This is a fundamentally flawed way of questionning, "knowing all the laws of physics" is probably impossible to achieve, but we still produce accurate predictions for a lot of phenomena. You can see that we do in fact "replicate" (predict would be a more proper term) things despite not knowing all the laws of physics: weather, movement of the stars, cooking time for a browned piece of bread...
I've been using pandoc + rst + beamer for producing very large (1000's) training slide decks, and pdf2latex is so slow that using a CI to generate the 10's of decks configurations in parallel makes for a very valid use case, so I implemented just that... I don't know what I'm getting at with this little story of mine, but if you actually scratch that urge at some point I'd be interested in seeing the result, especially regarding distribution, which I didn't set out to implement.
One way is to set up a flottila of sensors around a certified control sensor, such as an aerotrack, and measure how they evolve in regards to age, temperature, wind, level of pollutants, ans measurement time. That is a pretty rich task, because low cost sensors will vary wildly in performance due to mechanical variations.
Membrane sensors have to get very high in temp locally in order to do a membrane cleanup, thos being large compared to a temp probe, the probe is probably catching of the heat because it is not properly isolated. Some SW model for heat flux can somewhat reduce this effect but in general this is AFAIK an open problem for miniaturized AQ sensors.
Specialized ASICs are not easy to come up with, what's more if it's in a tug of war you can expect those to suddenly become obsolete, rendering this approach too costly for a scrapper. Also you may have missed the part in the original link where they were using AWS to do the scrapping, so no ASICs there, and you pay by the minute, two things that would make PoW a valid countermeasure, no "free computation" in that setup.
Hey there, I've been privately toying for some times with the idea of repository governance that would based around some democratic principles, and I've finally put up the time to get to something that works, and looks like it could be extended easily.
As you can see the code is succint, yet it runs, on a free GitLab account, so I guess the proof is in the pudding as they say. We're open to adding new voters, or "Governauts" as we call them, and the goal would utimately be to have a 100% automated governance system, with no human maintainers at all.
I hope some of you find this interesting, fun, or thought provoking.
Happy hacking!
PS: In case you are unfamiliar with GitLab but still want to fork the project, LMK so that I can share what behind-the-scene configuration is needed (not that much: access tokens, a CI schedule ... but it's not scripted... yet ;) )
In my own experience people typically do that when they have some experience in bash, none in python, and try to do something in python the way they would do it in bash. So for those my advice, instead of getting back again to bash is to get a bit curious about the python standard lib, which has a nice doc unlinke bash, and not assume they know everything about scripting just because they have spent a long amount of time writing bash script.
As you said, you can pass physical property, why would you need that to be extended to other area on top of it ? I mean you would think that inheriting the actual capital generated by the art pieces, on top of the unsold original pieces, would be enough as far as money goes (moral right is different, I see why you would want to inherit that). It's a bit as if I were able to claim a salary for my dead relatives because, you know, I used to live off of that...
Yes, what some programmer don't really understand from atop their STEM superiority complex is that, similar to how you wouldn't be called a good programmer if you never actually write code; you don't really get considered a reference on "liberal matter" until you actually produce anything or hold a dialog with your peers on the subject. I mean, it makes sense, does a reclusive genius make noise if nobody is there to hear them?
So in short: they may be educated in that they read books, follow specialized news, and watch content. All of that is great, but they shouldn't feel ton equal footing with people who, you know, actually DO something with that knowledge.
To be clear, the official role of HR is to protect the company, which objectives are defined by the owners, represented by the board, not the CEO. Goals of the CEO and the board may align, but they may not, in that latter case a non-corrupt HR function sides with the board. At the end of the day, the CEO is just another employee.
I guess they meant paradoxical. Being a security company they are juicy target for an attacker's rep, meaning they are in the situation where they are both more protected than usual but also more at risk. That's the arm's race paradox I guess.
That view of the development process is a bit reductive, I'm not sure the dev working on fixing a regression on some crusty, old, ugly, but contractually maintained branch of the product considers itself to be a big shot. But that's where most of the money comes from, so that's where this function has to act. Maintenance caused by unprovoked changes is not the lot of any single person or job in the company, it is in fact probably the most common facet of any tech job.
Well you could use some heatmap to represent latency, where the hottest part would be those of high latency, turn those particles and boxes red or blue depending on their mean latency...
I'm not sure where this 10x comes from but if this is about modern on-demand CI clustered runners vs old timey dedicated hardware and servers, then you have to take into account the fact that those hardware and servers were never properly cleaned of their mess, hard to configure, and had low general availability. This switch was a big gain IMO, even if docker and k8s are far from being simple to operate.
I am 100% behind this affirmation, we have been historically bitten times and times again by blind trust in "renowed experts", and while I trust most of them om their fields of expertise, saying we should ritualistically let them be up and front on any societal issue by "trusting the science" is very naive. Case in point: no more public debate on energy policies, because experts have made it a battlefield.
