And they cannot wait for the money to be theirs....
Seriously, while undoubtedly Google and other profit from network neutrality, the ones that profit most are ordinary citizens with not a lot of disposable income and small companies. Doing away with network neutrality is about the most anti-citizen thing the FCC could do. Does fit right in with the tax reform in that though. I guess the ones that voted for this administration just like getting screwed over...
Indeed. I can actually not see any added value compared to a simple distributed database, like the PGP key servers. To me, it seems that the efforts to justify the value of the blockchain for _something_ are getting more and more desperate. A typical hype-cycle.
> Many humans avoid using intelligence like the plague though.
I wonder if this hasn't something to do with saving the energy - thinking takes a lot of sugar, which isn't readily available in the jungle, so probably our ancestors evolved to use thinking only when absolutely needed.
We're not in the jungle anymore, but our bodies are not evolved (yet) to work well when sugar is cheap and readily available everytwhere.
As far as I know, it is the energy use, the being distracted while thinking (and unaware of potential danger) and the unused time. After all, daylight is precious when you have no artificial light. There clearly is a lot of relatively dumb automation in human bodies.
You seem to be lacking actual intelligence as well. Well, more likely you have it but are not using it. A common failure in humans. Nobody knows how or whether human brains create intelligence. The closer we look, the less likely that seems though. All we have is an interface observation. No, not even fMRI gives us more. And yes, that is the scientific state-of-the-art. What you say is belief (and a stupid one), not science.
Incidentally, "automation" is exactly the right term. These systems cannot "learn" or "adapt" in the way these terms are commonly understood.
It is not the same thing with AMD and currently it is unbroken for AMD. Intel seems to really have screwed up the security of the ME, while AMD seem to have been a lot more conservative.
I fully agree that it is a problem there as well and that these things need to be auditable by anyone and reliably disabling must be possible.
ELIZA only ever was a natural language processing computer program. It was specifically created to demonstrate that you can fake being intelligent without any intelligence at all.
Actually, when it is obvious what it is, it could be argued that humans use biological automation and not intelligence to recognize the image. Most things humans do do not actually involve intelligence. Intelligence is a fall-back mechanism when things become more difficult, and one of the great unknown questions is how humans decide whether things require intelligence or not. (Many humans avoid using intelligence like the plague though.) Only when things become trickier and actual thinking is involved do humans show their true strength and machines fail miserably.
Well, sort-of. Weak AI can also be done in other ways. But I recently learned that "deep learning" is basically what you do when you do not have a good model of the problem-space. When you do have that model, other approaches are superior. But since creating models is a real hard-core expert task and expensive, the potential of deep learning is basically to do thing somewhat worse than an expert but a lot cheaper. That is, if it works for a problem. For most problems it does not work.
but every time I research the raw data it becomes very clear these aren't all that smart of AIs.
Indeed they are not. This is Weak AI. They are programmed/trained for a specific task, and outside that area of expertise, they generally have no ability at all.
Indeed. And inside that task, they are very restricted as well. The thing to remember is that weak AI has absolutely no understanding or concept of what it is doing. It just sums up details and gets a number. If cleverly done, it can perform apparently impressive feats like this one here, but it is not intelligent. Hence it is better called by its traditional name "automation".
Not all real intelligence is actually be used by its owner. In fact, most people rarely use their intelligence to understand things. They rather stick to their misconceptions. Case in point.
That is why in actual AI research this is called "automation", not AI. For a more hype-friendly stance, "weak AI" (the AI without "I") is also in use. The converse, "strong AI" or "true AI" (i.e. actual machine intelligence) is not available and it is unclear whether it can be created.
These are just statistical classifiers. They are about as intelligent as a reference book or a loaf of bread. For example, you could replace the image recognition thing with just a large collections of templates normalized in several ways and the do simple cross-correlation. That would be exceptionally (and prohibitively) slow, but likely have better results.
So in sum, these things are essentially pre-calibrated sensors. They do not think or understand anything. Still very useful, but the term "AI" for this is basically a lie.
You seem to have overlooked a little, but critical component of my statement: The word "currently". Incidentally, Bitcoin is not really anonymous either. Unless you are very careful and add extra measures, you can often be identified after a few transactions to several others. It just takes some effort.
The problem is on your side: You are clueless. Decentralization must happen in order to have an impact. It will not happen here, at least not anytime soon. And I do understand that, while you are obviously a "tech cheerleader". Ask yourself how many past trends you perceived as game-changers and what actually became of them. And then maybe read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect. At the end of that process you may be able to understand why I am qualified and capable to supervise these theses. Or you may not.
