Andrej is a brilliant researcher, currently doing his PhD. He has a bright career ahead.
Maybe you should actually read his comment instead of dismissing it crudely, and likewise for the thoughts of the likes of LeCun, Ng, Bengio, etc. These are the people I would listen to, not the Nostradamus pundits.
I don't think anybody would posit that it's unreasonable to entertain the idea as kind of far-fetched long-term possibility, much like encounters with alien life or faster-than-light travel.
It's the fear-mongering that's the issue. It's as if these same pundits were warning us about the dangers of space travel because it could hypothetically cause us (1000 years from now?) to draw the attention of a dangerous alien civilization (does that even exist?) that could destroy the Earth. It's the same level of ridiculous speculation. And that has no place in the scientific discourse.
Write sci-fi novels if you care about this issue, but don't pretend it's science, much less a pressing technological issue.
I'm afraid of making a middlebrow dismissal but I'm going to post it anyway, in hopes that someone just skimming would not be mislead.
The question is what Michael Jordan thinks of the "concept of the singularity", and then he dismisses it out of hand.
Crucially, he does this after confessing that no one in his social circle has talked about this issue with him, and without saying anything about what form of Singularity he is dismissing.
I mention this, because oftentimes I see people appealing to authority, quoting them on the issue and the authority in question is not even talking about the same issue!
I worry that my credence in all this superintelligence stuff only stems from familiarity with the arguments and the complete inability of people to engage with the actual argument. Some of the 'rebuttals' in this comments section have answers in Sam's article for crying out loud!
The only times I've heard him mentioned the impression was negative and that he didn't understand any of the actual science.
People hear "machine learning" and they think it is about machines that know how to think. Machine learning is actually just optimization of high dimensional functions. If this language were used it wouldn't sound as sexy, but no one would think machines are going to take over the world.
AI isn't magic. It's really just clever search techniques and mathematical optimization.
What's your point? Nobody said it's magic. The fact that it isn't magic (and that its tremendous complexity far surpasses our current ability to understand it) supports the notion that it won't suddenly spring into existence. If we placed some primordial sludge in a petrie dish overnight, we wouldn't worry that a sentient creature will have materialized. And if we program a computer to optimize numerical functions, there is just as little evidence (perhaps less), to suggest that the computer will somehow gain sentience.
There's a very fine line between AI futurist and best-guess scifi writer. Most "AI thought leaders" are scifi writers, not technical researchers. They take preconditions, generate a story, think how it could happen given plausible technology, then market that as soon-to-be-fact.
It's an entertaining society and endlessly fun to read, but still complete fiction based on internal brain states of individuals and not necessarily based on real world interactions.
Also see: Eliezer Yudkowsky — great writer, fun to read, but largely scifi thought experiments masquerading as research.
Can you link to any studies showing IF increased T levels substantially? I am genuinely curious. I have been considering doing IF (since I am half way there already) just for the longevity boosts and general body composition benefits.
I don't know RJD2, but does Opeth and Nick Cave really only make $.22 a month from Spotify?
If that's true, something is deeply and terribly wrong with the license agreements. These are not some amateurs, but pretty big acts with fans from all over, and while I despise saying they "deserve" this or that I would at least expect the sum to matter.
I've been using last.fm for a long time and I've spent a lot of time looking at the data. I would argue that the average person on last.fm is much, much more likely to have heard of Opeth than the average YouTube or Spotify user. I'd also argue that straight up listener count isn't a very useful number, since Kanye West (the most listened to artist on last.fm last week by about 33%) only has about 4M listeners. I don't think Kanye is only 5x as popular/successful/listened to as Opeth.
Sure, but look at it this way. If an artist who has 100K followers removes their music from music sharing services and decides to sell MP3 versions of their album directly for $2. That is 200K. 22 cents a month is obscene.
RJD2's most popular song has more than 17 million streams. Opeths has 500k, the other band you mentioned has a number of songs around 2 million streams.
Spotify pays artists based on number of streams, not based on how many followers they have accrued.
So RJD2 should be making significantly more than the bands you mentioned given that his number of streams should represent a larger portion of spotify's total streams.
RJD2's first two albums were done on two different record labels. His more recent two albums were done on his own record label. His songs with a lot of plays were on his first two albums. It's probably his old labels that are making all the money here.
Ha i kindof just want to repeat exactly this: "But still, $.22 for 100k followers is not very much."
I understand there are technicalities but 22 cents/month is what you'd expect your complete unknown "electronica in basement" neighbor to make off a major distribution outlet, not known artists, even if they are obscure (which I think is a ludicrously out-of-scale term considering these bands have international followings).
I'm sure someone in this equation is making money, thats why it rubs me the wrong way.... it is an extension of the industry rather than a correction of it.
IntelliJ sort of has this for Scala. Scala Worksheets. They are more useful than a REPL, but not quite to iPython in terms of features (mainly because they aren't browser based). But they also have some advantages over iPython (like integrating many of the IDE features).
The downside of course is that Python is very dynamic - so IDEs are of relatively limited use.
I am surprised to hear you say that with "PyCharm" being the first word in your comment. We have had very good experiences with PyCharm + reStructuredText annotations to help it when the return type or arg type is not inferable. Just like its IJ friend, PyCharm has caught quite a few bugs and helps the team edit Python and not text.
PyCharm's usage is not optional on my team; we tried the "use whatever text editor you want" approach and it turns out that people are not as good at memorizing the type signatures of a complicated codebase as computers are.
The idea that thisFunction and this_function are the same might be worse than the problem they're trying to solve. I cannot unfortunately have experience with larg-ish codebases in nim to tell if this would result in an actual problem or not, but the idea that I have to scan between two possible identifiers in the code can be a source of stupid bugs in the same vein as case-insensitive identifiers.
On the other hand I can definitely see the appeal of it (some python packages go against the recommendation and sort-of taint the style of other sources).
This so far was the only "weird" comment I could think of.
That seems like a really bad idea. It means that searching for an identifier requires you to allow for the possibility that there might be any number of underscores inserted anywhere. I suppose in practice you'll rely on the fact that no one will be inserting them other than at word boundaries, but it still seems horrible.
(I'd worry about ambiguities of the experts exchange / expert sex change type, too, but my guess is that they're extremely rare and usually either harmless or instantly caught by the compiler. Still, the mere possibility makes me twitchy.)
The reason of this (while I agree with you) is because Nim comes with a strong interop with C/C++ so the problem is that in C and C++ there is a SnakeCase debate still open. They did that so your program can invoke c (or even nim libs) without taking care of the upcase/underscore style and use your own.
While this seems problematic they added some neat features to avoid problems with `uniqueness` of the name and so on.
One thing I wish at this point is to force the compiler to stop if this pattern is not uniform within a codebase.
Maybe you're thinking in terms of a text editor and not an IDE? With an IDE, you look for symbol references, not text with regexps. You could imagine that the IDE's search would be smart enough to know that if you look for foo_bar, it should also report occurrences of fooBar.
Either way, I still find the idea a bit weird. If the language wants to be opinionated about naming, maybe it could simply make _ illegal in an identifier or, to push it one level further, refuse to compile any identifier that is not camelCase.
The Nim compiler offers a set of tools intended for use in IDEs ant text-editors that help with this. Besides the style insensitive grep, there are also a compiler-assisted "go to definition" and "list references" commands.
Case-insensitivity is not that much of an issue in static languages. It eliminates the burden of having to remember the Studly-Camel-Lumpy-style-du-jour. Accidental name clashes will be caught at compile time. Nim's hybrid approach is more adventurous but I can only see it being a problem with reusing symbols from other case-sensitive languages.