> allows engineers to start closer to the state of the art
This reminds me of the Slate Star Codex story "Ars Longa, Vita Brevis"[1], where it took almost an entire lifespan just to learn what the earlier alchemists had found, so only the last few hours of an alchemist's life were actually valuable. Now we can all skip ahead.
On average more educated? Yes. More intelligent? Nah I see no data. Given the same access to resources I expect the kid from a poor family and a kid from a rich family to perform similarly.
I do not. Where do unintelligent people exist in your society?
And at a certain point the argument about equal access is entirely hypothetical. For example can’t redo early childhood. So if that impacts your ability then it’s been impacted.
> Where do unintelligent people exist in your society?
Everywhere? Both in rich and poor households.
> For example can’t redo early childhood. So if that impacts your ability then it’s been impacted.
Ah I thought the argument was more about genes(aka born smart) and not something like nutrition.
I think a good thought experiment is Formula 1. Most top F1 racers come from super rich backgrounds. Does that mean that more money == better driver? Its mostly a accessibility problem.
Well I’ll be charitable and interpret == as correlation as we are talking about averages.
From your conclusion you’re telling me wealth is completely random or the capabilities of children is completely random. Neither of those holds up to any scrutiny.
I don’t know what being born in the US has to do with the conversation.
This presumes that the value was created by the authors and not the people who found a way to use the structure in the training set to create intelligence. Like crediting wi-fi router owners with creating Wi-Fi Positioning System instead of the people who realized they could wardrive around to create maps and extract a new kind of value that would never have existed without them. Or Egyptians for deciphering hieroglyphics instead of the Frenchman who realized the Rosetta Stone they were using to hold up a wall could actually be used to do much more.
My thinking here is coming from the paper "From Entropy to Epiplexity"[1] which partly discussed why you can train on synthetic data: it's the structure of the data that enables learning, not just the amount of "information". Authors of images and videos may have worked just as hard as authors of text training sets, but they didn't contribute to AI as much because there just wasn't the same kind of structure to discover there. It's the people who found the usable structure, not the people who accidentally generated it, who created the value.
> This presumes that the value was created by the authors and not the people who found a way to use the structure in the training set to create intelligence.
This presumes it's binary.
> Or Egyptians for deciphering hieroglyphics instead of the Frenchman who realized the Rosetta Stone they were using to hold up a wall could actually be used to do much more.
Yes, I think a lot more than 1 person deserves credit for years of painstaking research.
> It's the people who found the usable structure, not the people who accidentally generated it, who created the value.
You're naively assuming the structure is accidental.
It's not as official as releasing a formal statement via the Holy See Press Office or some kind of encyclical. Made the headline feel a little misleading when I found out it was an op-ed.
I don't want to downvote this because it's interesting, but the tone "you're an idiot if you don't already believe my extremely niche view" works against you.
They barely mentioned your website (fourth in five urls, mainly talking about indieblog.com and kagi.com/smallweb), so "That is my website!" is confusing and makes it seem like you're autoresponding to a keyword.
Yeah, it didn't confuse sensible people who are capable of putting themselves in someone else's shoes.
I did a Small Web search at Marginalia and was immediately pointed to sites that claim that I and everyone in my political party are literally the spawn of Satan--I really don't think it's my thing.
I helped develop the ARPANET back in 1969-1970 while working for the UCLA Comp Sci dept, got a brief mention in RFC 57, hold several network patents, and was on usenet before the usenix conference where we voted to call it that ... I'm bemused by all the people who claim that boomers are technologically inept (I think they have us mixed up with our parents). Anyway it's been a heck of a wild ride and didn't end up quite how JCR Licklider envisioned it.
I wrote this in response to one of the reviews, so I'll share it with you since you asked. :-)
I worked on an ARPA-funded speech understanding project in the 1970's at SDC--it was definitely driven by military interests. One time some of us techies were in our soundproof lab drinking wine and eating cheese and crackers when our manager brought to the big picture window an Iranian general bristling with medals--they both looked extremely unhappy.
I also worked on ARPANET development at UCLA from 1969-1971, and there was none of that. The driving motivation was ARPA-funded researchers at universities being able to readily share their work. Is ARPA funding researchers at universities an issue that can be written about? Of course, but it has nothing to do with the ARPANET per se and isn't part of the story that this book is about.
Oops--I left out a critical part of the SDC story--we were in the lab because it had an incredible sound system featuring a pair of high end AR-3 speakers. I don't recall what we were playing but I'm sure it sounded wonderful.
We also did real work in that lab of course ... mostly recording things like "What is the surfaced displacement of the Lafayette?", which our primitive system running on (pathetically slow by today's standards) Raytheon 704 and PDP-11 computers would attempt to parse and answer. The text of course was selected for the sake of obtaining a grant from the USN.
This early work, funded by the military, laid the basis for today's ubiquitous speech understanding systems. Are there issues with fundamental research being funded by the military or, say, big pharma, rather than as part of a direct planned effort by society to achieve social goals? Sure, and much can and should be written about that, but it's not the subject matter of this book.
