Google had less incentive. Their incentive was to keep API bottled up and in brewing as long as possible so their existing moats in search, YouTube can extend in other areas. With openai they are forced to compete or perish.
Even with gemini in lead, its only till they extinguish or make chatgpt unviable for openai as business. OpenAI may loose the talent war and cease to be leader in this domain against google (or Facebook) , but in longer term their incentive to break fresh aligns with average user requirements . With Chinese AI just behind, may be google/microsoft have no choice either
Have used pi hole for over 5 years and very happy with it. Most times I use it via phone to manage kids devices to block/unblock access etc and this also works quite well . Thank you very much
This is the answer I get : Yes, Paul Edwin Zimmer wrote a fourth novel in his Dark Border series titled Ingulf the Mad, published in 1989. This book focuses on the character Ingulf Mac Fingold, detailing his adventures and the origins of his mystical sword
When docs are prescribing to patients, they are mentally traversing through a decision tree to prescribe the best that fits the conditions. If the problem still persists, they may ask_questions/test more to find more branches to traverse.
For individuals, it's like being a node, where you cannot see anything above. It feels that what works for you, should work for all.
Will read through this. But have a quick question: Would it not be reasonable to guess that people having mental issues will have metabolic issues developed as later side effects. The reason is that mental issues puts a person in confused/lost state along with all the anxiety/feelings that it induces. This will causes them to neglect taking care of their body needs. Then that should trigger metabolic changes.
Factory farms will be looked back on with 10,000x more shame and horror than zoos. Zoos barely scratch the surface of the immense and unnecessary cruelty we inflict on animals. We torture 70 billion land animals to death every year and the poor things will never even understand why - they're just babies, mentally speaking.
It's objectively the greatest evil humans have ever committed, and for our own pleasure at that. We inflict pure hellish suffering because "tAsTe bUdS gO BRRR!"
It's hard to even comprehend something more comically, absurdly evil, both in terms of motive and sheer scale of suffering.
At least zoos do trigger an empathy response and get people to care about animals more.
False. 10-20% of the world population does not and we're just fine.
> So we need to kill animals for that.
No, you want to kill animals because you want tasty food. Not because you "need" meat. No one living in an industrialized country does. It's trivial to create a plant-based balanced diet (and a tasty one at that.)
> Zoos absolutely not required for humans to survive.
Neither are factory farms. They exist to satisfy "taste buds go brr." But that is not worth literally torturing[1] an animal to death.
I’m not sure that’s a fair statement to make categorically.
Many zoos provide homes, food, and veterinary care for animals that would not be able to survive in the wild. For example, the mountain lion at Arizona Sonora Desert Museum is blind, and many of their other animals had been kept illegally by their previous owners, were confiscated by Arizona Game & Fish, and needed a place to live so they wouldn’t die.
There is also the grim reality that most pets would run away and not come back if you were to open the "prison doors". Think of birds, reptiles, dogs etc.
Our interaction with other life on this planet is very human centric, some call this human supremacism. A line is drawn between us and other animals, and the justification is quite arbitrary in my opinion. A line that is used to justify a vast number of atrocities and systemic exploitation. I don't believe there is no meaningful difference between a human and a cricket. But between a human and a dog or pig? That's close enough that I'm willing to extrapolate.
My dogs that have escaped the yard go walkabout for a bit and then make their way home. My daughter's covid puppy has zero desire to be away from his human family- he's constantly looking for a human family member to hang out with and won't scamper away given the chance.
Now a bird/snake generally will be gone given the chance- but they truly are wild animals, while dogs are bred to be co-dependent with humans.
Indeed dogs have been genetically modified over millennia to the point many wouldn't even be able to survive in the wild, whether you think that justifies our actions is up to you.
In addition the chances they want to escape are smaller than for birds. I looked it up and found this source https://www.petlink.net/blog/chance-dogs-coming-back-run-awa... that says "The unfortunate reality is that 15% of dogs across the United States go missing.". For context that's not 15% of dogs want to leave and do so. What's the percentage of dogs that had the chance to leave? Let's say 50%, which would imply that given the chance 1 in 3 dogs left. Albeit not all of the because they disliked their home/prison.
Looking at the language used in that article exposes some mental gymnastics. They simultaneously state that dogs could find their way back if they wanted and compare it to loosing a child! No, the dog is not a child, and if the reasons you provide why they "go missing" are "Fear from loud noises, Easy escape routes, Boredom and Prey drive" I find it hard to ignore that these are adult conscious beings that may not want to live with us, and only do so when given no alternative.
> many wouldn't even be able to survive in the wild, whether you think that justifies our actions is up to you
I wouldn’t be able to survive in the wild.
Some dog breeding is nonsense. But for the most part, we adapted to each other. If you look at the most efficient land predators, it’s humans, cats and dogs. (Dogs are also the only fellow persistence hunting mammals and, apart from some lizards, the only animals to practice it period [1].)
Our domestication of herbivores is exploitative. Our domestication of dogs and acceptance of cats is far closer to an alliance.
> most pets would run away and not come back if you were to open the "prison doors"
This is not true of any pet I’ve had. The dog was always gunning for an open door. And the cat enjoys unsupervised time outdoors when weather permits. They both always came home.