Incidentally, the students came to me with this topic because I was recommended to them for my expertise. There was zero pressure on them, and they defined the topic themselves before they contacted me.
This keyfob would need to be protected in some way.
While your picture is somewhat correct and somewhat wrong, this really is the key-point. Incidentally, this is already the key-point with a password, but there it is relatively easy to do. All those that got weakly protected customer passwords stolen in the last few years were just grossly incompetent in protecting them. It is well known (to experts) how to do that right: salt, hash, iterate and in newer times add a large-memory property. PBKDF2 was the standard since at least 2000 and and is still doing reasonably well with good parameters. Don't use it for new designs though. Argon2 is the new standard. Both are not hard to use, but you need to know about them and understand why they work and that relatively low level of expert knowledge was already not available in all these hacked companies.
So the blockchain really has no place here as it does not solve the problem, and it also does not make it easier to solve.
It may be far more simple: He is Hawkins and decidedly one of the best Physicists ever. If he claims complicated nonsense there will be a) very few people dare and can explain to him directly why it is nonsense and b) the press will be happy to print his statements, because the press has lost its last reporter that actually checked facts decades ago.
Wrong in basically all cases today with some very, very rare exceptions. The problem is, getting mastery of the scientific method requires significant talent and investment of time and feedback from people that are already scientists. Almost nobody can do that outside of the established paths, and Musk is no exception.
A realistic timeline from getting from a BA to PhD-level that deserves the name on your own is something like 20 years full-time, but only if you are on genius-level and really do nothing else. That is why it does not make sense to expect anybody without at least a reasonable PhD (which, BTW is the basic education for a scientist, it is _not_ advanced) to be a scientist. These people do not exist in modern times.
And that is why Musk is not a scientist at all. May as well claim that there are qualified self-taught brain-surgeons. Sure, in theory it is possible, but on actual reality it is not. But since you have been posting that nonsense several times now, I expect you are not actually capable to understand that reasoning. Anybody that actually is a scientist is not that limited.
Slashdot Mirror
And they cannot wait for the money to be theirs....
Seriously, while undoubtedly Google and other profit from network neutrality, the ones that profit most are ordinary citizens with not a lot of disposable income and small companies. Doing away with network neutrality is about the most anti-citizen thing the FCC could do. Does fit right in with the tax reform in that though. I guess the ones that voted for this administration just like getting screwed over...
Indeed. I can actually not see any added value compared to a simple distributed database, like the PGP key servers. To me, it seems that the efforts to justify the value of the blockchain for _something_ are getting more and more desperate. A typical hype-cycle.
Computers have no concept of anything today. So with your definition, there is no NLP. Hence that definition does not seem to make much sense.
> Many humans avoid using intelligence like the plague though.
I wonder if this hasn't something to do with saving the energy - thinking takes a lot of sugar, which isn't readily available in the jungle, so probably our ancestors evolved to use thinking only when absolutely needed.
We're not in the jungle anymore, but our bodies are not evolved (yet) to work well when sugar is cheap and readily available everytwhere.
As far as I know, it is the energy use, the being distracted while thinking (and unaware of potential danger) and the unused time. After all, daylight is precious when you have no artificial light. There clearly is a lot of relatively dumb automation in human bodies.
Are you functionally illiterate? Because your question seems to indicate you are as that is not the statement I made.
You seem to be lacking actual intelligence as well. Well, more likely you have it but are not using it. A common failure in humans. Nobody knows how or whether human brains create intelligence. The closer we look, the less likely that seems though. All we have is an interface observation. No, not even fMRI gives us more. And yes, that is the scientific state-of-the-art. What you say is belief (and a stupid one), not science.
Incidentally, "automation" is exactly the right term. These systems cannot "learn" or "adapt" in the way these terms are commonly understood.
It is not the same thing with AMD and currently it is unbroken for AMD. Intel seems to really have screwed up the security of the ME, while AMD seem to have been a lot more conservative.
I fully agree that it is a problem there as well and that these things need to be auditable by anyone and reliably disabling must be possible.
Nonsense. Even mechanical "computers" outperform humans at arithmetic. Nobody sane thinks this is a sign of any "singularity" nonsense.
ELIZA only ever was a natural language processing computer program. It was specifically created to demonstrate that you can fake being intelligent without any intelligence at all.
Actually, when it is obvious what it is, it could be argued that humans use biological automation and not intelligence to recognize the image. Most things humans do do not actually involve intelligence. Intelligence is a fall-back mechanism when things become more difficult, and one of the great unknown questions is how humans decide whether things require intelligence or not. (Many humans avoid using intelligence like the plague though.) Only when things become trickier and actual thinking is involved do humans show their true strength and machines fail miserably.
