It is just odd that they would leave this out forever on purpose and then suddenly fix it. It has been literal decades, and the absence was obviously malicious.
Cloud is king and the writing is on the wall. You don't take you lead architects of core products unless your business strategy is changing. This is just another sign of the inevitable.
Well it's a observation you could level at any politician, not just President Trump. Politicians have to have an agenda by virtue of the fact they're pushing their agenda. Sadly, our modern political environment is one that is attracts and creates narcissistic abuse because the traits are obvious.
That said if you were going to use politicians as an example then you should imagine their agenda as the goals the AI is seeking. Politicians employ a very specific set of language to produce their out comes. For example a Prime Minister may say about politician in trouble XYZ has my full support. At face value the politician is offering a benevolent statement however on deeper analysis what the Prime Minister is actually saying is You're on your own.
This use of language produces a very specific response in people and that response is the core of interaction between humans. We are now opening ourselves to interactions with goal seeking machines that will continue to advance and become more sophisticated. Consequently I don't think the issue with AI is the AI itself, the issue is how easy it is to manipulate human beings. The question that leaves us with is if Humanity's next evolution is genetic or release of the brain's processing power currently tied up in handling the day to day manipulation of our unconscious desires.
There will come a time with AIs when they are advanced enough to recognise and provoke emotional reactions in people to get a corresponding response. This is what Narcissistic people do and I think it's reasonable to draw the comparison because AIs don't have any emotions, it's a computer.
I came to this realisation about narcissists from a book I am writing that is a study of their style of psychological abuse. What I observed was that for those people they are disconnected from the normal emotions of a fully functional human being and are usually only left with shame. Except an AI doesn't even have shame.
Consequently I deduced that a narcissistic human in that state has had many of the normal functions of a human being atrophied (because of the abuses they themselves suffered) so in that sense they have similar attributes to the type of computing power we may see in the coming decades.
To be specific, people with these personality disorders have responses based in rote learning, they learn what an appropriate response is instead of generating one from emotions they don't have, they then respond to provoke a response from a person based on similar rote learning. That's not a lot different from the way an AI collects and responds to inputs.
Turning things upside down, were we to examine a human brain from the perspective of computing power and then reduced it's functionality just how much would you have to take away to get a AI in 20, 10 and 5 years from now considering the state the technology is at now?
Just how damaged would a human brain have to be to mimic an AI?
It's not a question of being 'safety conscious'. NASA has been 'safety conscious' it is about how they apply this principle. They were safety conscious with the Shuttle program too, they simply failed to follow 'good engineering practices'
Well No. The problem with the Shuttle was it was well engineered with a fundamental design flaw in the launch configuration. That guaranteed ice strikes onto the re-entry tiles which NASA referred to as 'in-family' which the same command criticized as "converting a knowledge of failure into a knowledge of success".
IIRC, the US Nuclear sub command criticized NASA in the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's report for claiming who else operates high performance machinery in hostile conditions?.
They replied We do, we operate Nuclear Submarines and put five thousand people to work studying the Challenger accident to see what we could learn, how many did you put on it?
I personally don't think it's fair to blame NASA for being safety conscious after blaming them for not being safety conscious.
There was a Job in New Orleans
They called it a pointless job
and it's been the ruin of many a poor boy
and lord, I know, I'm one
My mother was a receptionist
sold my commodore 64
My father was a program man
scripting in brainfuck
The only thing a scripter needs
is an editor and some luck
And the only time, he's satisfied
when he's, using, a thunk
Oh Mother, tell your children
Not to be a cunt
Spend your life in sincere misery
In the house of the pointless Job
Not attached to a platform
No, specific, tool chain
I'm goin' back, to New Orleans
To slowly go insane
Well, there is a Job in New Orleans
They call the Pointless Job
And it's been the ruin of many a poor boy
And God, I know I'm one
Once upon a time my neighbors had a party on a Tuesday night, which I guess was ok until they started playing Celene Dion at 2am in the morning REALLY LOUD.
In the gap between songs I yelled "Play some decent music" so they switched to Elton John.
Our one started leaking radioisotopes into the water table. No one could tell, for a very long time until we started getting a lot of birth defects and the children started dying. Now there are no children being born and everyone left living here is pretty sad.
We really wish we went for the solar option. It's a horrible thing when there are no kids around playing.
