I think the argument for using physics models for constraints in a DL system was a more clear argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MdSE-N0bxs
2,997 karma · joined February 22, 2007
Cant use computers ~ Under 4th Grade level including illiterate
Below level 1 ~ 4-6th grade reading level
Level 1 ~ 6-10th grade reading level
Level 2 ~ 10th-college reading level
Level 3 ~ College+ reading level
There just over 400B trees live around the world, 7.3B in California. Thats 1.8% of estimated world tree population vs holding 0.5% of people population.
301M of 4.9B (6%) trees died in Texas drought of 2011. Drought in California currently accounts for 102M (1.4%) of trees in the state dying.
Also note California has about 1 tree per person in the world. The worst famine in 150 yrs would kill 30M humans / year if it happened today. This considers the % of human deaths / year by famine of 1876-1879 as a benchmark. The article would imply 72M trees dying / year per drought in California. Not sure how comparable that is given different lifespan / reproduction rates, but kinda interesting.
Worldwide people cut down 15 billion trees each year. Maybe 7B for fuel, 6.5B for paper/etc and 1.5B for lumber. If this was distributed equally (which its probably not in reality), that would be equivalent of 274M trees cut down by humans in California / yr.
The global tree count has fallen by 46% since the beginning of human civilization.
[1] http://time.com/4019277/trees-humans-deforestation/ [2] https://www.quora.com/How-many-trees-are-cut-down-a-day-for-... [3] https://www.quora.com/How-many-trees-are-in-California [4] http://www.chron.com/news/article/2011-Texas-drought-slaught... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines [6] https://ourworldindata.org/famines/
Soylent may be recalling because they don't want to be liable in the _possibility_ of contamination. However, over time, they may find they can make the best product that is compatible with some digestive systems but not others - put a warning on product accordingly.
Cheap, accurate testing of foods for compatibility with a broad range of nutrient absorption rates and microbiomes would be key in engineering foods for everyone. But right now it would just make your food really expensive to the extent its even possible.
Conditions for raising seed are a bit tougher today, but even in 2015 contacting 100 investors not outside of norm.
He presents evidence that primate emotion evolved from interceptive awareness - goes into fascinating detail about what we know of the underlying, homeostatic, neuroanitomical structures and their evolution.
I don't know much about economics, but it seems this kind of environment (a national-scale, economic video game) could provide a mass of data to inform the 10 suggestions from the author. "practice based on plausible myths" - the opposite of this is practice based on meaningful, real-time data about economic actors, right? Would be very curious of an economists opinion of the role of such a system..
Noted in first paragraph: "we still lack a coherent formal perspective on what human collective intelligence actually is". But, why not reference the closest definition or propose your own rigorous definition of collective intelligence to ground assumptions in the paper?
For instance, in 2007 Legg and Hutter presented a paper, "A Definition of Machine Intelligence" (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.3329v1.pdf) which inventoried existing definitions of machine intelligence and suggested their own definition. Seems like these definitional papers would be the starting point for presenting research on any kind of intelligence. Do you see meaningful work in this direction regarding defining collection intelligence?
imo, the major innovation of GTD and related systems is the inclusion of context beyond do/due dates - specifically the notion of resource availability and alignment towards explicit long-term goals. Done right, this can bring clarity to 'next action' in a way that decreases the incremental cognitive load to select a task to complete - hypothetically making it easier to act in a state of flow and stay in the habit.
Everyone's different, and if any system works for a while thats a win. If you talk to a productivity coach / trainer they will probably share experience that the GTD-type systems have the best impact on busy professionals long-term. When someone figures out how to remove the cognitive overhead of both organization and task selection in a contextual todo-list, I believe its going to change the way many people work.
He suggests an alternate theory: "An older, “retired” segment of the population, we argued, serves to keep the population stable over cycles of feast and famine."
Its a bit awkward in places. Like if you want to receive a server-side web-hook, Iron Router is really the only way to go. But, lets say you have an Angular client, Iron Router can't be disabled on client when being used on the server. Now you have to hack for Iron Router and Angular UI router to play together nicely - using 2 routers on client because you want to receive server-side webhooks is obviously not ideal. But, at the same time both the community and the roadmap are coming together to make solutions workable before being fully 'solved', imo.
"MA: You’re comfortable with the $10B valuation?
YM: Absolutely. And, you know, I can repeat the reasons why. Basically, I think they have a very unique perspective on social network monetization, that other investors don’t necessarily see. You see how social networks have been monetized in our part of the world, and we’re just doing our math and coming up with numbers that we feel very comfortable with going forward. We don’t really value this business on (fee?) basis 2009 but rather on a longer term, based again on our experience, and we’re very confident that, you know, those numbers can be achieved."
A more meaningful direction for article, imo, would have been to adopt a concrete definition of intelligence, and then talk about how ferrets, chimps, babies and adults fall on this continuum. Perhaps, connectomics, molecular biology, psychology or neuro-anatomy help us approximate the 'atomic number', giving us the opportunity to speculate about the underlying equivalent of quantum mechanics.
Like the article states, evidence is lacking, and we're somewhere between 1-100 nobel prizes away. But, the power of a concrete definition helps point to what we know we don't know, and discussion about whether the definition of intelligence itself needs to be re-framed to answer a question like this.
I think this concept has been understood for many years in industry. However, In startup land, its been ego-cized a bit through logic like "people are the most important assets of startups, therefor there are good people and bad people, only hire the good people". But this logic alone is open for misinterpretation because whether talking about "A-player" or "10xer", good is much for a function of ability of an organization to empower a person in a position.
On the other hand, there is a reality that certain individuals will be an "A-player" more consistently in more positions than other individuals.. so I believe there is some value to understanding how an individual's general behaviors would, or would not, make them an A-player in specific positions. At the same time, its likely very difficult to deduce this kind of statement meaningfully unless the same person has worked with someone in multiple positions.
IMO, a big win for consumers, because offering more service-level options, and driving down pricing. With Hitch, it usually costs me $9 for what costs $16-22 on UberX, Lyft or Sidecar. Thats a nice savings, even if it takes me 10min more to get home. I could really see mass adoption coming from the service who nails this and provides the option that is better than Muni, but cheaper than individual car service.
Another aspect of this service I wasn't ready for was that the social dynamic can completely change the ride-sharing experience. Its different when you are just chatting with a driver, vs a 3rd or 4th stranger jumping in the car. It will be interesting to see how others react and expectations evolve as it becomes mainstream.
One interesting excerpt: "The somewhat more surprising force was one specific type of innovation: social applications... This was what made everyone want computers. Nerds got computers because they liked them. Then gamers got them to play games on. But it was connecting to other people that got everyone else: that's what made even grandmas and 14 year old girls want computers."
The app may be a subtle PR campaign playing off the satire. Can't go wrong with app puns either.
Also, I think the characterization of "open" as "brainstorming" is a bit more limited than Cleese intended. I understood "open" to mean in consideration of observed feedback. One example he gave of this was "playing" with other people, and thats brainstorming, but thats just one case where the feedback is from other people.
I do think there is something incomplete in the talk, which is the notion of deliberate practice - I'm not sure the distinction between general experience and deliberate practice was as well understood a the time of this presentation. Yea, the more you practice, the faster you can work, and compress the "open"/"closed" cycle - in this sense mastery of work and play increases potential creativity.