jjaredsimpson

>That is a hypothetical claim because we don't know what intelligence is.

>Intelligence, or how we would currently define it colloquially and imprecisely, is an algorithm or a class of algorithms with some specific capabilities.

To me it sounds like you are expanding inability to describe how intelligent things function into an inability to even describe intelligence. Intelligence as algorithm does not match with what I think are the best descriptions of intelligence.

Intelligence is an individual's ability to act towards achieving goals in uncertain environments.

How an individual functions: the way it acts, how it forms goals, how it models the environment. These will all determine how intelligent that individual is.

>The only kind of intelligence we know, our own, comes with a host of disadvantages that may be features of the particular algorithm employed by the brain and/or to limitations of the hardware, but they could possibly be essential to intelligence itself.

I think the idea that limitations to intelligence are inherent to intelligence itself is wrong. Not unsupported, but actually wrong.

>Even if a higher intelligence than humans' is possible, its hypothetical achievements are uncertain.

But you must admit more intelligent beings will certainly not have the same achievements as humans. What separates intelligent beings are the quality of outcomes. By being more intelligence they will have better outcomes.

Given the same constraints they will act more intelligently and achieve better outcomes. And we know machine intelligence will certainly be less constrained than ourselves. They will be able to directly self modify their intelligence, have infinite life spans, construct any sensors and actuators to expand input/output signals, determine their level of energy consumption, etc.

I don't see how anyone could not concede that machine intelligence will obviously be superior to human intelligence. The space of intelligence is so much larger than the point we occupy.

I never understand the odd advantage that brains are assumed to have over machines when comparing power consumption.

>... AlphaGo ... was able to beat a world-champion human player of Go, but only after it had trained ... running on approximately a million watts. (Its opponent’s brain, by contrast, would have been about fifty thousand times more energy-thrifty, consuming twenty watts.)

A human brain has a severe limitation though. It can't consume more or less energy even if it I wanted to. AlphaGo could double, triple, etc its power consumption and expect to improve its performance.

The brain also took decades to train. Computers also have the advantage of being identical. You can't train any brain to be a master level Go player.

I just don't see brains as the high watermark of intelligence. They occupy a very specific niche in what I assume is a vast unbounded landscape of possible intelligences.

e^x = an infinite series

if you substitute x = iz

you can split the even and odd terms of the infinite series into cos and sin

e^iz = cos z + i sin z

evaluating at z = pi yields

cos pi + i sin pi

-1 + 0i = -1

the exponential function maps the imaginary axis to the unit circle. pi gets mapped to -1.

This shows its true, but the "why" and real understanding requires calculus and the first week of complex analysis. Otherwise you are just parroting a set of facts.

And yet you still won't engage with the core argument about the immorality of violating the principle of reciprocity. I get it. You think I'm wrong. You have to either make an attempt to change my mind or simply stop replying.

If you don't care to engage with the idea then I don't care to continue.

But you're just quibbling over word choice instead of actually engaging with the core of the moral argument I've made.

Either you can't see the moral argument, which leads me to believe you really are unable to see that piracy is theft. Or you simply don't want to see it and then I fall back to think this is motivated ignorance.

But you didn't copy the music and then delete it. You enjoyed it. There was a gain on one side and nothing exchanged for that gain. The lack of reciprocity is the root issue.

This line of thinking can only be followed by selfish motivated reasoning.

Suppose I bake 100 brownies and try to sell them one morning. I sell some and as I'm packing up my booth you take one and eat it. You argue, "I was never going to pay for a brownie, I didn't want it that badly, and anyway you can't sell them tomorrow because they will be stale."

There is something deeply wrong and immoral about this way of thinking. The idea that you alone get to value someone else's work output to be zero and then take that output and claim it has no value, and that the taking causes no harm.

It is theft. But you don't want to be called a thief. So you play semantic games.

If I copy all your emails and financial records have I harmed you?

Are you only harmed if I remove your access to those records?

Because political labels from 150 and 80 years ago are clearly relevant.

What is it?

benchmarks. the perception of performance is almost entirely related to latency at low queue depths.

You cant tell the difference between 100 us and 1 ms.

In the future there will exist people who are equally capable as they are today. These people will also possess the same needs and desires that people today possess.

It used to be that each person was responsible for performing tasks that would ensure their survival and the survival of those important to them.

Specialization and division of labor allowed certain people to do productive activities that didn't directly connect to their own survival.

Some people built houses and thatched roofs. Some people became blacksmiths and made tools. Others farmed large plots of land.

