Dumbing down programming can only get you so far towards the democratisation of programming : the most dumbed down programming language still requires a user whose mind can express algorithms. And of all the people who can express algorithms and would want to, few are limited by the commonly used languages, that is, if you have a mind made for creating algorithms, learning to use a programming language will be fairly trivial.
We can simulate ants macroscopically, by specifically writing algorithms for each of the things they do. You can create a network of neurons that'll spontaneously figure out how to walk or do any of the things ants do, without first programming them to do so.
That's exactly as if you said we've simulated human brains because we have crowd simulators that work quite well. In other words, you're completely off topic.
No, the problem isn't that Google indexed the image, it's that their algorithm thought it would be a good idea to make a most offensive caricature of someone be in the top search results. They are responsible for what they rank. If you looked up "holocaust" and the first result was "the holocaust never happened" you'd get the same kind of shitstorm, not because of what's indexed, but because of how things are ranked.
When's the last time you saw a white politician attacked for being white? Never? Because we don't believe in racism against whites, two thirds of the nation is white, so it doesn't seem to make any sense to suspect anyone of being anti-white when they're seen attacking one white person. Therefore we're practically blind to racism towards whites, which isn't very common anyway. If you saw a caricature of a white politician as a fat pig, you wouldn't bother to wonder if it's because he's white, you'd wonder what he did to deserve that caricature. Even if it was racially motivated, you wouldn't know it, unless perhaps it came from Black Panther Magazine.
When it comes to black people, we're much more keen to detect racist attacks, because they're extremely common, you can't be a black personality (let alone a black politician) without eventually being the object of a verbal racist attack. And we've seen and heard enough of such racist attacks to easily know one when we see one. So we're comparing a non-problem that we would hardly acknowledge if it really was a problem, to a very real and ubiquitous problem that regularly taints political discourse.
Actually it can. If when you Google Image someone's name, the first picture that appears is an unpleasant caricature then I'm no lawyer but it sounds good enough to sue them for defamation of character. Because of course there's going to be unpleasant caricatures of public persons, but if one of them is the first result, if it comes before any legitimate depiction, then the problem comes from you, and you'd better fix it.
Yeah, except they don't have hands and feet, but exoskeletons. They work a bit differently from us. I'm not sure how you can relate to having your exoskeletal legs shortened.
Re:This doesn't prove ants can count
on
Ants That Can Count
·
· Score: 4, Informative
No, you misread, he said that when you move an ant, they act like they haven't been moved. They don't get home, they go where they think home is without taking into account the offset taken when they were moved, which means they're blindly walking back with no regard for environmental clues.
What kind of dumb ass comment is that? I don't stay around people with wounds or weakened immune systems, nor do I handle sick people all day, I only get the daily does of immune system tickling that keeps it going strong. Nothing wrong with that. That's as if I said that I don't see the point of wearing a hard hat so you go all "I sure hope you're no construction worker".
It's not because some information or exotic particle might go faster than light that it means things necessarily can go back in time that way or whatever.
we have a guy spouting out a view of the limits of ANNs without actually putting any effort into providing evidence for their limitations.
The fact that in 50 years we got little better out of ANNs that unreliable methods of pattern matching should be good enough a reason. We have practically no reason to think that by putting much more than billions of those together something will magically pop out.
Actually, it's always the same excuse, "we can't simulate enough yet". When will we have enough? Let me guess, one billion isn't enough for even an ant-like intelligence, so one trillion won't be good enough either? Yeah, time to realise what's obvious, the key isn't in how many you can stick together, it's all in figuring out how it's even supposed to work.
Considering how little we know about the emergence of intelligence from networks how is it possible to claim outright that an ANN can approach the capabilities of a human brain?
FYP. I'll put my money on "there's a reason why brains have a clear structure, and a reason why neurons are more complex and powerful than the 'points' simulated there". Compare it to wielding a bunch of transistors together in an indiscriminate grid and try to program a computer out of this.
But I'll agree with you that it's hard to make claims on the topic, and as usual when people decide they shouldn't make opinions on a topic they end up disagreeing on the opinion to make by default.
