Antagonistic training explicitly exploits this feature with two systems, one that tries to learn to spot real data from faked, and another that tries to learn to fool the first one.
There's nothing intelligent about it. It's just fancy pattern-matching
The problem is that there is no clear-cut definition or dividing line. I've seen long online debates about this, and there are no good lines in the sand yet. All attempts failed key tests offered up, or were too subjective to evaluate well.
For one, we still don't know enough about how the human brain works such that we cannot say what distinguishes things called "AI" from something as powerful as the human brain. For all we know, the human brain is merely "fancy pattern matching" at a level of fanciness we don't understand yet.
Some call pattern-matching AI "lossy statistical analysis for the sake of speed/cost".
I suspect human brains also (typically) use abstract modelling of various sorts where symbols or some kind of ID's with attributes/links/factors are stand-in's for actual people and things to simplify certain cognitive processes. Thus, the human brain may merely be "fancy pattern matching" coordinated with "fancy modelling": statistics + modeling.
Various known AI techniques use pattern matching and others use modelling, BUT nobody has found a way to coordinate them together in a general-purpose way to reinforce each other (triangulate). It's as if we got all the key parts, but don't know how to put them together right. We don't know how to build central governors to coordinate AI "organs" for common goals.
What about putting a car into a big closed warehouse/hanger-style building in a rural area away from roads, and for a few hours drive it around with a mix of stop-and-go and cruising, then measure the pollution in the warehouse?
Temperature and humidity may be difficult to control, but this would be more to catch cheating and blatant deviations from more controlled tests. In other words, controlled tests would still be the primary tool, but the warehouse test is to verify things don't differ too much from controlled tests.
As a "centrist-progressive", I find you characterization of "progressive" completely off. But that's probably a long and winding debate best for another medium.
However, you need to realize that government is pretty much the only source of "cheating and competition-killing oligopolies"
Hogwash. I've worked for multiple companies, big and small, where I was paid by them to cheat and mislead customers.
Gov't tends to have an incentive to be lazy over cheating, while the private sector is the reverse. That's my observation based on living in the real world, and I ain't young. Sorry, but I'll believe my own eyes over your pet theories.
GIMP is overkill for simple stuff: takes too long to load, its menus are too big/deep, and its defaults are set for giant images, not regular. (GIMP's defaults suck for lots of things, now that I think of it.)
For quicky web prep, often I need basic things like contrast, darken/lighten (alpha), tint, overall blur/sharpen, and spot blur/sharpen. If MS-Paint added those to its existing features, I'd need GIMP less than 5% of the time.
TFA: [NASA says] they don't have anything about a spacewalk on their schedule for today. If the livestreams are showing spacewalks, that's a big hint they're fake.
not fake...just not happening TODAY.
What if an astronaut goes for a rogue walk? Would NASA deny it simply because it's "not on the schedule"?
Can we please be at least a tiny bit accurate in our reporting, Slashdot?
Hell no, 1/3 of my mod-score is from poking fun of them.
There is no observed equivalent of Moore's Law for batteries. If there is, it's a rather shallow curve compared to chips. That may be great for the Class of 2150.
There is little financial incentive to test and implement such well. Unless the boss and QA team test such zooming in multiple client brands, few implementors have financial incentive to care. (They "should" do it out of professionalism, but humans be humans.)
H knows to cut her losses and STFU when caught. T keeps yammering on about his foibles. The prez will have too much on their plate to obsess on things.
Ultimately, the failure is always a failure to limit government power. Governmental power will always be abused
What's the alternative? Giant corporations would then replace all the functions done by government, and be mega slimy and dishonest.
In China one milk company poisoned infants to save a buck. What would stop them otherwise? Mass social Darwinism? It would then be 3-eyed Mad Max's with gated communities.
Your argument seems to be that since Bob is influenced by the Devil, you might as get rid of Bob and let the Devil do his job directly: Bob is merely a wasteful middle-man. You deserve an Enron power supply and a Comcast doctor.
Both are plutocrats and we've almost always had plutocrats as candidates. It's not just a "Clinton thing". I find it hypocritical that so many conservatives suddenly "care" about the croniness in crony capitalism. (Remember Halliburton's no-bid contract, and Boehner's tobacco-cash envelopes?)
