This is exactly right. A lot of posts regarding loading times or bundle sizes for frameworks/libraries forget that there are trade-offs when it comes to building an application.
The correct way to frame this is: use a slow/clunky/large/etc framework vs. build everything from scratch (which comes with its own costs).
Sure, you can optimize parts of your application to speed up the JS portion or even remote it completely [1], but it's not always as simple as "your framework is making your application slow so you should think about ditching it."
This article actually ends with a very reasonable conclusion in the section "Are Frameworks Evil?" but I've seen plenty of articles where the author doesn't offer an alternative to some library/framework [2].
The author explains a few problems with the current state of the Web under the section The Five Lacks:
- "On the closed social web... We lack freedom, innovation, trust, respect, and transparency."
- "Innovation on these platforms is dying."
- "And there’s little transparency. All of the data is locked up or rate limited to a prohibitive degree."
While some of these may or not even be true (innovation dying, really?), I think the author makes a large leap from his premises to the conclusion. So just because the author claims there are issues with the current state of the web, that doesn't mean the solution is to completely ditch "the tech giants in control suppress our freedom" and remove yourself from the current web platform and applications (e.g. fb, google, etc.)
The best way to determine whether this is a viable and useful solution, and whether or not some of the apps are actually something people want and find useful is to see how many people ditch applications from the "tech giants" start using these new apps built for the social web.
A lot of ideas sounds great in theory, but then don't hold up years down the line. Plenty of new applications and social networks have been created over the years with great explanations and a "Our Philosophy" section, but what actually matters is whether or not people change their habits and start using these new applications.
The problems the author listed in The Five Lacks section are completely real problems on a lot of the applications on the Web, but I don't think any of these social web apps listed in the article are the solution.
So for beginner/intermediate alg/data structures challenges with explanations and solutions I would recommend the following resources:
1. Read the Algorithm Design Manual.
2. Practice coding simple and then more advanced algorithms on sites like Coderbyte (aimed at beginners -> intermediate) and HackerRank (a bit more mathy).
3. Read as many algorithm explanations and code examples as you can on GeeksforGeeks.
4. Try and implement basic algorithms yourself like: shortest path, minimum spanning tree, DFS/BFS, tree traversals, different sorting algs, min/max heap, etc. and learn their running times.
This report by IEEE is actually a very good collection of topics and research currently being done in this field. They discuss specific problems and topics like the neocortex, IIF [1], neuromorphic engineering [2], pose cells, SLAM [3], and more.
For anyone interested in research being done in AI, ML, consciousness, etc., these are great articles written by actual scientists and researchers who are doing the work (as opposed to the hyperbolic articles or tweets you see online these days about AI).
this is great, the docs/tutorial are pretty clear as well. shameless plug: I made a js library [0] for creating and playing board games a while ago. It allows you to focus on gameplay and logic without worrying about the user interface so much. It allows you to create games like chess [1] and simulations like game of life [2] pretty easily.
shameless plug: I loved project euler and topcoder when I in high school. In 2011, there weren't really any nice, easy-to-use, interactive websites that allowed me to solve coding/algorithms challenges online easily, so that winter break my first year of college I made coderbyte.com for people to solve challenges online. Been running it ever since, but now there are like 20 similar websites as well.
I agree with what you said at the beginning of your comment, and what I think you're getting at is something like panpsychism [1], where consciousness is an inherent property in the universe, as opposed to an emergent view where at some point there is no consciousness in a given system and once it becomes complex enough consciousness emerges or develops.
I don't necessarily have an argument for either of them right now. But you asked me "why believe in the line at all?" -- I'm not making an argument for what consciousness is, I'm only claiming that the current state of the art algorithms we have developed and AI we currently build have nothing to do with topics like self-awareness, consciousness, theory of mind, etc. One day we'll get there I'm sure.
I'm not arguing for a soul or any sort of emergent properties of self-awareness or consciousness even, I just believe that in our current state of AI/ML/neural networks/deep learning, all of these techniques and algorithms simply optimize for some goal (or reward function like the author stated). Maybe one day we'll build a self-aware AI within a "hard metal-machine" but in my opinion we're far off from that.
If we build something one day that acts like a philosophical zombie [1] for example, then yes topics like self-awareness, consciousness, theory of mind will all be at the forefront of conversations regarding AI. But right now all we have are algorithms that optimize towards a goal and we have journalists jumping in on the hype talking about robots inventing languages, the desires these robots have, and robots teaming up to destroy humans [2].
"I understand that a machine could kill people. But will a machine want to kill people? That seems to go back to that philosophical notion of consciousness."
This is exactly the issue with a lot of journalists and people talking about AI/ML. There is no WANT or DESIRES from the programs, there is no self-awareness where the programs ask themselves if what they are doing is right or wrong. They are doing exactly what they were programmed to do.
With his example of adversarial networks, one network is learning to detect fake news and other other is generating fake news--they are working towards their reward functions and optimizing the weights to reach the goal. It's math, that's all it is. It's so silly to bring up consciousness, desires, awareness, fears, etc. in these AI programs.
I agree, a lot of chatbot projects seem to be built because of the hype + the team also gets to dabble with some "AI/ML." I think there are very few conversational agents or chatbots today that people use regularly, and of those I honestly don't think many people enjoy using them.
"Your chatbot should be purposeful, reflective of your product’s voice, and simpatico with your users. One helpful design exercise is to produce an assistant persona and personality:"
For a business, a "chatbot" or any feature similar to it needs to do one thing and that is solve the users problem(s). If the user wants to do X within the app or learn about Y, the chatbot needs to help the user with that efficiently and better than a human can for the feature to be successful. The "chatbot having a personality" comes second to "solve the users problem."
If the users are completely happy with whatever chatbot they are using, then sure adding in some "personality" might be a good idea and increase engagement slightly, but a poorly-performing chatbot that can't help the user but has a personality isn't going to help the business at all.