You don't get it. I must presume you are young otherwise you would know what I'm taking about.
I'm old enough to have pursued (yet abandoned) graduate study in the field. Ontologies don't simulate the brain in any common sense of the word simulate.
AI has been trying, unsuccessfully, to simulate the brain almost since its inception.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. AI has been trying to replicate some of the properties of the human brain almost since its inception. Never has actual simulation of a brain been attempted, because we (still) lack the technology to do so. Our imaging technology lacks the resolution required to develop an accurate model of the brain. Our computer technology lacks the performance required to simulate such a large/complex system in anything resembling real-time.
They first started with simulations at a higher level and since they failed miserably they are now moving to a lower level simulation, which makes things even harder.
If you don't see the difference between "simulations" of (arbitrarily developed) abstract brain models and actual simulations of actual physics acting on a model of a brain developed from actual imaging of an actual working brain, I'm not sure why you have any interest in the field. Yes, a low level simulation is even harder, in the sense that it requires an accurate model of the human brain and a lot of computing horsepower. I don't understand why you would've expected previous high level approaches to have worked. I know I didn't. I don't think anyone in the field did either. It's not like Kurzweil had been expecting strong AI to pop out of earlier efforts "any day now". He has consistently pegged the date around 2030-2050, and hasn't been meaningfully shifting the goalposts since he first started talking about the subject. To the best of my knowledge, he never suggested we'd see virtual brains by 2014. Your allegations of previous expectations are baseless.
There are so many reasons why this is unlikely to fail. For starters we have no clue what are the prebuilt wiring structures that facilitate cognitive process and furthermore we are nowhere close to learning them.
That's not exactly true. We've learned quite a bit about how brains are wired. FIBSEM resolution currently allows us to see not just synapses and dendrites but also receptors and neurotransmitters. Cryo-TEM is getting us down to the molecular level. There are currently efforts underway to do just this, to image whole mammal brains at this resolution. I'm not sure why you say we are nowhere close to learning them. Are you alleging that Cryo-TEM lacks the resolution, and that we need a brain model that is accurate at sub-atomic scales? Are you saying that developments in imaging technology are a lie, and that we don't actually have the capability of imaging at the advertised resolution? What, exactly, is your objection here?
Here is an alternate explanation: I've been thinking about these issues for so long that it is obvious to me that a project such as this will positively fail in the short to medium term, i.e. well past the predicted singularity event. This is so obvious that it didn't occur to me that one needed to list the reasons why we are so far from simulating the frog brain much less the human brain.
So that's how you sum up your argument? "It's obvious"? So rigorous!
To give you an idea, I'd give you even chances that by 2029 we can simulate the fruit fly brain. We now know how some structures are formed there, there are plenty of study subjects and the built-in coding is easy to understand. I've met with people at Max Planck Institute working on this and their work looks promising.
I'll take the under on that, considering they're already partially finished with
You're talking about the Golan Heights, not Shebaa farms. Your confusion makes you come across as ignorant of this area's history, so I'm likely to assume that you're just an asshat with an agenda and not someone with an actual interest in the region. Anyway, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and offer a measured response.
You allege that Syria committed acts of war, which justified a military response on the part of Israel. That's fine. But then there's this little thing called the Fourth Geneva Convention, which addresses the issue of annexation. You might want to read about it.
In a nutshell, Israel is in violation of international law, and having been attacked by a hostile state doesn't give them any sort of free pass on this.
The agreement in question dealt exclusively with Lebanese territory. Not Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian or any other country.
Agreed. But don't try to play that off as having withdrawn to "UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders". The agreement in question dealt exclusively with Lebanese territory, as you yourself pointed out. Lebanon isn't the only state in the area to have some of its land annexed by Israel.
I think it is safe to say the probability of an Muslim-Jewish peace is very low (if they can't even get along with themselves, how can we expect them to play nice with others?)
Agreed. I don't see a Muslim-Jewish peace happening during my lifetime either. Perhaps this is because Israel's neighbors don't shy away from military conflict, as you suggest. Perhaps it's because Israel will either strip Muslims of voting rights or democratically become a Muslim state (I don't believe there is a third option) due to undeniable demographic trends.
Please don't open up this discussion to other conflicts, as this is a separate discussion.
Fair enough. That's a reasonable request, since discussions on this subject often turn into flamewars. But similarly, please don't claim that Israel ever withdrew to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders.
It is clear to anyone with a basic grasp of the English language.
For example, the first amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
By the time you're wrapping up elementary school, you should have enough reading comprehension skill to understand that this amendment guarantees that the act of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater cannot be criminalized by Congress, as the individual right to free speech would be abridged as a result. Lying to congress, verbally, ought to be legal as per this amendment. Freedom relating to other forms of communication (print, television, etc.) ought to be subject to restrictions, though, because the text clearly states "speech".