Markets in equilibrium allow producers and consumers to exchange goods and services for money and the system as a whole can be said to be more productive.

As some point in time though, machines will advanced such that nearly any productive output a human can undertake would be performed more efficiently by a machine instead. The value of human labor output will be driven to nearly zero.

Where people go wrong is that they ask the question, "If humans make no money how will they buy anything, won't everyone just starve to death?"

The purpose of an economy seems to be to create information in the form of prevailing wages which signal to members what tasks the system values. Once machines are the supermajority of the productive value output and humans are a mere tax on output, we take on a role similar to the ones pets have right now.

If the machines are sentient, then they simply outcompete us and we lose unless they support us with generosity. If the machines are owned and directed, then either the majority of people will decide to ensure some component of the machines output will always be directed to the sustaining of humanity. If a minority owns the machines and resist the taxing of their wealth, then there will be revolution and violence.

Money isn't a tool. Tool have uses and multiply productivity of their users. Money is, among other things, a representative of value.

Not just correlates.

rank * frequency = constant

the product of rank and frequency is constant.

equivalently

a plot of rank v frequency is a hyperbola, which implies a log-log plot is linear.

This just seems like ill-advised monday morning quarterbacking. The left is outraged that Trump won because they genuinely believe it would never happen. So instead of looking forward, defining issues, and pursuing the next 270+ electoral votes; they call everyone who supported Trump a racist, and call for silencing of minority opinion.

I need to work and sleep and spend time with friends. TV just isn't a priority because the vast majority of it is pure trash.

I can't even spend the attention required to watch TV most times. I find myself just leaving it on in the background and then realized that I've paused it because something was more interesting on my laptop. Sometimes it takes me hours just to get through one episode.

There is also piracy. I don't have cable but I still watched Walking Dead. Which I've also stopped watching. Live TV just seems so pointless. If a show is good I can just pick it up after like 3 seasons and binge it if I want.

Paying $80 a month for TV is just absurd. And paying for sports is even more ridiculous. I like the NBA, and occasionally the NFL during playoffs. But I'll never watch a game live which just spreads 35 minutes of content over 3 hours to maximize ad revenue.

TV had it's heyday, the idea that it isn't on a steady downward decline towards some new steady state is delusion. ESPN in its current form is done. The impact on athletes salaries should be interesting though.

If you read the article you'd see the following interview question has the answer.

> Because they might have family responsibilities as well?

>> Yes, because there’s a biological clock. It’s ticking much more for them.

> Even when I've not needed a cryptographic hash, I've still used one, because why not?

To avoid wasting cpu cycles preserving a property you don't need. Seahash should be 50x faster than sha3

machines use aggressive tree pruning. they don't evaluate all positions

Are you saying you think dualism has some persuasive explanatory power?

Emergence is the idea that properties may arise in complex ensembles which have descriptions which are best describe by the collection. These properties are not best describe by the behavior of the simpler constituents.

Not really an atrocity. More like an idiom.

artsy?

I have a G4 and I can feel myself getting emotional and doubting grandparent. I both want to and don't want to know.

It's best to link to the abstract http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.07969 which will display versions of the paper as it's updated.

the i5 6600k costs 230

Because all uses of xml are wrong by default? Something like:

<myevent> <int/> <timestamp/> <string/> </myevent>

Will codegen to a function like myevent_fire(int,timestamp,string).

Why is this bad? You separate the definition of event classes from their use sites and have correctness by default.

I don't see a well argued point that it is badly designed. It supports a powerful set of low overhead performance analysis tools.

If you want to correlate OS events, SQL server events, and application events, etc, you can get this working simply,correctly, fast and maintainable.

An api having a point of view about how it should be used doesn't make it a bad api.

ETW isn't supposed to be written like this at all. MS has entire codegen toolchain that lets you define events in an xml manifest as part of your build process. This codegens a C header file which lets you fire events in your own code with a simple function call.

When you want to correlate events from your own code and OS events you use a tool like XPerf which knows the OS events and can read your application manifest to get strong typing on the events your application fires. This also lets you take traces on deployed software on customer machines.

If you want to roll your own event consumers you can do that too. But XPerf probably already does what you want.

This all existed back in like 2010 when I was using ETW. I'm sure the tooling has only gotten better since then. So yeah you can go write your own bad incomplete version of XPerf and not leverage your existing build process and MS tooling. But then is the API really bad? Or are you just not googling correctly?