Should they imitate how we imagine the mind to work, as a Cartesian wonderland of logic and abstract thought that could be coded into a programming language? Or should they instead imitate a drastically simplified version of the actual, physical brain, with its web of neurons and axon tails, in the hopes that these networks will enable higher levels of calculation? Itâ(TM)s a dispute that has shaped artificial intelligence for decades.
I suspect to get "true" AI, both of these will have to work together. Neural nets (NN's) will provide hunches and guesses, but the AI will have to model these hunches and guesses in an abstract or semi-realistic way to both test the logic of them, and to be able to communicate with humans about its findings or suggestions.
The AI will be able to "draw" or describe a cartoon-like model of suggestions or events the way a human might in a meeting explaining something about travel, events, human relationships, time-lines, etc. This requires some kind of abstract modelling.
This is pretty much how most human minds work: hunches based on past and/or re-occurring patterns teamed up with abstract modeling at an "object" level to both communicate and test hunches, as created by NN-like pattern matching at a mostly sub-conscience level.
I'm 222 years old and as far as I'm concerned Ceres is still a planet.
I'm 4,000 years old, and as far as I'm concerned, Earth is still flat. You newfangled roundies have it all wrong. You are projecting your own image onto earth, you sedentary belly blobs.
Maybe humans memorize patterns of play (responses) that win then. If the computer cannot "look" far ahead in Go, than neither can people, most likely. What exactly is "strategy" that is different from predicting ahead and/or learning successful patterns?
Shouldn't we wait until the probe actually arrives and gets details before speculating?
There are bright spots on Ganymede (Jupiter moon) that are probably from meteors smashing into its icy surface.
Even our moon has Tycho crater which is surrounded with bright dust due to the recency of the impact. (Radiation tends to darken soil and rocks over time.) Volcano claims are premature.
Let me clarify. Usually there's a list of skills an employer wants and the chance of anybody's background matching perfectly is astronomic. There will be some from that list that require learning new tool sets.
If a citizen matches 3 of 6 and the visa candidate matches 4 or 6, is that really a "shortage of techies"? Of course we all want exactly what we want. But there are societal consequences of letting co's be prima-donna's.
A manager's time is typically very limited. They have to deal with technical issues (the domain), office politics, and administrative stuff like budgets, vacation requests, procurement approvals, etc.
Is it better they spend a slot of time snooping on an employee, or discussing known issues with them face to face?
And those not familiar with the tasks at hand for a group will judge employees on superficial things typically, meaning the employee will spend more effort on acting and posing for a domain-ignorant monitor.
Thus, those who do know the details of the job are probably better served with direct old-fashioned communication, and those who don't know are ill-suited to make a good judgement.
The criteria for "no citizen is qualified" needs to be more realistic, especially during busts. These company-specific "tool stack fits" are ridiculous. Somebody who knows Python can typically learn Php in a few months, for example, and not having paid Php experience should NOT be a legitimate reason to discard such a citizen.
Maybe citizens should have a right to protest rejections in court etc. Why should the system just take a co's word for it?
Also, visa workers typically don't (yet) have families or don't bring families to their job city to distract them. Their goal is often to make boat-loads of money for half a decade, relative to their home currency, and then have a nice nest-egg to raise a family etc. later. Thus, they ARE more likely to be dedicated and focused than the equivalent citizen.
IT has historically had boom and bust cycles. I have no real problem with visa workers during a boom, but after the dot-com bust in the early 2000's enough didn't go home, and development jobs were hard to find on the west coast. I had to take scrappy contracts from shady agencies to survive. I think I spent more time in court trying to get my paychecks than doing actual IT work.
Nobody can agree on how to measure quality "software engineering". Outside of machine performance, code is really about communicating with other developers more so than communicating with machines. Machines can run anything explicitly defined, whether it's C++, machine code, or Brainfuck; but human grokking is much more sensitive to syntax, organization, etc., and varies per mind. This is the realm of psychology and other "soft" sciences that are difficult or expensive to do practical research in.
Maybe the new rules can specify that the target (set) must be specified in advanced and that it's possible to cancel the mission after deployment if the deployment lasts longer than say 2 minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
The Romans are working on robotic lions to counter.
I suspect to get "true" AI, both of these will have to work together. Neural nets (NN's) will provide hunches and guesses, but the AI will have to model these hunches and guesses in an abstract or semi-realistic way to both test the logic of them, and to be able to communicate with humans about its findings or suggestions.
The AI will be able to "draw" or describe a cartoon-like model of suggestions or events the way a human might in a meeting explaining something about travel, events, human relationships, time-lines, etc. This requires some kind of abstract modelling.
