> They “imagined that the next bit of progress will come from some new pieces being dropped onto the table, [rather than] from thinking harder about the pieces we already have,”
When the best minds we have divide into two camps, one saying that (a) "with X and Y we don't have enough information to solve Z" and the other saying (b) we do but we need to think harder, the first camp builds a particle collider, the other creates what, string theory? Aren't we doing "fuzzy science" here?
It seems that the experts in one of the camps should go back and retrace their steps because somewhere along the line they made an assumption based on some data that they (I assume) forgot to encode into their equations and now they have trouble taking it to the next level. Why is it not clear to us that eiher a or b is true?
If we managed to model exactly how a rat thinks, behaves and we create a little fury rat robot that runs around being all rat-like, doing all things real rats do to the degree that the robot is accepted by the local rat community, is that not a system that would be considered equal in complexity to a rat?
Do we have enough information to create a rat? I think so. Is that an A.I.? To be rat-like you have to be able to adopt to new environments, learn new things.
Could we also model in the same way a human baby? Ok, that's perhaps a bit too hard. What if we try to create a model of a mongoloid baby. It would still be considered intelligent, right? Is it an A.I.?
Why does a system need conciousness in order to be able to dominate its environment? To me, clonable robotic rats would be as much of an inconvenience as real rats are.
Common man is brought up within the bubble of their parent's beliefs. Intelligent man breaks out of that bubble, once he find it too constraining. Unintelligent man does not. Unintelligent man also have trouble identifying bubbles.
Earth provide opportunities for success for both men. In the long run, one of them will dominate the other.
Has anyone proven logically that I, an entity, can create a new entity that is more intelligent than me? My intuition might be wrong, but how would that ever be a possibility, other than me aiding in the creation of a new human being?
If you are the type of person that absolutely loved each second of each lecture that your math professor held in high school, where he/she tried to prove an equation on the black board, and you acctually managed to pay attention for long enough to acctually understand what he was talking about, and you got a real kick out of that newly gained intuition, and you now long for that type of "profound" enlightenment, how would yo go about gaining in mathematical intuition when you are in your 40ies?
Thx! And I was being serious. For me, one problem of gaining understanding of the domain is, how do I identify that a problem is indeed a graph problem?
Ok, so they DID make it to the top, great! Now, how does this help me get better at graph theory?
Edit: That being said, I mean no disrespect to this... 20 year old article. Hope I didn't hurt your feelings, Article. Just trying to find an entry point into this domain.
You might think that, because no country has implemented BI, then considered it a failed project, then scraped that system for something better, yet. But one of the countries on this planet might be the first to try that. It's one of those "nobody done it yet thus it can't be done by anyone" ideas that reality so often find is false.
I love the indentation. Much easier to read than a bunch of nested ifs and whiles and good to see a lack of outdated comments inside the method body. So a line-by-line read of that code seemed quite enjoyable to me.
I have ~20 years of experience in programming. The hardest part of my work is knowing if I have everything I need in order to classify a particular problem as one of a particular class so that I then can apply the tools that I know of would fit that problem-space and then use those tools to finish my task. For example, is the problem I'm facing a graph problem? If so, then I have a large set of tools (algorithms) to help me solve that problem. But is it a graph problem? It would suck for my employer or client, if I tried to solve a problem within a particular problem-space with tools suted for a different domain. It's kind of like that part of the Swedish standardized test where they test your math and logical abilities by presenting some information and then asking you, do you have what you need to solve this? If so, what is the answer?
Coding on a white board is useful I have come to find if there is a conversation going on and the interviewer use this opportunity to find out more about how this particular person thinks or works.
Interesting learning streak. I took the same route, started on Vic 20 at the age of 10, but skipped on the amiga assembly, something I suffer from on a daily basis, so good choice.
Which in itself is not very interesting but might be in the context of building an AI. Apart from a NN, what else do you need for an AI? Perhaps you need mechanisms such as "cognitive dissonance" in order to acheive "effective learning" through coping with that dissonance. What we have today are clever NNs. Nothing close to a talking bear (you know, the one from A.I. Artificial Intelligence).
I don't think cognitive dissonance is a bad thing. I don't see why should add a coping mechanism to acheive inner peace. If you instead saw that sometimes you win a grape, sometimes you loose one, you would have taught yourself a lesson, which should be bettar than denying facts about the world and yourself, if you are a man of science.
I do often continue working but then with a nagging sensation of not executing a task in the most optimal of ways, which is what I meant by having a healthy approach to cognitive dissonance, performing a task in a way you know or feel is not optimal but not being confused by feelings of cognitive dissonance, instead just see it as part of the learning process. In the end, the dissonance dissapear as soon as the learning process has finished, and I'm no longer anxious about that option.
I strive to have one idea in my head, because having one idea feels like being on a motor-way and visiting one of many ideas feels like being on a small road. When I'm coding in a new domain or field I am sometimes flooded with options and I reach cognitive dissonance and my pace takes a halt, for minutes, hours, sometimes months, because of this dissonance, until one idea has become more like a high-way an the journey proceeds. I feel that because I'm a programmer I have to deal with and have achieved a quite healthy approach to what is cognitive dissonance, a state that outside of work sometimes makes me feel a bit schizofrenic.
"was the real moment Google gave up on team communications"
I believe so too and Wave might have failed because Google said "this is instead of email". Had they markeded Wave as a "team communications suite" like Microsoft is doing today with their team communication tools, and all the aother players too (we're getting used to hearing about communications suites especially at work, right?). But the world was probably not ready to hear about communication suites until maybe 2010, så Wave was also too early. And it definetly wasn't a email replacement.
Maybe this high-lights the drawbacks of being too focused on your core business, so focused that you cut of an arm (gchat) because it wasn't in line with your philosophy of having a totally open, standardized protocol that you (Google) hoped everyone eventually would be using. The players of today do not care about these things, they care about getting traction and a massive user-base and about encryption and privacy and claim their place in the spot-light because users love them.
Google knew we loved gchat. They must have know why. Google Drive + gmail + gchat, tailored towards businesses: good bye Office 356, see you never. Microsoft would be limping without Office... how could Google fail to make this happen?
Sharing my cryiest ever video clip, when Stanford Professor Andrei Linde celebrates physics breakthrough: [1]. I've seen it thirty times and I cry (oh, the tears) every time. I also cried at the end of Real Steal.
The more you think about Twitter the more you understand it, including why it works, and at Twitter, lots of people are thinking about Twitter, so they probably know that SMSes worked like conversation, where the tech forced you to be polite, i.e. not ramble on about something without letting the other party say anything, they should just listen. SMS conversations flows like a oilite chat about the weather. Quick, brief and with nice pauses in between. Maybe that's not what they were after but isn't that what Twitter achieved?
When the best minds we have divide into two camps, one saying that (a) "with X and Y we don't have enough information to solve Z" and the other saying (b) we do but we need to think harder, the first camp builds a particle collider, the other creates what, string theory? Aren't we doing "fuzzy science" here?
It seems that the experts in one of the camps should go back and retrace their steps because somewhere along the line they made an assumption based on some data that they (I assume) forgot to encode into their equations and now they have trouble taking it to the next level. Why is it not clear to us that eiher a or b is true?