Most would agree that such an "interpretation" isn't optimal. However, this isn't an interpretation. It's what the fucking text says, clearly. Very clearly. There is no ambiguity except that which you invent for yourself. If we, as a society, decide that this amendment is not satisfactory, that we don't want people yelling "Fire!" in crowded theaters, that we don't want people lying to Congress, that we do want protection of freedom in other forms of communication, then we should change the Constitution to reflect that. What we should not do is invent false meanings for words like "shall", "abridging", or "speech". This idiotic-but-expedient approach that we have taken over the last few centuries is the very reason why today the Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on. Our willingness to "interpret" clearly written laws until they meet our needs, bypassing the amendment mechanism specifically afforded us for this purpose, has resulted in the degeneration of our constitutional republic into a fascist oligarchy.
I found this out when I gave up on my CompSci PhD, dropped out of grad school, and took the only job I could find in Maine: hacker.
The kind that can't afford internet access at home.
Sidebar: who knew they had cabs in Maine? I'm not talking about Portland. I'm talking about Bangor, which is coincidentally where the farthest-flung Walmart is located. I lived northeast of Bangor, so technically I was beyond the reach of the Walton family's grubby hands. Of course, where there's no Walmarts, there's no people, and that makes for a really shitty income driving cabs.
Another recent example is when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders.
Israel hasn't been limited to its UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders since 1948. The pre-1967 borders include territory annexed in previous military conquests. Not just Shebaa farms, but also a little town called Jerusalem. The UN certified in 2000 that Israel had complied with Resolution 425, which did not have the explicit requirement of a withdrawal to its original legal borders, but merely from newly-annexed territory. Of course, all these "details" just don't agree with your "facts on the ground", so it's best that we leave them swept under the rug. That Shebaa farms was "never part of lebanon", as you say, shouldn't have anything to do with this, since it was a part of Syria, and sure as shit not a part of Israel. But I guess it should be okay for Israel to annex Syrian territory, because it's not Lebanese? I suppose it wouldn't have been a problem if the US just annexed Iran after we went into Iraq, since we'd still be withdrawn from Iraq, right?
Regarding the first part of your comment, see the tragedy of the commons.
Regarding the second part, I think you're underestimating the power exponential growth. Or perhaps I'm underestimating the death that stems from living like luddites.
I find your response lacking, if not outright wrong.
None of the things you listed (except neural networks) have anything to do with a biological brain. Those were attempts at reproducing some of the functions of a human brain. You might as well have listed image recognition or composition of music. I don't think anyone was expecting Google Image Search or the Who's "Baba O'Reilly" to gain sentience. Simulations of neural networks, conversely, have been demonstrated to be very useful. IBM's Blue Brain Project is doing just that, although with better models of neurons. Indeed, even this isn't a true simulation though, as it relies on models which we know are not accurate representations of physical reality. The molecular-level simulations that are planned are better, but still not quite the atomic (possibly) or sub-atomic (not likely) level simulations that may be needed to accurately simulate a brain.
That you bring up ontologies, expert systems, and natural language processing shows that you really have no idea what I'm saying. Show me a biology/physiology/anatomy/neurology textbook that so much as mentions these subjects (hint: you won't, because they have nothing to do with brains). Explain to me how crafting a database of "facts" has anything to do with simulating the effect of the known laws of physics on a large collection of elementary particles. Explain to me why our failure to create consciousness by coding a large multiply-nested if statement is an indictment of computer simulation in general? Explain to me why we can simulate the motion of celestial bodies, but simulating the motion of particles in a skull is impossible.
Can you suggest a single reason why a brute-force simulation of the human brain (which we have not yet tried, because we don't yet have the capability to do so) might fail to produce a working virtual human brain? Despite myself being a supporter of efforts like this, I can think of several reasons. You haven't been able to suggest a single one, so far. It's clear that you haven't thought this through, but you're very much convinced that it can't work. Why is that?
I was on a plane from ATL to PHL recently. Upon boarding, I noticed some of my fellow passengers were wearing some clothes that seemed anachronistic. Based on this observation, along with the flight's destination, I figured they were Amish or Mennonites or some other fringe religious people. Then arrived the passenger that had reserved the seat next to mine: a woman, perhaps around 50 years of age, somewhat overweight, dressed in sweatpants and a sweatshirt. She seemed like your run-of-the-mill cat lady, or perhaps someone you'd see at your local Walmart store.
In any case, after we had landed, while we were waiting to deplane, this woman started talking to some of the Mennonite folks. Apparently she was a member of their fringe religion from the Lancaster area as well, and the conversation quickly turned to feats of human reproduction. The oddly-dressed gentleman expressed to my neighbor that he had, among other progeny, 49 grand-children. Forty nine. Seven squared. My neighbor replied that she had "only" thirty-something (I forget the exact number, as it wasn't quite as impressive as this gentleman's). At this point I noticed that other passengers in my vicinity shared my disbelief by the extent to which their eyes were bulging from their heads.
