Thank you: this conversation was beginning to feel surreal, between the "let's pull the plug on these frenchies!" and the "how dare a sovereign state wants to legiferate on the activities of an American company on its territory"...
I do enjoy the irony of some Americans blaming big data companies when the president of their choice does not get elected, all the while advocating for less power to French news agencies (e.g. death by asphyxiation from Google news, without any recourse).
Or maybe Netflix could say "no this is a service we are providing to our users" and then the big "Hollywood exec" would be like "ok maybe we will not sit on the million dollars we get from our agreement" and that would be it.
You are missing the point, which is that if you can blindly follow the type hints of the compiler and still get a non-stupid function when you're joking around like the author is, then in real-life coding situations the type hints will be all the more relevant and reliable.
By the way, this is literally the most common foldr implementation in functional languages, so I have no idea why you would want to do a code review of it, or talk about performances in such a trivial setting, or pretend that you're confused by it so much that you have to refer to a library...
You're going full circle here. He's not the one advocating for "modern evidence-based research and training", so it's not in his standards. And I'm not blaming him. Not everything is measurable, or at least measurable in ways that would enable researchers to extract meaningful answers or techniques. You said it yourself, productivity is a fuzzy end-goal.
If you do not believe it is possible to empirically derive a way to interview properly, then rationalism is your best choice, i.e. Intuition/Deduction. And contrary to common belief, rationalism is not a prison. It's just a decision process, in which you're perfectly allowed to question yourself using available empiric data.
Yes, and it is well known that Tesla's self-driving program reproduces Elon Musk's reckless driving habits... /s
I'm just intervening to point out that what you're saying is not what the paper you linked implies. Its title is "Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases", and the general conclusion you could derive from it is that AI programs reflect the stereotypes ... of the data they are trained with. This is why they use the right word: stereotype, instead of the charged word you used: prejudice.
It is an interesting metric, thank you for pointing it out. Until now I kept in mind the amount of miles between accidents, but surely both should be considered.
However, I think this metric could be irrelevant in the case of a home/work commute. The 11,000 miles average appears to have been obtained basically by randomly driving Waymo cars on Californian roads. But a usual commute is much less than 11,000 miles, and if your self-driving can do it by itself once then probably it can do it twice. As the article puts it:
"The value of the data is limited, however, as the figures don’t factor in the complexity of environments in which vehicles are tested–dense urban settings, versus low-speed suburbs or less complex highway driving–nor do they show conditions including weather, light or speed."
Nevertheless, you seem to have missed my point : I was arguing that coming up with a specific use-case example that may (or may not, actually) go wrong is an argument that goes both ways.
I'm returning your argument. Imagine your are driving your car on the highway, but you suddenly have a heart attack and become unable to remain conscious. Do you: (a) Die? (b) Die?
Manned vehicles are not coming anytime soon. They are a whole slew of problems etc. -- you got my point.
I think focusing too much on pesky details is very much a fallacy in this case - you do not want an "AI" to react like a human in all situations, you only want it to drive in a way that is conservative enough not to endanger people too much.
And we clearly aren't that far from this goal right now.
This does not deserve a sensationalist depiction. Everyone in space industry, astronomy and even the public now thanks to this terrible movie Gravity knows about the Kessler effect.
Some thoughts:
- Putting 12000 big freezers (900 pounds at most) in orbit is never going to "crowd" the place; imagine these objects on Earth, then the claim that on a much higher radius sphere these could be seen at any point seems ridiculous.
(I am not speaking about speed or dangerosity, which even up the numbers a bit, or powerful light-emitting projects)
- In that sense, the video displayed is annoyingly misleading.
- The danger of the Kessler effect is a long term one, and as such it seems purely economic to me. Increasing the number of space debris will gradually increase the probability of collisions, and raise the costs of space industry, in an upwards trend that may at some point represent a real financial burden. This is the only question: at which point does it become economically interesting to tackle this problem, and are we not underestimating the future costs at this point ?
- My take is not yet, and SpaceX will do fine managing their 12000 space fridges.
The original proposal, which is not by Caplan, tries to optimize time spent reading, which is crucial as a researcher.
> And why would anyone need criteria for that? What kind of person would need to justify to themselves or others that they prefer to study topology instead of, say, financial mathematics?
We need criteria to assess the value to papers, because generally the whole assumed point of writing a paper is to add value.
> Caplan apparently needs some criterion to be able to be dismissive about someone else's work or discipline rather than pursuing his own scientific goals and interests. Yes, I find that kind of anti-intellectual, or at least small-minded.
Ad hominem much. Also, Caplan doesn't say that, and you are talking about the original proposal. You don't seem to have read the article further than the title and the premise, though interestingly you seem able to judge the author itself and convict him with bad thinking. This very much contradicts your own previous piece of advice
> 1. Never dismiss a book or paper quickly because you believe you've found a mistake. Read them until the end and take the authors seriously!
which, to me, seem rather like virtue signaling than a real advice; all the more when you don't apply it thoroughly in reality.
They took advantage of the lithium-ion battery newly improved performances in their first Roadster as early as 2008. Before that, they spent their first years researching how to arrange clusters of batteries in a viable way, which is probably what lead to their remaining advantage in autonomy. At SpaceX, key inventions include soldering sheets of metal together instead of using rivets, and other stuff that made their building process much cheaper than competitors. This is surely what parent meant.
They used to buy lithium-ion cells directly from Panasonic, and now they operate together at the Gigafactory.
Overall I don't think these could qualify as fundamental breakthroughs, but it is surely an important work, and what are fundamental breakthroughs anyway? I'd venture so far as to say that here the breakthrough is in the result: electric cars are coming, whether it's theirs or their competitors.
Can you start your own product and compete against these ?
Also, technically, Twitter has 336 million active users per month [1], Snapchat has 200 million daily active users so we can easily double that amount for monthly usage [2], while LinkedIn claims 550 million users, but the monthly visits are about 100 millions [3]. Whereas Facebook is indeed 2.2 billion monthly active users [4].
All of these three huge players combined still only add up to less than a billion, notwithstanding people who are counted thrice by using each platform. I'm surprised how huge the gap remains.
I disagree with the thought that the Vienna circle had anything to do with the course of math and science. They were mostly philosophers, with fewer scientists if you look closely, and their contribution was to philosophy, not science.
Also: they had no direct link with Einstein's work (he conducted his research decades before they even existed), he only attended some of their meetings. I'm also pretty sure Von Neumann had nothing to do with them, same for Boltzmann (who was dead).
I don't know, but probably. Sometimes you had your information for shady reasons, and it would be almost impossible to recreate it. It is a bit what's happened with Facebook if you agree that the public lacked a sense of data-privacy until then, and got abused because of that.
I guess that's what GDPR is about too. We used to discard the value of digital data, mostly I guess because it could be generated and exchanged at the speed of light. When people realized they could make money out of it, giants sitting on huge databases of personal data suddenly became the norm. And they don't share unless you pay them (if it is even in their business model).
> Is it a monopoly if there's nothing preventing you from starting your own competing product collecting the same data?
First, remember Facebook has more than two billion active users. I don't think you can realistically compete against that.
Anyway, this is a thin line argument. In some countries, I've been told, Facebook acts almost like a hub for the internet. I guess you cannot either compete against the pipes themselves.
I think Monopoly regulations are not about punishing evil corporations. They exist because such situations restrain innovation (including from companies having the monopoly) and generally disrupt free market by having one player able to do price-fixing. Honestly, I think Facebook is being hit hard by that first part by totally failing to appeal to a younger audience while becoming the dreamland of advertising.