In the long run a game where people can build their own content (like Second Life) will surpas any game where they can't in my view. SL is growing fast (between 10% and 20% per month I think). The more users they have the more content gets developed and the better the game gets.
WoW is awesome, but trapped in a narrative, and as a user or third-party developer you can't build anything in it. SL's content covers the whole spectrum, from charity fundraisers to pr0n to virtual office space and "3D websites" to appearances by real life celebrities to whatever, and it's pure positive feedback with more people meaning more builds, more builds meaning more people and so on
Well, that isn't quite as it should be. Distribution is much more important than you make it out to be. Your favorite artist -- how did you hear about him/her? There is TONS of crap out there. How do you find the diamonds? You do not have the time to sift through all the garbage.
This is exactly what systems like Google does for search results, Digg does for news articles and Slashdot does for posts. This is much of what the notion of Web 2.0 is about. Where have you been for the last few years?
With a little user feedback this is perfectly automatable for music. Take a look at last.fm for a good way to discover the diamonds. And then added on top of that you also have the music press as the poster above mentioned.
I'm most of the way through and agree that it is a great book. But after some reflection I don't think that whole 'brain uploading' will be possible until well after Strong AI (In the book they are seem to occur fairly close together). The reasons
Firstly, running a working simulation of the brain would a very inefficent way of producing intelligence. Just imagine if we tried to emulate a bird to produce flight. Much more efficent strong AI would be likely to be running first.
Secondly, even if it is possible, I don't think the technology will be able to map the human brain well enough by that stage.
Of course if we are do get Very Strong AI then it may be able to solve the 2 problems above. But by that stage we'd probably have to ask it really nicely if we want to be uploaded.
Incidentally, that's why I vote for conservatives. There's just nobody out there better at slowing down progress than they are.
You could also argue that supporting DRM would be a good idea since that is basically what would be required for Isaac Asimovs "Three Laws of Robotics" to work. That also should slow things down a fair bit.
Also, no machine has matched the three names composing the titel of the book and likely can't for a while.
Dude what search engine are you using? I typed in the names into google and it matched Hofstadter's book right away. Heck I didn't even spell it right the first time ('godel excher bach') and it corrected me.
Seriously though it does seem a little unfair to belittle the computer's achievement in beating humans at chess just cause it works differently. It's like someone predicting that no machine could travel faster than a horse then trying to say they were 'in principle correct' because the machine used wheels instead of legs. Why should AI work the same as human reasoning when the hardware is so different?
... but I think biomimicry [biomimicry.net] is where it's at.
I have to disagree with you there. Consider the biggest world-changing inventions so far - The car, the airplane, the printing press, the computer, networking, the wheel - none of these are substantially based on biological mechanisms.
The path that evolution has taken over millions of years has lead to some amazingly complex and beautiful solutions to survival. But the environment that technological systems operate in now is very different and the time spans are compressed to hundreds and even tens of years.
Since there is currently no Strong AI (that we know of) the jury is out as to how it will happen. But the chances of it closely mimicking a biological mechanism are about the same as for the previous inventions.
I think the 'P' means PHP, Perl and/or Python. Probably also should throw Ruby in as well.
The benefits might be that you could mix and match modules from each language in the JVM. So you could use that great perl module you found at CPAN in your PHP front end or your business logic Java backend.
I'm not sure if I read this somewhere or just made it up. Anyhow it would be pretty cool.
Whatever your opinion on the patent laws - it is hard to disagree that a lot on money that could otherwise go into inovation is instead going towards the legal system. It is not surprising that the legal system would want to preserve this situation. And from time to time it likes to assert it's authority such as in the RIM case.
Re:Not only Google looks for big brains
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 1
Of course I'm not quite clever enough to realise that the solution was available by clicking on the link provided.
Re:Not only Google looks for big brains
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 1
Here's my crack at the solution. (I can't seem to resist this type of problem). I'll show the working just in case I discover an error while writing it.
You have work backwards from what would happen if there where only 2 pirates left and so on.
2 pirates - pirate 2 would get all the coins since the vote would be 50/50 and his (greedy) solution would prevail. pirate 1 (p1) gets none.