Hillary (and Trump) are merely a symptom. If you keep focusing on symptoms you'll never cure the disease, and possibly make it worse. Hillary just happened to get heavily X-rayed in public this time.
Trump blatantly and proudly admitted to bribing most of the candidates on the debate stage in one of the GOP debates. He ain't no angel in that regard. Being the briber instead of the bribee is not a big difference in my book. We live in a bribocracy.
Microsoft had to choose between compatibility or nimble and compact.
When they competed purely on nimbleness, their mobile apps were not be sufficiently compatible with Windows desktop software to make anyone choose them over competitors, who were cheaper and more nimble.
When they competed purely on compatibility, then the device was expensive, bloated, and had short battery life because it had to copy too much of the desktop to be compatible.
When they tried the middle ground, they sucked enough at both of these factors to not be compelling to consumers.
They cannot compete with smaller companies on price, features, battery life etc. because they are big bureaucratic behemoth.
But often they are hired because their stuff looks "new and high-tech". They are often being interviewed, hired, and paid by PHB's who judge books by covers.
You cannot realistically blame them for focusing on looks above function or maintainability if that's what they are judged on.
Humans are not much different from apes: distracted by shiny red things (and shapely females, but that's another story).
Most of the CRUD apps I see made would be more intuitive and simpler if they followed common GUI practices that existed since the early 90's. But, they gotta use some new-fangled Turbo-JS slippy slidy framework to look cool. The PHB goes "ooh aah, you are good!"
Then the coder moves on and some poor shmuck is stuck with their buggy client-version-dependent spaghetti. Sometimes I'm that poor shmuck.
If you scale proportionally, then the text wrap point can be off the page. Thus, you have to scroll back and forth to read the text. The "solution" is to have a non-proportion scaling, but that can have other side-effects if the markup is screwy or poorly planned.
Slashdot Mirror
That's called "marriage".
The problem is that there is no clear-cut definition or dividing line. I've seen long online debates about this, and there are no good lines in the sand yet. All attempts failed key tests offered up, or were too subjective to evaluate well.
For one, we still don't know enough about how the human brain works such that we cannot say what distinguishes things called "AI" from something as powerful as the human brain. For all we know, the human brain is merely "fancy pattern matching" at a level of fanciness we don't understand yet.
Some call pattern-matching AI "lossy statistical analysis for the sake of speed/cost".
I suspect human brains also (typically) use abstract modelling of various sorts where symbols or some kind of ID's with attributes/links/factors are stand-in's for actual people and things to simplify certain cognitive processes. Thus, the human brain may merely be "fancy pattern matching" coordinated with "fancy modelling": statistics + modeling.
Various known AI techniques use pattern matching and others use modelling, BUT nobody has found a way to coordinate them together in a general-purpose way to reinforce each other (triangulate). It's as if we got all the key parts, but don't know how to put them together right. We don't know how to build central governors to coordinate AI "organs" for common goals.
I tried to install Paint.net a few years ago and it locked up File Explorer. I had to uninstall it to get FS back to normal.
What about putting a car into a big closed warehouse/hanger-style building in a rural area away from roads, and for a few hours drive it around with a mix of stop-and-go and cruising, then measure the pollution in the warehouse?
Temperature and humidity may be difficult to control, but this would be more to catch cheating and blatant deviations from more controlled tests. In other words, controlled tests would still be the primary tool, but the warehouse test is to verify things don't differ too much from controlled tests.
It's less precise, but more realistic.
As a "centrist-progressive", I find you characterization of "progressive" completely off. But that's probably a long and winding debate best for another medium.
Hogwash. I've worked for multiple companies, big and small, where I was paid by them to cheat and mislead customers.
Gov't tends to have an incentive to be lazy over cheating, while the private sector is the reverse. That's my observation based on living in the real world, and I ain't young. Sorry, but I'll believe my own eyes over your pet theories.
GIMP is overkill for simple stuff: takes too long to load, its menus are too big/deep, and its defaults are set for giant images, not regular. (GIMP's defaults suck for lots of things, now that I think of it.)
For quicky web prep, often I need basic things like contrast, darken/lighten (alpha), tint, overall blur/sharpen, and spot blur/sharpen. If MS-Paint added those to its existing features, I'd need GIMP less than 5% of the time.
