To have 90% of the population unemployed, you have to accept that our productivity as a society will severely decrease, our advancement as a society will slow dramatically.
This may not be true. If it's possible for artificial machines to do everything we need or want, then we will not need natural machines to do anything. It's an open question whether artificial machines will be able to produce everything. Assuming that the premises of the argument are true, though, every person will be useless. On one level - the level that leads us to measure gross domestic product rather than gross domestic input - it doesn't matter. However, we nominally distribute production according to our own personal utility.
If we are all useless, we will need a new way to distribute production. Even if most of us are useless, we will need to take a hard look at whether distributing product according to utility still makes sense.
Are they going question every one of their customers and make sure their values aligned with PayPal's and seize their funds if not?
No. No, they will not.
In fact, they are pulling out of NC because of a state law that removes protections for homosexuals who experience exactly the kind of discrimination that you posit in your post - specifically, refusal to do business with people who do not share a business' own values. I am not surprised that you think this may be a course of action that PayPal would take, but I think you misunderstand their corporate position.
I don't think that's a very good explanation. If sigmoid or step neurons only used numbers in the range [0,1], then you could divide the range into 65,536 individual states and use 16 bits to translate [0,65535] into [0,1]. However, sigmoid neurons have many inputs of many different weights, so the total input to a sigmoid neuron can be greater than one. In fact, any one input, after weighting, can be greater than one. The weights themselves can be greater than one. Only the output is constrained to [0,1] by the sigmoid or step function.
In order to represent a number without a lot of accuracy, but keep the ability to represent large and small values, you need a floating-point number. I'm no expert in deep learning, but it does pass the sniff test that a 16-bit float would be good enough for neurons. I assume that NVIDIA has done their homework and determined that FP-8 numbers have too much rounding error to be useful in a neural network.
I stayed at an EasyHotel in London. I think it was about 100 square feet (about 10 square meters) and it included a bathroom. It was possible, but not easy, to use the toilet, sink, and shower at the same time. I would have had to stretch out my legs. When you closed the shower curtain, the curtain bulged inwards on the shower stall because the edge of the sink pushed it in. I'm assuming that's what that particular line means. I stayed in London for forty quid a night, though, so I had that going for me, which was nice.
I think if Mum believes she gets the most benefit if she gives her phone to her kids, she will give her phone to her kids. If she thinks there is a greater economic benefit if she recycles her phone, she will probably recycle it. Not everything is a conspiracy.
Machines can play better backgammon than us. It's hard to know exactly when that happened, but it was somewhere between 1979 (BKG 9.8) and 1992 (TD-Gammon). Machines can play better chess than us, shaking our confidence in 1997 when Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov. They can play better Jeopardy! than us, which Watson did in 2008. Lots of people ignore this achievement now by dismissing Jeopardy as a buzzer relay, but I was shocked by Watson's first correct answer, and then shocked again by its first incorrect answer. This year, machines can play better Go than us. This is trouble, but it's trouble I can live with. The machines are excluded from our tournaments and it hasn't really affected our lives. It's going to be trouble for online poker when machines play poker better than people, and I think all of us will catch our breath a little when machines learn to beat us at rock-paper-scissors but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter that much.
Machines can do some jobs better than us, and the list is growing. This is trouble, but it's trouble I can live with. We will have to find some way to decide where on the production possibilities curve we want to put our resources, and we will have to find some way to distribute production and workload, but I'm optimistic that we can find a way.
But, this. This is not trouble, this is a problem. If machines fall in love better than humans, or if it's easier for humans to fall in love with machines than with other humans, then machines are clearly an existential threat to humanity. The last of us will be little more than pathetic cat ladies.
Replying to my own comment because I realized you don't need pi to calculate the sagitta while I was walking the dog!
s = r - sqrt(r*r - (d/2)*(d/2))
where s is the sagitta, r is the radius of curvature of the mirror, and d is the diameter of the mirror. I think that the only time you use pi to create a mirror is if you spin cast it.
I can't think of a step in the process of making focusing mirrors that requires a decimal expansion of pi more accurate than 3.14 (an error of 0.05%).
The only step that I can think of that needs a decimal expansion at all is to estimate how deep you need to hog out the material at the roughest formation (i.e., estimating the saggita). That estimation doesn't need better tolerance than 0.1%.