When I encounter people like this, I find that I become sad. Sad because I have, after extensive deliberation, decided to abstain from reproducing. Not because I don't think it's pleasurable to have children of my own, no. On the contrary, I'm convinced that having children satisfies some primal urge to propagate one's own genetic material. Ask any parent, and very rarely will you hear wholesale expressions of regret. No, I chose to abstain from reproducing because I believe it's the only responsible choice to make. There's seven billion of us, and I really think that's plenty. If there were only seven million, well, that would be much more reasonable, and I would have no qualms about having some kids of my own. However, that ship has sailed, and we're well past that point now. So I do the only thing I can do; I find solace in the fact that I'm not a part of the problem. The sadness that I feel, though, is not for myself. It's for these 49 grand-children that will be raised in a world of increasing scarcity, where people find themselves waging war over something as [formerly] abundant as clean water. They didn't ask for the shitty lives that they will inevitably have, and it's immoral for their parents to force this upon them.
Aside from the sadness, there's a bit of anger. Anger, because here I am, making a personal sacrifice for the greater good, only for a single ignorant asshole to gobble up any impact from my sacrifice tenfold. Fuck you, you greedy, self-centered, myopic uber-breeders. Fuck you very much.
This leads me to wonder... is my phone/carrier really that shitty?
I'm still using my old Samsung Galaxy S2 (Epic 4G Touch) on Sprint. I disabled the 4G radio a long time ago, as it never connected to anything. Occasionally I'll flip it back on to see if Sprint has actually invested in improving their infrastructure. At home, nothing. At work, nothing. At JFK, EWR, ATL, or any other large international airport I happen to find myself, nothing. I've never gotten a 4G connection outside of the Sprint Store (presumably they have a femtocell set up to show off how awesome 4G is).
So I'm stuck with ancient 3G connections, right? Well, maybe. Maybe if I'm in a large city. I'm generally excited to see that I have a 3G connection, since that happens pretty rarely. I spend most of my time with 2G 1xRTT connections. Of course, that's assuming I have any data connectivity at all. In 2014. In the backwater hills known as central New Jersey, in a town that is identified by name as a part of the New York metropolitan area.
So Sprint has shitty coverage and ancient infrastructure. My fault for choosing them, right? But let's say I'm fine with terribly slow connections. Let's say that 2G speeds are all I need, that 100kbps is perfectly fine for sending emails and browsing slashdot. But am I even getting those speeds? Why the fuck does it take upwards of a minute to load slashdot's front page? Is there really about 1MB of html, css, javascript, and textual content that I'm pulling down? No, see, the Sprint network is really that oversubscribed. It's slower than dialup, by a long shot.
I'm paying roughly $90/month for my unlimited talk/text/data plan with Sprint. Unlimited data is especially hilarious, as I'm pretty sure I could max out the connection 24/7 and still never hit the caps that other carriers have, solely because of how slow this shit is. I've been out of contract for a few months, and this thread is of particular interest to me, as I desperately want to change carriers.
However, to say that MVNOs piggybacking on the Sprint network are somehow a bad deal because they don't do 4G or LTE, well, that's just not right. Sprint doesn't do 4G or LTE, at least not in any meaningful way. By going with an MVNO, you're really not losing anything. Or maybe I'm just bitter that my S2 has a WiMax radio for its "4G".
You wouldn't know what a sugar beet tastes like (much like you've probably never eaten sugar cane), as they're not sold at retail for human consumption. Beets and sugar beets are not the same thing.
Also, beets are delicious. But you knew that already.
This "sub-par meat" is actually tastier than corn-fed, and can also be free of antibiotics. Corn-fed cattle develop ulcers which are invariably treated with liberal doses of antibiotics. The "free market" prices grass-fed beef at a premium, suggesting that it is in fact more desirable than corn-fed, and thus not sub-par.
So far, simulation of the human brain has yet to be attempted. IBM's Blue Brain Project is the closest thing to what I described. It's less than ten years old (the field of AI is considerably older than this), and the current simulation isn't even at the molecular level. It's true that this is the most "unproductive" approach to date, but I don't see how this is relevant. Why would you expect a small part of a rat brain to be "productive"? How is that an indictment of this approach?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but a quick glance at the Wikipedia page for Norvig doesn't show a whole lot of inventions from him. I do see a lot of papers, publications and fluff, but that's not being active to me. Wait, no, he "helped develop one of the first Internet comparison shopping services", and also "is one of the creators of JScheme". When Norvig can be troubled to get off his ass and actually do something, as opposed to merely writing about it, these are the results you see. Color me unimpressed.
Compare, as you said, to Ray Kurzweil, who also has his own Wikipedia page, and the difference is rather striking. Kurzweil actually created things like OCR and a proper electronic synthesizer. The unabridged list is beyond the scope of this post.
Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. Or write. Or make useless crap like JScheme.
Who is the *we* that gets to decide the definition of conscious?
Scientists in the relevant fields - as should be immediately obvious.
