Yeah, but there isn't a car mechanic analogue to the software engineer. IT has lots of maintenance work to do(and we all love our sysadmins, as long as we get admin rights), but all the coding work in particular is fundamentally going to be engineering of one variety or another.
On topic: I don't think I could honestly trust in the abilities of any programmer who hasn't had a serious discrete math class, without that being matched by years of actively failing at good design and learning the more fundamental pitfalls and ways around them the hard way.
19 weeks of training is enough to not make off-by-one errors. It's not enough to know to avoid tightly coupling classes. Or even really enough to know the guts of how a hashtable is implemented and how that affects performance.
It's a bit like defining any other relatively common, complex idea. Any definition you come up with will miss some important details, until it's ballooned in complexity to be as complex as the field you're trying to "help" in the first place.
For a simpler case, imagine defining "car", and getting involved in an intense debate about the relevance of the internal combustion engine's history before you're done.
What on earth could a PHB possibly think to do with a 3d printer inside a white collar organization?
That particular one won't even make it to IT buzzword.
Embedded systems, on the other hand, I can see infesting places they don't belong as a result.
"Why don't we deploy our lightweight Web API to an embedded server to decrease energy costs?" on the other hand is the kinda phrase you can just cringe at.
If we took the visual items from an IQ test, and fed them into an image recognition algorithm, it might actually be able to pull the right results more often than chance.
That's bullshit though. Complex pattern recognition, especially when scaled up to useful levels, is intelligence. There's more to humanity than intelligence, and every theory that alleges AI needs to be human to be intelligent just ignores how much "living thing" and "social animal" and "great ape" and "tool user" and "visual thinker" there is to our innate character that has little to do with intelligence.
Those characteristics have given us lots of useful attributes that aren't explicitly about our abstract problem solving. Some of which computers have "better" existing solutions to in the general sense.
If all we want is humans, we've got humans to spare. AI is about extracting specific useful human qualities relating to intelligence.
I'm going to counter and say that this is great research that shows excellent progress. "Strong AI" for all intents and purposes, is a silly concept. Every useful application of the field is going to come in the form of generically solving problems, without the coder necessarily understanding the problem itself, not somehow directly emulating a person.
Image recognition is pretty good these days, as an example(if you have a giant graphics card server farm that's been trained available). And that's a pretty useful feature for a lot of software applications.
I'm glad you think explaining, mathematically, a statistical forecasting process is for "normals".
Whereas us "geeks" are only interested in short little blurbs about software pathces, right?
Now, I absolutely understand everyone who is concerned about a single contributor dominating the submission queue, possibly hurting the richness of available information, but your complaint seems so petty. Actual critical reasoning about previous information that was questioned is the good kind.
"Ask" is a bit generous. Almost every AI thing like this is the same: 1. Devise a language to describe the broad kind of thing you want(in this case board elements, and instructions to the tricked person). 2. Show the AI some working examples 3. Show the AI some non-working examples 4. Let the inferred characteristics come up.
Every time AI comes up on slashdot, this kind of magical thinking comes up, where an AI becomes capable of the extraordinary after accomplishing something specific and ordinary.
All this AI is is a convolution matrix that essentially describes the relationship of elements to each other in a working "trick".
I remember doing this middle school. I was always baffled when other students couldn't grasp what was happening the moment I came to say "Now subtract your original number" or something similarly back-referential and how it stole their choices from them.
They weren't hard to come up with, especially once your framework was established.
Look, congress sucks, and they aren't our country's absolute best and brightest by any stretch. But the depressing fact of the matter is that they probably are, on average, at least a little smarter than the average American for almost any metric you come up with. That's more of an indictment of Americans than it is praise of congress.
It takes a little bit of skill to "fool most of the people most of the time".
No one said they are smart. And your "wisdom" is nonsense. Overextending the human propensity for pattern recognition with no formal tools to reduce the effects confirmation bias. Every serious system of formal study works on a body of knowledge that is constantly reworked for new information by some kind of critical process: the scientific method, the historical method, critical frameworks, with the occasionally argued exception for arts.
Education isn't sufficient to be smart about something, but it's often necessary.
They have lots of education, more than the average citizen of our country, by a hefty margin. It's just the average type of their degrees are located firmly in law schools. They know how to be completely unambiguous in how they describe their wrong beliefs.
Wasn't that the driving force for li-ion adoption in computing? It's a 10x difference, according to Wikipedia.
How much space, comparatively would it take for an UPS of each size to keep a given collection of servers running for an hour? If one doubles the physical size of your server farm, and the other increases it by 10% that might be sufficient motivation.
"Social order" tends to be the one excuse that is the strongest hallmark of abuse(though, as you suggest, any can be). It tends to be that "keeping the current people in power" really does (locally) maximize social order. It's just that that's a crappy variable to maximize.
It's the excuse behind really awful Soviet era censorship. It's the excuse behind current China and North Korea. It was the favorite excuse of Hollywood when they collectively banned interracial couples or anyone disagreeing with clergy.
The other excuses just haven't been nearly as harmful(not that that justifies them).
Yeah, but gamers actually manage to do it even worse. You'll see people actually follow through on boycotts when they're not chasing irrelevant minutia in the entertainment industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but there isn't a car mechanic analogue to the software engineer. IT has lots of maintenance work to do(and we all love our sysadmins, as long as we get admin rights), but all the coding work in particular is fundamentally going to be engineering of one variety or another.
A lot of adults who have jobs do that too.
On topic:
I don't think I could honestly trust in the abilities of any programmer who hasn't had a serious discrete math class, without that being matched by years of actively failing at good design and learning the more fundamental pitfalls and ways around them the hard way.