What if an astronaut goes for a rogue walk? Would NASA deny it simply because it's "not on the schedule"?
Hell no, 1/3 of my mod-score is from poking fun of them.
I'd rather have the opposite: a kit to give the new one a normal headphone jack.
Oh really. I guess my senses are bad and yours are good.
Why should I care what YOU want?
I don't know who originated the concept, but the Ayn Rand types have currently embraced it.
Getting rid of gov't doesn't stop sneakiness and cheating and competition-killing oligopolies. If anything, it increases it.
Hackers hacked by hackers using recursive hacking recursion.
New "1984" ad: "There is no escape!"
There is no observed equivalent of Moore's Law for batteries. If there is, it's a rather shallow curve compared to chips. That may be great for the Class of 2150.
Sorry, I find your line of reasoning very round-about. In general, the Clintons are pretty much centrists, I would note, not really progressives.
There is little financial incentive to test and implement such well. Unless the boss and QA team test such zooming in multiple client brands, few implementors have financial incentive to care. (They "should" do it out of professionalism, but humans be humans.)
H knows to cut her losses and STFU when caught. T keeps yammering on about his foibles. The prez will have too much on their plate to obsess on things.
Let's see if you can list 3 relatively significant ones not included for H that should be.
What's the alternative? Giant corporations would then replace all the functions done by government, and be mega slimy and dishonest.
In China one milk company poisoned infants to save a buck. What would stop them otherwise? Mass social Darwinism? It would then be 3-eyed Mad Max's with gated communities.
Your argument seems to be that since Bob is influenced by the Devil, you might as get rid of Bob and let the Devil do his job directly: Bob is merely a wasteful middle-man. You deserve an Enron power supply and a Comcast doctor.
Both are plutocrats and we've almost always had plutocrats as candidates. It's not just a "Clinton thing". I find it hypocritical that so many conservatives suddenly "care" about the croniness in crony capitalism. (Remember Halliburton's no-bid contract, and Boehner's tobacco-cash envelopes?)
Hillary (and Trump) are merely a symptom. If you keep focusing on symptoms you'll never cure the disease, and possibly make it worse. Hillary just happened to get heavily X-rayed in public this time.
Trump blatantly and proudly admitted to bribing most of the candidates on the debate stage in one of the GOP debates. He ain't no angel in that regard. Being the briber instead of the bribee is not a big difference in my book. We live in a bribocracy.
Microsoft had to choose between compatibility or nimble and compact.
When they competed purely on nimbleness, their mobile apps were not be sufficiently compatible with Windows desktop software to make anyone choose them over competitors, who were cheaper and more nimble.
When they competed purely on compatibility, then the device was expensive, bloated, and had short battery life because it had to copy too much of the desktop to be compatible.
When they tried the middle ground, they sucked enough at both of these factors to not be compelling to consumers.
They cannot compete with smaller companies on price, features, battery life etc. because they are big bureaucratic behemoth.
I read those claims from conservative sites; it was like a 7% difference. That's a drop in the bucket compared to Trump's huge "lead".
Anyhow, I invite the reader to evaluate and cross-check each ranked claim on its own if they believe politifact is biased.
unless you are Fox "News", Breitbart, or Rush L. and the prediction was wrong.
Glass houses: Trump's lies are about triple, per politifact.com.
Assuming that's true, that's democracy in action.
Like W into Ireq? Sorry, I'll take focus polling over that pet disaster.
But often they are hired because their stuff looks "new and high-tech". They are often being interviewed, hired, and paid by PHB's who judge books by covers.
You cannot realistically blame them for focusing on looks above function or maintainability if that's what they are judged on.
Humans are not much different from apes: distracted by shiny red things (and shapely females, but that's another story).
Most of the CRUD apps I see made would be more intuitive and simpler if they followed common GUI practices that existed since the early 90's. But, they gotta use some new-fangled Turbo-JS slippy slidy framework to look cool. The PHB goes "ooh aah, you are good!"
Then the coder moves on and some poor shmuck is stuck with their buggy client-version-dependent spaghetti. Sometimes I'm that poor shmuck.
If you scale proportionally, then the text wrap point can be off the page. Thus, you have to scroll back and forth to read the text. The "solution" is to have a non-proportion scaling, but that can have other side-effects if the markup is screwy or poorly planned.