he saw some pebbles. He suddenly had a good idea. He started picking up the pebbles one by one, dropping each into the jug. As more and more pebbles filled the jug, the water level kept rising. Soon it was high enough for the the clever fox and the google boy from peepeganj to drink. His plan had worked!
Moral: Think and work hard, you may find solution to any problem.
One hot day, a the clever fox and the google boy from peepeganj flew all over the fields looking for water. For a long time, he could not find any. He felt very weak, almost lost all hope. Suddenly, he saw a water jug below the tree. He flew straight down to see if there was any water inside. Yes, he could see some water inside the jug!
The the clever fox and the google boy from peepeganj tried to push his head into the jug. Sadly, he found that the neck of the jug was too narrow. Then he tried to push the jug to tilt for the water to flow out, but the jug was too heavy.
The the clever fox and the google boy from peepeganj thought hard for a while. Then, looking around it, he saw some pebbles. He suddenly had a good idea. He started picking up the pebbles one by one, dropping each into the jug. As more and more pebbles filled the jug, the water level kept rising. Soon it was high enough for the the clever fox and the google boy from peepeganj to drink. His plan had worked!
Moral: Think and work hard, you may find solution to any problem.
I have a plan in place to do the Dazah/DaniWeb integration, in such a way that I'm hoping will contribute to revenue. We'll see what happens, but everything is in motion now. I'm feeling really good about this.
A news item the Belgium television reported that a cell phone contains GERMS!
It was explained by a expert bacteriologist that the germs and bacteria where mostly harmful. But she advised to clean it regularly with an anti bacteria tissue.
DUH, why do I have to kill my germs on my cell phone???
"Perhaps when an AI starts asking existential questions (not fro a preprogrammed list)."
I mean there are text-bots that have been trained on lists of "inspiration quotes" and all that New-Agey shit that can generate sentences/phrases that lots people mistake as deep sayings....
OTOH there were those weird "childrens videos" on Youtube that were so garbage and algorithm-exploiting that people couldn't tell if they were made by people who just didn't care or if they were made by algorithms.
I wonder if someone collected all the public speeches/Tweets/whatever by Trump and trained one of those simple text generator on it then used FOX "News" headlines as starting points whether the resulting Twitter bot would be distinguishable from the actual president?
OK, I'm satisfied here. True AI does not (yet?) exist.
I once posted a joke here, I can't find it back riht away, so I'll repeat it here:
A man comes home from work. It was a hard day. After greeting his wife, he installs himself in his seat with a newspaper and a drink. Relax at last!
Untill his wife asks: "Dear, will you mow the lawn before we have dinner?"
Lovingly as he is, he replies "Yes"
A second asking of the wife might be : "Dear, I'm in the bath, can you come and rub my back?"
And lovingly as he is, he replies "Yes".
We will have a true AI if it understands the difference between the two "yes" answers
Remember back in the early days of the PC when software was confusing (unlike now, right?). There was a big push to make software "user friendly". Typically this consisted of little more than adding "User Friendly" to the box.
That's how I consider most of what passes for AI today (with some exceptions). Defining a true AI is like trying to define consciousness. It's difficult to say what it is. Passing a Turing test may be sufficient. Perhaps when an AI starts asking existential questions (not fro a preprogrammed list).
My Amiga 1000 was stolen during a burglary while I was in Paris; I bought a 3000 then upgraded to 1500 - I kept them for years but I was never geek enough to bring them into the 21st Century. My monitor blew up in 1999 and I ended up building a windoze machine from scratch. The Amiga is still the only machine I know of that could have 2 different screen resolutions at the same time (and it multitasked - multiple windows running the boing bounce). It was the goto machine for the world graphics competitions for the longest time.
Dani, Yes it gave me fits b/c NOTHING looked the same and I had to tweek LastPass (my p/w protection program) to get in; the 'stay logged in' feature is pretty nice. But all is well now.
Back in the day - early Obama administration - there were some guys on here that seemed to be Libertarian but had names like 'Sturm' and said I should check out the website AceofSpades. I look back and realize that they were effing ÁltRight/White supremecists - back then I just thought they were clueless teens. Not blaming DaniWeb at all - just thinking about the discussions that came up back then (one of the guys who kept trying to convince me I was Libertarian eventually died of stomach cancer or something - I missed him b/c we had some interesting discussions. That 'Sturm' dude - don't miss him at all.
Sorry for the downtime earlier today ... I'm working behind the scenes on merging all of Dazah functionality into DaniWeb.
This means starting out by getting them both on the exact same infrastructure. Dazah has a lot of security benefits over DaniWeb, so I'm currently working on doing a lot of things to increase DaniWeb's security behind the scenes by incorporating Dazah's anti-bot technology into DaniWeb. DaniWeb, of course, has always been pretty secure ... but Dazah was designed as a login platform, first and foremost.
