Humans are wrong all the time. Do we really want "human-like" AI? And maybe this is where everything falls apart: will a machine as smart as a human be prone to the same errors as us?
Yes. Because we need AGIs to be able to tell the difference between a child in the roadway and a truck that is far away.
From the article: The issue is not simply that deep learning has problems, it is that deep learning has consistent problems.
Image recognition DL systems, no matter how big the training set, no matter how "strong" they are, consistently make the same kinds of errors. When deciding whether something is a truck far ahead, or a child just a short ways ahead, you need something that understands that trucks don't have arms, can recognize that instantly, and decide to apply brakes sooner.
No one is arguing for the creation of morally flawed, overconfident, selfish beings. When AGI is discussed, we're arguing for the creation of machines that understand. This is critical.
I can tell DALL-E to generate a restaurant scene where the patrons all have realistic faces... and it can't do it. The reason is that it paints with statistics, not with abstractions. It doesn't understand proportion or what a person looks like.
When a DL network demonetizes someone's YouTube channel, it doesn't understand fair use at all. It can only match riffs. It can't distinguish why those riffs are there, and that perhaps it is OK for those riffs to be in that video.
This is important because we're turning more and more decision making over to AI systems, due to the sheer scale of information flowing around the internet. People's lives and livelihoods are starting to be impacted, and the main flaw is that algorithms entrusted to make decisions make statistical matches and act... without understanding.
The mistakes those algorithms make will be ever larger, and you can't dispute with a statistical model when it arrives at an incorrect assumption. When humans make such mistakes, they can take in new information and update their credence accordingly. DL networks would require large training sets to sway the statistics.
So yes, we do want human-like AI, but not the straw-man version of it.
I don't think that conclusion is warranted at all.
The bigger problem with human reasoning is that it is impossible to keep 'the sum total of human creativity' in your head, but there is no reason why an AI could not do this, minus the 'head' part.
I was just thinking about this yesterday. Humans get stuff wrong way more than right. Our savior is being able to (most of the time) see when we are wrong and how to find out why. I think that is an important part of AGI.
I believe that some company monitors websites like reddit and twitter for talk about Monsanto or Big Oil (fracking) and that company pays shills to defend them.
Someone on reddit claimed he was on a US presidential campaign doing exactly that. Respond to posts with pre-made replies, if things got hairy, distract with humor or memes. Interestingly, they were aware when they were dealing with another paid shill from the opposing side.
After all those years on the internet I think I can also feel the impact of systematic forum activity; controversial topics that get swift, well articulated replies with links and upvotes. Another comment, declaring the winner of the debate!
Is it individual experts who weigh in, organically? Groups who are passionate about the topic and organize via Discord? Or professional shitposters and memers? Who can tell. But a few internet-addicted Reddit aficionados could cover a lot of topics in a lot of communities for a small salary and huge impact.
Hillary Clinton had a super PAC that did so openly:
"In April 2016, Correct the Record announced that it would be spending $1 million to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about Clinton in a "task force" called "Barrier Breakers 2016".[1][5] In addition to this, the task force aimed to encourage Sanders supporters to support Clinton and to thank both "prominent supporters and committed superdelegates".[6] The organization's president, Brad Woodhouse, said they had "about a dozen people engaged in [producing] nothing but positive content on Hillary Clinton" and had a team distributing information "particularly of interest to women".[7]"
I don't know why you're singling HRC (it also wasn't her but David Brock, which is ironically the kind of misinformation designed to make her seem ultra-nefarious that CTR was formed to combat) out here; literally every issue and political campaign has activists doing this. They're called messaging and persuasion campaigns, and they include everything from yard signs to forum posters to ad buys. Do you have an issue with conservatives or pro-life activists doing this?
Your sort of low effort knee jerk response to a well researched informative comment is precisely why it's so hard to have rational discussion online. Can you not stay on topic and refrain from instigating polarisation for one minute? Do you have an opinion on these "persuasion campaigns"?
It's not well-researched; it has a single Wikipedia link, which it doesn't even represent properly (literally the first thing it says is CTR was founded by David Brock). It's also not informative; it presents a slanted, highly selective case against Clinton and Democratic/liberal/progressive politics. It's the Fox News of comments. It's also not on topic; how is CTR relevant to glyphosate?
I do have an opinion: Citizens United should be overturned, or we should have an Amendment clarifying that money isn't speech, so we can get rid of Super PACs. I also think the advertising industry should be regulated such that it's a shadow of what it is today.
It's a Wikipedia link with 7 references that is utterly neutrally formulated. If you think that's even close to how Fox News presents their abhorrent lies you can count yourself lucky to have not watched it ever.
In the meanwhile you apparently hold an opinion that is perfectly in line with the argument of the parent that you somehow assume is in support of Republican/regressive politics for no good reason. If you've got a better example of a SPAC that funded internet trolls you could just post a single Wikipedia link to that instead of making vague statements about slant.