The spec on the focal length probably has a tolerance of 1% or 0.1% since nearly every device has an adjustable instrument/detector platform to refocus. You could measure the actual focal length of any mirror more accurately than 0.1%; however, it barely matters because I can't think of any use for pi in performing the measurement.
I can't think of any mirror test in use that requires a decimal expansion of pi: not Ronchi, not Foucault, not interferometry.
Honestly, the only exception I can think of is a spin cast mirror, which probably needs an accurate rotational speed on the platter. It may not, though - spin casting is only used to rough out the shape. Maybe it's better than 0.1% and maybe not (it's definitely not one part in a quadrillion, though). The LZT liquid mirror uses closed loop control to fix the rotational speed to within one part in a million but I think it just needs to be constant, rather than precise, so that the focal length doesn't change during an observation and so eddy currents aren't set up in the mirror surface. For all I know they adjust the focus by changing the rotational speed of the platter so an accurate expansion for pi doesn't even enter into it at all. It's possible that slashdot has not yet devolved into a such a pit of misinformation that one of the star nerds that works on the LZT will read this and chime in. Probably not.
G, for example, is only known to 6.67408(31)e-11. I can't think of a single physical constant with a relative standard uncertainty smaller than 1e-10, so using 15 digits of Pi is at least three our four more digits than they need for real-universe calculations.
Print it out in a readable monospace font that differentiates between 1/I and 0/O. Droid Sans Mono modified to have a zero-dot or zero-slash is pretty good. Keep it in a safe deposit box.
When you lose lose a key, type it in twice and use a good visual differencer to make the two copies identical (and as close as possible to the printed original by using it as a guide to choose between the A/B copies). Try the key. If it fails, type in another copy and use a visual differencer to update again. Repeat until the key is good and works. It can take a few hours, but it will always work.
As with any backup, try it out before you use the method to make sure that it works for you.
You are not sufficiently cynical to assess the motivation of politicians. The Senate will not consider a supreme court nominee until after the election. If the next President is a Republican, they will never consider Mr. Garland. If the next President is a Democrat, they will consider Mr. Garland in a lame-duck session in November, December, and the first bit of January if necessary. In a parliamentary system, with it's brutally fast transition of power, this little game would not be possible. An orderly transition has other benefits, of course.
The current President could, I suppose, sink to that level and withdraw his candidate after the election. He has probably promised Mr. Garland not to do that, since it could forever sink his chances of getting a seat on the Court. Also, if the Senate were to consent to a person who had been nominated by a sitting President in that President's term (even though withdrawn), it would put the Supreme Court in a tough position to interpret the constitution and figure out if they had eight or nine members. It's ugly.
For the life of me, I cannot see why the Republicans in the Senate would want to paint themselves as cynical, old-school politicians in this election year. We have seen lots of evidence suggesting that dog will not hunt.
First, I would like to see time limits for moves eliminated. The computer can be augmented with extra hardware, higher clock frequencies, etc. to render time limits inconsequential for it, but the human cannot.
First, take away the computer's advantage over humans. Then we will start to see humans win again. Good point.
Second, I would like to see how the computer fares against a consensus of experts.
Second, bring in a bunch of the 9th Dan play-by-play commentators who thought that AlphaGo was losing because of the inexplicable moves it was making early in the game. You know, the ones who now say that AlphaGo was playing in a way that is beyond human comprehension. The ones who say that some moves have never been made in the 1000+ year history of the game. The ones who say that the moves will now enter the Go canon. Have them vote on the next move. Another good point.
As I understand it, the installer was "hacked" with a compromised version. If you already had the client installed and it automatically updated itself, you were not at risk.
Duration of exposure matters, of course, but one should always keep in mind this rule: one sievert is dangerous. It's not always fatal, but sometimes it is. Some corollaries:
A factor of 100 less (10 mSv) does not matter
A factor of 10 less (100 mSv) is risky.
A factor of 10 more (10 Sv) is almost always fatal.
A factor of 100 more (100 Sv) means irradiating a corpse.
The fellow who got dosed with nearly 700 mSv has my sympathy and gratitude. The mantle of leadership and duty falls where it falls, and we all owe a debt to the ones who bear the burden.
