These languages can assemble snippets of their own source code at run time, and then interpret and run them on the fly. This is very common in Lisp, and runtime evaluation happens in most Lisp programs. In Javascript, runtime evaluation is considered to be bad style, and many bug detectors like "JSHint" will complain about it. Perl is in between. Most Perl programs don't do it, but it is fairly common, and most perl hackers will be familiar with it.
A few people are disproportionately going to own large amounts of the machinery that runs society
Except that is the opposite of what is actually happening. Machinery to make stuff is getting cheaper and more accessible. I have a CNC mill in my garage, and I could build an autoloader for it if there was a need. I have have access to laser cutters, 3D printers, injection molders, etc.
The most successful companies in America are Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Amazon. None of them "make stuff with machinery".
your only "in" will be to work as servants to those people for whatever they think you're good for.
These "service" jobs already make up 80% of our economy. So you are predicting something that has already happened.
What if the country that best fits your views doesn't want you?
That is just a minor implementation detail.
Several of the people that you mentioned were early participants in the BAS, including Oppenheimer, Born, Teller, Szilard.
Teller later publically disagreed with their advocacy of disarmament, but the others did not.
Founders and contributors
And the time before that, and the time before... oh wait, there was no time before that because the industrial revolution is barely 200 years old.
There were many times before that. In the neolithic times agriculture put millions of hunter-gathers out of work. Since a farmer could produce more food than a hunter or gather, there was obviously no where for those workers to go. Then 3000 years ago the Hittites figured out how to forge Iron, and suddenly all the farmers using stone tools were redundant. Then humans invented concrete, steel, water wheels, printing presses, movable sails, etc.
Progress didn't start 200 years ago.
The problem with offshoring is that humor and drama are culture dependent.
We think the British are funny, but that view is not reciprocated.
Germany doesn't even have a concept of "humor".
Hitler started out as a standup-comic, and had a gig in a Munich beer hall.
But people took him seriously, so he went into politics instead.
A better plan is to develop an AI that can generate scripts.
It could have a few deep layers to apply cultural context.
How hard can it be?
Those times there *was* somewhere to go
But many people didn't know that at the time. They had no magic crystal ball. Neither do you.
If we really do develop "Hard AI" that can do anything a human can do, that will cause changes to our society even more profound than the transition from agriculture to manufacturing. Your predictions about what will "obviously" happen will be just as silly as prognostications from the 1800s.