Has it been absolutely proven? No. However, there isn't a grandmaster out there who thinks it is not a theoretical draw. If you find any expert who thinks otherwise, please post a link.
Given enough time, machines will be better than us at EVERYTHING.
Except at assigning purpose. This is one thing that cannot be expressed mathematically.
And you also do not understand chess. Chess is a drawn game by default. A "perfect" player could not beat you unless you made a mistake. There are ways to play the game that focus on minimizing risk as opposed to all out win.
Take a look at players like Petrosian (world champion in mid 60's as I recall). His style was python-like. He would see to suffocate you. Then, after tying you down, would systematically destroy you. Petrosian would be much better at playing supercomputers that Kasparov every was. His style could not be brute forced with today's supercomputers... too many plies to calculate... too many fruitless branches.
But, I do agree, in a few more decades humans will never be able to score a victory against the best computers.
But who cares? It is a linear game. I do not define my worth as a human being cased on linear criteria. Kinda gets back to the "purpose" thing.
I am deeply ashamed that we have developed machines that are stronger than us. Clearly, because machines can outlift and outwork us, we have lost our purpose as humans.
And computers can outcalculate us in highly linear situations. It is time to pull the plug on humanity, and let the chess programs and heavy lifting equipment to collaborate...
and then in a deadly, powerful stroke, bash the customer's head. With proficiency, the experienced CSA [customer service associate] only needs to deliver only one blow." -- From Hewlett-Packard's customer service handbook.
Nope. People like to hold contradictory facts in their head, but very few people actually change who they are based upon what they learn. Real change in behavior is rare.
For example: I think time is way to precious to be reading Slashdot commentary, yet here I am;)
I hate hypocrisy in everyone else... in me, it is a good thing, though.
Re:Interesting but not surprising...
on
Pac-Man As Pot Head
·
· Score: 2, Funny
You know what. I am so tired of hearing there everyone is a drug abuser. I'd write out a long, detailed scathing response, but I have to go get my 12th Coke of the day now...
Divsify? Yes. Diversify in OS's/languages/etc. Sure. But try cross-skilling in computers/finance, or computers/law, or computers/management. Then you will be in great demand.
You be writing your own ticket if you are COMPETENT in each area. If you excel in two or more areas, and are willing to accept risk, you can become an entrepreneur.
Not a bad thought. Encourage working rather than discouraging it. In fact, a negative income tax was proposed sometime in the far-distant past. Unfortunatley, it got shot down. Right wants you to pull yourself up by bootstraps, left wants you to suckle at the government teet.
To mods: On another note, I've looked at this guy's posting activity. Nothing bad, but one mod got him bumped to negative karma. Can a kind mod bump one of his posts up to get him back?
It is a hard question. And neither side is willing to meet somewhere in the middle. The one and only thing that can really bring this country down is the extreme polarization of society.
And I am not arguing with you. There are individual cases. And that is why you ask the "please explain gaps in your work history". A good story (verified) can alleviate my concerns. Moms go back to take care of kids. Health issues happen. Things like what happened with your dad. I do ask.
The answers, 9 out of ten times, reinforce my view. They are folks who overestimate their value. Folks like that are a poison to an organization that depends on teamwork.
However, I will GLADLY concede the point that not everyone on unemployment is lazy. And I will whole-heartedly agree that HR should ask the reasons behind work gaps, and not throw the resume away.
I can find you many, many more examples of folks turning down jobs "beneath them" than examples of those jobs turning down overqualified applicants. In fact, when someone says you are "overqualifed", it is really a code word for "we do not like you personally". HR depts can't say that, cause it would get them in trouble.
I've been one of those overqualified applicants. I found work within 6 hours of starting to look. About half the pay I got in my current "real" job, but a job nonetheless.
In fact, the experience makes me agree with the other poster who didn't take a job because he wanted to look full time for a good job. The company I worked for made it hell on me to to find my "real" job despite being told in advance what my intentions were. If I can find a job in 6 hours, and TELL the employer I don't intend to stick around... and you are telling me folks can't get a fast food job, or a clerical role, then I call bullshit.
There are more WORKING HOMELESS THAN EVER BEFORE IN THIS COUNTRY
This is what is really funny... you talk about these folks to "support" your argument. These are the FIRST folks I'd consider. THEY ARE WORKING! They aren't turning their nose up to "demeaning" work. If they will work hard for a slave wage, then they will work hard for a company like mine that pays well and has excellent benefits. These are the folks that have my utmost respect.
The corporation will make decisions based upon profit. I don't care how moral the individuals are... If there is enogh profit, the business will find a way to take advantage of it.
So this is where gov't comes in. If the U.S. says, I won't allow you to do business in our country if you do business in N. Korea. Then Lockheed makes a balance sheet analysis. If it is profitable enough to do anyway, they will do it. If not, they won't.
You may WANT business to act ethically without outseide pressure, but history shows it doesn't happen (as a whole).
