422 karma · joined May 14, 2019
Sentience as in having some form of self-awareness, identity, personal goals, rankings of future outcomes and current states, a sense that things have "meaning" isn't part of the definition. Some argue that this lack of experience about what something feels like (I think this might be termed "qualia" but I'm not sure) is why artificial intelligence shouldn't be considered intelligence at all.
We are living in a historically excepcional time of geological, environmental, ecological stability. I think that saying that nothing ever happens is like standing downrange to a stream of projectiles and counting all the near misses as evidence for your future safety. It's a bold call to inaction.
The chaotic nature of a system is one thing.
Our lack of knowledge of the governing laws, initial conditions, feasibility of simulation forcing us to use the mathematical tools of probability (i.e. randomness) to describe our uncertainty about said system is another thing.
The reason why it matters is that a statement like "a double inverted pendulum behaves randomly" is just wrong as it would imply that you couldn't even do a simulation of one in theory without throwing some dice.
However, it is totally uncontroversial that if someone gave you a measured initial position and velocity of one with 'really good' precision and asked you to predict its state 5 seconds forward you would likely have a big smeared-out probability density function to deal with.
If you want a spiral that covers the sphere with evenly spaced samples, consider this approach.
it's not a bug - it's a feature :D
But let's take for granted that we are putting exponential scaling to good use in terms of compute resources. It looks like we are seeing sublinear performance improvements on actual benchmarks[1]. Either way it seems optimistic at best to conclude that 1000x more compute would yield even 10x better results in most domains.
[1]fig.1 AI performance relative to human baseline. (https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report)
Is there some theoretical substance or empirical evidence to suggest that the story doesn't just end here? Perhaps OpenBrain sees no significant gains over the previous iteration and implodes under the financial pressure of exorbitant compute costs. I'm not rooting for an AI winter 2.0 but I fail to understand how people seem sure of the outcome of experiments that have not even been performed yet. Help, am I missing something here?
Intel's RealSense cameras typically also have an active IR illumination component that projects texture onto otherwise featureless surfaces where stereo would not give any measurements.
There is also an onboard vision processor that computes the depth information and sends that to your host system. Compare this with Stereolabs zed cameras that require you to have a separate GPU, supporting CUDA, to compute the depth image stream. Oh, and there is also an inertial measurement unit thrown in, for high frequency inter-frame motion estimation. Useful for things like visual odometey, 3D mapping, etc.
Assuming you had the public IP of an actual user though, how would you link it to a person without asking the ISP?
If he can leave a bunch of computers in the past and there is a strong enough incentive to keep them running indefinitely... could he have software on those specific machines that will produce an output every so many years?
Would there be a plausible defense against the stewards of the machines being able to reproduce the computers state and fast-forwarding it on a faster computer?
Calibration in this context is essentially the task of finding the optimal parameters of some (usually nonlinear) function (u,v)=f(x,y) that remaps positions in the original image frame to a rectified frame, where all straight lines in the world appear straight in the image. Technically, a skewed and squashed image would also fulfill those requirements, too. But this is a customer-oriented blog post, to give someone enough of an understanding to convince them of the importance of calibration, it's not a rigorous technical paper, so I actually think it's fine to skip/simplify some details.
Gabbagabbahey
It's used by the (free) game "A Slower Speed of Light". http://gamelab.mit.edu/games/a-slower-speed-of-light/
You can read his art tutorial on his main page. But essentially, I think he strives to get a clean result (no scribbling to "find" the form) with as few brush strokes as possible, which takes a lot of practice. He's also does a lot of pencil drawing, obviously.