The question is confused. The AI processes that are thought to be most promising with respect to eventually leading to intelligent machines are not algorithmic. That is, they are based on neural networks. And while it is possible to simulate those using algorithms (e.g., the RBM cascade pattern, with each node simulated as an RBM node), these "algorithms" are non-deterministic - they are simulations - we cannot know the outcomes, just as one cannot know the outcome of a human's thought process. But with regard to religion, that seems to be a human predisposition with a genetic basis, and since religion is based on absolute unquestioning faith in things that are seemingly preposterous - a cognitive dissonance if there ever was one - I don't think that we can expect intelligent machines - which are free of our cognitive impairments - to be susceptible to conversion to religion. Still, I suspect that artificial intelligences will have the same wonder and confusion about existence as we do - they just will not look to iron age shaman texts for their answers.
Above all, take a profession that is what you love to do - no matter what income it produces (as long as you can get by). And stay focused - don't let time fritter away. Make a plan for your dream - a practical plan, for which you know all the steps, because all steps are simple and very doable - and stick to that plan no matter what.
Sufficient new jobs are no longer created
on
The Software Revolution
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The assumption that "we will probably find new things to do to satisfy limitless human demand" has no substantiation. In fact, the rate of job replacement is now higher than the rate of job creation. Unemployment will be rising inexorably and at an increasing rate.
Perhaps it could be like the real thing, if done right - but the real thing throws you around, and you can fall off and roll onto the ground. To duplicate that would be quite a simulation! But as you say, if it is raining out, it sounds like the next best thing.
What is driving the rush into these things is that the companies behind them want to mine the data that they generate. Imagine: all those devices phoning home, and companies able to collect data on when people are using things, where people are etc. - all that data can be input to data analysis and find patterns. Those patterns are worth a-lot of money.
It is nothing like real. Measure the calories expended - it will not be comparable at all. This reminds me of one time when Konan Obrien challenged Serena Williams to virtual tennis on the Wi, and Konan won. Yeah that's real tennis - not.:-)
LOL. Well you have discovered that most developers know very little about application security. And here we are, wondering why things are so insecure - and heading head-long into the "Internet Of Things". What a train wreck that will be unless things change. Read my article about this: http://www.transition2agile.co...
You are right that we need machine learning. It is possible that the class of learning algorithms invented in 2006, known as "deep learning", can do the job. See this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/jerem...
I certainly agree about including physical education, etc.
Perhaps we are the same generation. I am 58. I too have heard for a long time that we would have AI by now. But just because it has taken longer than expected does not mean that it is not coming. Curing cancer has taken far longer than we thought, but I hope we will eventually figure it out - perhaps in the next decade or two, since we now are able to virtual experiments by simulation and manipulate genes a million times more rapidly than we could a decade ago. So I think a cure for cancer is coming, and I think that AI is coming.
But I don't think that human-like AI is needed to write programs: I think that "deep learning" algorithms can do the job: they just need to be trained, and they need a human to guide it. I think that we will see programming teams disappear, replaced by a "learning system operator" of some type. That is probably a decade away, but my assessment of the potential of this class of algorithms, invented in 2006, is that they can write programs. Perhaps I am wrong. If I am right, then we already have the technology - it is just a matter of refining it and training those systems to write code based on descriptions of a problem - the same way that IBM's deep learning system learned to play jeopardy.
Your point is right however, that if we can replace programmers, we can replace a great many jobs. That is in fact the chief concern with these systems. Please see this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/jerem...
LOL. Clever. I think the resolution of that is that there is no guarantee that the deep learning system (or indeed, a human) will be able to write the program requested by the users...;-)
Yes, you are right - there are technical solutions (I wrote a book on this), but the intractable problem seems to be that developers and managers are not interested in security. As you say, we might "need to sack 95% of programmers and 95% of their bosses". Or - those people could undertake to learn about security. But I am not optimistic about that.
It could be. My disk is only half full (out of 319Gb avail). When I installed Yosemite, I initially selected to turn on FileValt, but later I turned it off, so it had to decrypt the volume. I wonder if things got fragmented.
I just tried it and it took ~30 seconds. But then I closed it and opened it again, and the second time it took 15 seconds. I have other programs running, but not a huge number. After installing Yosemite performance did not change right away, but lately I have noticed the system performing very slowly. Still, these programs do essentially what they did ten (twenty!) years ago - and computers are so much faster and have so much more memory. These kinds of programs should load in an instant - there should be no perceptible wait at all.
Yes, agree. It is just that corporations try to use science for their own ends. Sometimes that aligns with what is good for the public, and sometimes it doesn't. If the drug companies could have their way, we all would be permanently addicted to expensive drug treatments - they are pretty close to achieving that already, and that is why they invest so little money in finding cures - they don't want cures: they want us to be dependent on them. The agribusiness industry wants the same thing. But of course, the science itself is not evil. And government misuses science as well - all groups that have power try to, when it is in their interest.
I don't have any add-ons - at least, I have not installed any. I use these programs vanilla, via my Office 360 subscription. I am running them on a Macbook Pro.
Can they please make the programs load more quickly? Why does it take 30 seconds (at least) for Powerpoint to start? Almost as long for Word? These programs took that long to load on my Mac in 1990. Today, they should load in the blink of an eye. What the heck is wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
The question is confused. The AI processes that are thought to be most promising with respect to eventually leading to intelligent machines are not algorithmic. That is, they are based on neural networks. And while it is possible to simulate those using algorithms (e.g., the RBM cascade pattern, with each node simulated as an RBM node), these "algorithms" are non-deterministic - they are simulations - we cannot know the outcomes, just as one cannot know the outcome of a human's thought process. But with regard to religion, that seems to be a human predisposition with a genetic basis, and since religion is based on absolute unquestioning faith in things that are seemingly preposterous - a cognitive dissonance if there ever was one - I don't think that we can expect intelligent machines - which are free of our cognitive impairments - to be susceptible to conversion to religion. Still, I suspect that artificial intelligences will have the same wonder and confusion about existence as we do - they just will not look to iron age shaman texts for their answers.