19 weeks of training is enough to not make off-by-one errors. It's not enough to know to avoid tightly coupling classes. Or even really enough to know the guts of how a hashtable is implemented and how that affects performance.
Oh, look, let's unmatch our inputs from our system's inputs!
Hey, look, phantomfive is really really really stupid when I read him his IQ test in pitches only dogs can hear.
It's a bit like defining any other relatively common, complex idea. Any definition you come up with will miss some important details, until it's ballooned in complexity to be as complex as the field you're trying to "help" in the first place.
For a simpler case, imagine defining "car", and getting involved in an intense debate about the relevance of the internal combustion engine's history before you're done.
What on earth could a PHB possibly think to do with a 3d printer inside a white collar organization?
That particular one won't even make it to IT buzzword.
Embedded systems, on the other hand, I can see infesting places they don't belong as a result.
"Why don't we deploy our lightweight Web API to an embedded server to decrease energy costs?" on the other hand is the kinda phrase you can just cringe at.
Honestly? I haven't tried.
If we took the visual items from an IQ test, and fed them into an image recognition algorithm, it might actually be able to pull the right results more often than chance.
The same way IQ tests and most GI tests do. Is that too damn crazy?
Absolutely not.
That's bullshit though. Complex pattern recognition, especially when scaled up to useful levels, is intelligence. There's more to humanity than intelligence, and every theory that alleges AI needs to be human to be intelligent just ignores how much "living thing" and "social animal" and "great ape" and "tool user" and "visual thinker" there is to our innate character that has little to do with intelligence.
Those characteristics have given us lots of useful attributes that aren't explicitly about our abstract problem solving. Some of which computers have "better" existing solutions to in the general sense.
If all we want is humans, we've got humans to spare. AI is about extracting specific useful human qualities relating to intelligence.
When in doubt, encrypt the link layer.
Oh, no
I'm going to counter and say that this is great research that shows excellent progress. "Strong AI" for all intents and purposes, is a silly concept. Every useful application of the field is going to come in the form of generically solving problems, without the coder necessarily understanding the problem itself, not somehow directly emulating a person.
Image recognition is pretty good these days, as an example(if you have a giant graphics card server farm that's been trained available). And that's a pretty useful feature for a lot of software applications.
Counterpoint: you obviously did click to the full article. That's a necessary step to make a comment.
I'm glad you think explaining, mathematically, a statistical forecasting process is for "normals".
Whereas us "geeks" are only interested in short little blurbs about software pathces, right?
Now, I absolutely understand everyone who is concerned about a single contributor dominating the submission queue, possibly hurting the richness of available information, but your complaint seems so petty. Actual critical reasoning about previous information that was questioned is the good kind.
Right, because your ability to read and write English comes from zero active training. It's allllllll magic.
"Ask" is a bit generous. Almost every AI thing like this is the same:
1. Devise a language to describe the broad kind of thing you want(in this case board elements, and instructions to the tricked person).
2. Show the AI some working examples
3. Show the AI some non-working examples
4. Let the inferred characteristics come up.
Every time AI comes up on slashdot, this kind of magical thinking comes up, where an AI becomes capable of the extraordinary after accomplishing something specific and ordinary.
All this AI is is a convolution matrix that essentially describes the relationship of elements to each other in a working "trick".
I remember doing this middle school. I was always baffled when other students couldn't grasp what was happening the moment I came to say "Now subtract your original number" or something similarly back-referential and how it stole their choices from them.
They weren't hard to come up with, especially once your framework was established.
Look, congress sucks, and they aren't our country's absolute best and brightest by any stretch. But the depressing fact of the matter is that they probably are, on average, at least a little smarter than the average American for almost any metric you come up with. That's more of an indictment of Americans than it is praise of congress.
It takes a little bit of skill to "fool most of the people most of the time".
No one said they are smart. And your "wisdom" is nonsense. Overextending the human propensity for pattern recognition with no formal tools to reduce the effects confirmation bias. Every serious system of formal study works on a body of knowledge that is constantly reworked for new information by some kind of critical process: the scientific method, the historical method, critical frameworks, with the occasionally argued exception for arts.
Education isn't sufficient to be smart about something, but it's often necessary.
They have lots of education, more than the average citizen of our country, by a hefty margin. It's just the average type of their degrees are located firmly in law schools. They know how to be completely unambiguous in how they describe their wrong beliefs.
Actually, with the recent APEC thing, wouldn't this make Obama anti-lightning?
Clearly he doesn't want any more Thor movies. He must be stopped.
This answer is technically correct. If you can't personally vouch for the source of something, it could be dangerous. That's what trust is.
My best suggestion is put it in a Linux box(low priority target for this kind of hack), and reformat it.
What about energy density?
Wasn't that the driving force for li-ion adoption in computing? It's a 10x difference, according to Wikipedia.
How much space, comparatively would it take for an UPS of each size to keep a given collection of servers running for an hour? If one doubles the physical size of your server farm, and the other increases it by 10% that might be sufficient motivation.
"Social order" tends to be the one excuse that is the strongest hallmark of abuse(though, as you suggest, any can be). It tends to be that "keeping the current people in power" really does (locally) maximize social order. It's just that that's a crappy variable to maximize.
It's the excuse behind really awful Soviet era censorship. It's the excuse behind current China and North Korea. It was the favorite excuse of Hollywood when they collectively banned interracial couples or anyone disagreeing with clergy.
The other excuses just haven't been nearly as harmful(not that that justifies them).
I'm not sure getting fed up with the state of the world and withdrawing from it is insanity, exactly.
Yeah, but gamers actually manage to do it even worse. You'll see people actually follow through on boycotts when they're not chasing irrelevant minutia in the entertainment industry.