Huh? Why is that? Lions may not be able to talk, but other smarter animals are able to communicate with us through limited forms of language. See this for an example. Some species of birds have made comparable achievements, like this one.
So maybe it's amusing and inspiring to think that lions must have very exotic minds that no one could understand, but it seems more likely other animals' intelligence differ from us only in lacking cognitive features and capabilities.
And that's a problem with philosophy, it's most of the time profoundly unscientific, which is why there are still lively debates about free will when the concept is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.
I don't even use soap, I just wash my hands with water, except when I do the dishes or have a shower. What's the point of using soap again? No seriously, why do we tell people to wash their hands with soap?
Living the bachelor lifestyle and I never get sick.. when I was a teenager I was a neat freak (the 'take your toothbrush to school' kind) and I'd get the flu with hallucinations-inducing fevers. Granted your immune system is supposed to be stronger as an adult, and not going to school you mix up with less people.
It was. The guy's immune system was dependant on parasitic worms in his stomach to keep his weak immune system on alert, or something like that. Yeah, not only not news but also explained in a popular drama series on TV.
Sorry but I don't follow your logic. How does PC ports not exploiting the full potential of the superior PC hardware but still marginally exceeding in quality what consoles do kill PC gaming? As long as people have PCs they'll want games on it, and who cares if the hardware isn't pushed to its limits? Actually it democratises PC gaming by making practically any PC you might have fit for playing games like an Xbox?
You have a point there, but the PC port was particularly bad, mostly on the graphics. It had uncommonly high requirements to not even reach the quality of the Xbox 360 version. As in, my PC beats the Xbox 360 to the curb, yet I'd still end up driving on invisible roads or in the land of the blur. Not to mention the weird looking shadows. And I was running at the lowest resolutions.
Slashdot Mirror
Dumbing down programming can only get you so far towards the democratisation of programming : the most dumbed down programming language still requires a user whose mind can express algorithms. And of all the people who can express algorithms and would want to, few are limited by the commonly used languages, that is, if you have a mind made for creating algorithms, learning to use a programming language will be fairly trivial.
We can simulate ants macroscopically, by specifically writing algorithms for each of the things they do. You can create a network of neurons that'll spontaneously figure out how to walk or do any of the things ants do, without first programming them to do so.
That's exactly as if you said we've simulated human brains because we have crowd simulators that work quite well. In other words, you're completely off topic.
No, the problem isn't that Google indexed the image, it's that their algorithm thought it would be a good idea to make a most offensive caricature of someone be in the top search results. They are responsible for what they rank. If you looked up "holocaust" and the first result was "the holocaust never happened" you'd get the same kind of shitstorm, not because of what's indexed, but because of how things are ranked.
When's the last time you saw a white politician attacked for being white? Never? Because we don't believe in racism against whites, two thirds of the nation is white, so it doesn't seem to make any sense to suspect anyone of being anti-white when they're seen attacking one white person. Therefore we're practically blind to racism towards whites, which isn't very common anyway. If you saw a caricature of a white politician as a fat pig, you wouldn't bother to wonder if it's because he's white, you'd wonder what he did to deserve that caricature. Even if it was racially motivated, you wouldn't know it, unless perhaps it came from Black Panther Magazine.
When it comes to black people, we're much more keen to detect racist attacks, because they're extremely common, you can't be a black personality (let alone a black politician) without eventually being the object of a verbal racist attack. And we've seen and heard enough of such racist attacks to easily know one when we see one. So we're comparing a non-problem that we would hardly acknowledge if it really was a problem, to a very real and ubiquitous problem that regularly taints political discourse.
if you are American then you're either 12, have lived in a box for all your life
It's called a basement, you insensitive clod!
Google can't be held responsible for it
Actually it can. If when you Google Image someone's name, the first picture that appears is an unpleasant caricature then I'm no lawyer but it sounds good enough to sue them for defamation of character. Because of course there's going to be unpleasant caricatures of public persons, but if one of them is the first result, if it comes before any legitimate depiction, then the problem comes from you, and you'd better fix it.