Thank you for the link to the paper LynnwoodRooster, I've only gisted it at the moment and I'll take the time to read through this later as it looks like an interesting read. I think the AC who is arguing with you has missed the point and is trying to reduce things to a technical realm instead of the way the brain perceives sound and I appreciate your insights.
I'm interested in the oboe paper because I think the brain models the harmonics of instruments onto a frame of reference called music. I think these models in the brain are created from the references drawn by the music in our culture over years and years of training of what something should sound like. The harmonic map of an instrument is something familiar in western music to a lot of people, so they know when it is wrong.
In this thread I notice people reduce it to things they are intellectually invested in physics/physiology/smaple rates/SN ratio etc. The thing they don't seem to take into account is the way the human brain perceives sound and consequently they engage in Reductio ad absurdum.
The question I posited a theory for was:
I have had people suggest that maybe they can "feel" the higher frequencies somehow. Of course they don't ever seem to want to theorise about the biology of that idea.
I think there is a lot more going in the brain than just ears when we listen to music however all of my work so far has been in the temporal space of audio processing and the work was very fruitful.
I've only just started working on harmonics, I've got a working theory so I did want to theorise about the biology and see what people think. I don't know however I think the link you supplied is going to supply an interesting perspective so I wanted to thank you for keeping an open mind and actually supplying useful information.
However the other thing the human ear is sensitive to is harmonic frequencies, and if they are missing, it sounds weird.
Magic fairy dust
We are talking about human perception here. Unexplored human characteristics seems like a more reasonable explanation.
My theory is
Your theory is in line with every engineer who cannot step over the edge into pseudoscience without being ridiculed.
Understanding the brain's perception of sound is not pseudo-science. Ridicule is the de jour treatment of anybody who steps out of the bounds of the current understanding of a domain of knowledge by people who have a significant intellectual investment in their perception of that domain whilst unwilling to make any more. It's just a sign their neuroplasticity isn't what it used to be.
There's no "musical" fundamental that would have an identifiable audible harmonic above 16kHz (B7 is below 8k and harmonic amplitude decreases along a 6db/oct curve)
I think it has more to do with the perceptions of sonic patterns in the brain.
but if you really played with it then you already know you can put any crap up there.
Well I have and what I found is that I have to be very careful what I *remove* from that range before it sounds...wrong.
At 96Khz 24bit recording resolution you are at the equivalent of current analogue tape.
Please provide a link to an analogue tape+recorder with S/R ratio of 144 dB.
I said equivalent for a reason. I did't same it was the same because I know a Studer at 30ips will get you about 75dB S/N.
However the other thing the human ear is sensitive to is harmonic frequencies, and if they are missing, it sounds weird.
There is no difference. If you can't hear a single 22 kHz note, you can't hear the 22 kHz harmonic of a 11 kHz fundamental tone either. Even worse, the presence of lower fundamentals have a blocking effect on our ability to hear higher frequencies.
Wow - you're so sure about the way humans perceive sound that you're arrogant enough to dismiss my theory with your absolute certainty. I posit that you are viewing sonic perception as a technical matter and thus reducing it to things you understand.
As I said: if the harmonics are there your brain can imply their presence, that doesn't mean you can hear them it means your brain suggests to your perception of sound that they are there because the correct harmonics are in place. Perhaps that exists as a way for the brain to route around hearing damage.
I get it you want to attack my theory, but please attack it with something that makes sense in a rational way. Speaking for myself, I can hear more than one frequency at a time quite easily.
I have had people suggest that maybe they can "feel" the higher frequencies somehow. Of course they don't ever seem to want to theorise about the biology of that idea.
I will.
At 96Khz 24bit recording resolution you are at the equivalent of current analogue tape. 196Khz 24bit puts analogue recording back in the 20th century where it belongs.
The reason this is important is not just because of the frequencies being produced, but the noise floor and the dynamic range available at 24bit vs 16 bits is much greater. The human ear is very sensitive to dynamic range which is quite different from just the frequency range being detected.
The other thing to keep in mind is that a sampling rate of 96Khz has a Nyquist frequency of 48Khz which offers a broader *reproduction* of the sounds sampled. So what, you may say, we can only hear up to about 16Khz and 20Khz if you are a child. However the other thing the human ear is sensitive to is harmonic frequencies, and if they are missing, it sounds weird.
