MathYouF

I appreciate your response for making me think more deeply about the idea and seeing the merits in the point of the person I replied to.

The task of understanding the entire evolutionary process step by step that led to intelligent life is indeed more complex than any single thing that arose from it, as a necessity. One can't know every stage by which the brain developed and the purpose of that without also being able to understand the method by which it accomplishes those tasks.

As an AI engineer though, the main question is not if I can understand what I created and how I created it, but rather can I engineer an environment that itself will produce the desired outcome. This is often the experience of modern AI engineers, try to find any who could explain exactly how any large model like GPT-3 works, or how it even came to work as it trained. It would be impossible to sufficiently describe and grasp the complexity of the entire process in a human lifetime with a human brain. Yet, one can with not too much trouble understand how to create an environment that will give rise to the same model again.

Humans seem to be able to do many things, like run businesses or govern nations, without truly comprehending exactly all the moving pieces that accomplished it. I suppose this could be thought of as finding "leverage", where certain, more easily understood and controlled processes, can allow one to accomplish much harder and more complex things.

While the points about the enormous complexity of evolution and intelligence are taken and agreed with, I'm not convinced that they mean we couldn't recreate them by leveraging simple processes like genetics and natural selection to recreate them artificially.

The main thesis of the life's work of Stephen Wolfram is the idea that simple processes can produce greater complexity than the process itself.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/examples/science-and-technology...

> the work I do doesn't matter. I do the work to get paid. The alternative is not get paid. I don't really have a choice.

The alternative is to switch to paid work that does matter (to you). If you lack the skills to do work you find meaningful, then learning those skills is the next step.

Your comment seems pretty thoughtful overall so I'm wondering if I'm misinterpreting the world view you tried articulating at the beginning.

The friends I've enjoyed working with and whom I've learned the most from and been the most productive with are generally a bit disagreeable (in the Big Five definition of the word).

Your personal bias towards agreeableness as a universally good trait is muddying what I think is an otherwise valid point, that people are more productive working with people they like (and sometimes, they like working with disagreeable people, as hard as that may be to believe).

Those kind of questions are a great opportunity to show a student where to find documentation and how to read it, because that is a daily journey that will never end.

Then what they really mean is: "If it was easy, there would already be a larger supply."

The older I get and the more I observe children from an adult lens the more I see how much personality is packed into even very young people. You can get different reactions out of the same person but you have to tailor your approach for each one, and I think it must be the same with parenting children.

Has your view on nature versus nurture shifted since having kids? I've heard some people start to shift very heavily towards viewing people's personalities as part of their nature from birth after raising children of their own.

Which papers or educational resources do you recommend?

It stems from the fact that Japan invented emojis (it is in fact a very Japanese sounding word) and they eat sweet potatoes much more often than the other kind you're mentioning. Just wanted to make the oversight a little less bizarre for you.

Newton was poor enough that he worked through college and could only attend on scholarship. At the time of writing the Principia he was a fellow, still just a working scholar same as any professor.

He only became wealthy after joining the Royal Mint.

Any chance you could expand it to show elliptic curve addition?

And related, can anyone help me understand why elliptic curve subtraction is not possible?

Because you couldn't prove ownership of the several hundred thousand dollar piece of art, which is the real point of this whole thing, conspicuous consumption, because when poor people have found a way to make fakes of all your clothes and wear them, and influencers can post pics of their rented Lambourghinis that look like the ones you take with your you bought with cash, having a public digital wallet that proves your unique ownership of an expensive item is the new way to show off status in a way that can't be duplicated.

I feel like there's a deep learning (possibly computer vision) route to this that would be extremely hard to create but would be able to arbitrage 90% of the difficulty with updating for new UIs or handling edge cases. Had you ever pursued that route or seen things that tried?

In that case I'd assume the meaning is related to the exponential growth in towable tonnage compared to the size or weight of the car.

And artificial strength isn't muscle attached to ligaments, yet factory machines outperform humans.