That reminds me of the time we got to decide the definition of "person".
That time around, "we" were slaveowners of the correct skin color.
I'm only being half facetious. It takes quite a bit of hubris to declare oneself the sole arbiter of consciousness. I wonder if the first slew of AIs which we wrongly declare to lack consciousness will fail to appreciate our callous disregard for their existence.
First, I'd like to point out that Kurweiler is some guys that plays online poker (according to Google), whereas Kurzweil is a respected inventor/engineer.
Second, you're saying a lot, but none of it really has anything to do with what Kurzweil is saying. Optimizing, information, stocastics [sic], *sigh* The Matrix.
Look. The human brain is made of matter, which obeys the known laws of physics. We can map the structure of the human brain at a fine resolution (given sufficiently capable medical imaging equipment) and simulate how it behaves when the known laws of physics act upon it (given sufficiently capable computers). When we engage in these types of exercises (say, simulating how massive bodies orbit each other), our simulations behave the same way observable reality does. If we engage in this type of exercise with a human brain, we expect our simulated brain would behave the same way a real physical brain does.
Unless you believe the human brain is "magic" or doesn't abide by the known laws of physics. While this is entirely possible, I have yet to hear a coherent argument explaining why this would be likely.
While we're on the subject of learning to code, I'd like to offer up one more suggestion.
Python is a great language that will have you writing "meaningful" programs in no time. It's very full-featured, and will expose you to a wide array of programming concepts, as well as enable you to write programs that actually do something "interesting".
But that might not be a good thing. It really depends on you and what helps motivate you to learn. Personally, I learned from the basics. BASIC, Pascal, languages that were designed to teach programming concepts. They're great for that purpose, but they aren't very powerful, and they don't let you really do too much "interesting" stuff. If you're motivated by writing code that actually does something useful, these languages probably aren't a great first choice for you. However, if you're okay with learning "pure theory" (it's really not pure theory, since you're still writing code) and writing programs that simply illustrate programming concepts but don't do anything useful, I highly recommend one of these languages. Their limited nature really lends itself to teaching the programming basics, as was intended at the time of their design (Pascal more so than BASIC).
However, many students don't respond well to this approach, as they don't understand the purpose of any of this. They won't be able to focus on learning what a loop is because they'll be too hung up wondering why they need a loop. I've tried teaching my girlfriend to code (hey, she asked for it!), and she definitely fits into this group. While she can understand that a loop simply executes the same block of code multiple times, she had trouble understanding exactly why this would be useful or desirable. People like this might instead benefit from a language like Python, which enables you to actually write programs that do something meaningful. It puts a "why" to the "how".
Granted, you don't need Python (or any powerful language) to accomplish this. It's possible to come up with ideas for programs that do something interesting that are written in a rather limited language. I implemented a clone of the classic "Starfield Simulator" screensaver in BASIC as probably my first "interesting" program. However, I had probably been messing around, learning the basics, for a year prior to that.
Additionally, a limited language like BASIC will only expose you to the most elementary programming concepts. Logical expressions, arrays, iterative control structures, procedural programming. There's a lot you won't see, and you'll still have a bit more conceptual learning when you inevitably move on to something like C++ or Python. However, you'll at least have a firm grasp of the basics, and at the end of the day, that's where the meat of software development lies.
Citation: I tutored [mostly introductory] computer science students for about five years. Actually, now that I think about it, you might be wise to take a CSC101 class at your local county/community college. These generally aren't too expensive ($500), and might open up access to free tutoring (many CCs have free tutoring available for enrolled students). A single class isn't going to make a programmer out of you, but it's not a bad way to get some introductory exposure to programming as well as access to further resources.
I was lucky enough to see Pete Seeger 2 years ago. There were maybe 30 people in the audience on this chilly autumn morning. They were mostly in their 20s.
Pete's dead now. He was in his 90s when I saw him. In his 90s. Somehow, I don't think Justin Bieber will grow up to be the amazing man Pete Seeger was. And I don't think he'll be performing his "art" into his 90s.
Are you saying that Zeppelin and Floyd weren't getting constant airtime on the radio? That their music didn't chart?
Within two months of its release the album had reached Billboard Top 10. It stayed on the Billboard chart for 73 weeks and held a 79-week run on the British charts.
That's what Wikipedia says about Led Zeppelin's debut album. Is it somehow not fair to compare Top 40 hits from 45 years ago (which happened to be rock) to the ones we hear today (which happen to be overproduced crap for tweens)?
So explain to us why it is better for the citizens of this country if, instead of amending the constitution with language that clears all of this up, we simply appoint men in robes to selectively interpret the law on a case by case basis?
I thought we were supposed to be proud that we're a country of laws, not of men. When did this change, and why?
Slashdot Mirror
You don't get it. I must presume you are young otherwise you would know what I'm taking about.
I'm old enough to have pursued (yet abandoned) graduate study in the field. Ontologies don't simulate the brain in any common sense of the word simulate.
