Absolutely. Most people don't like the idea of living that many years in poor health, limited and frail. But the current situation is we patch the problems that come with age and keep people alive.
On the other hand, if you look at the SENS strategy (http://www.sens.org), what they are trying to achieve is to revert the damage that age inflicts on people, so you live in good health and active and strong. What is important here is to increase the "healthspan". If lifespan is increased it is good too.
My feeling is that this is a PR stunt. Basically they give the opinions from 17 people at MS that happen to belong to a "minority" group (in IT). They want to show the world that they do have female researchers.
Problem is, the headline says "MS researchers offer predictions..." where it should read "MS female researchers offer predictions...". Why? because if you just say "researchers" people will assume the selection criteria to be "top researchers".
Its like you ask to "offer predictions" to those MS researchers born on a day that happens to be a prime number. The result will not be as solid as if you ask the "top researchers", right?
I think the answer is to not have an UBI that allows for a comfortable life and then remove the minimum wage.
People will still work if they can, unemployment will go down and those that cant really work for a reason, at least will not live in absolute poverty.
So I would say an initial UBI of $200 and then lower the minimum wage by $200. This will get most people even. But it will make living conditions a little easier for the bottom income segments.
It is not about how much money is going around, but how the value is distributed.
UBI requires new taxation. It is pretty much like the existing welfare system that requires taxation. The main differences are:
1. This will require extra taxation on top of what we have now. And this is reasonable because with the current taxation system the income gap is increasing and the gini coefficient is escalating. 2. This money will be distributed to everyone without the government or the bureaucracy controlling it. Same amount to each one, so no power play will be available for the different factions in power to co opt it on their favor.
The best path for Greece would have been to leave the eurozone, default and move to its own currency. They would start from scratch and eventually be better off. They were told that this would not be allowed. They are hostages.
So the streaming client that runs with edge is better than the streaming client that runs with Chrome. Good. What about browsing the internet?
Even if you talk about watching videos, it will be different depending on what codecs are used. Maybe you don't get the same result if you watch VP9 encoded videos. Are we really talking about the flash player? is edge using hardware decoding?
Absolutely. What this news tell us is Intel could have sold 10 million cores but was forbidden from doing so. The money that could have gone Intel's way have been used to improve Chinese chip manufacturing and the USA has failed to achieve the goal of stopping China from building a supercomputer more advanced than the best one in USA.
So AlphaGo is not so far away from a Dan 9 human player.
My guess is that the mistake AlphaGo made on move 79 will be analyzed and a new version will be created, stronger than the current one. Maybe this analysis will point to a whole class of mistakes that will be fixed.
It is a bit like when Google's self driving cars make a mistake. This mistake is used as input for the next release of the software so it doesn't act the same way next time. With this process, one car making a mistake results in a change in behavior of all of the cars, because with AI it is possible to communicate new knowledge to the rest of the cars. All of them improve, unlike humans for whom transmitting the new knowledge involves a lot of work or may not even be possible.
No it isn't. Who ever said that winning "Go" games was a step towards AI?
Winning at a game that cannot be brute forced and is played through strategy and pattern matching is a step towards AI. Having a part of the skills coded by programmers while another part of the skills is learned by the system by playing is a step towards AI.
Exactly. The fact we don't understand how our brains work means we tend to attribute supernatural powers to them. But what about the only thing they do is statistical inference, montecarlo, pattern matching... That would mean that as we approach the processing power of a brain in your typical $1000 hardware, we would be able to implement artificial intelligence without developing new ideas or techniques. This is unlikely, but the success of neural networks of lately is the result of having more processing power thrown at the problem. Not the result of big theoretical advances.
Yes, lets define intelligence as what computers cannot yet do... This win has narrowed the definition quite a lot.
The relevant part of this win is that a machine using pattern matching, generalization and reinforcement learning has beaten the best human at the only game left where humans bested machines.
I guess this is pretty relevant. It is not general AI, but it is a big step in that direction.