My theory is that even if you can't hear these sounds, your brain can detect their absence because certain harmonic cues are missing, ergo, if the harmonics are there your brain can imply their presence. So that when one of these people say they can "feel" those higher frequencies what they are actually detecting is the inference of those sounds because the correct harmonics are in place.
Obviously, I don't know if this is true. I am doing a lot of work in sound processing, I've had 96Khz recording sessions playing and when you hear people talking on them it sounds so real it is spooky, make the same recording 44Khz and it sounds like a recording.
There are other things, like the way the brain processes the time domains that exist in the recording, however just talking about fundamentals of psychoacoustics those are the conclusions I came to when I heard people report the same things to me.
If you have to take along a 300kW gasoline-powered turbine and a copy machine-sized unit, isn't it easier to just throw this stuff in the path of the car you want to stop?
I suggest that would mean there wouldn't be an excuse to deploy microwave weapons within civilian populations.
Almost everywhere the military operates already has a civilian population.
Usually not their own.
Wars aren't conducted safely off-planet, or whatever.
I've never thought of wars that ensure peoples safety.
If you're well-enough educated you can tell which civilians it will be used on based on which part of the government is operating it.;)
We have seen that. We've seen microwave weapons used on citizens in England protesting American bases.
The foil changes the temperature of your testes the whole time you wear the foil, the microwaves only heat them for a 10ms burst.
Red Underpants on the outside of his tights worked for superman, I think sparks of mini lightning coming off foil coated testicles in 10ms bursts would be really impressive.
Foil around the engine's control unit, obviously. How would a hat help in this situation?
Posting tired. I was trying to figure out how much microwave energy you would need to get through the steel car body to affect the ECU enough for foil to make a difference, for some reason the image just popped into my head when I was imagining being in a car with it being fired at me.
I think I'd consider wrapping my testicles in foil too and watch out for sparks.
Slashdot Mirror
hmmmm, I try to go for a current model so you can get parts for it. I mean it's cheaper if it's end-of-line but it's much harder to get parts.
-- Make America hate again!
clever sig you got there.
It is just odd that they would leave this out forever on purpose and then suddenly fix it. It has been literal decades, and the absence was obviously malicious.
Cloud is king and the writing is on the wall. You don't take you lead architects of core products unless your business strategy is changing. This is just another sign of the inevitable.
Well it's a observation you could level at any politician, not just President Trump. Politicians have to have an agenda by virtue of the fact they're pushing their agenda. Sadly, our modern political environment is one that is attracts and creates narcissistic abuse because the traits are obvious.
That said if you were going to use politicians as an example then you should imagine their agenda as the goals the AI is seeking. Politicians employ a very specific set of language to produce their out comes. For example a Prime Minister may say about politician in trouble XYZ has my full support. At face value the politician is offering a benevolent statement however on deeper analysis what the Prime Minister is actually saying is You're on your own.
This use of language produces a very specific response in people and that response is the core of interaction between humans. We are now opening ourselves to interactions with goal seeking machines that will continue to advance and become more sophisticated. Consequently I don't think the issue with AI is the AI itself, the issue is how easy it is to manipulate human beings. The question that leaves us with is if Humanity's next evolution is genetic or release of the brain's processing power currently tied up in handling the day to day manipulation of our unconscious desires.
There will come a time with AIs when they are advanced enough to recognise and provoke emotional reactions in people to get a corresponding response. This is what Narcissistic people do and I think it's reasonable to draw the comparison because AIs don't have any emotions, it's a computer.
I came to this realisation about narcissists from a book I am writing that is a study of their style of psychological abuse. What I observed was that for those people they are disconnected from the normal emotions of a fully functional human being and are usually only left with shame. Except an AI doesn't even have shame.
Consequently I deduced that a narcissistic human in that state has had many of the normal functions of a human being atrophied (because of the abuses they themselves suffered) so in that sense they have similar attributes to the type of computing power we may see in the coming decades.
To be specific, people with these personality disorders have responses based in rote learning, they learn what an appropriate response is instead of generating one from emotions they don't have, they then respond to provoke a response from a person based on similar rote learning. That's not a lot different from the way an AI collects and responds to inputs.
Turning things upside down, were we to examine a human brain from the perspective of computing power and then reduced it's functionality just how much would you have to take away to get a AI in 20, 10 and 5 years from now considering the state the technology is at now?
Just how damaged would a human brain have to be to mimic an AI?
Jesus Christ that was awful
Yes, it was. Curiously though someone liked it.