Also, cats aren’t truly domesticated. If there is a creature that “chooses” to live with us, it’s cats.
Once had a cockatiel that escaped via a loose window, it flew around the neighbourhood for a few hours, then sat on a branch near the window waiting to be let back in.
The economic/social situation of people force them into these jobs. Just ignoring this and accepting it as reality is ridiculous. This can be said of any of such social behaviours. In some cultures, the violence on women is countered by the logic that they were wearing certain kind of dress and nobody is forcing them to do this etc ..
There are certain values in society that we should try to fight for. They may seem idealistic in current perspective, but nevertheless we should strive for them to make progress inch by inch. Brushing them off under the pretext of "nobody forced them" is not right.
Bullshit. You either take a job, or you don't. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody forced you to live where you do. Nobody forced you to choose a place to live that doesn't have opportunities. I've moved to half a dozen different states to get a better job, because I realized, like any reasonably decent person, that you can't expect others to improve your own situation. You need to take charge of your own life, and improve it, if you want to.
I get your point, but the fact that one way to improve working conditions is to take matters into your own hands doesn't mean that we should rule out the other course of action: pressuring companies to change.
I remember reading a story about a 19th century company that literally put chains on the doors to prevent workers from leaving the building. When a fire broke out, dozens died. Today we don't allow that type of behavior, and for good reason. The reason that you can move elsewhere to get a better job is because society has worked to ensure the prevalence of said good jobs, and I hope it continues to do so.
It max 5 years or even less, if the problem is in engineering the solution. But if the problem is in underlying maths in building Level 5, then surely its decades
One of the lessons of these first steps toward autonomous driving is: if you have a big array of sensors, and plenty of on board computing, then many driving problems, especially in semi controlled circumstances, like open highways, are within our grasp now.
The sensors and computing are expensive now - especially lidar. But that's an engineering problem, as you suggest.
No objection. But portions of commercial routes can be arranged to get around many of these edge cases.
I was trying to address the question raised by the comment above: is this a problem of principles or of engineering, by saying that for a big (proportion TBD) segment of routes, it's engineering. Put onboard a bunch of sensors and computer power.
Yes, but that is a hack of sorts, and if the volumes are low a very expensive one so likely this will not happen until there is a sizable fleet of vehicles that can take advantage of it. You'd expect those things to happen in lock-step.
The apples-to-apples comparison of automated driving to normal driving is that we have an existing road system and we want to use that for automated driving and normal driving and automated driving should meet or exceed normal driving if it is to be successful.
The ultimate adapted commercial route for transport is called a railway, any kind of re-arrangement of the road system in order to adapt it for better use for automated driving is going to be a 'first world only' affair, and probably only a very small subset of that first world.
So for the foreseeable future automated driving systems will have to cope with all of the eventualities, even if for some stretch of their workload they may find things a little easier because of special adaptations (which of course will have to be equally accommodating to human drivers, or at a minimum not hinder them).
People also do really poorly in edge cases. Don't forget self driving cars are going to quickly have billions of road miles worth of data.
There are plenty of videos of autonomous cars is highly chaotic road conditions, but that's all old hat. Weather is an issue, but weather is also forecastable. Even if you only get rid of truckers in areas stay above freezing that's still a massive change.
That's true but if they are simply different edge cases it might already be problematic.
And yes, the data will be there. But even if deep learning + lots of data is 'indistinguishable from magic' that does nothing to dispel the feeling of loss of control and every accident where regular drivers would think 'that would never happen to me' (see the Tesla one with the truck that got rammed) is going to make this a much harder battle.
So the question is: will the initial deployment of self driving vehicles be sufficiently impressive that any such errors will be forgiven?
I'm on the fence on this one, I have no idea where it will go but I'm kind of happy that this is happening now. I got to enjoy the 'drive yourself' period of driving in some of the best cars that were ever made and at the same time I'll probably be able to enjoy increased mobility due to some form of assisted driving much longer than what I would accept for myself as an autonomous driver.
It's not that much lower. In all the Lyft/Uber/Taxi rides I've taken, not once has the driver ever crashed or disengaged. Humans go around 100 million miles per fatality, if I recall correctly. The bar isn't perfection, I agree, but humanity is still a high hurdle (especially when we cost as little as $7/hr).
Last year, i saw the videos by 3Blue1Brown and inspired by it went on to read some of the standard text books like linear algebra application by Strang. I had seen the Strang videos earlier but somehow did not follow it through. This time however my perspective was changed. I was approaching the subject through the lens of intuition and simplicity. Wherever i found something challenging, i waited for the next day to again re-do it (because i know that this should not be that complex to understand or the understanding is wrong). And to my surprise, again and again, the difficulty was in my rigidness in understanding. The next day , or even later during the day, when my mind was fresh again, i can reason through the concept and get the intuition behind it.