Well, sort-of. Weak AI can also be done in other ways. But I recently learned that "deep learning" is basically what you do when you do not have a good model of the problem-space. When you do have that model, other approaches are superior. But since creating models is a real hard-core expert task and expensive, the potential of deep learning is basically to do thing somewhat worse than an expert but a lot cheaper. That is, if it works for a problem. For most problems it does not work.
but every time I research the raw data it becomes very clear these aren't all that smart of AIs.
Indeed they are not. This is Weak AI. They are programmed/trained for a specific task, and outside that area of expertise, they generally have no ability at all.
Indeed. And inside that task, they are very restricted as well. The thing to remember is that weak AI has absolutely no understanding or concept of what it is doing. It just sums up details and gets a number. If cleverly done, it can perform apparently impressive feats like this one here, but it is not intelligent. Hence it is better called by its traditional name "automation".
Indeed. And this only works with some very restrictive border-conditions.
Not all real intelligence is actually be used by its owner. In fact, most people rarely use their intelligence to understand things. They rather stick to their misconceptions. Case in point.
That is why in actual AI research this is called "automation", not AI. For a more hype-friendly stance, "weak AI" (the AI without "I") is also in use. The converse, "strong AI" or "true AI" (i.e. actual machine intelligence) is not available and it is unclear whether it can be created.
These are just statistical classifiers. They are about as intelligent as a reference book or a loaf of bread. For example, you could replace the image recognition thing with just a large collections of templates normalized in several ways and the do simple cross-correlation. That would be exceptionally (and prohibitively) slow, but likely have better results.
So in sum, these things are essentially pre-calibrated sensors. They do not think or understand anything. Still very useful, but the term "AI" for this is basically a lie.
You seem to have overlooked a little, but critical component of my statement: The word "currently". Incidentally, Bitcoin is not really anonymous either. Unless you are very careful and add extra measures, you can often be identified after a few transactions to several others. It just takes some effort.
You seriously do not get it. Fascinating. It is fortunately I do not supervise your thesis, you would fail completely. Your analytical skills suck.
Usefulness as a currency and usefulness as a speculation object are mutually exclusive. Bitcoin is currently a complete fail as currency.
The problem is on your side: You are clueless. Decentralization must happen in order to have an impact. It will not happen here, at least not anytime soon. And I do understand that, while you are obviously a "tech cheerleader". Ask yourself how many past trends you perceived as game-changers and what actually became of them. And then maybe read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect. At the end of that process you may be able to understand why I am qualified and capable to supervise these theses. Or you may not.
Incidentally, the students came to me with this topic because I was recommended to them for my expertise. There was zero pressure on them, and they defined the topic themselves before they contacted me.
Makes sense. So they are trying to scam VC's basically.
I have no idea.
This keyfob would need to be protected in some way.
While your picture is somewhat correct and somewhat wrong, this really is the key-point. Incidentally, this is already the key-point with a password, but there it is relatively easy to do. All those that got weakly protected customer passwords stolen in the last few years were just grossly incompetent in protecting them. It is well known (to experts) how to do that right: salt, hash, iterate and in newer times add a large-memory property. PBKDF2 was the standard since at least 2000 and and is still doing reasonably well with good parameters. Don't use it for new designs though. Argon2 is the new standard. Both are not hard to use, but you need to know about them and understand why they work and that relatively low level of expert knowledge was already not available in all these hacked companies.
So the blockchain really has no place here as it does not solve the problem, and it also does not make it easier to solve.
Good luck with that ;-)
It may be far more simple: He is Hawkins and decidedly one of the best Physicists ever. If he claims complicated nonsense there will be a) very few people dare and can explain to him directly why it is nonsense and b) the press will be happy to print his statements, because the press has lost its last reporter that actually checked facts decades ago.
Wrong in basically all cases today with some very, very rare exceptions. The problem is, getting mastery of the scientific method requires significant talent and investment of time and feedback from people that are already scientists. Almost nobody can do that outside of the established paths, and Musk is no exception.
A realistic timeline from getting from a BA to PhD-level that deserves the name on your own is something like 20 years full-time, but only if you are on genius-level and really do nothing else. That is why it does not make sense to expect anybody without at least a reasonable PhD (which, BTW is the basic education for a scientist, it is _not_ advanced) to be a scientist. These people do not exist in modern times.
And that is why Musk is not a scientist at all. May as well claim that there are qualified self-taught brain-surgeons. Sure, in theory it is possible, but on actual reality it is not. But since you have been posting that nonsense several times now, I expect you are not actually capable to understand that reasoning. Anybody that actually is a scientist is not that limited.