mbohu

Members
  • Content

    470
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6
  • Feedback

    N/A

Everything posted by mbohu

  1. That's probably true of this specific scenario, but there are less contrived ones and the program will be able to consider things like numbers of people, if they are in the car or not etc. (or the programmers will purposefully have to decide not to consider these things.) I've certainly had to make the veer off the road or crash into what's ahead of me decision at least once in my driving career. More importantly, decisions about success parameters are already effecting current algorithms being used in the field. For example, software designed to advise judges on sentencing guidelines is programmed to calculate rates of recidivism and is programmed to consider how close someone lives to other felons or ex-prisoners, which (mostly unintentionally) gives entire neighborhoods longer prison sentences, which then reinforces that people living in these areas are more likely to go to prison, increasing their sentences,...creating a feedback loop with unintended consequences, not because the algorithm gives incorrect results (or has some sort of evil intention) but simply because success parameters have been incorrectly or narrowly defined. I'm just saying that despite my enthusiasm for self-learning AI and the potential that I think it holds (not just for practical use but also for helping us humans to think in new and different ways), I am also aware of its potential for some big mess-ups. Still: if you play chess (or are much smarter than me, and are even semi-decent at Go), check out Alpha Zero. It's fascinating.
  2. The interesting thing here is, that the problem would have been in programming a too narrow set of goals: "eliminate all threats"--that's why this may be the biggest challenge in terms of self-driving cars: How do you define a successful solution, especially when only less than ideal choices are available? (veer into the old woman on the left, the mother and child on the right, or smash into the wall ahead, killing all passengers) As with any technology, there are dangers and there are some real doozies with AI, many of them related to how we subconsciously program our prejudices into the system--and the systems realize them with greater efficiency than we ever could. ...but the red-eyed, self-aware terminator image is not one of the most realistic ones.
  3. That is a complete misunderstanding. It used to be mostly true when I studied AI as part of my computer science program at the Technical University in Vienna in the 80s (admittedly, I never finished, so I am not professionally involved in the field): Back then most "AI" were so called expert systems. They were basically programmed with all the human knowledge we could gather about a topic and then created decision trees that led them down the path of most likely solutions. This is not the case at all with current self-learning systems. The most extreme of them have no human knowledge programmed into them whatsoever. Again, one of the best examples are the 2 best available chess computers at the time--both, far exceeding human capabilities in the game but for very different reasons: Stockfish: This is (more or less) the human-programmed "expert system". It has the sum of all human knowledge of chess programmed into itself. The reason it beats humans at the game is because it can compute so many more moves ahead than any human possibly could (about 70 million moves per second on a powerful computer); This type of program, of course benefits tremendously from higher computing power, so runs much better on a super-computer than my laptop. It calculates up to 70million! moves per second Alpha Zero: This is a true modern, self-learning AI: It has no human knowledge about chess programmed into it WHATSOEVER. It has 2 components: 1. a self-learning neural network algorithm, 2. an evaluation engine that evaluates positions based on likelihood of winning (gained by experience. All its ability in the game comes entirely from having learned through experience (by playing millions of games--initially against itself.) AlphaZero (while running on special hardware designed for it) calculates only 80,000 moves per second (almost 1,000 times less that stockfish!) and therefore does generally not benefit from more hardware like stockfish does. So, more computing power is not essential for these kinds of programs! Whatever knowledge such a system has, is exactly NOT programmed in by humans. In fact, humans usually have no idea why an AI like this makes the decisions it does--and usually the AI cannot tell them. There is an AI that diagnoses the likelihood of skin cancer based on images of the skin, and it has much better results than the best oncologists and dermatologists--and they cannot tell what exactly the AI is seeing in the images that allows it to come up with that level of accuracy. Of course, it is not "replacing humans", except in the way the tractor was "replacing humans" for some aspects of field work. It's weird: We just seem to get a bit touchy when the word "intelligence" is being used.--like at this point in history, we have gotten used to having machines do physical work, maybe even to the idea that they are better at "raw calculation", but "intelligence"...that is our domain! To come back to self-driving cars: It would be interesting if a similar approach could be used in designing algorithms for self-driving cars. Instead of trying to program decision-trees into the software based on human experience, one approach would be to install the same sensors and cameras that an eventual self-driving car would use, into millions of human-driven cars and then to send the data to the learning algorithm and simply let it learn from the results of the human decisions. After billions of decisions and outcomes, the algorithm should be able to learn, without humans needing to program it. Of course, one challenge is that it is much harder to define successful outcomes as simply as for chess, or even skin-cancer detection. But self-driving cars still have relatively simple success-parameters, so they may be an area where such self-learning neural networks can eventually be employed relatively easily and successfully.