We should be defining intelligence by outputs rather than the methodology by which they achieve them, or else the only acceptable definition for intelligence will become "a human brain".

If you choose the former, you can comfortably say airplanes don't fly, they just glide, if you want to define flight as flapping of wings. Yet airplane flight is more efficient than if we tried to achieve it the biological way.

Similarly, it seems apparent we'll be able to solve many tasks that we attribute to "intelligence" using methods different than the biological ones. We shouldn't limit ourselves to comparing the methodology when deciding if it has achieved the goal, it is more productive, from what I've seen, to define by output, and to increase specificity there if the result is still unsatisfying.

PE buys the shares in the now rent seeking businesses the VCs financed, that's how they exit. Many VCs these days are doing nothing more noble than creating more investment vehicles for rent seeking PE.

Well I take your point and trust that you are productive and well respected by your peers. I guess you mentioning that the flip side of the false negatives is the true negatives (people with low performance metrics who haven't been fired yet due to kissing up) is a correct response. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I thought your flip side was an alternative perspective on those who help others get unstuck, not on those caught by the HR performance metrics filter.

It's pretty cynical to view the person who is helping others get unstuck as "currying favor".

In every place I've worked, the person who has helped me get unstuck has always been one of the most productive and talented members of the team. If they weren't, why would I need their help?

The model doesn't even output the data in the correct format, rgbdit (depth, infrared, time).

So his statement is entirely correct. This model has absolutely no chance of fooling the current most popular facial detection system.

It creates a key that doesn't even fit in the lock, much less have the correct pin heights.

If your point is that this approach and architecture might contribute to a model that can beat FaceID, that's entirely valid to say as well.

This is more of an alternative statement for anyone interested since your statement didn't give anything concrete.

Oculus is far far ahead of where any VR developers thought it would be in 2021. In January of 2019 the Rift was still running on cables connected to a $2000 laptop and confined to a 5x5ft square play area with 7 foot tall poles holding scanners on each corner,also plugged into the same computer. If you wanted to experience VR, you had to have all those things and set them up.

Now for $300 I can (and have) experience VR on a beach with no Internet or electricity for a couple hours.

The opinion of most VR developers I know is that Facebook have unequivocally advanced VR headset progression more than any other company and better than we couldve ever hoped.

How many companies are building something worth believing in?

The ones who are (few) defintiely don't worry about this problem as much. If a company is having problems with it it's probably that their estimation of their own moral self worth is what's incorrect, not the attitude of their employees.

Victims of communist regimes all have terms for Westerners like you who make apologetic arguments in favor of their dictators from the safety of a Liberal democracy.

The role you're playing and your perspective is nothing new in the last century of fascist dictators depriving people of rights under the banner of communism.

And again, you're framing it as an American vs China thing (nukes?). You're a useful tool of the CCP, even adopting their talking points and framing it in the ways they do when they indoctrinate their own citizenry.

Your final argument sounds like a doctor complaining that the patients family won't like hearing the news that insurance won't cover cancer treatments no matter what tone they use. The content you are delivering is in support of cruelty and evil in the world, I'm protesting that you try packaging it in courtesy to disguise that fact.

I take objection to the polite tone because it is the kind that only a dispassionate academic could take when discussing the horrors that appeasement of the form of government you're advocating for will cause the citizens of those countries. You should seriously consider the real consequences of appeasement for people not as fortunate as you to live in the U.S. as you go about saying that we can't "prove" that a dictatorship which has suspended the rights to freedom of speech and elections doesn't have popular support.

You seem to frame this as me arguing in favor of the US, which makes it very easy for you to then rightly question the true objectives of the US and even the validity of its supposed moral authority.

I am simply discussing the validity of a government which has no individual liberty nor democratically elected leaders. This is unequivocally a tool for oppression and evil in the modern world. If you made friends who lived under communist regimes, and turned your abstract reasoning into concrete feelings, your feelings on this subject might change.

