I've shuffled through all of them and, near as I can tell, there really isn't one. They're very early in development, not aesthetically pleasing, and offer limited functionality.
123 karma · joined December 2, 2013
This is an interesting point.
I'm not convinced that it could decide or figure out that the operation is pointless (for reasons I'll explain below), and I feel like it is perhaps taking the paperclip example to an unnatural extreme.
Really, the crux of the matter is that any intelligence agent at human level would have the intelligence and problem solving skills we do without the moral and social constraints that we do. Any problem it decides to solve or any task it's given to complete will be performed with the same ruthless efficiency you'd expect a machine to have. This is why it might not be able to figure out that the operation is 'pointless' or 'wrong'. If you give it an objective but don't provide first order or axiomatic values for human life or the non-substitutability of people, then you'll get behaviors which you would consider evil.
Consider the following:
"Person arm stuck in assembly line. Halt assembly line for 1hr, lower-bound for total cost: $1,200,000. Continue assembly, upper bound for injury settlement cost: $1,000,000. Decision: continue assembly."
There's no implicit consideration of human worth that people have because human morality is relative. In general, we have a similar set of base parameters instilled by evolution (cute things and things like us are good -- don't hurt or kill them), but we can't prove from any mathematical axioms that these are 'right'.
This is why people get scared -- if you program a computer to maximize the profits of a company and to do so at any cost, a human-level AI will spend an eternity doing just that, even if it means the complete subjugation of humanity. (Since we can't eliminate humanity otherwise currency ceases to exist and economic collapse will hurt the bottom line.)
I would wager (but can't prove) that a study of abused people, child soldiers, and sociopaths would yield interesting parallel psychological profiles. These are people (human level) with a set of axioms which are distorted by artificial means. There's still the built-in problem of the human component adding "Don't hurt the cute things," in most cases but nonetheless.
Climate change is real. It is caused by us. The evidence is overwhelming.
"The facts are very clear: CO2 increased, temperatures have not."
A strong correlation between CO2 and temperature has been observed by several different groups using several different measurement method.
Explanation of the science and citations: https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-... https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_1007... http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0...
"If humans cause climate change and industrialization began around 1850, then logically, there'd be an exponential and consistent increase of global temperatures."
CO2 emissions during the industrial revolution were smaller by several orders of magnitude. We produced on the order of 3-7 million tons per year towards the start. Now, we produce 8000 million tons per year. CO2 levels have risen accordingly in those time. If you imagine plants taking CO2 from the atmosphere as a person drinking water from a cup that refills, imagine the industrial revolution adding an extra teaspoon worth of water to the cup. Now imagine today as shooting a fire hose into the cup.
Explanation and Citation: https://www.skepticalscience.com/link_to_us.php?Argument0=23...
"Another fact: the climate changed long before humans were around to drive Escalades."
Climate changes according to whatever factors act upon it. Earlier in our planet's history, this force was the slow, natural cycle of CO2 as plants would grow in the early parts of the year and then die and decompose in the fall and winter. In every case, increased CO2 levels resulted in increased temperatures. Now, we're adding more CO2 than anything else ever before.
Citations: https://www.skepticalscience.com/link_to_us.php?Argument0=22
If you rarely see a debate on the subject of human-caused climate change, it's because there is no validity to the other side. Skepticism is healthy, but there is such a thing as false balance. Just because there's another side doesn't mean it still has any valid arguments left.
That said, if you do have evidence that one or more of these papers is inaccurate, I'd appreciate the info. As you said, let the downvotes begin.
"This looks really different. Oh man it's asking you to auto-update. That's frustrating."
If we take the phrase neural network to mean, "a series of deeply and widely interconnected elements which assist or inhibit the transmission of signals to one another, activated by the inputs exceeding a threshold," then I think there's a pretty good amount of overlap.
I understand there's a temporal signaling model (pulses at varying rates, not steady state signals) and stochastic information (like random firing and a bunch of noise), but once we abstract out the axons, dendrites, and neurochemicals, is there another piece of functional equipment which drastically effects things? How does our simplified view that small, individually stupid pieces, acting in concert to produce complex behavior differ from the real brain?
"A complex pattern-classification problem, cast in a high-dimensional space nonlinearly, is more likely to be linearly separable than in a low-dimensional space, provided that the space is not densely populated." - Cover, Geometrical and Statistical properties of systems of linear inequalities with applications in pattern recognition., 1965
>The same is true of Android.
This is a small nitpick, but you do need to pay a one-time $15 fee to become a developer to have your app listed in the store. Beyond that publication is free, though.
Source: https://help.mojang.com/customer/portal/articles/331367-empl...
Terrorism is an infinitesimally small threat, but many on the political side chose to treat it with heavy gloves despite the diminishing returns because (1) the Zero-risk cognitive bias makes people want to force than small risk to zero [1] and (2) the federal government views the TSA as a jobs program. Even though they're largely ineffective, no politician would dare to propose the dismantling thereof because the opposing side could use this as ammunition in the form of 'X is allowing the terrorists in' or 'X has cost us 10,000 jobs.'
I've also brought a swiss army knife on numerous flights, pretty much always by accident.
"Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."