AI has been trying, unsuccessfully, to simulate the brain almost since its inception.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. AI has been trying to replicate some of the properties of the human brain almost since its inception. Never has actual simulation of a brain been attempted, because we (still) lack the technology to do so. Our imaging technology lacks the resolution required to develop an accurate model of the brain. Our computer technology lacks the performance required to simulate such a large/complex system in anything resembling real-time.
They first started with simulations at a higher level and since they failed miserably they are now moving to a lower level simulation, which makes things even harder.
If you don't see the difference between "simulations" of (arbitrarily developed) abstract brain models and actual simulations of actual physics acting on a model of a brain developed from actual imaging of an actual working brain, I'm not sure why you have any interest in the field. Yes, a low level simulation is even harder, in the sense that it requires an accurate model of the human brain and a lot of computing horsepower. I don't understand why you would've expected previous high level approaches to have worked. I know I didn't. I don't think anyone in the field did either. It's not like Kurzweil had been expecting strong AI to pop out of earlier efforts "any day now". He has consistently pegged the date around 2030-2050, and hasn't been meaningfully shifting the goalposts since he first started talking about the subject. To the best of my knowledge, he never suggested we'd see virtual brains by 2014. Your allegations of previous expectations are baseless.
There are so many reasons why this is unlikely to fail. For starters we have no clue what are the prebuilt wiring structures that facilitate cognitive process and furthermore we are nowhere close to learning them.
That's not exactly true. We've learned quite a bit about how brains are wired. FIBSEM resolution currently allows us to see not just synapses and dendrites but also receptors and neurotransmitters. Cryo-TEM is getting us down to the molecular level. There are currently efforts underway to do just this, to image whole mammal brains at this resolution. I'm not sure why you say we are nowhere close to learning them. Are you alleging that Cryo-TEM lacks the resolution, and that we need a brain model that is accurate at sub-atomic scales? Are you saying that developments in imaging technology are a lie, and that we don't actually have the capability of imaging at the advertised resolution? What, exactly, is your objection here?
Here is an alternate explanation: I've been thinking about these issues for so long that it is obvious to me that a project such as this will positively fail in the short to medium term, i.e. well past the predicted singularity event. This is so obvious that it didn't occur to me that one needed to list the reasons why we are so far from simulating the frog brain much less the human brain.
So that's how you sum up your argument? "It's obvious"? So rigorous!
To give you an idea, I'd give you even chances that by 2029 we can simulate the fruit fly brain. We now know how some structures are formed there, there are plenty of study subjects and the built-in coding is easy to understand. I've met with people at Max Planck Institute working on this and their work looks promising.
I'll take the under on that, considering they're already partially finished with
You're talking about the Golan Heights, not Shebaa farms. Your confusion makes you come across as ignorant of this area's history, so I'm likely to assume that you're just an asshat with an agenda and not someone with an actual interest in the region. Anyway, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and offer a measured response.
You allege that Syria committed acts of war, which justified a military response on the part of Israel. That's fine. But then there's this little thing called the Fourth Geneva Convention, which addresses the issue of annexation. You might want to read about it.
In a nutshell, Israel is in violation of international law, and having been attacked by a hostile state doesn't give them any sort of free pass on this.
I don't think you understood my analogy.
The agreement in question dealt exclusively with Lebanese territory. Not Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian or any other country.
Agreed. But don't try to play that off as having withdrawn to "UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders". The agreement in question dealt exclusively with Lebanese territory, as you yourself pointed out. Lebanon isn't the only state in the area to have some of its land annexed by Israel.
I think it is safe to say the probability of an Muslim-Jewish peace is very low (if they can't even get along with themselves, how can we expect them to play nice with others?)
Agreed. I don't see a Muslim-Jewish peace happening during my lifetime either. Perhaps this is because Israel's neighbors don't shy away from military conflict, as you suggest. Perhaps it's because Israel will either strip Muslims of voting rights or democratically become a Muslim state (I don't believe there is a third option) due to undeniable demographic trends.
Please don't open up this discussion to other conflicts, as this is a separate discussion.
Fair enough. That's a reasonable request, since discussions on this subject often turn into flamewars. But similarly, please don't claim that Israel ever withdrew to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders.
It is clear to anyone with a basic grasp of the English language.
For example, the first amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
By the time you're wrapping up elementary school, you should have enough reading comprehension skill to understand that this amendment guarantees that the act of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater cannot be criminalized by Congress, as the individual right to free speech would be abridged as a result. Lying to congress, verbally, ought to be legal as per this amendment. Freedom relating to other forms of communication (print, television, etc.) ought to be subject to restrictions, though, because the text clearly states "speech".