I don't think anyone else was confused by this, but I'll endeavour to clarify for you.

The allegory the writer of the article used is meant to reflect the same perspective of people in the modern day world and the rest of my comment pretty effortlessly transitions to discussing the limitations of those modern day peoples abilities to understand technical subjects.

The frustration refers to the task given of explaining tech to the willfully tech illiterate. The first few paragraphs I reference clearly move from the allegorical to the concrete modern day person whose perspective I refer to as frustrating. I also do offhandedly refer to the allegory to make a passing reference to the article and show that the allegorical character isn't that different from the modern day target audience of the author.

The rest of the article explores explaining crypto a frustratingly tech ignorant modern person. I think that context would be clear to anyone who even skimmed a good part of the article. You should consider reading the thing people are discussing before leaving a short derailing comment about it.

Your chatty, polite tone doesn't compensate for or conceal the fact that you're trying to provide justification for why a government that has suspended the democratic rights of its citizenry to choose its own government and their rights to freedom of expression isn't that bad.

What exactly is the aim of your litany of past comments in support of the CCP?

Am I to believe you just genuinely think democracy and individual liberties are not the preferred method of governance by most people around the world, and that you think the world is better off without them being campaigned for?

Under which form of government do you currently find yourself?

The opening paragraphs are very frustrating for a software developer to read, because it assumes a very technologically ignorant perspective that might beg similar questions like "What IS a website" and having the asker be annoyed by having you describe the features of a website. At the end of the day, it is a series of electrical on and off switches stored in one or several computers.

Is the value of websites indistinguishable from a bunch of batteries just because its form can't be meaningfully distinguished from a battery to a drunk 12th century techno illiterate in a tavern?

To explain what a bitcoin actually is to people utterly ignorant and skeptical of how information stored on hardware works sounds like an exercise that can be left to the writer, they may have to spend the rest or their lives explaining every bit of tech to every layman.

What is a book after all? Dead trees stained with ink? What intrinsic value does that hold? If someone were to ask stubbornly the value of any book, I'd be similarly disinclined to spend the time explaining that as well.

Like with TVs and cell phones and plumbing, lay people will stop asking or caring about "What is bitcoin" once you can give a functional answer of "You can buy a house with it". Explaining what it actually is to people that obtuse will not get one any closer to that point anyway, so I'm not sure what the value is.

The cycle for the next wave of technology whose final purpose and form baffles the general public will continue on and on, this is just a season we're in, like all the ones before.

If only there was a mechanism by which one could find out which leaders the people would like to be governed by.

As much as I loved it, Assassins Creed had a combat system like this.

The website the mod linked to is Mediabiasfactcheck.com

The article is from Inside Medicine published via Bulletin.com by author Jeremy Faust.

I can't find any of the above sources listed on the site provided. If we want to have a conversation about the mods decision and if it should give us pause, we'll first have to understand the reasoning (or verify if it's even credible) of the mod.

This is in fact exactly what happens in Texas. I've met many people who attended UT whose parents or friend's parents did exactly that for the explicit purpose of increasing their chances of their child being in the top 7% of their graduating class so that they could get automatic admission to UT Austin, a very good school to attend compared to the usual options for someone graduaitng #35 in a class of 500 from a public high school with low educational achievement rankings.

They'll often go straight for petroleum engineering if their career path is as calculated during college as it was in high school, and end up with a six figure salaxy at age 22 (not sure this still works as of 2020 given the problems with Houston's gas sector).

For some parents, making sure their child has a sure fire path to the middle class is what they consider their main responsibility, and will do things as crazy as move to a worse school district just to get them on the above track.

If you're as cynical about the value of education (to provide a "job") as the people described, you'll absolutely sacrifice the quality of your kids education (moving to a school with ostensibly less talented or credentialed teachers and possibly less academically gifted peers to learn from and larger class sizes) in order to game the system.