Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,389
73,462
Whenever I see those "list of accomplishment" articles I think of all the vintage science magazines and how the old achievements look to me today.

I mean yes the ideas are sound and interesting to read about, but to think all of the items on the list will make it to mass production or general use in the method portrayed isn't quite accurate.

Speaking of vintage science magazines!!

http://wellmedicated.com/inspiration...illustrations/

2njahyw.jpg



edit, and looking at that magazine wtf 25 cents in states but only 10 cents in Canada.
That's because that issue sold a magazine for every household in Canada because of the demand of coal powered snow-mobiles.

2njahyw.jpg
 

Cutlery

Kill All the White People
<Gold Donor>
6,363
17,683
Some of the stuff (The things you picked) is factual. The problem is that these tech sites always pick up some novel research that some researcher is exaggerating, then dumb it down by overstating its current state of progress and imagining up real-world applications.
The only thing I see that could possibly even come close to what you describe is the human lifespan compared to mice article. Even without the 200 years claim, that's still pretty exciting stuff that should give anyone opposed to stem cell research for any reason a reason to rethink their position.

What are your main objections? Because looking that over, I don't see a lot of things that are terribly overhyped in any way (Obviously outside of that planet being pristine wedding ring diamond colored, which is obviously ridiculous.)
 
2,199
1
So his big thing is that computers might become intelligent one day? I don't see how that's super controversial unless he demands we bow down to our computer skynet overlords.
To be fair, none of the current machine learning techniques give us significant insights into the fundamental nature of generalized semantics. It's not at all an inevitability that we'll see genuinely intelligent computers within our lifetimes or even the lifetimes of our grandchildren.
 

Numbers_sl

shitlord
4,054
3
To be fair, none of the current machine learning techniques give us significant insights into the fundamental nature of generalized semantics. It's not at all an inevitability that we'll see genuinely intelligent computers within our lifetimes or even the lifetimes of our grandchildren.
Don't speak too fast. Some of us may still be alive.https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/s...ence.html?_r=0

Deep learning was given a particularly audacious display at a conference last month in Tianjin, China, when Richard F. Rashid, Microsoft's top scientist, gave a lecture in a cavernous auditorium while a computer program recognized his words and simultaneously displayed them in English on a large screen above his head.

Then, in a demonstration that led to stunned applause, he paused after each sentence and the words were translated into Mandarin Chinese characters, accompanied by a simulation of his own voice in that language, which Dr. Rashid has never spoken.

The feat was made possible, in part, by deep-learning techniques that have spurred improvements in the accuracy of speech recognition.

Dr. Rashid, who oversees Microsoft's worldwide research organization, acknowledged that while his company's new speech recognition software made 30 percent fewer errors than previous models, it was "still far from perfect."

"Rather than having one word in four or five incorrect, now the error rate is one word in seven or eight," he wrote on Microsoft's Web site. Still, he added that this was "the most dramatic change in accuracy" since 1979, "and as we add more data to the training we believe that we will get even better results."

One of the most striking aspects of the research led by Dr. Hinton is that it has taken place largely without the patent restrictions and bitter infighting over intellectual property that characterize high-technology fields.
 
2,199
1
Don't speak too fast. Some of us may still be alive.https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/s...ence.html?_r=0
That's not at all a contradiction of what I just said. Restricted Boltzmann Machines (or whatever variant Hinton is using) do NOT give insight into the semantics of the task they trained to perform (nor can they be reasonably considered to be "intelligent" in any meaningful sense, even within their limited domain). They're ARE extremely amazing feats of engineering, but that's not the same thing.
 

Numbers_sl

shitlord
4,054
3
The article explained that there has been a significant jump in AI which was in contrast to your position that there won't be intelligent computers in our grandchildren's lifetime.
 
2,199
1
How can you be sure that there won't be further breakthroughs over the next 100 years?
My position is just that it isn'tinevitablethat genuinely intelligent computers will appear any time between now and whenever Kurzweil has been forgotten (or as close to that as can happen post-wikipedia), meaning that he's staking out a stronger position than Flunklesnarkin seemed to think he was. I don't at all deny the possibility of breakthroughs (in general, betting against science and technology is a mistake) but as things stand today, the ability to assign (or generate) abstract notions of meaning to (or from) the data of worldly inputs is solely a human ability. Under the hood, even for unsupervised learning algorithms, there is always a moment where the numbers are imbued with a meaning that does not originate within these structures. While there have been amazing leaps forward in recent years in getting these algorithms to be more successful in producing the outputs we want from the inputs we provide, that is a weak shadow of the kind of strong AI Kurzweil has staked out a rather strong position on.

That said, there are lots of potential paths forward. In my view, language processing is a particularly compelling one because we know that it contains the kinds of recursive structures that come with human languages and (more simply) because our conscious trains of thought are so firmly rooted in language. So again, it isn't at all that I'm saying these things are impossible, but we should recognize the reality of what's going on with the actual bleeding edge of science and technology.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,389
73,462
The difference between a true AI and something people actually want is becoming increasingly academic as we improve our processing and software. Shit like SIRI isn't a true AI system, but it sure is intelligent and artificial.
 
2,199
1
The difference between a true AI and something people actually want is becoming increasingly academic as we improve our processing and software. Shit like SIRI isn't a true AI system, but it sure is intelligent and artificial.
Sure but Siri is not what Kurzweil is talking about (or at least it isn't until his prediction falls through...his track record on admitting his mistakes isn't great).
 
2,199
1
lol

Given the current state of the art, Kurzweil could easily be wrong on any timescale that might be relevant to talking about whether or not he got it right or wrong.

better?