Most would agree that such an "interpretation" isn't optimal. However, this isn't an interpretation. It's what the fucking text says, clearly. Very clearly. There is no ambiguity except that which you invent for yourself. If we, as a society, decide that this amendment is not satisfactory, that we don't want people yelling "Fire!" in crowded theaters, that we don't want people lying to Congress, that we do want protection of freedom in other forms of communication, then we should change the Constitution to reflect that. What we should not do is invent false meanings for words like "shall", "abridging", or "speech". This idiotic-but-expedient approach that we have taken over the last few centuries is the very reason why today the Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on. Our willingness to "interpret" clearly written laws until they meet our needs, bypassing the amendment mechanism specifically afforded us for this purpose, has resulted in the degeneration of our constitutional republic into a fascist oligarchy.
I found this out when I gave up on my CompSci PhD, dropped out of grad school, and took the only job I could find in Maine: hacker.
The kind that can't afford internet access at home.
Sidebar: who knew they had cabs in Maine? I'm not talking about Portland. I'm talking about Bangor, which is coincidentally where the farthest-flung Walmart is located. I lived northeast of Bangor, so technically I was beyond the reach of the Walton family's grubby hands. Of course, where there's no Walmarts, there's no people, and that makes for a really shitty income driving cabs.
Another recent example is when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 to UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders.
Israel hasn't been limited to its UN sanctioned, internationally-recognized borders since 1948. The pre-1967 borders include territory annexed in previous military conquests. Not just Shebaa farms, but also a little town called Jerusalem. The UN certified in 2000 that Israel had complied with Resolution 425, which did not have the explicit requirement of a withdrawal to its original legal borders, but merely from newly-annexed territory. Of course, all these "details" just don't agree with your "facts on the ground", so it's best that we leave them swept under the rug. That Shebaa farms was "never part of lebanon", as you say, shouldn't have anything to do with this, since it was a part of Syria, and sure as shit not a part of Israel. But I guess it should be okay for Israel to annex Syrian territory, because it's not Lebanese? I suppose it wouldn't have been a problem if the US just annexed Iran after we went into Iraq, since we'd still be withdrawn from Iraq, right?
Regarding the first part of your comment, see the tragedy of the commons.
Regarding the second part, I think you're underestimating the power exponential growth. Or perhaps I'm underestimating the death that stems from living like luddites.
I find your response lacking, if not outright wrong.
None of the things you listed (except neural networks) have anything to do with a biological brain. Those were attempts at reproducing some of the functions of a human brain. You might as well have listed image recognition or composition of music. I don't think anyone was expecting Google Image Search or the Who's "Baba O'Reilly" to gain sentience. Simulations of neural networks, conversely, have been demonstrated to be very useful. IBM's Blue Brain Project is doing just that, although with better models of neurons. Indeed, even this isn't a true simulation though, as it relies on models which we know are not accurate representations of physical reality. The molecular-level simulations that are planned are better, but still not quite the atomic (possibly) or sub-atomic (not likely) level simulations that may be needed to accurately simulate a brain.
That you bring up ontologies, expert systems, and natural language processing shows that you really have no idea what I'm saying. Show me a biology/physiology/anatomy/neurology textbook that so much as mentions these subjects (hint: you won't, because they have nothing to do with brains). Explain to me how crafting a database of "facts" has anything to do with simulating the effect of the known laws of physics on a large collection of elementary particles. Explain to me why our failure to create consciousness by coding a large multiply-nested if statement is an indictment of computer simulation in general? Explain to me why we can simulate the motion of celestial bodies, but simulating the motion of particles in a skull is impossible.
Can you suggest a single reason why a brute-force simulation of the human brain (which we have not yet tried, because we don't yet have the capability to do so) might fail to produce a working virtual human brain? Despite myself being a supporter of efforts like this, I can think of several reasons. You haven't been able to suggest a single one, so far. It's clear that you haven't thought this through, but you're very much convinced that it can't work. Why is that?
I was on a plane from ATL to PHL recently. Upon boarding, I noticed some of my fellow passengers were wearing some clothes that seemed anachronistic. Based on this observation, along with the flight's destination, I figured they were Amish or Mennonites or some other fringe religious people. Then arrived the passenger that had reserved the seat next to mine: a woman, perhaps around 50 years of age, somewhat overweight, dressed in sweatpants and a sweatshirt. She seemed like your run-of-the-mill cat lady, or perhaps someone you'd see at your local Walmart store.
In any case, after we had landed, while we were waiting to deplane, this woman started talking to some of the Mennonite folks. Apparently she was a member of their fringe religion from the Lancaster area as well, and the conversation quickly turned to feats of human reproduction. The oddly-dressed gentleman expressed to my neighbor that he had, among other progeny, 49 grand-children. Forty nine. Seven squared. My neighbor replied that she had "only" thirty-something (I forget the exact number, as it wasn't quite as impressive as this gentleman's). At this point I noticed that other passengers in my vicinity shared my disbelief by the extent to which their eyes were bulging from their heads.
