Saying that your costs are lower is meaningless unless you also state the levels of coverage you'd get from each.
640 karma · joined August 20, 2009
This is a pretty broad statement, how do you justify the implicit claim that no psychiatric illness is due to a chemical imbalance in your brain rather than a deep seated psychological issue?
You'd have to make the tax low enough to still retain a significant benefit for the company, but high enough to aid in providing a social safety net. You'd also have to ensure that it's hard to get around this legislation without making it so broadly applicable that AI research and development are penalized.
> That's what happens when you use a measurement-driven, reductionist approach to perception. You value what you measure, whether or not what you measure explains what you observe.
This is just silly. Your observations themselves are measurements, and reductionism done properly should end up systematizing those measurements. Even for subjective qualities, you can measure peoples responses (e.g. how "warm" is this sound, which of these two sounds more "energetic") and (to the extent that those responses are nonrandom) search for relationships to measured quantities.
> And Modernist Cuisine falls into the usual failings of western reductionism - if we can't measure it, it doesn't exist. That's nonsense.
1. I keep seeing this without explanation, what about reductionism is particularly Western? Or is there some brand of reductionism that is distinctly Western versus one that is Eastern?
2. As far as "if we can't measure it it doesn't exist", to the extent that this is the stance of reductionism it's only insofar as measure includes "perceive the effects of". Warmth in music? Counts as a measurement. Roundness of flavor? Counts as a measurement. The goal of reductionism is simply to reduce these to simpler measurements of physical quantities and relationships thereof.
3. If you can't reduce the measurement to something based in physical quantities then either a) we humans consistently perceive it (e.g. in blind taste tests) and your physical quantities or possible relationships are lacking or b) we humans do not consistently perceive it and it's either a poorly defined quality (each person comes up with their own definition based on what it seems to them that it should describe) or it's just a randomly applied label picked up by social instinct. (Critics describe the same wine with different qualities based on the label it was served to them with [1]). Now, that's the nonsense.
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/io9.gizmodo.com/wine-tasting-is-b...
I don't agree that this is true in any way that precludes the creation of "true, autonomous AI". We may not understand the specific mechanisms of how our brains give rise to creativity and the resulting "implementation artifacts", but the fundamental part of creativity (and I'd argue, the part that's relevant to AI) is the ability to efficiently search huge but structured hypothesis spaces and inductively learn new structure (very likely with some stochastic element involved).
That is something that we not only have an understanding of, but have implemented, more than once. By way of examples:
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2006-04/john-koza-has-... http://aliciapatterson.org/stories/eurisko-computer-mind-its... https://psmag.com/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-620e5aead47...
1. The author's claim about "the politics of who gets to be a part of the mathematical elite" has almost nothing to do with the contention that "math is everywhere".
2. Math is everywhere. I make this claim by virtue of the facts that (1) you can, in any situation, ask questions like "how many?", "how much?", and "which one?" (which leads to encodings) and (2) Math is just our ordinary processes of reasoning, made rigorous and mechanized. Whether you're looking at someone's face, walking through the zoo, or cooking, there are underlying mathematical realities to be considered, if you're interested.
3. The author writes, "When we talk about math in public policy, especially the public’s investment in mathematical training and research, we are not talking about simple sums and measures." Except that, sums and measures and similar basic arithmetic are extremely relevant to making policy. When we talk about % growth targets, or inflation, or social security, back of the envelope arithmetic is just what you need to get an idea of what a policy actually does, or what it's results have been.
4. Examples in this article are cherry-picked and without supporting context: "Priests used astronomical calculations to mark the seasons and interpret divine will, and their special command of mathematics gave them power and privilege in their societies" But this is only true if mathematical prowess (rather than say, winning a lottery or being supposedly divinely annointed) was the key to joining the priesthood. Once accepted as a priest, what difference would it make whether you gave mathematically correct, or entirely nonsensical predictions to a crowd?
5. As another commenter writes "Mathematics is one of the most open fields of [S]cience". This is spot on. Existing free resources are really fantastic, and while you can make a completely valid point that not all children are given the relevant fundamental education to allow them to take advantage of that, the same argument applies to any field of education -- down to and including basic literacy. It makes no sense to lay the blame for this on mathematics.
tl;dr: This article is a giant non-sequitur, chock-full of poor reasoning.
The Bill of Rights, which is law, doesn't talk about "all men" (neither does the Constitution) but says things like "Congress shall make no law..." or "No warrant shall issue...", and says nothing about " all men".
In the case of terrorism executions specifically the justification given is that they are an act of war.
If you stop thinking about the valuation being the price of the company, and instead being the price of a financial product which includes shares AND these protection mechanisms (e.g. liquidity preferences) do these valuations still seem irrational?
Also, as I understand it, Berkshire gets to implement management changes (if it deems them necessary) as it wishes, since it owns whole companies, and so the improvements they see could also come from better management of a business rather than picking better businesses. So arguments about average or above average stock picking ability seem less relevant here. (It could well be that Buffett has average management-picking ability, but is one of a relatively small number of market participants who both can and do exercise it, thereby getting an outsize result.)
Can you plug them into a wall socket or do you need electrified rails?
Why would an intelligence built by humans not be able to be superhuman? The generally accepted definition seems to be "having better than human performance" in which case it seems we've done it many times (like with calculators).
Could you go into more detail about this? I'd love to know how to build a lab on the cheap. Can you get genetic material for bacterial transformation within a K-12 budget as well?
2. Who you date is an extremely personal matter, you should be able to set whatever standard you want.
Looking for up to three freelancers:
One with Android/Java experience, to help me take a prototype Android app to market readiness. The work is a mix of refactoring (cleaning up code, extracting some hardcoded functionality into a general and reusable set of classes) and implementing new features.
One with NLP experience, to help build out information extraction models. You're a good fit if you understand what a CRF is and how you might it.
A UX designer with experience on mobile and an understanding of both the aesthetics and the usability constraints involved, to revamp the look of my app.
Contact me for details: hnfl@silverfiresoftware.com
This is an article from a private news source about work done by academics at a private university, saying that the parchment MAY predate the accepted dates of Islam's founding. How do you get from that to military scholarship and an attack on Islam?
It's perfectly possible (leaving aside the deficiencies in the radiocarbon dating) to believe that the accepted dates are incorrect without condemning Islam in any way. People frequently discuss errors in the histories of other religions (e.g. the Old Testament has god giving an incorrect value of Pi) without condemning their followers in any way.
tl;dr: "undermine the historicity of Islam" != "condemning an entire religion"
If you'd like to see solid CS education become widespread, you should absolutely support CSTUY.
How do you know?