If it could actually parse your speech and come up with an answer in 1970, it must have felt amazingly futuristic. Star Trek was only a few year old at that point. Thanks for sharing that.
The parsing broke speech into phonemes--actually a string of candidate phonemes, each candidate having an assigned probability. It made a lot of mistakes--it couldn't generally distinguish between "a" and "the" in rapid speech, and the semantic phase didn't help disambiguate those. It worked better for female voices because they have an extra formant. It didn't work well if the speaker was intoxicated--we learned this from some anomalous results that one researcher dug into and discovered that there was a "knee" in the data--it turned out that our late night speaker Bill (a giant bearded guy who wore overalls that he ordered specially from Iowa IIRC and was known as wabblezabble) had taken a break, during which he drank a considerable amount of beer, on the hypothesis/excuse that it would make his speech more, er, fluid. It had the opposite effect--the automated recognition was consistently better before the break than after.
Coming up with the answer required doing a nondeterministic parallel search of the candidate phonemes through a DAG of phrases--the problem was contained because the DAG was highly restricted to the subject matter, in this case facts about Navy ships. This was a pilot and the dream was to have a much more massive semantic net of the English language. We had linguists and a resident lexicographist (he distinguished this from a lexicographer, though the dictionary says they are synonyms--but lexicographists know better than dictionaries created by lexicographers, heh heh) working with us. The parsing code that dealt with the audio signal was written in FORTRAN and assembler, IIRC, but all the language stuff was written in a local version of LISP. Jeff Barnett, on our team, was the author of SDC's LISP2, but I'm not sure that's what we were using. He was working on developing a more performant algolish LISP called CRISP when I left. Jeff had written the parallel search algorithm, which had a "knob", as he called it, which was a floating point value that controlled the depth first/breadth first balance--any possible balance could be achieved by dialing the "knob". This was needed because it took too long to do an exhaustive search--it bailed with an answer as soon as it found one that passed some threshold. Anyway, it required recording onto tape, digitizing it and feeding it to the minicomputer, running many passes, feeding the results into the LISP program running on a mainframe, waiting an indeterminate time to make a match against a highly restricted vocabulary--more of a grind than futuristic. I remember when programs like Dragon Speech showed up ... way advanced over what we had, but still needing to be trained on a specific speaker. Now we have realtime language translation in our pockets. The other day I accidentally turned it on and my friend at the other end of the line asked who was speaking Spanish ... everything I said was being repeated in Spanish.
BTW, when I left SDC because I wanted a break from work, they offered me a spot with their new development called EFTS, but I was pretty set on leaving. EFTS--Electronic Funds Transfer System--is the backbone of all of today's digital money transfers ... ATMs, ACH, etc. I really missed the boat on that one.
P.S. In trying to remember why Bill (aka Billy) also had the nickname wabblezabble, I managed to remember his last name, which yielded his initials WAB (at UCLA initials were used as login names). I found this lovely obit which very much fits the guy I knew: https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/latimes/name/william-br...
Auto-responding when Google Alerts spots your keyword on a new site would help promote your website.
I missed that "That" meant "the site that matches my username" so I had gone through a process of "how is this guy claiming to own https://kagi.com/smallweb" and "did he mean indieblog.page/random" and "why is he also saying he wrote something at unsungNovelty.org which doesn't match either of those". I never did figure it out, I opened all the links to check the author and finally got it. Sorry I was dumb. But antecedents are important.
No worries. But If I am behind numbers, my website will be completely different with post cadence far more regular. Not saying regular posts are bad. In fact, I am currently working on finishing my writing backlogs. But still, not everyone is behind numbers. Especially like SEO/google kind of numbers.
So frustrating when every conversation leads to R vs D. Doubly so in this situation since both bills that got us to where we are today had overwhelming BIPARTISAN support and were signed into law by presidents Clinton and Obama…
If individual party members voted against the party line more often there would be less of this kind of discourse. But the reality is that we have a deeply entrenched deeply divided two-party system. There are very few politicians who don't toe one line or the other and endure. But in this case it's a core tenet of the republican party platform to eliminate the administrative state, including strategic investment and reserves.
That's not much of a source -- a 100-karma user in 2020 based on "I've known this for a long time. A quick google confirms that many people think the same." I don't believe it is true.
I mean... Maybe the things I'd LIKE to work on are getting my car around the race track faster. Very few people will pay me for that - especially if I'm not a very good driver. But I enjoy it immensely. I'd MUCH rather do that than work.
And right now, due to having to work, maintenance on my house is a bit behind.. Would also prefer to catch up on that - but again, no one is paying me to do that.
This reminds me of the Slate Star Codex story "Ars Longa, Vita Brevis"[1], where it took almost an entire lifespan just to learn what the earlier alchemists had found, so only the last few hours of an alchemist's life were actually valuable. Now we can all skip ahead.
1. https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/
reply