There's one thing that the republicans are right about, and that's that Wikipedia, HN and most of reddit are biased against them, and that's because they're biased towards the truth and the whole republican platform is based around denying reality.
I think the Wikipedia article is great; no issues with it. What I take issue with is what I pointed out: parent is singling out HRC for founding something she didn't even found, even when the first sentence of his source says someone else founded it, in an effort to make her look nefarious despite the fact that Super PACs are something both sides (first Republicans, then Democrats in order to keep up in this race to the bottom) do as SOP, and as all issue campaigns have done since there have been issue campaigns.
> If you've got a better example of a SPAC that funded internet trolls you could just post a single Wikipedia link to that instead of making vague statements about slant.
Sure, let me introduce you to the Willkies [0] and anti-abortion PACs [1]. Both examples of people pushing their issue opinions into the public square (with doctored content and a lot of money I might add) or directly into getting people elected to make policies they'd like.
> reality is biased against republicans
100% agree. My only thing here was taking HRC's campaign totally out of context. This is how US politics works since Citizens United (ironically also a case where a group of people wanted to release a super negative video about her in the political ad blackout period [3]).
I mean, it would be strange that in 2022 HN would not be included in continuous campaigns to maintain good PR and keep getting baseless positive opinions, seed doubt and confusion to any criticism.
I would expect any big multinational corp to have few permanent people / external agency on permanent contract just for this. And considering how these corps in discussion are almost cartoonishly evil, there is probably a lot of work being done constantly.
I mean, it’s what I’d do. The cost is quite modest compared to the ability to sway public opinion. I’m seeing aggressive defense of nuclear power too. Either I’m underestimating the number of pro nuclear evangelists or there’s a paid lobby.
Well it's true for me too. The first thing I do when I get a new laptop is try out windows (it's pre-installed) and of course I want to like it but it just doesn't compare to GNOME3... I always end up going back to Linux. And I have used both extensively and adapted to both work-flows and I'd say GNOME3 is superior once you adapt to it.
No you don't need a minimize or maximize button, they are actually useless in the GNOME work-flow, and unnecessary on windows too.
Not parent, but I personally put relevant (few) windows on the same desktop and switch between them with a 3-finger swipe (which is faster/smoother than what OSX have, which is unbearably slow). On a given desktop I change a window by either swiping up with 3 fingers for a fast overview window, or just press Super. Compared to OSX, this view is not that overcrowded (due to easily having more desktops), so I can actually find what I’m looking for, and they also have icons (try having multiple browsers open in osx and finding the one you want). Super+~, which is the same as in OSX is also great for switching between multiple windows of the same program.
i keep most windows in fullscreen and use the expose function or how it's called that shows all windows in reduced size to switch. sometimes i put two or three windows side by side if i need to see them at the same time.
i also make use of multiple workspaces/desktops to arrange windows that are related to each other.
so i use the maximize function but never feel the need to minimize windows unless it's a window that i don't need to reopen ever.
From what I’ve seen of desktop environments that try to emulate gnome 3 (and what I vaguely remember of toying around ubuntu ~10 years ago), wasn’t gnome a bit of an attempt to look and feel like Windows?
Cool project. I'm currently building something similar to hacker news using only the standard library. How could this project help me?
The way I use the standard library is like a super condensed version of React. Templates are my components. Since templates can be nested, templates can be used to build "components" and those components can be stored in separate files and compiled together at run time with a "model" being fed to the template(s) via a state object passed by the application.
So I may have a few dozen template files in a folder called /components, and another folder called /pages with a few templates that use these components. When a user visits a "page", the template file is "compiled" with the appropriate components.
Oh that's fun! In my demo video [1], I build a (minimal) HN clone so hopefully that answers your question in detail.
But the tldr is - you'll need a lot more than just templating for a production ready app. To name a few things - server, storage, migrations, logging, configs. IMO there's a huge benefit in having a batteries included toolkit that stays close to the stdlib - so you can totally keep your templates as is!
In what sense is this like React? Incremental re-rendering using html/template or text/template was virtually impossible last time I looked into it (for improving performance of some report generation), let alone getting any kind of DOM tree structure out.
>The main issue is that it doesn’t support placeholder values
Can you elaborate? Like give me an example of a route path that uses placeholder values? I use Go to build web apps too and I really don't see a need for anything other than the standard library.
And what would that line of code be? As far as I am aware you have to parse the URL string, and it only gets more complicated when you add more URL parameters. Which definitely leads to boilerplate code shared across projects.
It's also not especially performant to do the naive (i.e. short) implementation like this, since you'll likely end up parsing/processing path elements left-to-right rather than in whatever order makes the most sense for your loading.