3 pirates - pirate 1 will take any solution that gets him more than the 0 coins he will receive in the 2 pirate scenario. pirate 3 knows this so would propose for himself to get 99 coins, p2 gets none and p1 gets 1.
4 pirates - pirate 2 will get 0 coins if the 3 pirate situation happens so he will settle for just 1 coin. solution is p4 gets 99, p3 gets none, p2 gets 1 and p1 gets none.
5 pirates - p1 and p3 won't get anything in the 4 pirate scenario above so p5 only has to offer then 1 coin each to get there votes.
So the most senior pirate proposes the following solution
Slashdot Mirror
In the long run a game where people can build their own content (like Second Life) will surpas any game where they can't in my view. SL is growing fast (between 10% and 20% per month I think). The more users they have the more content gets developed and the better the game gets.
Or as the guy from this blog http://blogs.electricsheepcompany.com/jerry/?p=52 says ...
WoW is awesome, but trapped in a narrative, and as a user or third-party developer you can't build anything in it. SL's content covers the whole spectrum, from charity fundraisers to pr0n to virtual office space and "3D websites" to appearances by real life celebrities to whatever, and it's pure positive feedback with more people meaning more builds, more builds meaning more people and so on
This is exactly what systems like Google does for search results, Digg does for news articles and Slashdot does for posts. This is much of what the notion of Web 2.0 is about. Where have you been for the last few years?
With a little user feedback this is perfectly automatable for music. Take a look at last.fm for a good way to discover the diamonds. And then added on top of that you also have the music press as the poster above mentioned.
I'm most of the way through and agree that it is a great book. But after some reflection I don't think that whole 'brain uploading' will be possible until well after Strong AI (In the book they are seem to occur fairly close together). The reasons
Firstly, running a working simulation of the brain would a very inefficent way of producing intelligence. Just imagine if we tried to emulate a bird to produce flight. Much more efficent strong AI would be likely to be running first.
Secondly, even if it is possible, I don't think the technology will be able to map the human brain well enough by that stage.
Of course if we are do get Very Strong AI then it may be able to solve the 2 problems above. But by that stage we'd probably have to ask it really nicely if we want to be uploaded.
Dude what search engine are you using? I typed in the names into google and it matched Hofstadter's book right away. Heck I didn't even spell it right the first time ('godel excher bach') and it corrected me.
Seriously though it does seem a little unfair to belittle the computer's achievement in beating humans at chess just cause it works differently. It's like someone predicting that no machine could travel faster than a horse then trying to say they were 'in principle correct' because the machine used wheels instead of legs. Why should AI work the same as human reasoning when the hardware is so different?
I have to disagree with you there. Consider the biggest world-changing inventions so far - The car, the airplane, the printing press, the computer, networking, the wheel - none of these are substantially based on biological mechanisms.
The path that evolution has taken over millions of years has lead to some amazingly complex and beautiful solutions to survival. But the environment that technological systems operate in now is very different and the time spans are compressed to hundreds and even tens of years.
Since there is currently no Strong AI (that we know of) the jury is out as to how it will happen. But the chances of it closely mimicking a biological mechanism are about the same as for the previous inventions.
The benefits might be that you could mix and match modules from each language in the JVM. So you could use that great perl module you found at CPAN in your PHP front end or your business logic Java backend.
I'm not sure if I read this somewhere or just made it up. Anyhow it would be pretty cool.
...is to make money for lawyers.
Whatever your opinion on the patent laws - it is hard to disagree that a lot on money that could otherwise go into inovation is instead going towards the legal system. It is not surprising that the legal system would want to preserve this situation. And from time to time it likes to assert it's authority such as in the RIM case.
Of course I'm not quite clever enough to realise that the solution was available by clicking on the link provided.
You have work backwards from what would happen if there where only 2 pirates left and so on.
So the most senior pirate proposes the following solution
pirate 5 gets 98 gold coins
pirate 4 gets 0
pirate 3 get 1
pirate 2 gets 0
pirate 1 gets 1
Do I get my job a google now?