It seems more to me that it's going through its existing knowledge, trying to remember something. Backpropagation deals more with refining memories. Plus, this is unsupervised, not supervised learning, so I wouldn't think there would be any backpropagation.
I do wonder though, how this corresponds to associative memory. Maybe something is going on that's similar to adaptive resonance theory.
Exactly. Some people just don't know what they're talking about. They're obviously just trying to make themselves look good, or whoever wrote the article is trying to make them look good.
To express emotions would require an elaborate simulation of neurotransmitters and chemical reactions, and maybe even chemicals themselves. Furthermore, it would require an expert system with memory associations. In order to be able to say the machine can express emotions, it would need to be about as intelligent and complex as a dog's brain, as dogs can (I believe) express primitive emotions.
This technology has absolutely NOTHING to do with emotions AT ALL. A machine that can distinguish (i.e., characterization) itself from other things is simply doing a closeness match. This is not a big step - it is not even a step up - it is merely a step to the side on the same level that we've been at for the last decade or so. Handwriting and voice recognition programs already do things along this line.
I agree with you, that happens a lot. I guess you could almost compare these people to radical Islamist/terrorists. However, I don't think they followed any kind of doctrine in doing what they did. Their actions resulted from their idiocy.
I think that today there are a lot of people out there (maybe even the majority) that call themselves "Christians," but they are NOT Christians. They think just because they follow religious traditions, do good works, or go to church, that makes them a Christian. But that's not at all what it's about. Christianity is about having a relationship with Jesus and following his ways.
I live in Texas (in the "Bible belt"), and I'd say the good majority of those that go to church are not Christians at all. They go to church, but everything they learn stays there. They don't put into practice the things they learn. Most churches in the U.S. are really watered down too.
Can I ask you something? I just want your views, and I'm honestly not at all trying to start a debate or a flamewar. Someone mentioned this to me, and I would like to know what someone who believes in evolution thinks about this.
Most creationists are really closed-minded and have an automatic rejection of science. I don't entirely agree with their views.
I think that a lot of these people just assume that since God did certain things, it means that we can never understand them. A lot of them say these things without any basis or anything to backup their claims.
Exactly. It shows that people don't know much about what's in (and what's not in) the Bible. I don't understand why people are so bashful towards it when they haven't even read it.
I was going to say the same thing. It's as if it just leaves it out entirely. There is absolutely nothing that refers to life outside the earth (except heaven of course). So there's no reason biblically why there couldn't be life on another planet.
Although, when it describes heaven in Revelation, it does tell how big it is, and it would not be big enough to accomodate more than people on our planet. So if there is intelligent life on other planets, I don't know how God would work it all that out.
Well, no matter how good browser based applications get those browsers are still going to have to run on an operating system, on a computer somewhere.
Exactly. This is just rediculously stupid. A web site does NOT interface with the hardware and must be run within an OS. A windowing environment is not an operating system either...
That's not what it means. I mean user ignorance is not security - you can't just assume that if a user does not know about/how to do something it is secure.
A truly significant advance would be to use these stem cells to grow a human ovary in the lab, and harvest eggs from that. Such an advance would dramaatically decrease the need for additional female donors.
What if the guy wanted to take the computer apart? After he drained the oil, if he took out a card, would oil dripping onto the metal connectors cause any problems?
The Crusades are not the basis for Christianity. People may have done the things they did in the name of God, but I don't think God really wanted them to do a lot of what they did. So it really was not for God - it was for themselves, and they just made Christianity look bad. I wouldn't base what you think of it on what they did, but the ideas that encompass Christianity (taught by Jesus).
Every widely used interface that's been developed for it - namely Swing and SWT - run a lot slower than native C++ GUIs.
Also, Swing looks terrible, and you have to start the programs from the console.
Java's alright, but those things need improvement.
The computer I have right now actually has an integrated video card (not very good - but it can handle 24 BPP at 1280x1024 just fine). It's an Intel 810 Chipset.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems more to me that it's going through its existing knowledge, trying to remember something. Backpropagation deals more with refining memories. Plus, this is unsupervised, not supervised learning, so I wouldn't think there would be any backpropagation.
I do wonder though, how this corresponds to associative memory. Maybe something is going on that's similar to adaptive resonance theory.