This, my friend, is a tough question. For example, I have a friend who is retarded. Nice guy. But could he hold a job like you or me? Nope.
He does have a job... very subsidized by local gov't. He has a case worker take care of him, and make work arrangements. Probably costs more to support him in the job than it is actually worth to society.
I am right of center politically. Do I mind this type of arrangment. Not in the least. People - men especially - need to feel that they contribute to society. He is willing to work as much as he is capable. I really can't ask any more than that. And yes, I am willing to pony up in taxes to make this happen.
Contrast this to an 18-year-old ex-neighbor who couldn't work because he had ADD. Never mind that he had no trouble playing basketball... or getting an underage girl knocked up... or organize fights with ten year olds... But he got a nice fat disability check to support his various habits.
The roundabout question... how do we fairly decide who needs the "fake" jobs, and who needs the kick in the ass? The far right doesn't want the first to exist, the far left doesn't want the second to exist. I want both.
Fair enough. We just have different ways of looking at things, I guess. I also think there is a bit of a difference between your month off and six months off. I do find it amazing how folks seem to find the job right before unemployment ends.
I've also seen folks "looking for a job in their field" for two years (and heard of folks with even more). They won't break their luck if I am on the candidate review committee.
I don't want business to make the decisions about what is moral or immoral. I want government to regulate to a certain degree when necessary to enforce what society thinks mandatory, acceptable and unacceptable.
When each business makes their own decision, you have chaos. Should Microsoft decide they don't have to obey a country's laws and say... evade China's censoring of the net. Some would say yes... But if you do, then should they forget about Germany's censorship of certain Nazi lovers? Or Frances censorship of things that "threaten their culture". Or the U.S. Censorship of nude 17-year-olds?
Each culture has an idea of what is right and what is wrong. IBM and others should not make the call. Each culture should make those demands on those businesses as they see fit. Those cultures must also understand that each requirement makes it a bit tougher to do business profitably. And that is the ONLY reason for business to exist.
Society then has to decide... how do we balance our needs/wants/desires with business' only goal: profit.
Slashdot Mirror
Has it been absolutely proven? No. However, there isn't a grandmaster out there who thinks it is not a theoretical draw. If you find any expert who thinks otherwise, please post a link.
Given enough time, machines will be better than us at EVERYTHING.
Except at assigning purpose. This is one thing that cannot be expressed mathematically.
And you also do not understand chess. Chess is a drawn game by default. A "perfect" player could not beat you unless you made a mistake. There are ways to play the game that focus on minimizing risk as opposed to all out win.
Take a look at players like Petrosian (world champion in mid 60's as I recall). His style was python-like. He would see to suffocate you. Then, after tying you down, would systematically destroy you. Petrosian would be much better at playing supercomputers that Kasparov every was. His style could not be brute forced with today's supercomputers... too many plies to calculate... too many fruitless branches.
But, I do agree, in a few more decades humans will never be able to score a victory against the best computers.
But who cares? It is a linear game. I do not define my worth as a human being cased on linear criteria. Kinda gets back to the "purpose" thing.
Of course, if you are a Nihilist...
I am deeply ashamed that we have developed machines that are stronger than us. Clearly, because machines can outlift and outwork us, we have lost our purpose as humans.
And computers can outcalculate us in highly linear situations. It is time to pull the plug on humanity, and let the chess programs and heavy lifting equipment to collaborate...
and then in a deadly, powerful stroke, bash the customer's head. With proficiency, the experienced CSA [customer service associate] only needs to deliver only one blow." -- From Hewlett-Packard's customer service handbook.
I googled. No such thing. Sorry.
Nope. People like to hold contradictory facts in their head, but very few people actually change who they are based upon what they learn. Real change in behavior is rare.
;)
For example: I think time is way to precious to be reading Slashdot commentary, yet here I am
He was using it as a blanket when the homeless shelter was too full to take him in for the night...
I hate hypocrisy in everyone else... in me, it is a good thing, though.
You know what. I am so tired of hearing there everyone is a drug abuser. I'd write out a long, detailed scathing response, but I have to go get my 12th Coke of the day now...
So you're saying Democrats and Linux users are too damn cheap to pay for a subscription? If I had mod points, I'd mod you into oblivion...
(no not really... but that is what he's saying)
I'd settle for soap and a second T-Shirt.
You be writing your own ticket
Please note: I was showing off my multi-lingual skills (ebonics) for any future employer out there. Thanks for noticing.
Divsify? Yes. Diversify in OS's/languages/etc. Sure. But try cross-skilling in computers/finance, or computers/law, or computers/management. Then you will be in great demand.
You be writing your own ticket if you are COMPETENT in each area. If you excel in two or more areas, and are willing to accept risk, you can become an entrepreneur.
Because money for it appears out of nowhere, right? If, as a society, we all used it less, our premiums would go down.