Again, trees look like the better option for carbon removal.
Let's see!
According to these guys, a tree removes about 22kg of co2 per year. How much space does a tree take? I would guess about 10 square meters. It depends a bit on the tree, I guess. 150 acres is 600,000 square meters, or about 60,000 trees.
There are about 8,800 hours in a year, so we can now estimate the removal rate of carbon dioxide in metric tonnes per hour for a forest. Whee!
0.15 tonnes per hour = (60,000 trees x 22 kg/tree-year) / (8,800 hours/year * 1000 kg/tonne)
Your one tonne of carbon represents 3.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Under the assumptions of your post (which I'm a little unsure of), this proposal is almost 25 times as effective as a forest!
MobiDisk has made the common mistake of referring to an isotropic radiator as an omnidirectional radiator. Omnidirectional does not have the same rigorous definition as isotropic, which has led to your misunderstanding of his comment. If you re-read his comment, replacing "96kW of equivalent omnidirectional output" with something more like "radiated power in the major lobe equivalent to a 96kW isotropic radiator" then you will understand his original intent better.
PROCEDURE DIVISION. Calculator.
PERFORM 3 TIMES
DISPLAY "Enter First Number : " WITH NO ADVANCING
ACCEPT Num1
DISPLAY "Enter Second Number : " WITH NO ADVANCING
ACCEPT Num2
DISPLAY "Enter operator (+ or *) : " WITH NO ADVANCING
ACCEPT Operator
IF Operator = "+" THEN
ADD Num1, Num2 GIVING Result
END-IF
IF Operator = "*" THEN
MULTIPLY Num1 BY Num2 GIVING Result
END-IF
DISPLAY "Result is = ", Result
END-PERFORM.
STOP RUN.
Slashdot Mirror
...we would have developed tech to have radio broadcast in non interfering ways
If you know of some technology that achieves that and still allows the utility we currently enjoy, do share.
Government.
To have 90% of the population unemployed, you have to accept that our productivity as a society will severely decrease, our advancement as a society will slow dramatically.
This may not be true. If it's possible for artificial machines to do everything we need or want, then we will not need natural machines to do anything. It's an open question whether artificial machines will be able to produce everything. Assuming that the premises of the argument are true, though, every person will be useless. On one level - the level that leads us to measure gross domestic product rather than gross domestic input - it doesn't matter. However, we nominally distribute production according to our own personal utility.
If we are all useless, we will need a new way to distribute production. Even if most of us are useless, we will need to take a hard look at whether distributing product according to utility still makes sense.
Excellent idea. Perhaps someone can quickly describe how to revoke a compromised identity when it's based on your fingerprint.
Are they going question every one of their customers and make sure their values aligned with PayPal's and seize their funds if not?
No. No, they will not.
In fact, they are pulling out of NC because of a state law that removes protections for homosexuals who experience exactly the kind of discrimination that you posit in your post - specifically, refusal to do business with people who do not share a business' own values. I am not surprised that you think this may be a course of action that PayPal would take, but I think you misunderstand their corporate position.
I take it you have rejected the Breakfast of Champions hypothesis that we are machines made out of meat?
I don't think that's a very good explanation. If sigmoid or step neurons only used numbers in the range [0,1], then you could divide the range into 65,536 individual states and use 16 bits to translate [0,65535] into [0,1]. However, sigmoid neurons have many inputs of many different weights, so the total input to a sigmoid neuron can be greater than one. In fact, any one input, after weighting, can be greater than one. The weights themselves can be greater than one. Only the output is constrained to [0,1] by the sigmoid or step function.
In order to represent a number without a lot of accuracy, but keep the ability to represent large and small values, you need a floating-point number. I'm no expert in deep learning, but it does pass the sniff test that a 16-bit float would be good enough for neurons. I assume that NVIDIA has done their homework and determined that FP-8 numbers have too much rounding error to be useful in a neural network.
In this thread you will find out why it is unusual to find a software developer that can start a successful software development business.
I just booked a hotel in the middle of Downtown Seattle for $175/night and it is a full 800sqft multi-room suite.
Oh, snap. At that price did they still make you stay in Seattle?