You have to give it to Zuckerberg. His rationalization of greed is brilliant. When he says: "Internet connectivity should be a human right", he means "Facebook should be a human right". If you put this together with his absolute disregard for people's privacy rights when they get in the way of his making money, it is clear that this is not a humanitarian effort.
Well, I don't know what the man will answer, but as long as the autonomous vehicles are safer than a human in real life, you will not need a backup driver, even if "any automated system can theoretically fail at any time". This seems achievable. In fact it is one of the main talking points made by people pursuing self driven vehicles. You don't need to compare self driving software to the best human drivers, but to the worst. The ones responsible for accidents. Would removing a human from the picture avoid the accident?
You seem to be aware of the ideas developing in the longevity research space. What do you think about the SENS approach from Aubrey de Grey? Also, you work at Google so you may know what direction Calico is taking. It would be interesting to know if they are taking the "slow aging" direction where you tweak metabolism to reduce the amount of damage created by aging or they are taking the "repare damage" direction where you try to repair damage created by aging, as per the SENS approach.
This should go both ways. People will need to adapt to the way automated vehicles drive (this would be helped by labeling them so they are easy to spot). Then automated vehicles should be given a set of exception to the rules and this would need to be legal, so the can override the regulations when the regulations are likely to create trouble.
You don't need to replace every car for disruption to happen. In fact you only need to replace cars driven by professional drivers.
- They do the most mileage. Replacing a small percentage of the global fleet would have a big impact. - Most of the actual cost is labor, so the incentives are huge to get rid of the drivers. - They are replaced fairly frequently - As long as you don't have to pay a driver, in many cases it doesn't matter if they go slower. - They tend to go through the same route most of the time. You only need the vehicle to be able to handle that route. They can start with specially simple routes.
Once a significant (if small) percentage of the vehicles is automatic, the incentive for anyone paying a driver is to get rid of him. Competition.
Please mod parent up. Your life is yours and only yours. You should be entitled to end it. People around you may suffer or you may be alienated enough that nobody would care much, but that, again is your decision. In my country the suicide rate goes way up on people over 80. They have had enough and want to end their lifes with some dignity and spare themselves all of the suffering of terminal illneses and isolation depending on a health system that only sees them as a number.
What is wrong with that? only the idea that your life belongs to God and you should accept whatever level of suffering life brings to you just so you can be "saved" and go to "Paradise". All this suffering caused to people that positively knows there is going to be more negative than positive during the rest of their lifes should be enough to understand the cruelty of religion.
People should watch: "The Ballad of Narayama" from Akira Kurosawa.
So it is forbidden to make a decision about your life. WTF?
I am allowed to marry the wrong person and ruin my life at the drop of a hat. I am allowed to have kids where I may not be qualified to provide a decent life. I am allowed to sign a mortgage that I know I can't pay. I am allowed to try to climb the K7 if I am 70 years old, wich is very close to suicide.
Seife suggests the FDA is trapped in a co-dependent relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, and needs strong legislative support to end its bad behavior.
This is clearly the case, and this not only means that some drugs that should not be on the market are approved. It also means, and in my mind this is more important, that the big Pharma are using the FDA as a barrier of entry against startups. Getting a new drug on the market costs an average of $2.558 billion in 2013 dollars.
This days are the early days of the biotech revolution where we will gain enormous control over our health are just starting, and progress is slow due to regulation capture. If some of this money would be given back to researchers instead of lawyers and bureaucrats, we would get better treatments available sooner.
As an example, big pharma companies get old drugs whose patents are about to run out, change their chemical formula and improve them just a bit and then go to market with them so the can reap huge margins with basically the same compound. This is safer business than trying to produce a breakthrough with a completely new compound. And the reason for this is the way the FDA operates. This results in very valuable resources being used with little benefit to the public.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. Most people don't like the idea of living that many years in poor health, limited and frail. But the current situation is we patch the problems that come with age and keep people alive.
On the other hand, if you look at the SENS strategy (http://www.sens.org), what they are trying to achieve is to revert the damage that age inflicts on people, so you live in good health and active and strong. What is important here is to increase the "healthspan". If lifespan is increased it is good too.