They can count time?
Yeah, except they don't have hands and feet, but exoskeletons. They work a bit differently from us. I'm not sure how you can relate to having your exoskeletal legs shortened.
No, you misread, he said that when you move an ant, they act like they haven't been moved. They don't get home, they go where they think home is without taking into account the offset taken when they were moved, which means they're blindly walking back with no regard for environmental clues.
Good points.
Ants have 250,000 brain cells. What's the excuse for not being able to simulate an ant's intelligence?
Yeah, except that there's like 30 times less servers you can connect to.
And? You still only get access to people on the same VPN as you, that means you're still limited to a very few cracked servers, which always sucks.
Well, anti-bacterial soaps then!
What kind of dumb ass comment is that? I don't stay around people with wounds or weakened immune systems, nor do I handle sick people all day, I only get the daily does of immune system tickling that keeps it going strong. Nothing wrong with that. That's as if I said that I don't see the point of wearing a hard hat so you go all "I sure hope you're no construction worker".
It's not because some information or exotic particle might go faster than light that it means things necessarily can go back in time that way or whatever.
Your point being?
we have a guy spouting out a view of the limits of ANNs without actually putting any effort into providing evidence for their limitations.
The fact that in 50 years we got little better out of ANNs that unreliable methods of pattern matching should be good enough a reason. We have practically no reason to think that by putting much more than billions of those together something will magically pop out.
Actually, it's always the same excuse, "we can't simulate enough yet". When will we have enough? Let me guess, one billion isn't enough for even an ant-like intelligence, so one trillion won't be good enough either? Yeah, time to realise what's obvious, the key isn't in how many you can stick together, it's all in figuring out how it's even supposed to work.
Considering how little we know about the emergence of intelligence from networks how is it possible to claim outright that an ANN can approach the capabilities of a human brain?
FYP. I'll put my money on "there's a reason why brains have a clear structure, and a reason why neurons are more complex and powerful than the 'points' simulated there". Compare it to wielding a bunch of transistors together in an indiscriminate grid and try to program a computer out of this.
But I'll agree with you that it's hard to make claims on the topic, and as usual when people decide they shouldn't make opinions on a topic they end up disagreeing on the opinion to make by default.
Huh? Why is that? Lions may not be able to talk, but other smarter animals are able to communicate with us through limited forms of language. See this for an example. Some species of birds have made comparable achievements, like this one.
So maybe it's amusing and inspiring to think that lions must have very exotic minds that no one could understand, but it seems more likely other animals' intelligence differ from us only in lacking cognitive features and capabilities.
And that's a problem with philosophy, it's most of the time profoundly unscientific, which is why there are still lively debates about free will when the concept is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.
I don't even use soap, I just wash my hands with water, except when I do the dishes or have a shower. What's the point of using soap again? No seriously, why do we tell people to wash their hands with soap?
Living the bachelor lifestyle and I never get sick.. when I was a teenager I was a neat freak (the 'take your toothbrush to school' kind) and I'd get the flu with hallucinations-inducing fevers. Granted your immune system is supposed to be stronger as an adult, and not going to school you mix up with less people.
It was. The guy's immune system was dependant on parasitic worms in his stomach to keep his weak immune system on alert, or something like that. Yeah, not only not news but also explained in a popular drama series on TV.
But do they reach the performance of top of the line GPUs?
Sorry but I don't follow your logic. How does PC ports not exploiting the full potential of the superior PC hardware but still marginally exceeding in quality what consoles do kill PC gaming? As long as people have PCs they'll want games on it, and who cares if the hardware isn't pushed to its limits? Actually it democratises PC gaming by making practically any PC you might have fit for playing games like an Xbox?
You have a point there, but the PC port was particularly bad, mostly on the graphics. It had uncommonly high requirements to not even reach the quality of the Xbox 360 version. As in, my PC beats the Xbox 360 to the curb, yet I'd still end up driving on invisible roads or in the land of the blur. Not to mention the weird looking shadows. And I was running at the lowest resolutions.