I stayed at an EasyHotel in London. I think it was about 100 square feet (about 10 square meters) and it included a bathroom. It was possible, but not easy, to use the toilet, sink, and shower at the same time. I would have had to stretch out my legs. When you closed the shower curtain, the curtain bulged inwards on the shower stall because the edge of the sink pushed it in. I'm assuming that's what that particular line means. I stayed in London for forty quid a night, though, so I had that going for me, which was nice.
Here is somebody else's really good picture that shows the layout.
I think if Mum believes she gets the most benefit if she gives her phone to her kids, she will give her phone to her kids. If she thinks there is a greater economic benefit if she recycles her phone, she will probably recycle it. Not everything is a conspiracy.
Machines can play better backgammon than us. It's hard to know exactly when that happened, but it was somewhere between 1979 (BKG 9.8) and 1992 (TD-Gammon). Machines can play better chess than us, shaking our confidence in 1997 when Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov. They can play better Jeopardy! than us, which Watson did in 2008. Lots of people ignore this achievement now by dismissing Jeopardy as a buzzer relay, but I was shocked by Watson's first correct answer, and then shocked again by its first incorrect answer. This year, machines can play better Go than us. This is trouble, but it's trouble I can live with. The machines are excluded from our tournaments and it hasn't really affected our lives. It's going to be trouble for online poker when machines play poker better than people, and I think all of us will catch our breath a little when machines learn to beat us at rock-paper-scissors but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter that much.
Machines can do some jobs better than us, and the list is growing. This is trouble, but it's trouble I can live with. We will have to find some way to decide where on the production possibilities curve we want to put our resources, and we will have to find some way to distribute production and workload, but I'm optimistic that we can find a way.
But, this. This is not trouble, this is a problem. If machines fall in love better than humans, or if it's easier for humans to fall in love with machines than with other humans, then machines are clearly an existential threat to humanity. The last of us will be little more than pathetic cat ladies.
Replying to my own comment because I realized you don't need pi to calculate the sagitta while I was walking the dog!
s = r - sqrt(r*r - (d/2)*(d/2))
where s is the sagitta, r is the radius of curvature of the mirror, and d is the diameter of the mirror. I think that the only time you use pi to create a mirror is if you spin cast it.
I can't think of a step in the process of making focusing mirrors that requires a decimal expansion of pi more accurate than 3.14 (an error of 0.05%).
The only step that I can think of that needs a decimal expansion at all is to estimate how deep you need to hog out the material at the roughest formation (i.e., estimating the saggita). That estimation doesn't need better tolerance than 0.1%.
The spec on the focal length probably has a tolerance of 1% or 0.1% since nearly every device has an adjustable instrument/detector platform to refocus. You could measure the actual focal length of any mirror more accurately than 0.1%; however, it barely matters because I can't think of any use for pi in performing the measurement.
I can't think of any mirror test in use that requires a decimal expansion of pi: not Ronchi, not Foucault, not interferometry.
Honestly, the only exception I can think of is a spin cast mirror, which probably needs an accurate rotational speed on the platter. It may not, though - spin casting is only used to rough out the shape. Maybe it's better than 0.1% and maybe not (it's definitely not one part in a quadrillion, though). The LZT liquid mirror uses closed loop control to fix the rotational speed to within one part in a million but I think it just needs to be constant, rather than precise, so that the focal length doesn't change during an observation and so eddy currents aren't set up in the mirror surface. For all I know they adjust the focus by changing the rotational speed of the platter so an accurate expansion for pi doesn't even enter into it at all. It's possible that slashdot has not yet devolved into a such a pit of misinformation that one of the star nerds that works on the LZT will read this and chime in. Probably not.
G, for example, is only known to 6.67408(31)e-11. I can't think of a single physical constant with a relative standard uncertainty smaller than 1e-10, so using 15 digits of Pi is at least three our four more digits than they need for real-universe calculations.
Print it out in a readable monospace font that differentiates between 1/I and 0/O. Droid Sans Mono modified to have a zero-dot or zero-slash is pretty good. Keep it in a safe deposit box.
When you lose lose a key, type it in twice and use a good visual differencer to make the two copies identical (and as close as possible to the printed original by using it as a guide to choose between the A/B copies). Try the key. If it fails, type in another copy and use a visual differencer to update again. Repeat until the key is good and works. It can take a few hours, but it will always work.
