I expect what we will see are tools where the human manages high level implementation, and the agents are used to implement specific functionality that can be easily tested and verified. I can see something along the lines of a scene graph where you focus on the flow of the code, and farm off details of implementation of each step to a tool. As the article notes, these tools can already get over 90% degree accuracy in these scenarios.
Exactly, there shouldn't be any profit motive involved when it comes to meeting essential needs of people living in a society.
When you definitely understand how an economy works.
When you're commenting on a subject you have no clue about lol.
lmfao Obama vastly expanded the surveillance programs Bush started after 9/11 https://time.com/3909293/edward-snowden-obama-nsa-spying/
You're an ignoramus and you should be ashamed of yourself. End of fucking discussion.
These posts really make the blueAnon contingent of Lemmy come out in full force.
Using the system in reverse seems like an interesting idea. I can't see why that wouldn't work either.
keep on perseverating I guess
Turns out the content matters more than how it's produced. :)
You’re being deeply uncharitable here. I never said redundancy in biological systems is something that is never selected for. I was simply stating that the selection for such redundancy is bound by thermodynamic processes that govern natural selection in the first place.
We're in complete agreement here. Thermodynamics are the fundamental reason anything happens, and life exists within resolving energy gradients. The selection process favors organisms that use energy efficiently. This point is not being debated. What I've been saying here is that that's only part of the picture, and efficient use of energy competes with other factors such as robustness, error recovery, and so on. Living organisms need to be able to survive in a complex and dangerous environment which creates a pressure for redundancy.
Honestly it’s fascinating and outside of this dumb argument you should look into it because it aligns surprisingly well with Marx’s observations about economic development. If you are genuinely interested I’ll share some papers.
I've read a number of papers, and even reference a few here https://theunconductedchorus.com/
However, I'm always interested to read more on the subject. So by all means link the papers you've read.
In all of the cases you’ve referenced so far, the patients have cognitive deficiencies.
Sure, and I'm not arguing that removing large portions of the brain is not going to cause cognitive deficiencies. The point being made is that they're still able to function and retain much of the cognitive ability. It's quite clear that the brain is able to route around the damage and compensate for it in many cases.
The original point we were debating here is what is the size and complexity of a biological neural network that starts exhibiting interesting properties that we would care about implementing in an artificial one. It's clear that is smaller than the entire brain of a healthy human adult.
Corvids have a way higher neural density than the brains of primates. It’s fascinating but it does not back up the idea that much of the brains complexity is redundant.
The total number of neurons and connections is significantly lower than primates, yet they are able to solve problems of similar complexity. In fact, crows exhibit abilities such as transfer learning which chimps do not.
In fact it would suggest the opposite because under a selective pressure to reduce the size of a brain it still seems that complexity must be preserved in order to achieve similar cognitive capacities.
Perhaps you should start by defining what you mean by complexity instead of just throwing the term around. I'm using it to mean the combination of the number of neurons and the connections between them.
Maybe at one time he was. Now he’s just a science fiction author. Also what does having a degree in biology prove?
You continue to attack his credentials, but you have yet to address what he says or what the original study of the patient suggests. You're dismissing the results using an argument from authority here. Clearly, he's qualified to have an opinion on the subject.
I’m not saying the case itself is controversial. However, the assumptions you’ve made and the conclusions you’re trying to draw from such cases is! At least it would be amongst neuroscientists.
Make an actual argument to substantiate your position.
However, that makes it all the more maddening when you go on to spew such ignorance about the human brain and AI.
What ignorance have I spewed regarding human brain and AI. Please quote specific things I said that you're referring to.
LMFAO, prices aren't a force of nature, they are set by people who own businesses who want to increase their profits. It's obvious that the issue doesn't lie with QE, but with private ownership of essential industries.