Please support SENS.
Now they need to create jails for cars, and tribunals with car/human translators so cars can defend themselves properly!!!
Do you realize you are talking about persons, right?
By your logic, if you make a mistake, we should stop giving you medical procedures?
Please mod parent up
My feeling is that this is a PR stunt. Basically they give the opinions from 17 people at MS that happen to belong to a "minority" group (in IT). They want to show the world that they do have female researchers.
Problem is, the headline says "MS researchers offer predictions..." where it should read "MS female researchers offer predictions...". Why? because if you just say "researchers" people will assume the selection criteria to be "top researchers".
Its like you ask to "offer predictions" to those MS researchers born on a day that happens to be a prime number. The result will not be as solid as if you ask the "top researchers", right?
I think the answer is to not have an UBI that allows for a comfortable life and then remove the minimum wage.
People will still work if they can, unemployment will go down and those that cant really work for a reason, at least will not live in absolute poverty.
So I would say an initial UBI of $200 and then lower the minimum wage by $200. This will get most people even. But it will make living conditions a little easier for the bottom income segments.
Then we can start raising it up.
It is not about how much money is going around, but how the value is distributed.
UBI requires new taxation. It is pretty much like the existing welfare system that requires taxation. The main differences are:
1. This will require extra taxation on top of what we have now. And this is reasonable because with the current taxation system the income gap is increasing and the gini coefficient is escalating.
2. This money will be distributed to everyone without the government or the bureaucracy controlling it. Same amount to each one, so no power play will be available for the different factions in power to co opt it on their favor.
Simple and effective.
Sorry to be politically incorrect, but you forget religion.
The best path for Greece would have been to leave the eurozone, default and move to its own currency. They would start from scratch and eventually be better off. They were told that this would not be allowed. They are hostages.
So the streaming client that runs with edge is better than the streaming client that runs with Chrome. Good. What about browsing the internet?
Even if you talk about watching videos, it will be different depending on what codecs are used. Maybe you don't get the same result if you watch VP9 encoded videos. Are we really talking about the flash player? is edge using hardware decoding?
Absolutely.
What this news tell us is Intel could have sold 10 million cores but was forbidden from doing so. The money that could have gone Intel's way have been used to improve Chinese chip manufacturing and the USA has failed to achieve the goal of stopping China from building a supercomputer more advanced than the best one in USA.
Hilarious
Please mod parent up.
So AlphaGo is not so far away from a Dan 9 human player.
My guess is that the mistake AlphaGo made on move 79 will be analyzed and a new version will be created, stronger than the current one. Maybe this analysis will point to a whole class of mistakes that will be fixed.
It is a bit like when Google's self driving cars make a mistake. This mistake is used as input for the next release of the software so it doesn't act the same way next time. With this process, one car making a mistake results in a change in behavior of all of the cars, because with AI it is possible to communicate new knowledge to the rest of the cars. All of them improve, unlike humans for whom transmitting the new knowledge involves a lot of work or may not even be possible.
No it isn't. Who ever said that winning "Go" games was a step towards AI?
Winning at a game that cannot be brute forced and is played through strategy and pattern matching is a step towards AI. Having a part of the skills coded by programmers while another part of the skills is learned by the system by playing is a step towards AI.
Exactly. The fact we don't understand how our brains work means we tend to attribute supernatural powers to them. But what about the only thing they do is statistical inference, montecarlo, pattern matching... That would mean that as we approach the processing power of a brain in your typical $1000 hardware, we would be able to implement artificial intelligence without developing new ideas or techniques. This is unlikely, but the success of neural networks of lately is the result of having more processing power thrown at the problem. Not the result of big theoretical advances.
Yes, lets define intelligence as what computers cannot yet do... This win has narrowed the definition quite a lot.
The relevant part of this win is that a machine using pattern matching, generalization and reinforcement learning has beaten the best human at the only game left where humans bested machines.
I guess this is pretty relevant. It is not general AI, but it is a big step in that direction.