As with any backup, try it out before you use the method to make sure that it works for you.
You are not sufficiently cynical to assess the motivation of politicians. The Senate will not consider a supreme court nominee until after the election. If the next President is a Republican, they will never consider Mr. Garland. If the next President is a Democrat, they will consider Mr. Garland in a lame-duck session in November, December, and the first bit of January if necessary. In a parliamentary system, with it's brutally fast transition of power, this little game would not be possible. An orderly transition has other benefits, of course.
The current President could, I suppose, sink to that level and withdraw his candidate after the election. He has probably promised Mr. Garland not to do that, since it could forever sink his chances of getting a seat on the Court. Also, if the Senate were to consent to a person who had been nominated by a sitting President in that President's term (even though withdrawn), it would put the Supreme Court in a tough position to interpret the constitution and figure out if they had eight or nine members. It's ugly.
For the life of me, I cannot see why the Republicans in the Senate would want to paint themselves as cynical, old-school politicians in this election year. We have seen lots of evidence suggesting that dog will not hunt.
Even if the DOJ has the best lawyers on the planet - how would you ever measure it? - maybe the DOJ just has the weaker position.
First, I would like to see time limits for moves eliminated. The computer can be augmented with extra hardware, higher clock frequencies, etc. to render time limits inconsequential for it, but the human cannot.
First, take away the computer's advantage over humans. Then we will start to see humans win again. Good point.
Second, I would like to see how the computer fares against a consensus of experts.
Second, bring in a bunch of the 9th Dan play-by-play commentators who thought that AlphaGo was losing because of the inexplicable moves it was making early in the game. You know, the ones who now say that AlphaGo was playing in a way that is beyond human comprehension. The ones who say that some moves have never been made in the 1000+ year history of the game. The ones who say that the moves will now enter the Go canon. Have them vote on the next move. Another good point.
As I understand it, the installer was "hacked" with a compromised version. If you already had the client installed and it automatically updated itself, you were not at risk.
What's a factor of a million between friends?
Duration of exposure matters, of course, but one should always keep in mind this rule: one sievert is dangerous. It's not always fatal, but sometimes it is. Some corollaries:
The fellow who got dosed with nearly 700 mSv has my sympathy and gratitude. The mantle of leadership and duty falls where it falls, and we all owe a debt to the ones who bear the burden.
Again, trees look like the better option for carbon removal.
Let's see!
According to these guys, a tree removes about 22kg of co2 per year. How much space does a tree take? I would guess about 10 square meters. It depends a bit on the tree, I guess. 150 acres is 600,000 square meters, or about 60,000 trees.
There are about 8,800 hours in a year, so we can now estimate the removal rate of carbon dioxide in metric tonnes per hour for a forest. Whee!
0.15 tonnes per hour = (60,000 trees x 22 kg/tree-year) / (8,800 hours/year * 1000 kg/tonne)
Your one tonne of carbon represents 3.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Under the assumptions of your post (which I'm a little unsure of), this proposal is almost 25 times as effective as a forest!
You are 100% right, but one should add that removing one tonne of carbon removes 3.7 (=44/12) tonnes of carbon dioxide.
MobiDisk has made the common mistake of referring to an isotropic radiator as an omnidirectional radiator. Omnidirectional does not have the same rigorous definition as isotropic, which has led to your misunderstanding of his comment. If you re-read his comment, replacing "96kW of equivalent omnidirectional output" with something more like "radiated power in the major lobe equivalent to a 96kW isotropic radiator" then you will understand his original intent better.
Have you never seen COBOL?
PROCEDURE DIVISION.
Calculator.
PERFORM 3 TIMES
DISPLAY "Enter First Number : " WITH NO ADVANCING
ACCEPT Num1
DISPLAY "Enter Second Number : " WITH NO ADVANCING
ACCEPT Num2
DISPLAY "Enter operator (+ or *) : " WITH NO ADVANCING
ACCEPT Operator
IF Operator = "+" THEN
ADD Num1, Num2 GIVING Result
END-IF
IF Operator = "*" THEN
MULTIPLY Num1 BY Num2 GIVING Result
END-IF
DISPLAY "Result is = ", Result
END-PERFORM.
STOP RUN.