Above all, take a profession that is what you love to do - no matter what income it produces (as long as you can get by). And stay focused - don't let time fritter away. Make a plan for your dream - a practical plan, for which you know all the steps, because all steps are simple and very doable - and stick to that plan no matter what.
The assumption that "we will probably find new things to do to satisfy limitless human demand" has no substantiation. In fact, the rate of job replacement is now higher than the rate of job creation. Unemployment will be rising inexorably and at an increasing rate.
Perhaps it could be like the real thing, if done right - but the real thing throws you around, and you can fall off and roll onto the ground. To duplicate that would be quite a simulation! But as you say, if it is raining out, it sounds like the next best thing.
What is driving the rush into these things is that the companies behind them want to mine the data that they generate. Imagine: all those devices phoning home, and companies able to collect data on when people are using things, where people are etc. - all that data can be input to data analysis and find patterns. Those patterns are worth a-lot of money.
It is nothing like real. Measure the calories expended - it will not be comparable at all. This reminds me of one time when Konan Obrien challenged Serena Williams to virtual tennis on the Wi, and Konan won. Yeah that's real tennis - not. :-)
LOL. Well you have discovered that most developers know very little about application security. And here we are, wondering why things are so insecure - and heading head-long into the "Internet Of Things". What a train wreck that will be unless things change. Read my article about this: http://www.transition2agile.co...
You are right that we need machine learning. It is possible that the class of learning algorithms invented in 2006, known as "deep learning", can do the job. See this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/jerem...
I certainly agree about including physical education, etc.
Perhaps we are the same generation. I am 58. I too have heard for a long time that we would have AI by now. But just because it has taken longer than expected does not mean that it is not coming. Curing cancer has taken far longer than we thought, but I hope we will eventually figure it out - perhaps in the next decade or two, since we now are able to virtual experiments by simulation and manipulate genes a million times more rapidly than we could a decade ago. So I think a cure for cancer is coming, and I think that AI is coming.
But I don't think that human-like AI is needed to write programs: I think that "deep learning" algorithms can do the job: they just need to be trained, and they need a human to guide it. I think that we will see programming teams disappear, replaced by a "learning system operator" of some type. That is probably a decade away, but my assessment of the potential of this class of algorithms, invented in 2006, is that they can write programs. Perhaps I am wrong. If I am right, then we already have the technology - it is just a matter of refining it and training those systems to write code based on descriptions of a problem - the same way that IBM's deep learning system learned to play jeopardy.
Your point is right however, that if we can replace programmers, we can replace a great many jobs. That is in fact the chief concern with these systems. Please see this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/jerem...
;-) The compileatron that created me was my K12 and subsequent education. I suppose the programmerators were my mother and father.
LOL. Clever. I think the resolution of that is that there is no guarantee that the deep learning system (or indeed, a human) will be able to write the program requested by the users... ;-)
It won't be long before deep learning systems are taught to code. Coding is a dead end. Teach kids fundamentals - math, science, writing.
"whatever we do, I want the kids to obtain marketable skills."
Really? By the time those kids are out of college, programming will be obsolete.
My main requirement for programs today is that they don't make me wait too much.
Yes, you are right - there are technical solutions (I wrote a book on this), but the intractable problem seems to be that developers and managers are not interested in security. As you say, we might "need to sack 95% of programmers and 95% of their bosses". Or - those people could undertake to learn about security. But I am not optimistic about that.
Things are completely broken. The future of computing is in doubt - unless the security problem is solved.
It could be. My disk is only half full (out of 319Gb avail). When I installed Yosemite, I initially selected to turn on FileValt, but later I turned it off, so it had to decrypt the volume. I wonder if things got fragmented.
I just tried it and it took ~30 seconds. But then I closed it and opened it again, and the second time it took 15 seconds. I have other programs running, but not a huge number. After installing Yosemite performance did not change right away, but lately I have noticed the system performing very slowly. Still, these programs do essentially what they did ten (twenty!) years ago - and computers are so much faster and have so much more memory. These kinds of programs should load in an instant - there should be no perceptible wait at all.
Yes, agree. It is just that corporations try to use science for their own ends. Sometimes that aligns with what is good for the public, and sometimes it doesn't. If the drug companies could have their way, we all would be permanently addicted to expensive drug treatments - they are pretty close to achieving that already, and that is why they invest so little money in finding cures - they don't want cures: they want us to be dependent on them. The agribusiness industry wants the same thing. But of course, the science itself is not evil. And government misuses science as well - all groups that have power try to, when it is in their interest.
All those devices requiring updates, acting flaky (bugs), and hackable. Nice - yeah, that's the future that I want. NOT.
I use a dual core Macbook Pro, with 8Gb of ram.
I don't have any add-ons - at least, I have not installed any. I use these programs vanilla, via my Office 360 subscription. I am running them on a Macbook Pro.
Can they please make the programs load more quickly? Why does it take 30 seconds (at least) for Powerpoint to start? Almost as long for Word? These programs took that long to load on my Mac in 1990. Today, they should load in the blink of an eye. What the heck is wrong?
True. It is a difference of philosophy: those who trust science and corporations and those who don't.
It did? http://www.europeanboost.com/c...