Since then i have seen the Strang videos again and again. Beginning to end. Read the book chapter by chapter and exercises by exercise. And what a delight it had been. And then i jumped upon Joe Blitzstein's probability lectures. What a blast ! Is there a list of teachers like these there, who in the pretext of teaching algebra/probability etc are in reality wiring up our thinking process in ways immaterial to subject they are teaching. Many of us don't want the material to be too casual/layman terms (which hampers self understanding as its no challenging anything within us) and not too rigid (where we cannot break through the challenge).
This time however my perspective was changed. I was approaching the subject through the lens of intuition and simplicity...And to my surprise, again and again, the difficulty was in my rigidness in understanding.
Thank you for penning those words. I hope people realize the significance of what you just said.
Perspective is key. You could say it is the KEY -- the key insight into unlocking everything else. I had a similar experience in 2009, and once you have the epiphany -- once you experience the awe of a shift and recognize the implications -- it's like your mind becomes unshackled. You realize you have been blind, and you've just learned to see. And in that flash you gain a deep, visceral understanding of what Alan Kay means when he says, "A change in perspective is worth 80 IQ points," and "We can't learn to see until we admit we are blind."
> the difficulty was in my rigidness in understanding
At what point did you realize this? Like, could you provide a specific example of a topic you thought was hard at first but later came back to and realized was all about the intuition?
I was just reading Landau & Lifshitz' "Statistical Physics", and can reflect on a series of thoughts that may elaborate on how intuition plays a role in the enjoyment and understanding of complex material. I've been meaning to write it down anyway...
On page 3, the book says "A fundamental feature of this [closed system/open subsystem] approach is the fact that, because of the extreme complexity of the external interactions with the other parts of the system, during a sufficiently long time the subsystem considered will be many times in every possible state." When I first read this, I thought "non sequitur, but whatever, I'll continue..." Now, the context of this quote is that the authors are trying to explain why statistical methods work at all. And they said prior that we start with laws that apply to 'microscopic' particles and use statistics to generalize to 'macroscopic' systems.
However, the second time I read this, I kept thinking it must be backwards. We didn't understand the motion of (classical) protons before understanding the motion of macroscopic balls. So we had to have been operating under the assumption that the macroscopic laws must apply to microscopic objects, and then require that the must also be reproducible macroscopically through statistical methods. That is, we require that these laws be invariant across the microscopic-to-macroscopic transition. But to do that, we have to use a framework which expresses such a transition. So, for instance, if we are reasoning about the motion of a ball, we have to translate our laws into laws over the motion of some statistical model of the ball. Say, it's center of mass. And with this concept in hand, we could write laws that apply to both the macro and micro worlds, since a 'center of mass' is a macro-micro-scale-invariant abstraction. So we partition the space of all possible laws of nature, and chose to work only in that partition which encodes things we can actually know about nature -- the partition identified by the macro-micro-scale-invariant.
So re-reading that passage, it is now not a non-sequitur for me. Now it says "because the interactions with the outside world are so complex, we could not hope to predict their influence. Thus we are justified in using random variables to model their influence, and concepts that derive from the use of random variables to ensure we have complexity-scale invariance when we formulate our laws of physics." And this is not a non-sequitur to me. It follows directly from the meaning of the word "random." Of course statistical methods work when the complexity of a system is indistinguishable from randomness.
--
And this whole line of thought generalizes (albeit informally.) For instance, the meaning of words is an invariant across a long thread of contextual translations, and these invariants are used the same way: to partition the space of all possible meanings in such a way that one partition contains all of the 'knowledge' imbued by that word, and thus you can navigate a narrower space of meaning to find the intended and/or correct one. Gives me a certain brand of appreciation for good poetry.
Or -- my girlfriend -- who recently told me that she loved algebra but couldn't understand trigonometry. I tried telling her that the algebraic transformations were invariant-preserving operations selected because they conformed to known laws about 'functions' like addition and multiplication which have commutativity and identity laws, and that trigonometry was no different: different functions, but all of the algebraic transformations you needed were selected from the laws of trigonometry with the purpose of maintaining the exact same invariants. (Not that she cared much, to be honest...)
And on and on... I could probably talk for days about all the different ways every subject can be reduced to transformations and invariants and how they are used to solve problems.
> I could probably talk for days about all the different ways every subject can be reduced to transformations and invariants and how they are used to solve problems.
I find myself partial to this type of world view too. I believe it is part of the appeal of functional programming, at the basest level, to shape the programming model into transformations (functions) and invariants (state).
Thanks. Yes, that's the link. Joe is one of those teachers, who try to simplify the concepts while preserving the elegance of what is described. Kind of like minimalistic simplicity in teaching. While teaching, every time he would emphasise the intuition behind them. He avoids the complex formula's/algebra, calling them ugly ... and often presents one line proofs to them !!. After getting through the first few of lectures, you seem to get the underlying trend in his approach. That all the complexity is just hand waving over the the simplicity of underlying concepts. (Sometimes i think if the maths is complex to explain a phenomenon then we are not using the correct theory to explain it. But i am not a mathematician .... )
Even with gemini in lead, its only till they extinguish or make chatgpt unviable for openai as business. OpenAI may loose the talent war and cease to be leader in this domain against google (or Facebook) , but in longer term their incentive to break fresh aligns with average user requirements . With Chinese AI just behind, may be google/microsoft have no choice either