I have never thought of such a distinction between "bits" into "data bits" and "switching bits".
From a circuit perspective that makes kinda sense, but from the abstract "bit" perspective, the "switching bit" is a mechanism that operates on bits which in the end are also data. In other words there is only one type of bit: the data bit, and the switching comes on top of it.
Professors suddenly realized everyone was cheating and started paying attention, but the cheating isn't new ... A lot of faculty are happy when their students get good grades because they interpret it as I'm such a good teacher instead of I should pay more attention to how they cheat. AI woke some of them up to reality.
Your modern adaptation is perfect for now-common explainers [this time IS different; it's not programming, it's weights]; these "just analogues" will be the thing I show everybody first whenever discussions of consciousness/AI come up (then will play Jon Benjamin reading original).
Bravo. Really helps (even with my own) perceptions of newness. Similar to stsitned short-story (on dentists, backwards).
I recently discovered openevidence.com, and it's apparently what many doctors have started using for diagnosing patients (with or without their consent). It could be worth looking into for trying to find an explanation of symptoms that might not have a clear diagnosis. It may also just be the new WebMD once it gains more popularity (or even already), but may be another tool in your arsenal all the same.
The average household income in the US is $83,730 and the median is $121,000.
It's also irrelevant. The average is weighed down by students and retirees. If you look at only people in their peak earning years (40-50) then the median jumps further.
But thank you for the comment. It perfectly exemplifies the attitude of most Americans. Born on third base and feeling entitled to blow their entire paycheck every month and then still asking for hand outs.
...You are using "wealth" in a way completely foreign to how I have ever seen it used linguistically. The abundance of resources available to an individual that we call "wealth" colloquially being transferable or tradable is basically the hallmark of a market economy. It can absolutely concentrate within one, because if it can be traded, it can absolutely be not traded decreasing the velocity of that value transfer to zero. So... Yes. If only one or a handful of people are buying, because everyone else is having to sell to stay alive, then wealth does, in fact, concentrate.
Why would emergence imply anything about non-physicality and non-locality? Temperature is a another common example of an emergent phenomena. An individual atom doesn't really have a temperature, only a large group of them do. But you wouldn't say temperature is non-physical and non-local, would you?
A few days ago , while browsing Reddit, I came across a comment that mentioned this project. It caugth my attention because the phrase that best describes it is something like = you dont realize how important a seatbelt is until you've had an accident
The Ai agents we use today have full access to the filesystem. These agents have full filesystem access and can read or delete anything. Phylax blocks that at the OS level.
I tried it out because I was curious to see how this kind of approach worked. It’s basically a firewall for the filesystem: you can define rules to block, allow, or ask for confirmation when an agent tries to read or modify files. It works at the operating system level, not as a wrapper around the tool.
> You seem to be talking about compile-time versus runtime
Yes 100%! I was talking runtime in reference to Ruby and later Python.
> That seems to harm rather than help your previous claim. In untyped languages, in principle every object has to be treated as dynamic.
It is rather confusing and even counterintuitive, but being dynamic does not mean a language must also be untyped. For example, Python is both strongly typed and dynamically typed at once. [1] It's objects have a definitive type, but you can swap out objects of any type out at any time (a=1 ... a="foo") using the same variable. That makes optimization rather tricky as you can imagine.
IMHO, I think it's good to have some exposure to low-level stuff. There's a good amount of work you can't do without understanding the low-level stuff, but there's more work you can't do well without having at least an idea of the low-level stuff.
Start the kids off with high level stuff, but make them do some embedded systems on their way through. At least for an engineering degree. Also, do a bit of lower level communications somewhere in there; expose them to tcpdump/ wireshark, but they need not develop expertise.
> Well, because obviously the finish line of the space race was the Moon.
So, this choice is not super obvious to me. If it was called the moon race or whatever, I'd get it. But in this case it just feels like changing the rules after the fact to make sure you "win".
EDIT: I just realized you might be saying this sarcastically. I'm really bad at picking up on that sort of stuff, and apologize if that's the case.