  4. MOST sophisticated? Well, yes and no: Heard of Alpha Zero? After Deep Mind had created Alpha Go, the first AI that was able to beat a human master in the game of GO (thought to be orders of magnitude more complex than chess), they set out to create a more general AI that would be able to learn any 2-player strategy game. They created Alpha Zero. Then they had it play chess, and the only thing that they programmed into it, were the rules of chess--no strategy, no openings, NOTHING. Then they allowed it to learn chess by playing games against itself and learning from its mistakes and successes--starting out by playing completely random moves. The AI took all of 4 hours(!!!--albeit playing on a few super computers in parallel) to teach itself chess on a level where it could beat the previously best chess playing algorythm (stockfish), which itself long had exceeded any human chess master's ability in the game. The fascinating thing is that AlphaZero is playing in a completely different style than all other chess algorithms. It computes far fewer moves but plays an extremely creative, attacking style of chess that humans are now starting to analyze and that is confusing all other, traditional chess engines. (they also taught it Go and Japanese Chess, with similar success, but it took a few days before it could beat Alpha Go at the game of Go) So: 4 hours of learning; from nothing (therefore the name: alpha ZERO) to worlds best chess playing entity...not a bad learning machine in itself. It may be able to learn how to drive.
  5. ...and that is exactly what I hear, when someone writes "praying for you." It's just a different way of saying exactly the same thing. And to them, I'm sure it is absolutely honest. "Praying" may mean that they actually include the person in their formal evening prayer, and they may actually use words--but it may also simply mean to them, that at the moment they are writing this, they are sending a quick thought or intention into the "ether" (or to whatever being they imagine receives such things) Sorry you grew up with hypocrisy, but in this case you are projecting your past pain onto something that isn't necessarily the same or even related.
  6. Oh man! Seriously? Here are some suggested simple responses: "I am praying for you" "I'm sending good vibes" Response: "Thank You!" "Happy Holidays!", "Merry Christmas!" "Happy Hanukkah!" Response: "Thank You!" or repeat what the other one said. and why shouldn't you feel good about yourself? It's more likely an expression of the fact that the person did feel some empathy and at the same time did not feel very empowered to do much about the situation. What are you? Catholic? Guilt shouldn't be absolved so easily? They need to donate some money? Or chant 50 hail mary's ? Now yes, if the person posting, asked for specific help, maybe it's a bit of a cop-out (depending on the other person's relationship with them), but so is not responding at all. How much money did you send?
  7. I seem to be dense today: I still don't get it. How do we have equal treatment for ALL now? Universal healthcare also does not promise equal treatment for all. It does not change ANYTHING whatsoever about the medical infrastructure. It just guarantees that everyone CAN get treatment without regard to financial issues or pre-existing conditions, etc. But it does not move doctors nearer to you. It does not change anything about that.
  8. But again, how is this different from now? How is it related to universal healthcare? Let's say, I live in a rural area that does not have a lot of hospitals and doctors available (I think that's what you mean, right?) and I have to pay a private insurance company a lot of money (from what I know it would be MORE than in densely populated areas, because there is also no competition of different available insurers) and then I can't get fast enough to a hospital--HOW is that any better than if I am part of the universal healthcare system and pay slightly less (through taxes) and STILL can't get to a hospital near me? This seems to be a completely different issue. If it is an issue that sparsely populated areas don't have enough medical services available, then yes: we should think about solutions about that issue too, but it has nothing to do with universal healthcare. In either situation I have the same problem. Or do you mean, that right now, if I live in such an area, I have the option of simply saying: "screw it! I won't get to a hospital in time anyway, so I may as well not get insurance at all. I'll die a lonely painful death, but at least I don't have to pay a monthly premium?" That is the only "advantage" I can think of in that regard, but that really isn't much of one, is it?