This is pretty much how most human minds work: hunches based on past and/or re-occurring patterns teamed up with abstract modeling at an "object" level to both communicate and test hunches, as created by NN-like pattern matching at a mostly sub-conscience level.
I'm 4,000 years old, and as far as I'm concerned, Earth is still flat. You newfangled roundies have it all wrong. You are projecting your own image onto earth, you sedentary belly blobs.
How many library-of-congress's is two far's?
Maybe humans memorize patterns of play (responses) that win then. If the computer cannot "look" far ahead in Go, than neither can people, most likely. What exactly is "strategy" that is different from predicting ahead and/or learning successful patterns?
Go atse?
Shouldn't we wait until the probe actually arrives and gets details before speculating?
There are bright spots on Ganymede (Jupiter moon) that are probably from meteors smashing into its icy surface.
Even our moon has Tycho crater which is surrounded with bright dust due to the recency of the impact. (Radiation tends to darken soil and rocks over time.) Volcano claims are premature.
Well, I outsourced my Donkey Kong playing before bots took it over, so there!
Remember, the alternatives suck also. The recent revelations are that most if not all countries are dirty liars when it comes to spying.
The Onion is not fake, they are just ahead of reality. They predicted:
- RIAA sues radio stations for playing free music
- Gillette creates 5-blade razor
- Neil Armstrong's widow cleans out closet of "space crap" (finds museum gems)
- Joe The Plumber ("dude" pundit)
- Charlie Sheen going violent
- Newly elected Bush announcing era of peace and prosperity is over (911, Iraq, mortgage crash)
- Ann Coulter saying radiation good for you. (Oh wait, Onion missed that one.)
It's good to know that USA does not have a monopoly on anti-science whackjob politicians.
Maybe we can swap politicians to keep 'em fresh: We'll trade you 2 witches and a faith healer for 2 astrologers and a Stonehenge cultist.
You need nova insurance if your Pinto gets it in the rear.
Guys always wanted robots that can fetch a beer from the fridge. The "beer test" is more popular than the Turing Test.
Removing that feature is like removing flying from a flying car.
I have supernova insurance
Let me clarify. Usually there's a list of skills an employer wants and the chance of anybody's background matching perfectly is astronomic. There will be some from that list that require learning new tool sets.
If a citizen matches 3 of 6 and the visa candidate matches 4 or 6, is that really a "shortage of techies"? Of course we all want exactly what we want. But there are societal consequences of letting co's be prima-donna's.
Actually, that quote would probably come form the gerbil's description of Rich. Rich apparently had the opposite view.
There must be a million jokes to be made with that title.
A manager's time is typically very limited. They have to deal with technical issues (the domain), office politics, and administrative stuff like budgets, vacation requests, procurement approvals, etc.
Is it better they spend a slot of time snooping on an employee, or discussing known issues with them face to face?
And those not familiar with the tasks at hand for a group will judge employees on superficial things typically, meaning the employee will spend more effort on acting and posing for a domain-ignorant monitor.
Thus, those who do know the details of the job are probably better served with direct old-fashioned communication, and those who don't know are ill-suited to make a good judgement.
Whippings also improve business. Ask Roman ship operators.
The criteria for "no citizen is qualified" needs to be more realistic, especially during busts. These company-specific "tool stack fits" are ridiculous. Somebody who knows Python can typically learn Php in a few months, for example, and not having paid Php experience should NOT be a legitimate reason to discard such a citizen.
Maybe citizens should have a right to protest rejections in court etc. Why should the system just take a co's word for it?
Also, visa workers typically don't (yet) have families or don't bring families to their job city to distract them. Their goal is often to make boat-loads of money for half a decade, relative to their home currency, and then have a nice nest-egg to raise a family etc. later. Thus, they ARE more likely to be dedicated and focused than the equivalent citizen.
Corporations find families distracting.
IT has historically had boom and bust cycles. I have no real problem with visa workers during a boom, but after the dot-com bust in the early 2000's enough didn't go home, and development jobs were hard to find on the west coast. I had to take scrappy contracts from shady agencies to survive. I think I spent more time in court trying to get my paychecks than doing actual IT work.
Nobody can agree on how to measure quality "software engineering". Outside of machine performance, code is really about communicating with other developers more so than communicating with machines. Machines can run anything explicitly defined, whether it's C++, machine code, or Brainfuck; but human grokking is much more sensitive to syntax, organization, etc., and varies per mind. This is the realm of psychology and other "soft" sciences that are difficult or expensive to do practical research in.
the first A.I. yawn
Maybe the new rules can specify that the target (set) must be specified in advanced and that it's possible to cancel the mission after deployment if the deployment lasts longer than say 2 minutes.