Unpopular opinion: turning public universities into an academic hunger games is diametrically opposed to their purpose for existing, which is to create an educated populace. Intentionally lowering the quality of instruction, as well as deliberately trying to trip students up on exams, is not improving educational outcomes for anyone. People who complain about "grade inflation" have completely lost sight of why public education exists in the first place.
For obvious survival reasons we evolved to have sensory/cognitive access to our own activity, self-monitoring, and self-modeling ourselves.
And the self-modeling, in such a tight loop, melds ourselves and our model of ourselves, our thinking and choices, and experience of our thinking and choices, into one component.
Like you can't analyze half a wheel of a bicycle and be talking about the same thing.
This awareness, modeling, control, feedback loop has gone from a body-environment loop, to an internal-body-function loop, to an internal-cognitive-emotional loop, and finally tightened up into the ability to recognize the experience, and consider and communicate about it, at our reasoning level.
We directly and continuously experience ourselves, because that gave us tremendous advantages, in the physical world, in the social world, and allowed us to apply our tool making and optimizing mind to our own thinking and habits.
This was an intense process of optimization, not an accident.
But the outcome isn't mysterious. Cognition that is continually receiving its own direct internal, reflective feedback, along with all other information streams. And continually adapting its model of itself, along with itself. Where model vs. "original" are not, and would have no good reason to be, separable.
You don't see the world. You see your minds adaptive filtering model of the world, informed by feedback.
But, relatively speaking, you do "see" yourself very directly.
And functionally, we literally spend all day thinking about ourselves, our inner selves, as the center of every plan, action, goal, interaction.
It feels mysterious, because - again for obvious reasons - there isn't anything else like it. That isn't the same thing as being mysterious.
Yes, the actual experience still involves questions. The experience of Qualia related to senses is more than just our conscious self-awareness. But we have not been in a position to experimentally decompose our minds, or perform other exploration yet. Likely, cognitive machines will let us do that. And potentially, nuanced control of our brain's biology could one day directly help us experiment with components and temporary alterations.
But the fact of it, and the how of it, are not mysterious.
(I grieve for the wasted potential of mankind every time quantum mechanics, a "conscious universe", Egyptian pyramids, aliens, or the "theory" that our consciousness created reality, are brought up in this context. The impact of drugs on consciousness is profound and real, although that isn't a recommendation, and profound doesn't mean we things we experience are real beyond the experience, other than insights.)
I will argue that it is not that intelligent either. For the sake of argument, let's say intelligence is about brain processing power and intellect is about how much information you have retained. Then what they have created is more like Artificial Intellect than Artificial Intelligence :)
Professors can be an absolute moron and someone who haven't read a book in their life, can be a total genius. People often miss that.
> My point is that the pie is growing and all are benefitting.
This is the main point of contention though.
Earlier generation middle class seems to have been larger and more financially secure. That would be our parents generation. Of course not all of our parents would qualify.
Reasoning ability has to be independent of consciousness because there are different levels of intellectual ability among people but everyone is equally conscious.
Chiang is very right in saying that the lesson of LLMs isn't that LLMs are conscious, but that there are broad areas of reasoning that apparently don't require consciousness.
I don't think it is cut and dry as that. Of the top of my head I can think of "Jorge Luis Borges" who was a voracious reader and much of his career involved reading (literary adviser, librarian etc.). I don't think (can't know for sure) he hated his job.
Using words like that imprisons one into a certain perspective. Wealth creation is not "getting a share of the pie". Wealth is not an apple pie you slice up for your guests.
If Picketty uses words like pie, share, transfer, concentration, etc., then his book is about as valueless as Das Kapital.
Plus, email access is assumed for identity verification these days. Whether that's porting a number out from a wireless carrier or any service that has your email but not your phone number.
If it's a lagging effect, then why is the year-over-year spike in failure rates happening not just in 1st/2nd year classes, but also in a 3rd/4th year class at the same time?