  9. Austria, Germany, France. Admittedly I only personally participated in the health system in Austria, as I did not live long enough in the other countries to need it, but family members live there and I could watch how the system worked for them. While I am not certain exactly why a larger area would pose particular challenges that a smaller area would not (particularly challenges that are unique to single-payer healthcare and would not apply to the current system) I am certain that the US will have some unique challenges over other countries, not the least the challenge of changing from one system to a completely different one. There is much that could be argued about HOW to get there...but the argument that a single-payer universal healthcare system would cost (the individual) more than the current system, just doesn't seem to hold any water. It ignores the fact that the opposite is true in pretty much every place that has universal healthcare. By the way: When you say "building an infrastructure", what are you referring to? Do you mean hospitals, etc.? There really seems to be some misunderstanding in the US, that universal healthcare means that the government provides the actual healthcare, or that there will be government hospitals built (maybe analogous to the VA system?), etc. That is not the case. Healthcare is provided by the same people and institutions that provide it now. The infrastructure exists now. If it is insufficient, it is so now, and that would have nothing to do with universal healthcare. None of the countries I lived in, actually had the healthcare provided by government institutions. The government simply handles the collection of insurance payments (via taxes) and uses its bargaining power to ensure fair prices. The only infrastructure that is needed is the ability to collect the payments, and that infrastructure already exists (in the form of the IRS) Or do you mean something else by that?
  10. I have lived in 3 different countries that have absolutely no problem affording this -- this is simply not a valid argument. In every single case it is MUCH cheaper for individuals to afford healthcare, even if you include increases in taxes. I do not understand how this argument can still be made, unless you simply ignore data from pretty much every country that has universal healthcare. Yes: Of course, it increases the federal budget, if you now include healthcare in the federal budget and before it wasn't -- but that has nothing to do with how much individuals pay: If you pay $800/month on insurance now, with a $8000 deductible, you pay between $9600 and $ 17600 per year on healthcare before you get ANY services from your insurance company. If instead, you pay $5000 more in taxes, you come out ahead by $4600 to $12,600...and that doesn't even consider the improvement in accessibility of healthcare, because you can go to ANY doctor or specialist you want, because there simply is no such thing as "out of network." How is that hard to understand?
  11. I am no climate scientist and read about "radiative forcing" only after seeing your graph, but it seems that this is a measure of how much energy is absorbed versus radiated in the upper atmosphere. Since the measurement is in an absolute term (W/m2) and the amount of energy radiated towards earth is limited (i.e. the output of the sun), it seems to me that the logarithmic nature of the graph is built in to that way of measuring (there is a limit to the energy and the graph goes towards that limit.) If the Y axis was instead expressed in PERCENTAGE of absorbed/radiated energy it is likely the relationship would be linear or exponential.
  12. The graph does not show "warming" in degrees or any other such measure. The Y axis shows amount of radiative forcing reduction in W/m2. It also is simply based on a formula (provided above the graph) rather than measured data--as far as I can tell (therefore the perfect logarithmic curve)--so it's based on a model. So: You know the relationship between the rate of radiative forcing as measured in W/m2 and the warming effect (in degrees?). You would need to know that in order to make sense of the logarithmic nature of this particular graph and how that applies to "warming". And to then determine the effect on humans you'd also have to know the relationship between warming of the planet in degrees and life conditions for humans (measured in average lifespan, economic cost, reproductive rate, or any number of other measures). That relationship is obviously not linear, it may be linear or exponential up to a limit and then simply goes to zero (or infinity, depending on the measure.--meaning: zero lifespan, or infinite cost)
  13. I do need to point out that it was you, who brought up Trump in the original post mentioning Avenatti: The following comment about Trump seemed to refer to your mentioning of him. You set up the comparison. It wouldn't have been necessary. You could have simply posted the link without mentioning Trump and it's likely no one else would have brought him into the discussion in regards to this.--just answering your "WHY?" question.
  14. This is coming from your own statements: Jim petitioned the USPA. Jim is a member. Ergo: A Member petitioned the USPA. I also assume that he is not the only one behind that effort. In terms of the "many, many other ways"; Jim is extremely active in the sport. I personally benefit from his organizing and coaching; he seems to be involved in many bigger events and jump organizing (example: https://uspa.org/p/Article/the-warm-embrace-of-thailand ), and as far as I know he is an S&TA. Again, I'm just saying: Obviously some members are into the funding of the museum (even in the way it's currently done), including the ones that asked the USPA to donate. To say NO ONE is, is just not matching up with reality. It seems to me that some are strongly supporting it, some (like you) are strongly opposed, and most are probably ambivalent (like betzilla).
  15. You wrote: Clearly, the request for funding did come from members--probably very active members (in terms of petitioning the USPA and communicating with it--and in Jim's case in many, many other ways). So they DID listen to members. Members DID know about this. I assume the USPA thought that a majority--or at least a significant portion of members--would be on board with this. These members just don't happen to agree with you. I'm not saying you don't have any valid points, but you seem to assume all members agree with you, and clearly they don't. The suggestions about collecting signatures and bringing up a motion at a BOD meeting really seem to be the best way to find out how many agree with you and to get something moving on an issue you care so much about.
  16. So McCormick and others who champion this project aren't USPA members?
  17. mbohu