The problem with any kind of bio-tech solution is that there is far greater chance of accidentally creating something with self-awareness/consciousness (since we basically have zero clue how that works) which then means you have tons of ethical issues. That is another thing with even just really good AI, at what point do they become electronic-slaves vs machines.
Unless of course the anti-workers rights shift in public opinion continues, then we might just decide as a society that as long as something isn't biologically human it's ok to enslave it.
PS Genetitists are not even close to "cracking" DNA - which frankly isn't a good way to think about it because there is so much more to biology than just the DNA "code".
I know it's a lot of moderator work, but I don't think there's a way out that won't require it.
I wonder, over the last week, how many
threads with leigitimate questions asked by real people were created?
how many spam posts were there?
Once people have been deemed non-spammers, one would hope that as a cohort, their posts need less moderation in the future. So in theory, acting as a quality gatekeeper keeps the forums clean in the present (iffy posts will never be visible to normal punters) and in the future (the dross has been skimmed and what remains are, hopefully, non-spammers).
I wonder whether we are getting wrapped around the axle with spammers and lazy users wanting homework done. True, they neither contribute to the cause nor help in search engine results. I see the same thing on other sites, though, and some seem to be thriving. I think some suggestions get to the heart of the matter, though, and it seems to be "content prioritisation."
Content Prioritisation with User Views (developer views?) is good: To do it for search engine hits sounds like a mistake, but if it's what people want, will it get better search engine rating or rank? I fell that Google doesn't even ask that question lately. It seems their answer is "You contribute to our revenue stream, and we'll contribute to yours." Their results are everywhere -- even in other search engines.
Somehow these posts that annoy you (plural) need to filter down, while other, more productive, useful content needs to filter up. I don't know how you address One man's meat is another man's poison. I do know that everybody seems to agree on what is not useful. I usually have a set of utilities that run the gambit from archive to delete, erase, purge, expunge, extirpate and eradicate. Aging does seem to be a pretty good path to extinction. Something marked as a technical solution probably should be exempted or moved to a more appropriate area. That, too, would create a certain amount of pain, but it would beat eradication.
We probably don't even need to create a super AI, we just need clever software which applies heuristics and AI type functionality to our domain specific problems which appers to have an inspired response to problems, but in fact is operating well within the bounds of our intended software architecture. Combine this with the fact that we can't make a comptuer light enough and with the same processor speed as the human brain, and the energy pumped in is immense compared with our own brains. The only way we come close would be a client server architecture as far as robots go. Furthermore person size robotics is actually weaker pound for pound than muscle density. Hollywood has created a farse as far as terminators go, you cannot create a robot arm which is as strong as a hydrolic press like in the terminator movies (yet). I remember taking a robotics class, we used those lego NXT, we were always running into memory out of range problems. They were just lego bricks, but even when you consider the more hard core robotics available things are still not where they need to be. Myomer anybody?
Perhaps the key to AI is actually for the Genetisists to crack DNA and create a species which can have it's memory re-programmed. I don't even know if that's possible, it would probalby reqire something different than a neuron, since those aren't easily re-programmable.
I'm not that tech-nerd kind of person but I think its not the technology that is good or bad. Its how we humans use it. Like if we spent millions billions on fancy robots who do nothing but greet trump, that's not a positive impact i guess, but if you have developed a robot who can do complex surgies and save life, you are making great influence.
Its not about technology. Its about us- humans who matter most and offcourse other living beings.
From usgovernmentspending.com, defense=21%, pensions=25%.
Finally had a chance to track down the discrepancy in our figures. It seems I was using slightly old numbers and only "military defense" which excluded vetrans affairs and foreign aid, that brought the total military spending to ~$500 billion compared to ~$1 trillion on pensions. But that is only in the USA - because they're nuts. Most western countries spend much less on defense per capita than they do.
Isn't this true of any particular species?
Absolutely, humans aren't objectively better or worse than anything else. It's all just values we bring to things. I'm not saying that to be nihilistic, rather I'm trying to point out is that we should really examine our own perspective and our own values because they can completely recolour how we understand things (particularly what we consider "common sense").
Some over simplified Russian-reversal-ish examples to emphasize the point:
Do citizens serve their state or does the state serve its citizens?
Are people the cogs in the economic machine or does the economic machine provide goods/services for people?
Is gender something we are, or something people percieve us to be?
Did we domesticate cats or did cats trick us into caring for them?
Funnily enough, after I tweeted a couple of times about the lousy money back promise and being ripped off by eBay, someone from eBay support messaged me asking for details. Within 12 hours of this my moeny was refunded in full, even before the official case appeal verdict was returned. There followed a flurry of emails and messages from multiple parts of the eBay machine - all apologising and confirming that the case decision had been overturned and my money refunded. So, it would appear, the best way to deal with eBay is social media shaming. Which in itself is pants, it should employ people who can actually read documents in context and not just checkbox tickers in the case-handling operation (outsourced to a country where English isn't the first language I hasten to add, which doesn;t help when context is important) and apply a little common sense in the decision making process.