For the U.S. economy, productivity is defined as (output measured in $)/(input measured in $). Typically, new technologies (computers, internet, AI) reduce input costs, and due to competition in the market, companies are required to reduce their prices, thereby having an overall deflationary effect on the economy. It's entirely possible that AI will have a small or no effect on productivity as measured above, but society will benefit by getting access to inexpensive products and services powered by inexpensive AI. Individual companies won't use AI to improve their productivity but will need to use AI just to stay competitive.
As far as I know, the "single particle" referred to here is not a "classical particle" like a ball. It's a "quantum object" that, depending on how you look at it, behaves like a wave or an object. Definitely spooky!
Cool tool! I often play odd time signatures, e.g. I'm trying to program the drums for Rondo ala turk by Dave Brubeck (repeating 2-2-2-3 pattern). Can you tell me how I can do that?
Man, this was hard to read. Irrespective of what actually happened, this found-guilty-by-popular-opinion mentality is a corrosive evil, and it's been worsened by social media. Hard to believe that this community just ignored "innocent until proven guilty" so casually.
I used to naively believe that people are generally good. I still believe that but with a major qualifier. There are some truly toxic people out there who are seriously mentally fucked up and don't hesitate to screw with others' lives. They seem normal and nice at first, but if you look closely enough, you see the trail they have left behind.
I think one of the reasons communities like Scala's are susceptible to this pattern is that they have some characteristics of a movement and compete for attention with other movements, so there's a knee-jerk response to protect the movement and all the effort put into it from being associated with bad stuff. Most signatories to this letter were likely erring on the side of protecting their community, at the risk of an individuals' fate.
(I'm also discussing this neutral to the actual issue, which I don't know much about and haven't made my mind up on.)
Jon didn’t actually deny the claims though. The accusation is that someone had sex with him and then regretted it and tried to end the relationship but he creeped on her. He said he didn’t think his actions were creepy but that doesn’t mean they weren’t and it certainly doesn’t mean they didn’t make the accusers uncomfortable. Losing his job over this is a bit much but after reading all the evidence I would not invite him to conferences either. He clearly has awful social skills and habitually makes people uncomfortable. The lack of anyone standing up for him points in that direction as well although there are many other possible explanations so I won’t hold that against him.
Jon comes off pretty skeezy in the entire situation. I'm shocked to see such full throated defense of his actions here.
I think his posts are written to confuse people into thinking he won some settlement with his accusers, which is not the case, he reached an agreement with folks who amplified his accusers claims. He did not refute the claims by the women at all.
While my fear of crowds may not be as strong as yours, I see your point of view. In most situations, it doesn't take a lot for a crowd to become a mob.
To me, his solo stuff from the 80s and mid 90s sounds so much more musical and awesome than his work with Black Sabbath. The Ultimate Sin (1986) and No Rest for the Wicked (1988) are just incredible. I must have listened to at least one of his songs every day between 1985-1991.
Goodbye, Ozzy. Your music was a big part of my high school and college life.
I'm not a techie, so perhaps someone can help me understand this: AFAIK, no theoretical computer scientist predicted emergence in AI models. Doesn't that suggest that the field of theoretical computer science (or theoretical AI, if you will) is suspect? It's like Lord Kelvin saying that heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible a decade before the Wright brothers' first flight.
> Doesn't that suggest that the field of theoretical computer science (or theoretical AI, if you will) is suspect?
Consider the story of Charles Darwin, who knew evolution existed, but who was so afraid of public criticism that he delayed publishing his findings so long that he nearly lost his priority to Wallace.
For contrast, consider the story of Alfred Wegener, who aggressively promoted his idea of (what was later called) plate tectonics, but who was roundly criticized for his radical idea. By the time plate tectonics was tested and proven, Wegener was long gone.
These examples suggest that, in science, it's not the claims you make, it's the claims you prove with evidence.
I’m not even clear on the AI def of “emergent behavior”. The AI crowd mixes in terms and concepts from biology to describe things that are dramatically more simple. For example, using “neuron” to really mean a formula calculation or function. Neurons are a lot more than that and not even understood completely to begin with however developers use the term as if they have neurons implemented in software.
Maybe it’s a variation of the “assume a frictionless spherical horse” problem but it’s very confusing.
I believe it's been predicted in traffic planning and highway design and tested in via simulation and in field experiments. Use of self driving cars to modify traffic behaviors and decrease traffic jams is a field of study these days.
About the Robotaxi: I really, really wanted to impressed by what they will demo. However, I thought it was more marketing, with the product being "just two years away" as always. The demo was in a controlled environment so I doubt its real-life capability. I guess I will believe it when I see it on roads. Disappointed.
He was one of the few industrialists who gave capitalism a good name. He was never one to do ostentatious displays of wealth or buy islands. He used his vast wealth and influence in the best possible way.
reply