    Q

    Nice explanation. And I would just add that the entire purpose of the Q posts is not just to make predictions (as in Nostradamus' case) BUT to push a certain political agenda and stoke strong emotions into a very specific direction. So, in addition to being vague and non-sensical, they have to include certain keywords or phrases that have emotional meaning, while not tying them down to any specifics. So there will be lots of "Hillary" and "the Media" and "Kabal" and "child pornography" (what better topic to stir the emotions?) and, of course referring to Obama as "Hussein"--an absolute classic: Makes your blood boil by just seeing the name--if you are of the right persuasion. Everything else after that just HAS to be true, since at that point your frontal lobe has shut down and the limbic system is in overdrive.
  18. mbohu

    Q

    Well, it does say "Logical Thinking." right there at the end, so that clearly makes it logical--just in case we weren't sure.
  19. Yes, but do you actually believe that Trump really ever meant to want to drain the swamp (meaning get rid of people who want to use their political power for their own gain--and not just get rid of the ones who weren't adding to HIS gain?) I know: It's easy to say that these 2 are equivalent and there is no way to prove they are not (by just looking at the statements)...but do you actually BELIEVE they are? Maybe you do. It shows that in the end most politics is much more about tribal feelings than anything else. To me, Obama makes sense and seems reasonable. He is a politician, and of course I don't know him personally, so I can't say for sure, but it is extremely easy for me to believe that he WANTED to be transparent and then found the pressures and repercussions just too heavy, and so he wasn't able to be completely transparent. With Trump, I just cannot possibly imagine that he ever wanted to remove corruption from the system, when everything he does and says seems to be geared only towards his own personal benefit--and he doesn't even in the least try to hide this. Again, you may see this differently, but it's hard for me to see HOW. You really believe that Trump wanted to get rid of corruption and personal enrichment in government officials (including himself?) The guy really makes sense to you?
  20. mbohu

    Q

    So: "Did Muller open the door to Ukraine" Meaning: The Ukraine investigation? Meaning: To Ukraine influencing American Politics? To someone specific in the Ukraine? Open the door to WHAT??? The most logical interpretation would be "to the Ukraine investigation", but if that is meant, then what would the problem be? The Muller investigation opened the door to dozens of side investigations, many of which resulted in very real and valid convictions. It's very common that one investigation opens the door for others--in any area of law. If something else is meant, WHAT specifically? Again, I think the words "Muller" and "Ukraine" are just there--connected with no particular meaningful words in between--to elicit certain emotional reactions that are already pre-programmed in the people that this is meant for. (had to look up "leetspeak" yes, that fits somewhat. Also, what is the meaning of the brackets? The traditional meaning would be that the rest of the text is a quote and the bracketed terms are added by an editor to make the quote more understandable--but that clearly isn't the case here.)
  21. Hmmm, yes. I am sure every single president has had intentions that he could not actually achieve in the end. The entire system is so intractable that I would be hugely surprised if that wasn't the case (in many ways that is a bad thing and in some ways that's a good thing...checks and balances and all that) BUT: Wouldn't you agree that, for example, there is a huge difference between many of these, for example: Obama wanting to close GITMO and then being unable to do so (possibly because of political backlash and resistance, but possibly also because of finding out much more about the complexity and issues involved in actually doing so, once he got all the information when he was in office) VERSUS Trump saying he will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it (when there is--in my mind...do you disagree on that?--just no way he actually really meant this, and was simply using it to get people hyped up) and then of course not even making any serious attempt to actually deliver on that (what possible attempt COULD he even have made?) I know that is just one example, but there are quite a few along these lines. Are you really saying you do not see a difference in those?
  22. mbohu

    Q

    I'm impressed that you can even make sense of any of this. I don't even know what any of it means, so there is nothing to debunk. It reminds me of listening to some televangelists: Not a single sentence actually means anything. They simply throw some words and phrases around that seem to trigger certain emotions and images in their follower's minds. It seems like a programming language for certain minds. Can anyone explain in plain terms what this means, for example (just picking any random lines): "Sometimes allowing your enemies to [openly] attack... ... ... Logical Thinking." Huh???? Say this to your wife 3 times and ask her if she has any idea what you just said.
  23. There were 2 others in the Iowa primary. They got 1.1% and 1.3% respectively. Trump got 97.1% New Hampshire is projected to look essentially the same.
  24. I know...quoting yourself must be bad form, but it looks like someone else noticed the same argument as I did: (for those on the pro-trump side who probably can't stand to watch more than 3 seconds of Colbert, I cut the link straight to Trump's Lawyer's argument--it's really worth watching that kind of a mind-bender!)