You have to give it to Zuckerberg. His rationalization of greed is brilliant. When he says: "Internet connectivity should be a human right", he means "Facebook should be a human right". If you put this together with his absolute disregard for people's privacy rights when they get in the way of his making money, it is clear that this is not a humanitarian effort.
And it didn't fly.
Well, I don't know what the man will answer, but as long as the autonomous vehicles are safer than a human in real life, you will not need a backup driver, even if "any automated system can theoretically fail at any time". This seems achievable. In fact it is one of the main talking points made by people pursuing self driven vehicles. You don't need to compare self driving software to the best human drivers, but to the worst. The ones responsible for accidents. Would removing a human from the picture avoid the accident?
You seem to be aware of the ideas developing in the longevity research space. What do you think about the SENS approach from Aubrey de Grey? Also, you work at Google so you may know what direction Calico is taking. It would be interesting to know if they are taking the "slow aging" direction where you tweak metabolism to reduce the amount of damage created by aging or they are taking the "repare damage" direction where you try to repair damage created by aging, as per the SENS approach.
This should go both ways. People will need to adapt to the way automated vehicles drive (this would be helped by labeling them so they are easy to spot). Then automated vehicles should be given a set of exception to the rules and this would need to be legal, so the can override the regulations when the regulations are likely to create trouble.
The only thing I can say is: Thanks. Thanks a lot.
Keep up the good work. This is the most important undertaking that can be taken at this time. You and people like you are going to change the world.
I am an old programmer, maybe too late to change paths. I do try to help the SENS initiative when I can, with money.
You don't need to replace every car for disruption to happen. In fact you only need to replace cars driven by professional drivers.
- They do the most mileage. Replacing a small percentage of the global fleet would have a big impact.
- Most of the actual cost is labor, so the incentives are huge to get rid of the drivers.
- They are replaced fairly frequently
- As long as you don't have to pay a driver, in many cases it doesn't matter if they go slower.
- They tend to go through the same route most of the time. You only need the vehicle to be able to handle that route. They can start with specially simple routes.
Once a significant (if small) percentage of the vehicles is automatic, the incentive for anyone paying a driver is to get rid of him. Competition.
Please mod parent up. Your life is yours and only yours. You should be entitled to end it. People around you may suffer or you may be alienated enough that nobody would care much, but that, again is your decision. In my country the suicide rate goes way up on people over 80. They have had enough and want to end their lifes with some dignity and spare themselves all of the suffering of terminal illneses and isolation depending on a health system that only sees them as a number.
What is wrong with that? only the idea that your life belongs to God and you should accept whatever level of suffering life brings to you just so you can be "saved" and go to "Paradise". All this suffering caused to people that positively knows there is going to be more negative than positive during the rest of their lifes should be enough to understand the cruelty of religion.
People should watch: "The Ballad of Narayama" from Akira Kurosawa.
So it is forbidden to make a decision about your life. WTF?
I am allowed to marry the wrong person and ruin my life at the drop of a hat. I am allowed to have kids where I may not be qualified to provide a decent life. I am allowed to sign a mortgage that I know I can't pay. I am allowed to try to climb the K7 if I am 70 years old, wich is very close to suicide.
But I am not allowed to take my own life.
Bollocks.
Seife suggests the FDA is trapped in a co-dependent relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, and needs strong legislative support to end its bad behavior.
This is clearly the case, and this not only means that some drugs that should not be on the market are approved. It also means, and in my mind this is more important, that the big Pharma are using the FDA as a barrier of entry against startups. Getting a new drug on the market costs an average of $2.558 billion in 2013 dollars.
This days are the early days of the biotech revolution where we will gain enormous control over our health are just starting, and progress is slow due to regulation capture. If some of this money would be given back to researchers instead of lawyers and bureaucrats, we would get better treatments available sooner.
As an example, big pharma companies get old drugs whose patents are about to run out, change their chemical formula and improve them just a bit and then go to market with them so the can reap huge margins with basically the same compound. This is safer business than trying to produce a breakthrough with a completely new compound. And the reason for this is the way the FDA operates. This results in very valuable resources being used with little benefit to the public.