When I encounter people like this, I find that I become sad. Sad because I have, after extensive deliberation, decided to abstain from reproducing. Not because I don't think it's pleasurable to have children of my own, no. On the contrary, I'm convinced that having children satisfies some primal urge to propagate one's own genetic material. Ask any parent, and very rarely will you hear wholesale expressions of regret. No, I chose to abstain from reproducing because I believe it's the only responsible choice to make. There's seven billion of us, and I really think that's plenty. If there were only seven million, well, that would be much more reasonable, and I would have no qualms about having some kids of my own. However, that ship has sailed, and we're well past that point now. So I do the only thing I can do; I find solace in the fact that I'm not a part of the problem. The sadness that I feel, though, is not for myself. It's for these 49 grand-children that will be raised in a world of increasing scarcity, where people find themselves waging war over something as [formerly] abundant as clean water. They didn't ask for the shitty lives that they will inevitably have, and it's immoral for their parents to force this upon them.
Aside from the sadness, there's a bit of anger. Anger, because here I am, making a personal sacrifice for the greater good, only for a single ignorant asshole to gobble up any impact from my sacrifice tenfold. Fuck you, you greedy, self-centered, myopic uber-breeders. Fuck you very much.
This leads me to wonder... is my phone/carrier really that shitty?
I'm still using my old Samsung Galaxy S2 (Epic 4G Touch) on Sprint. I disabled the 4G radio a long time ago, as it never connected to anything. Occasionally I'll flip it back on to see if Sprint has actually invested in improving their infrastructure. At home, nothing. At work, nothing. At JFK, EWR, ATL, or any other large international airport I happen to find myself, nothing. I've never gotten a 4G connection outside of the Sprint Store (presumably they have a femtocell set up to show off how awesome 4G is).
So I'm stuck with ancient 3G connections, right? Well, maybe. Maybe if I'm in a large city. I'm generally excited to see that I have a 3G connection, since that happens pretty rarely. I spend most of my time with 2G 1xRTT connections. Of course, that's assuming I have any data connectivity at all. In 2014. In the backwater hills known as central New Jersey, in a town that is identified by name as a part of the New York metropolitan area.
So Sprint has shitty coverage and ancient infrastructure. My fault for choosing them, right? But let's say I'm fine with terribly slow connections. Let's say that 2G speeds are all I need, that 100kbps is perfectly fine for sending emails and browsing slashdot. But am I even getting those speeds? Why the fuck does it take upwards of a minute to load slashdot's front page? Is there really about 1MB of html, css, javascript, and textual content that I'm pulling down? No, see, the Sprint network is really that oversubscribed. It's slower than dialup, by a long shot.
I'm paying roughly $90/month for my unlimited talk/text/data plan with Sprint. Unlimited data is especially hilarious, as I'm pretty sure I could max out the connection 24/7 and still never hit the caps that other carriers have, solely because of how slow this shit is. I've been out of contract for a few months, and this thread is of particular interest to me, as I desperately want to change carriers.
However, to say that MVNOs piggybacking on the Sprint network are somehow a bad deal because they don't do 4G or LTE, well, that's just not right. Sprint doesn't do 4G or LTE, at least not in any meaningful way. By going with an MVNO, you're really not losing anything. Or maybe I'm just bitter that my S2 has a WiMax radio for its "4G".
You wouldn't know what a sugar beet tastes like (much like you've probably never eaten sugar cane), as they're not sold at retail for human consumption. Beets and sugar beets are not the same thing.
Also, beets are delicious. But you knew that already.
This "sub-par meat" is actually tastier than corn-fed, and can also be free of antibiotics. Corn-fed cattle develop ulcers which are invariably treated with liberal doses of antibiotics. The "free market" prices grass-fed beef at a premium, suggesting that it is in fact more desirable than corn-fed, and thus not sub-par.
Citation needed.
So far, simulation of the human brain has yet to be attempted. IBM's Blue Brain Project is the closest thing to what I described. It's less than ten years old (the field of AI is considerably older than this), and the current simulation isn't even at the molecular level. It's true that this is the most "unproductive" approach to date, but I don't see how this is relevant. Why would you expect a small part of a rat brain to be "productive"? How is that an indictment of this approach?
If we cannot solve that one, what basis there is for Kurzweil alarmist scenario?
Google Translate is not a simulation of a human brain.
Kurzweil's "alarmist scenario" involves simulating human brains.
Does that answer your question?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but a quick glance at the Wikipedia page for Norvig doesn't show a whole lot of inventions from him. I do see a lot of papers, publications and fluff, but that's not being active to me. Wait, no, he "helped develop one of the first Internet comparison shopping services", and also "is one of the creators of JScheme". When Norvig can be troubled to get off his ass and actually do something, as opposed to merely writing about it, these are the results you see. Color me unimpressed.
Compare, as you said, to Ray Kurzweil, who also has his own Wikipedia page, and the difference is rather striking. Kurzweil actually created things like OCR and a proper electronic synthesizer. The unabridged list is beyond the scope of this post.
Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. Or write. Or make useless crap like JScheme.
Well done.
