New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Mookster

I was trying to say that they appeared to have all the data necessary to determine if space mitigated his telomere-shortening for the length of time in which he is in space -- without diminishing returns for at least a 340 day period. That to me, appears to be something you can definitively say if the astronaut's telomere's returned to pre-flight length after that period (as long as you can measure to an accuracy of at least one year's typical growth -- and they did do...
The way they've explained it, this would mean that you essentially don't experience measurable telomere aging at all for at least that 340 day window. This means a potentially drastic increase in lifetime expectancy for organisms that evolve to inhabit outer-orbits and potentially space as well.And the odd thing is, they must have expected to be able to measure accurately enough to see the difference in telomere length between him and his twin for a 340 day length. So this...
"Grew longer than his twin brother’s. Though Scott’s telomeres returned to their pre-flight lengths" How accurate are these measurements? If the telomeres returned to their pre-flight lengths, that makes it sound an awful lot like they didn't age over the course of that year. That seems like kind of a big deal.
It's a big challenge to record and perform a cognitive process simultaneously. The human brain certainly doesn't keep full records. When we aim to explain our actions, the mere act of interacting with our memories is enough to change them. For an AI, you'd need a lot of physical memory for a perfect archive -- you'd inevitably be sacrificing a lot of your processing grunt to achieve that archiving, in comparison to what you could accomplish without the need for a perfect...
That's one way to interpret Darwinism, but I can't agree.Evolution does not have the same kind of parameters that we invent. We, ourselves, and all that comes with us, make up a living body of proof for what evolution can facilitate. "That which is fit to survive" is contingent on the environment which for us extends to our orbit at present. In the future, it's conceivable that we'll be the first in our stellar neighborhood to go beyond our planet of inception. Naturally,...
Machine learning is also a methodical parameter space search. In brute-forcing, you have the parameters and space predefined on one side of the equation, and method is on the other. In machine learning there are still finite parameters, but the entire equation can change around those parameters. Aspects of the equation can have varying levels of memory, too, making for a beautifully complex 4-dimensional calculus. The memory, in particular, makes machine learning special...
The media hysteria is symptomatic of a lacking understanding held by the populace. If people don't recognize that machine learning is performed within the confines of set parameters, they won't understand that the product of that machine learning is fully the product of human design. This might seem like an arbitrary detail, but it's the single logical bridge preventing a person from treating advanced AI like it's own entity, rather than a extension of human will.If the...
I hope this early narrative godifying AI comes to an end soon. The last thing we need is a populace incapable of distinguishing between fixed parameter computer learning and genuine human creation.
It's more likely that the journalists just don't know enough to make a more definitive statement, and can't afford whatever expense is required to know the definite truth. I doubt many people outside of Google can give a definitive answer on whether or not search history will be available to employers. If journalists made a more definitive statement than they did, they'd need to be able to prove it by the standards of the court -- otherwise they can't defend against libel...
It's certainly not worse.Investigative journalism starts with a question like "is anything stopping Google from doing X" and then goes on to find the answer, and publishes their findings. That form of journalism is expensive and requires talented people who are probably undertaking more profitable forms of employment. So, instead, we get a less conclusive form of journalism -- "There may be nothing stopping Google from doing X"And it's not untrue. There may be nothing...
New Posts  All Forums: