to catch the ball, the player simply needs to keep moving in a way that keeps the ball in a constant visual relationship with respect to home plate and the surrounding scenery (technically, in a ‘linear optical trajectory’). This might sound complicated, but it is actually incredibly simple, and completely free of computations, representations and algorithms.
I'm not sure this guy understands what 'computation', 'representation' or 'algorithm' mean.
― I've had Eno, ugh (ledge), Thursday, 2 June 2016 10:46 (seven years ago) link
Sterling otm
― Jim Reeves in the Temple (James Redd and the Blecchs), Thursday, 2 June 2016 12:07 (seven years ago) link
Fair enough; I just grabbed a link to the first reasonable-sounding article I came across that presented an objection to the first one.
― Dan I., Thursday, 2 June 2016 14:06 (seven years ago) link
Earlier in the talk Musk made it quite clear that he believes " not all AI futures are benign." He's especially concerned that AI could take "a direction that would be not good for the future."Musk launched OpenAI to prevent such a future, but it does not appear that he has all that much faith in the plan, since he's already thinking of at least one way that humans can stay ahead of artificial intelligence that he believes will leave us so far behind as to "be like a pet or like the house cat" for the AI.The way around this, Musk explained, is something called a Neural Lace. It's essentially an artificial intelligence layer for humans.
Musk launched OpenAI to prevent such a future, but it does not appear that he has all that much faith in the plan, since he's already thinking of at least one way that humans can stay ahead of artificial intelligence that he believes will leave us so far behind as to "be like a pet or like the house cat" for the AI.
The way around this, Musk explained, is something called a Neural Lace. It's essentially an artificial intelligence layer for humans.
i know this is an ignorant opinion, but why not just stop creating artificial intelligence? how many years of sci-fi do we have telling us it's a bad idea?
― Treeship, Thursday, 2 June 2016 14:29 (seven years ago) link
it just seems like there is no payoff to a.i. automating jobs will lead to mass unemployment unless workers succeed in seizing the means of production. virtual reality and things like sex robots will just increase alienation. smartphones are enough. computer technology should just call it a day and stop advancing. devote those resources to building a better alternative energy infrastructure.
the only thing like this i am excited for is self-driving cars.
― Treeship, Thursday, 2 June 2016 14:33 (seven years ago) link
if a.i. can somehow improve medical care i am all for that too. i just don't go in for this blurring the distinction between human and machine thing. it seems very bad.
― Treeship, Thursday, 2 June 2016 14:38 (seven years ago) link
hey, a friend of mine recently wrote a book about moore's law/gordon moore if you like computer stuff!
http://www.amazon.com/Moores-Law-Silicon-Valleys-Revolutionary/dp/0465055648/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1464878754&sr=1-1&keywords=moore%27s+law
(this is just a shameless plug for his book. doesn't have anything to do with the singularity. probably.)
― scott seward, Thursday, 2 June 2016 14:50 (seven years ago) link
i long for the day when 'robots taking the jobs' is met with the same dead-eyed skepticism as 'millenials in the workplace' thinkpieces
terms like 'machine learning' and 'neural networks' are pretty annoying in that the things they refer to are pretty /dumb/ and really just math that's good at finding patterns, really not even in the span of the kinds of qualities that make human intelligence intelligent in the way we think of the term
― de l'asshole (flopson), Thursday, 2 June 2016 14:52 (seven years ago) link
that's what i always assumed tbh but i am reading more and more stuff that is like, "oh yeah, automation is the new reality." or, in the academia thread, "these object oriented ontologists are just anticipating the day when there isn't a firm distinction between humans and objects, i.e. machines" (paraphrasing)
― Treeship, Thursday, 2 June 2016 14:54 (seven years ago) link
this is great
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055624.full.pdf
if the brain literally was just a computer, we still wouldn't come close to having the tools to understand it
― germane geir hongro (s.clover), Saturday, 4 June 2016 02:06 (seven years ago) link
clever
― de l'asshole (flopson), Saturday, 4 June 2016 05:22 (seven years ago) link
the singularity is here
https://www.cnet.com/news/its-happening-googles-ai-is-building-more-ais/
― Violet Jynx, Wednesday, 17 May 2017 20:21 (six years ago) link
bring it
― brimstead, Wednesday, 17 May 2017 20:23 (six years ago) link
Nah. The only 'live' project mentioned in that article was "making Google Search more responsive to users' needs". All the rest was speculation about Some Day It Will Be So.
― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 17 May 2017 20:30 (six years ago) link
a search engine that can input its own search queries
"kill me" About 62,900,000 results (1.17 seconds) "kill me" About 62,900,000 results (1.17 seconds) "kill me" About 62,900,000 results (1.17 seconds) "kill me" About 62,900,000 results (1.17 seconds)
― Roberto Spiralli, Wednesday, 17 May 2017 20:36 (six years ago) link
Siri, ask Alexa what the time is...
― koogs, Wednesday, 17 May 2017 21:00 (six years ago) link
I hear the software just produced one of these https://i.redd.it/89clk3nfj2yy.gif
― Rimsky-Koskenkorva (Øystein), Wednesday, 17 May 2017 22:33 (six years ago) link