It is hard to put yourself in other's people state of mind, and to reason that it's because they must be idiots is not really the proper way to go. I don't have any advice to give on religion, if it's not your thing fine, but painting people with too broad a brush may lead to misuderstandings, conflicting exchanges, and ultimately animosity for no good reason.
So my only point is: you probably have something that you hold dear to your heart and you would not liked to be judged or criticized for that, in some ways it's not even anyone's business but yours. Religion, spirituality, or weird new age practices are the same for a lot of people, and it doesn't presuppose that any of this is good or bad, it just is, and mounting a file against all of that at once is bound to be fruitless, and hurtful for the people involved.
I did not use ad hominem, I clearly and unequivocaly reflected on the post's brievity and unearned assertivity as being of little value in the context of a discussion. Maybe I'm doing a bit of sniping, but so are you, and I have the same feeling that if I wanted to read "religious is bad end of discussion" post I'd go on reddit.
Also average IQ at any given time is 100, by definition. I believe this post was trying the classic "all contemporary creations are degenerate" take on architecture and art, but not doing so very eloquently.
I believe we are slowly but surely getting out of this. Positivism as a strict adherence to the dogma of "the scientific fact" (with a conveniently moving definition, backed-up by Sagan quotes for TV viewers, or Popper for book readers) is as nefarious as any totalitarian idea.
Yes scientific papers are great, no I don't put too much weight on someone's take on hapiness, truth, or the fundamental nature of our universe just because they're wearing a lab coat, that would quite literally be thinking that the cowl makes the monk.
I agree with you. I really enjoy this idea that understanding, conscience, are emerging properties of a system, which does not need to limit itself to any scope to happen. In that light the current approach most people take on this, taking an arbitary selection of parts to see if it exhibits those properties, is not right at all.
A ion channel does not have even a tiny spec of conscience, no matter how you organize them, but our brain does indeed need those to be conscient (and incidentally it relies on a whole lot more "stupid" parts than that: try being conscient without oxygen, or glucose).
I would go as far as making conscience an emergent property of interaction with the environment: what does it mean to be conscious if nothing is there to confirm that you are indeed of a singular conscience? Is it possible to understand the concept of self if you have no concept of other beings?
I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what the poster above is refering to: they would profit more out of longer contents due to the way their ads placements work, but they have to adapt and propose shorts anyway.
I think everone is using a different definition of "failure" here, because it is impossible to formally, unambiguously, and objectively, define what is a successful AGI.
Do you consider yourself a successful AGI? I guess you do.
Does that make you always right? No.
Does that make you at least capable of staying rational in all situations? No.
Well maybe the logical framework that you (and I) are basing all of rationality on is at least coherent? What do you mean it is not[1]? Who's that Gödel guy anyway?
The issue at the heart of this definition of AGI is that it is undecidable. That is why rather than proving that an intelligence is unambiguously succesful at being general, tests are being used, which look at whether it succeeds "often enough" at a given task in a particular set of conditions.
The Turing test is such test, but it is not the first one ever devised, the Jewish golem was not able to talk and did not get a name, so it was considered "unfinished" and as such failing the "being human-like" test. I don't want to bring unrelated parallels to this post, but the key takeaway I think is this one: it is ultimately fruitless to define intelligence in terms of "success", as if it was a physical quantity one could measure.
So now to get back to your original question, chat AI have had large amount of success in the past year, one Google researcher who worked with them is even assuming some of them are sentient [2] and makes some strong arguments in that direction. AI can drive cars, play videogames, hold conversations... it's less than what humans can do, but they can also fold proteins[3] and find new patterns in humongus amounts of data [4], something that was impossible to do in a reasonnable amount of time before they were created. So are they succesful? I would say yes; are they perfect? Oh no far from it, and my point is that they will never be perfect, and will always fail in some regards.
Well for one submarines have parts that are over water, and can be stored in dry bays on the continent, for repair or construction (also the steel itself is stored on the continent prior to being used). For second the coldest wind chill recorded in the US was -100°F at McGrath, Alaska in 1989. So it's not too much of a stretch to take this value a minimal value for testing the material.
I think that improving the shell experience and allowing e.g. multimedia content to be displayed and manipulated directly into the shell, would help a lot with interactivity. Maybe some specific terminal emulator (like kitty) with ipython would constitute a good starting point...
On the last point I feel obligated to point out that 120 bn people are estimated to have ever lived on the planet, of those a 100 bn lived before 1750, 60 bn before 1 CE, 10 bn before 8000 BCE.
That means that if you took 100 people from human history, 15 of them would have heard of press, 50 of writing, 90 of agriculture. Not so many humans in a state of nature there.