It's not a question of being 'safety conscious'. NASA has been 'safety conscious' it is about how they apply this principle. They were safety conscious with the Shuttle program too, they simply failed to follow 'good engineering practices'
Well No. The problem with the Shuttle was it was well engineered with a fundamental design flaw in the launch configuration. That guaranteed ice strikes onto the re-entry tiles which NASA referred to as 'in-family' which the same command criticized as "converting a knowledge of failure into a knowledge of success".
Who is guilty of vehicular manslaughter, here?
It depends. In this scenario the AI was in Bruce Jenner mode when it hit the woman but switched to Kateland Jenner mode later claim innocence.
IIRC, the US Nuclear sub command criticized NASA in the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's report for claiming who else operates high performance machinery in hostile conditions?.
They replied We do, we operate Nuclear Submarines and put five thousand people to work studying the Challenger accident to see what we could learn, how many did you put on it?
I personally don't think it's fair to blame NASA for being safety conscious after blaming them for not being safety conscious.
The choice people have to make is if it frees us or enslaves us.
There was a Job in New Orleans
They called it a pointless job
and it's been the ruin of many a poor boy
and lord, I know, I'm one
My mother was a receptionist
sold my commodore 64
My father was a program man
scripting in brainfuck
The only thing a scripter needs
is an editor and some luck
And the only time, he's satisfied
when he's, using, a thunk
Oh Mother, tell your children
Not to be a cunt
Spend your life in sincere misery
In the house of the pointless Job
Not attached to a platform
No, specific, tool chain
I'm goin' back, to New Orleans
To slowly go insane
Well, there is a Job in New Orleans
They call the Pointless Job
And it's been the ruin of many a poor boy
And God, I know I'm one
Once upon a time my neighbors had a party on a Tuesday night, which I guess was ok until they started playing Celene Dion at 2am in the morning REALLY LOUD.
In the gap between songs I yelled "Play some decent music" so they switched to Elton John.
Thats true. On Earth you don't have to worry about things overheating.
A pity no one worried about Fukushima overheating.
Our one started leaking radioisotopes into the water table. No one could tell, for a very long time until we started getting a lot of birth defects and the children started dying. Now there are no children being born and everyone left living here is pretty sad.
We really wish we went for the solar option. It's a horrible thing when there are no kids around playing.
I even tried explaining it and no one got the joke!!!
Which Bank?
Could it be Cambridge Analyciya?
I mean they may as well be, they know everything else about facebook users.
Thank you for the link to the paper LynnwoodRooster, I've only gisted it at the moment and I'll take the time to read through this later as it looks like an interesting read. I think the AC who is arguing with you has missed the point and is trying to reduce things to a technical realm instead of the way the brain perceives sound and I appreciate your insights.
I'm interested in the oboe paper because I think the brain models the harmonics of instruments onto a frame of reference called music. I think these models in the brain are created from the references drawn by the music in our culture over years and years of training of what something should sound like. The harmonic map of an instrument is something familiar in western music to a lot of people, so they know when it is wrong.
In this thread I notice people reduce it to things they are intellectually invested in physics/physiology/smaple rates/SN ratio etc. The thing they don't seem to take into account is the way the human brain perceives sound and consequently they engage in Reductio ad absurdum. The question I posited a theory for was:
I have had people suggest that maybe they can "feel" the higher frequencies somehow. Of course they don't ever seem to want to theorise about the biology of that idea.
I think there is a lot more going in the brain than just ears when we listen to music however all of my work so far has been in the temporal space of audio processing and the work was very fruitful.
I've only just started working on harmonics, I've got a working theory so I did want to theorise about the biology and see what people think. I don't know however I think the link you supplied is going to supply an interesting perspective so I wanted to thank you for keeping an open mind and actually supplying useful information.
Magic fairy dust
We are talking about human perception here. Unexplored human characteristics seems like a more reasonable explanation.
My theory is
Your theory is in line with every engineer who cannot step over the edge into pseudoscience without being ridiculed.
Understanding the brain's perception of sound is not pseudo-science. Ridicule is the de jour treatment of anybody who steps out of the bounds of the current understanding of a domain of knowledge by people who have a significant intellectual investment in their perception of that domain whilst unwilling to make any more. It's just a sign their neuroplasticity isn't what it used to be.
