Ah, one of _those_. You should get help, you fail at being human.
Incidentally, I know quite a few really good engineers with children. And most of them even know that working more is a really, really stupid thing to do for an engineer because that increases error-rate dramatically and reduces creativity and insight. But I guess a self-absorbed narcissist like you cannot even grasp that idea.
What people say and what they do are different things. That even applies to the ones like Hitler. How do you think he managed to get so much popular support? Right, by promising things to the people that the people wanted (delivery optional). Very much like, say, Trump.
What people say and what they do are different things. That even applies to the ones like Hitler. How do you think he managed to get so much popular support? Right, by promising things to the people that the people wanted (delivery optional). Quite like, say, Trump.
Very much this. The worst enemy of freedom (and free time) are happy, stupid slaves. It also takes a very limited mind to not have any real interests outside of what your bosses tell you to work on.
People work a lot because the hours worked are easily quantifiable. Quality (and hence productivity) is far, far harder to estimate as it actually requires understanding. At the same time, science and common sense (a rare commodity these days) tells us that people working a lot have decreased overall productivity, hence working hard is about the most stupid thing you can do or require your underlings to do.
This is not a new problem, and its root cause has been known for a very, very long time: "A good decision is based on understanding, not on numbers." (Said by Plato and doubtlessly others before him.) These days, the insight-challenged number pushers are (again) those that make the decisions. That cannot end well.
Seriously, if it is BGA, it may represent a modest mechanical challenge (because you have to get the hot air just right), but that is it. The other case variants are easy. Once the chip is removed, you, of course, place it in a socket or an adapter where you can alternate between re-flashing or having the phone use it. Soldering it back in for every 10 tries would be the hight of incompetence. Then there is the possibility of replacing it completely, for example with a RAM-based emulator. This is really not that hard to do, you just need a person that has the relevant experience and maybe $1000-$2000 in equipment.
So AlphaGo played differently from expected. That explains this outcome. Li obviously did not have a previous history of how it plays and could not prepare for this specific opponent. Under similar circumstances, chess masters sometimes get beaten by players far, far weaker.
This whole thing us a publicity stunt, nothing more.
CS 101: Algorithms can only combine data and generate more data. They cannot process or create knowledge, because that requires understanding and interpretation.
Not so. Not at all. And you seem to be completely unaware of the extreme differences between natural neural networks and artificial ones. In addition, smart Human beings can do a few things that neural networks cannot and will never be able to due to fundamental limitations.
The machine has no intelligence at all. "Insight" is a key requirement for intelligence. Li just needs to learn its limits and then he will wipe the floor with it consistently. This whole thing is a set-up and the current outcome is as expected by those paying for the whole thing.
There is no thought in Watson. None at all. That is why it was surprising that it performed so well. The thing is that Watson can do a few specific things very well, none of which require intelligence. The other telling thing was that when Watson did not find the answer, it was completely and utterly lost. Actual strong AI would have been able to make a reasonable guess even for those cases.
It is, but it implications are different from what people think. In particular, this is not a sign of a working AI at all, it is a sign that special-purpose, non-intelligent algorithms can beat general-purpose human beings at very specific things without actually exhibiting intelligence in any way. That is not very surprising when you really think about it. Excel can beat the best accountant on the planet easily when it is perfectly clear which numbers go where and what to calculate, yet nobody would accuse Excel of being intelligent.
Slashdot Mirror
So no video-game addiction or sex-addiction? Makes sense.
Ah, one of _those_. You should get help, you fail at being human.
Incidentally, I know quite a few really good engineers with children. And most of them even know that working more is a really, really stupid thing to do for an engineer because that increases error-rate dramatically and reduces creativity and insight. But I guess a self-absorbed narcissist like you cannot even grasp that idea.
Ah, sorry, answer to the wrong posting. Please ignore.
What people say and what they do are different things. That even applies to the ones like Hitler. How do you think he managed to get so much popular support? Right, by promising things to the people that the people wanted (delivery optional). Very much like, say, Trump.
What people say and what they do are different things. That even applies to the ones like Hitler. How do you think he managed to get so much popular support? Right, by promising things to the people that the people wanted (delivery optional). Quite like, say, Trump.
Excellent decision
Very much this. The worst enemy of freedom (and free time) are happy, stupid slaves. It also takes a very limited mind to not have any real interests outside of what your bosses tell you to work on.
People work a lot because the hours worked are easily quantifiable. Quality (and hence productivity) is far, far harder to estimate as it actually requires understanding. At the same time, science and common sense (a rare commodity these days) tells us that people working a lot have decreased overall productivity, hence working hard is about the most stupid thing you can do or require your underlings to do.
This is not a new problem, and its root cause has been known for a very, very long time: "A good decision is based on understanding, not on numbers." (Said by Plato and doubtlessly others before him.) These days, the insight-challenged number pushers are (again) those that make the decisions. That cannot end well.
In a society in decline, that is certainly accurate.
TFTP is not at all intended for public reachability. The problem here is people not securing their networks properly with firewalls.
It has nothing of the sort.
Oh? And do do I have self-awareness? And do not give me the pseudo-mystical bullshit about it being an "emergent property" or and "illusion".
Seriously, if it is BGA, it may represent a modest mechanical challenge (because you have to get the hot air just right), but that is it. The other case variants are easy. Once the chip is removed, you, of course, place it in a socket or an adapter where you can alternate between re-flashing or having the phone use it. Soldering it back in for every 10 tries would be the hight of incompetence. Then there is the possibility of replacing it completely, for example with a RAM-based emulator. This is really not that hard to do, you just need a person that has the relevant experience and maybe $1000-$2000 in equipment.
Mystical bullshit and completely uninformed about the facts. Pathetic.
There is nothing in Watson that can have a thought. It is not an entity, just a collection of parts.
I thought it was the Unattractive Windows Platform?
So AlphaGo played differently from expected. That explains this outcome. Li obviously did not have a previous history of how it plays and could not prepare for this specific opponent. Under similar circumstances, chess masters sometimes get beaten by players far, far weaker.
This whole thing us a publicity stunt, nothing more.
CS 101: Algorithms can only combine data and generate more data. They cannot process or create knowledge, because that requires understanding and interpretation.
Not so. Not at all. And you seem to be completely unaware of the extreme differences between natural neural networks and artificial ones. In addition, smart Human beings can do a few things that neural networks cannot and will never be able to due to fundamental limitations.
The machine has no intelligence at all. "Insight" is a key requirement for intelligence. Li just needs to learn its limits and then he will wipe the floor with it consistently. This whole thing is a set-up and the current outcome is as expected by those paying for the whole thing.
There is no thought in Watson. None at all. That is why it was surprising that it performed so well. The thing is that Watson can do a few specific things very well, none of which require intelligence. The other telling thing was that when Watson did not find the answer, it was completely and utterly lost. Actual strong AI would have been able to make a reasonable guess even for those cases.
It is, but it implications are different from what people think. In particular, this is not a sign of a working AI at all, it is a sign that special-purpose, non-intelligent algorithms can beat general-purpose human beings at very specific things without actually exhibiting intelligence in any way. That is not very surprising when you really think about it. Excel can beat the best accountant on the planet easily when it is perfectly clear which numbers go where and what to calculate, yet nobody would accuse Excel of being intelligent.
Spoken like a true inhumane fascist. Incidentally, that does not work either, who would your slaves be?
And that helps how?
Very true.