I highly doubt this system can translate things in context though. I'd say human translation is still better.
In order to do proper translation, one of the things a system would need is real-world knowledge representation, which I highly doubt this has.
I wonder to what degree this has affected his personality.
Yea, what happened with them? They were supposedly at that technology expo in Las Vegas...I wonder what happened. Anyone know?
...looks like there's a bug in the code.
Exactly. Some people just don't know what they're talking about. They're obviously just trying to make themselves look good, or whoever wrote the article is trying to make them look good.
To express emotions would require an elaborate simulation of neurotransmitters and chemical reactions, and maybe even chemicals themselves. Furthermore, it would require an expert system with memory associations. In order to be able to say the machine can express emotions, it would need to be about as intelligent and complex as a dog's brain, as dogs can (I believe) express primitive emotions.
This technology has absolutely NOTHING to do with emotions AT ALL. A machine that can distinguish (i.e., characterization) itself from other things is simply doing a closeness match. This is not a big step - it is not even a step up - it is merely a step to the side on the same level that we've been at for the last decade or so. Handwriting and voice recognition programs already do things along this line.
No self-awareness has been demonstrated here.
I agree with you, that happens a lot. I guess you could almost compare these people to radical Islamist/terrorists. However, I don't think they followed any kind of doctrine in doing what they did. Their actions resulted from their idiocy.
I think that today there are a lot of people out there (maybe even the majority) that call themselves "Christians," but they are NOT Christians. They think just because they follow religious traditions, do good works, or go to church, that makes them a Christian. But that's not at all what it's about. Christianity is about having a relationship with Jesus and following his ways.
I live in Texas (in the "Bible belt"), and I'd say the good majority of those that go to church are not Christians at all. They go to church, but everything they learn stays there. They don't put into practice the things they learn. Most churches in the U.S. are really watered down too.
Can I ask you something? I just want your views, and I'm honestly not at all trying to start a debate or a flamewar. Someone mentioned this to me, and I would like to know what someone who believes in evolution thinks about this.
What is your take on irreversible complexity?
How could they possibly (correctly) reconnect all the nerve endings?
But have you seen how many different distributions of Linux there are out there?
#define planet 1
Most creationists are really closed-minded and have an automatic rejection of science. I don't entirely agree with their views.
I think that a lot of these people just assume that since God did certain things, it means that we can never understand them. A lot of them say these things without any basis or anything to backup their claims.
Exactly. It shows that people don't know much about what's in (and what's not in) the Bible. I don't understand why people are so bashful towards it when they haven't even read it.
I was going to say the same thing. It's as if it just leaves it out entirely. There is absolutely nothing that refers to life outside the earth (except heaven of course). So there's no reason biblically why there couldn't be life on another planet.
Although, when it describes heaven in Revelation, it does tell how big it is, and it would not be big enough to accomodate more than people on our planet. So if there is intelligent life on other planets, I don't know how God would work it all that out.
...and when the Twin Towers fell and thousands of people died, that was just a puppet show too. Yea, terrorism is not a problem.
That's only 60% of those that responded.
That's not what it means. I mean user ignorance is not security - you can't just assume that if a user does not know about/how to do something it is secure.
how many people in Cuba actually have computers? I'll bet that people living there don't even know what a computer is.
What if the guy wanted to take the computer apart? After he drained the oil, if he took out a card, would oil dripping onto the metal connectors cause any problems?
The Crusades are not the basis for Christianity. People may have done the things they did in the name of God, but I don't think God really wanted them to do a lot of what they did. So it really was not for God - it was for themselves, and they just made Christianity look bad. I wouldn't base what you think of it on what they did, but the ideas that encompass Christianity (taught by Jesus).
Every widely used interface that's been developed for it - namely Swing and SWT - run a lot slower than native C++ GUIs. Also, Swing looks terrible, and you have to start the programs from the console. Java's alright, but those things need improvement.
I guess I'm just comparing the windowing systems. Should have been more specific. But with console stuff, I do say that Linux is incredibly fast.
hmmm. Didn't know that. How do I change X's priority?
I will keep that in mind for future reference.
The computer I have right now actually has an integrated video card (not very good - but it can handle 24 BPP at 1280x1024 just fine). It's an Intel 810 Chipset.