Not a bad thought. Encourage working rather than discouraging it. In fact, a negative income tax was proposed sometime in the far-distant past. Unfortunatley, it got shot down. Right wants you to pull yourself up by bootstraps, left wants you to suckle at the government teet.
To mods: On another note, I've looked at this guy's posting activity. Nothing bad, but one mod got him bumped to negative karma. Can a kind mod bump one of his posts up to get him back?
If you made a document that filled the whole storage unit, would it be a "petafile"?
It is a hard question. And neither side is willing to meet somewhere in the middle. The one and only thing that can really bring this country down is the extreme polarization of society.
Way to botch the Ghandi quote. "I think it WOULD be a good idea"
And I am not arguing with you. There are individual cases. And that is why you ask the "please explain gaps in your work history". A good story (verified) can alleviate my concerns. Moms go back to take care of kids. Health issues happen. Things like what happened with your dad. I do ask.
The answers, 9 out of ten times, reinforce my view. They are folks who overestimate their value. Folks like that are a poison to an organization that depends on teamwork.
However, I will GLADLY concede the point that not everyone on unemployment is lazy. And I will whole-heartedly agree that HR should ask the reasons behind work gaps, and not throw the resume away.
I can find you many, many more examples of folks turning down jobs "beneath them" than examples of those jobs turning down overqualified applicants. In fact, when someone says you are "overqualifed", it is really a code word for "we do not like you personally". HR depts can't say that, cause it would get them in trouble.
I've been one of those overqualified applicants. I found work within 6 hours of starting to look. About half the pay I got in my current "real" job, but a job nonetheless.
In fact, the experience makes me agree with the other poster who didn't take a job because he wanted to look full time for a good job. The company I worked for made it hell on me to to find my "real" job despite being told in advance what my intentions were. If I can find a job in 6 hours, and TELL the employer I don't intend to stick around... and you are telling me folks can't get a fast food job, or a clerical role, then I call bullshit.
There are more WORKING HOMELESS THAN EVER BEFORE IN THIS COUNTRY
This is what is really funny... you talk about these folks to "support" your argument. These are the FIRST folks I'd consider. THEY ARE WORKING! They aren't turning their nose up to "demeaning" work. If they will work hard for a slave wage, then they will work hard for a company like mine that pays well and has excellent benefits. These are the folks that have my utmost respect.
The corporation will make decisions based upon profit. I don't care how moral the individuals are... If there is enogh profit, the business will find a way to take advantage of it.
So this is where gov't comes in. If the U.S. says, I won't allow you to do business in our country if you do business in N. Korea. Then Lockheed makes a balance sheet analysis. If it is profitable enough to do anyway, they will do it. If not, they won't.
You may WANT business to act ethically without outseide pressure, but history shows it doesn't happen (as a whole).
This, my friend, is a tough question. For example, I have a friend who is retarded. Nice guy. But could he hold a job like you or me? Nope.
He does have a job... very subsidized by local gov't. He has a case worker take care of him, and make work arrangements. Probably costs more to support him in the job than it is actually worth to society.
I am right of center politically. Do I mind this type of arrangment. Not in the least. People - men especially - need to feel that they contribute to society. He is willing to work as much as he is capable. I really can't ask any more than that. And yes, I am willing to pony up in taxes to make this happen.
Contrast this to an 18-year-old ex-neighbor who couldn't work because he had ADD. Never mind that he had no trouble playing basketball... or getting an underage girl knocked up... or organize fights with ten year olds... But he got a nice fat disability check to support his various habits.
The roundabout question... how do we fairly decide who needs the "fake" jobs, and who needs the kick in the ass? The far right doesn't want the first to exist, the far left doesn't want the second to exist. I want both.
Fair enough. We just have different ways of looking at things, I guess. I also think there is a bit of a difference between your month off and six months off. I do find it amazing how folks seem to find the job right before unemployment ends.
I've also seen folks "looking for a job in their field" for two years (and heard of folks with even more). They won't break their luck if I am on the candidate review committee.
Mark him a foe if you don't like him. Then mod foes down by ten or so. Otherwise, get over it. Its a free message board.
Thanks.
I don't want business to make the decisions about what is moral or immoral. I want government to regulate to a certain degree when necessary to enforce what society thinks mandatory, acceptable and unacceptable.
When each business makes their own decision, you have chaos. Should Microsoft decide they don't have to obey a country's laws and say... evade China's censoring of the net. Some would say yes... But if you do, then should they forget about Germany's censorship of certain Nazi lovers? Or Frances censorship of things that "threaten their culture". Or the U.S. Censorship of nude 17-year-olds?
Each culture has an idea of what is right and what is wrong. IBM and others should not make the call. Each culture should make those demands on those businesses as they see fit. Those cultures must also understand that each requirement makes it a bit tougher to do business profitably. And that is the ONLY reason for business to exist.
Society then has to decide... how do we balance our needs/wants/desires with business' only goal: profit.