There's no "musical" fundamental that would have an identifiable audible harmonic above 16kHz (B7 is below 8k and harmonic amplitude decreases along a 6db/oct curve)
I think it has more to do with the perceptions of sonic patterns in the brain.
but if you really played with it then you already know you can put any crap up there.
Well I have and what I found is that I have to be very careful what I *remove* from that range before it sounds...wrong.
At 96Khz 24bit recording resolution you are at the equivalent of current analogue tape.
Please provide a link to an analogue tape+recorder with S/R ratio of 144 dB.
I said equivalent for a reason. I did't same it was the same because I know a Studer at 30ips will get you about 75dB S/N.
However the other thing the human ear is sensitive to is harmonic frequencies, and if they are missing, it sounds weird.
There is no difference. If you can't hear a single 22 kHz note, you can't hear the 22 kHz harmonic of a 11 kHz fundamental tone either. Even worse, the presence of lower fundamentals have a blocking effect on our ability to hear higher frequencies.
Wow - you're so sure about the way humans perceive sound that you're arrogant enough to dismiss my theory with your absolute certainty. I posit that you are viewing sonic perception as a technical matter and thus reducing it to things you understand.
As I said: if the harmonics are there your brain can imply their presence, that doesn't mean you can hear them it means your brain suggests to your perception of sound that they are there because the correct harmonics are in place. Perhaps that exists as a way for the brain to route around hearing damage.
I get it you want to attack my theory, but please attack it with something that makes sense in a rational way. Speaking for myself, I can hear more than one frequency at a time quite easily.
Thank you Mr AC!
Wow, look what happens when you offer theory to slashdot!! I guess we're not about actually exploring ideas much anymore.
I have had people suggest that maybe they can "feel" the higher frequencies somehow. Of course they don't ever seem to want to theorise about the biology of that idea.
I will.
At 96Khz 24bit recording resolution you are at the equivalent of current analogue tape. 196Khz 24bit puts analogue recording back in the 20th century where it belongs.
The reason this is important is not just because of the frequencies being produced, but the noise floor and the dynamic range available at 24bit vs 16 bits is much greater. The human ear is very sensitive to dynamic range which is quite different from just the frequency range being detected.
The other thing to keep in mind is that a sampling rate of 96Khz has a Nyquist frequency of 48Khz which offers a broader *reproduction* of the sounds sampled. So what, you may say, we can only hear up to about 16Khz and 20Khz if you are a child. However the other thing the human ear is sensitive to is harmonic frequencies, and if they are missing, it sounds weird.
My theory is that even if you can't hear these sounds, your brain can detect their absence because certain harmonic cues are missing, ergo, if the harmonics are there your brain can imply their presence. So that when one of these people say they can "feel" those higher frequencies what they are actually detecting is the inference of those sounds because the correct harmonics are in place.
Obviously, I don't know if this is true. I am doing a lot of work in sound processing, I've had 96Khz recording sessions playing and when you hear people talking on them it sounds so real it is spooky, make the same recording 44Khz and it sounds like a recording.
There are other things, like the way the brain processes the time domains that exist in the recording, however just talking about fundamentals of psychoacoustics those are the conclusions I came to when I heard people report the same things to me.
If you have to take along a 300kW gasoline-powered turbine and a copy machine-sized unit, isn't it easier to just throw this stuff in the path of the car you want to stop?
I suggest that would mean there wouldn't be an excuse to deploy microwave weapons within civilian populations.
Almost everywhere the military operates already has a civilian population.
Usually not their own.
Wars aren't conducted safely off-planet, or whatever.
I've never thought of wars that ensure peoples safety.
If you're well-enough educated you can tell which civilians it will be used on based on which part of the government is operating it. ;)
We have seen that. We've seen microwave weapons used on citizens in England protesting American bases.
The foil changes the temperature of your testes the whole time you wear the foil, the microwaves only heat them for a 10ms burst.
Red Underpants on the outside of his tights worked for superman, I think sparks of mini lightning coming off foil coated testicles in 10ms bursts would be really impressive.
Besides that the foil keeps them fresh.
Foil around the engine's control unit, obviously. How would a hat help in this situation?
Posting tired. I was trying to figure out how much microwave energy you would need to get through the steel car body to affect the ECU enough for foil to make a difference, for some reason the image just popped into my head when I was imagining being in a car with it being fired at me.
I think I'd consider wrapping my testicles in foil too and watch out for sparks.