Who is the *we* that gets to decide the definition of conscious?
Scientists in the relevant fields - as should be immediately obvious.
That reminds me of the time we got to decide the definition of "person".
That time around, "we" were slaveowners of the correct skin color.
I'm only being half facetious. It takes quite a bit of hubris to declare oneself the sole arbiter of consciousness. I wonder if the first slew of AIs which we wrongly declare to lack consciousness will fail to appreciate our callous disregard for their existence.
First, I'd like to point out that Kurweiler is some guys that plays online poker (according to Google), whereas Kurzweil is a respected inventor/engineer.
Second, you're saying a lot, but none of it really has anything to do with what Kurzweil is saying. Optimizing, information, stocastics [sic], *sigh* The Matrix.
Look. The human brain is made of matter, which obeys the known laws of physics. We can map the structure of the human brain at a fine resolution (given sufficiently capable medical imaging equipment) and simulate how it behaves when the known laws of physics act upon it (given sufficiently capable computers). When we engage in these types of exercises (say, simulating how massive bodies orbit each other), our simulations behave the same way observable reality does. If we engage in this type of exercise with a human brain, we expect our simulated brain would behave the same way a real physical brain does.
Unless you believe the human brain is "magic" or doesn't abide by the known laws of physics. While this is entirely possible, I have yet to hear a coherent argument explaining why this would be likely.
That's precisely why I got my degree in EE!
But fuck me if I'm moving to Iowa. That's almost worse than China.
While we're on the subject of learning to code, I'd like to offer up one more suggestion.
Python is a great language that will have you writing "meaningful" programs in no time. It's very full-featured, and will expose you to a wide array of programming concepts, as well as enable you to write programs that actually do something "interesting".
But that might not be a good thing. It really depends on you and what helps motivate you to learn. Personally, I learned from the basics. BASIC, Pascal, languages that were designed to teach programming concepts. They're great for that purpose, but they aren't very powerful, and they don't let you really do too much "interesting" stuff. If you're motivated by writing code that actually does something useful, these languages probably aren't a great first choice for you. However, if you're okay with learning "pure theory" (it's really not pure theory, since you're still writing code) and writing programs that simply illustrate programming concepts but don't do anything useful, I highly recommend one of these languages. Their limited nature really lends itself to teaching the programming basics, as was intended at the time of their design (Pascal more so than BASIC).
However, many students don't respond well to this approach, as they don't understand the purpose of any of this. They won't be able to focus on learning what a loop is because they'll be too hung up wondering why they need a loop. I've tried teaching my girlfriend to code (hey, she asked for it!), and she definitely fits into this group. While she can understand that a loop simply executes the same block of code multiple times, she had trouble understanding exactly why this would be useful or desirable. People like this might instead benefit from a language like Python, which enables you to actually write programs that do something meaningful. It puts a "why" to the "how".
Granted, you don't need Python (or any powerful language) to accomplish this. It's possible to come up with ideas for programs that do something interesting that are written in a rather limited language. I implemented a clone of the classic "Starfield Simulator" screensaver in BASIC as probably my first "interesting" program. However, I had probably been messing around, learning the basics, for a year prior to that.
Additionally, a limited language like BASIC will only expose you to the most elementary programming concepts. Logical expressions, arrays, iterative control structures, procedural programming. There's a lot you won't see, and you'll still have a bit more conceptual learning when you inevitably move on to something like C++ or Python. However, you'll at least have a firm grasp of the basics, and at the end of the day, that's where the meat of software development lies.
Citation: I tutored [mostly introductory] computer science students for about five years. Actually, now that I think about it, you might be wise to take a CSC101 class at your local county/community college. These generally aren't too expensive ($500), and might open up access to free tutoring (many CCs have free tutoring available for enrolled students). A single class isn't going to make a programmer out of you, but it's not a bad way to get some introductory exposure to programming as well as access to further resources.
I was lucky enough to see Pete Seeger 2 years ago. There were maybe 30 people in the audience on this chilly autumn morning. They were mostly in their 20s.
Pete's dead now. He was in his 90s when I saw him. In his 90s. Somehow, I don't think Justin Bieber will grow up to be the amazing man Pete Seeger was. And I don't think he'll be performing his "art" into his 90s.
Within two months of its release the album had reached Billboard Top 10. It stayed on the Billboard chart for 73 weeks and held a 79-week run on the British charts.
That's what Wikipedia says about Led Zeppelin's debut album. Is it somehow not fair to compare Top 40 hits from 45 years ago (which happened to be rock) to the ones we hear today (which happen to be overproduced crap for tweens)?
Yes, so i'll get a 6" round pipe, 1 foot long...
Mandingo, is that you?
So explain to us why it is better for the citizens of this country if, instead of amending the constitution with language that clears all of this up, we simply appoint men in robes to selectively interpret the law on a case by case basis?
I thought we were supposed to be proud that we're a country of laws, not of men. When did this change, and why?