4,582 karma · joined June 14, 2012
It's not explicit in the article, but I would guess the USSR didn't have a strong enough coffee industry to be helping anymore.
Why should we? Yes, reading the comments, it seems like the IT (or maybe it's just the AI) community has taken up an attitude of simply believing our Dear Tech Leader's by their word. What happened?
> interactions being used to train Facebook's AI models
Yupp, the only "edge" Facebook could possibly have, is user data.
#define bug dogThose evil states!
Now look at what software they make. It speaks for itself.
And we do have all kinds of disasters, but the state not only effectively intervenes, but also supports the aftermath and reconstruction. In America there are some crazy examples of towns just being left straight out abandoned afterwards, because tehre's no such thing as government reconstruction support.
No, and with absolute certainty not because of the second houses or public servants. That's armchair economy talk from someone that got one predictable thing right once.
Look at Michael Burry (the 2008 bubbly guy, whatever his name is). He keeps screaming "bubble" every once in a while, never got anything right again.
Let go.
I agree that a stroke cannot isolate language exactly, it's not an ideal approximation of "languagelessness". I think you will find this report interesting: https://nautil.us/what-my-stroke-taught-me-236544
There is no doubt that many marvelous works and concept can be produced entirely without language. Something as complex as driving a car can be done mostly without "thinking about it", without language, without the inner monologue going over all the decision our mind is making.
What we can't do without language, is making a complex plan over time and space, beyond something like "need to fetch hidden item behind the corner to unlock box right in front of me now". The question is how much exactly does language "augment" our intelligence. Is a baby, a human that has not yet learned language, really smarter than an octopus? Or a crow, remarkably smart but interestingly not a mammal, which indicated that intelligence doesn't have to be strongly tied to some evolutionary biological feature. A human stays as "dumb" as an animal if they don't learn language.
Re: your theory, if true, why? The theory implies (though correct me if I'm wrong and strawmanning), that there is another, hidden, way of encoding these extremely complex "information bundles" for lack of another word, in our brains. Why not use that for metacognition too, then?
You narrated the ideas back. It's words and language. There is no hidden, unknown, layer of "thought".
Sounds like a consulting slaughterhouse. Picture Java Enterprise Solutions. As we all know, the pinnacle of software engineering.