This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Dustin
Pages: 1 ... 112113114 115116 ... 194
3391
« on: October 28, 2014, 07:44:14 PM »
Isn't that sentence a tad redundant? You have to program robots to learn, they don't just evolve on their own.
Well, if you had a robot intelligent enough to re-write its source-code, it could.
That wasn't my point, however. My point is that the human labour involved in programming a robot to learn is miniscule in comparison to programming a robot to be a doctor - if you see my point. You're creating a bit of kit with the capacity to develop, not one rolling off the assembly line already developed. And, of course, it should go without saying that the labour involved in creating such robots could itself be automated.
Intelligence doesn't correlate with creativity.
3392
« on: October 28, 2014, 07:41:38 PM »
I don't delete my history anymore.
3393
« on: October 28, 2014, 07:36:34 PM »
That progress will all but stop completely because "trends flat off".
Not completely, but close. Exponential trends don't last forever in real life, everything eventually slows down. You're welcome to "prove me wrong" and find me exponential trend that lasts forever. Good luck, even the size of the universe will eventually slow and retract.
3394
« on: October 28, 2014, 07:22:40 PM »
You linked me to a forum post by a user named SoulSkill.
Which follows quite easily to this:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/
I saw, but the fact that challenger thinks he's proving me wrong (even though all I said was merely an estimation, not even a claim) is still stunning. Firstly, there is no concrete time line we're dealing with. Just because half of all US jobs are vulnerable doesn't mean we're going to lose half of all US jobs. Secondly, we're looking at a logarithmic pattern (really a bell shape if you include the first half) where the rate of automation of jobs will slow down as you begin to deal with harder and more complex jobs. You can't honestly believe we'll hit a point where we'll only have a small percentage left any time in the next one hundred years. Technology may be speeding up, but society still always overestimates how fast technology is actually developing. Thirdly, you need more than one study to validate something as ground shaking as that. I'm not saying it isn't reliable, but large claims need larger evidence.
>A THOUSAND YEARS
>half of US jobs are vulnerable to automation
I'll let you do the math.
1. *a few hundred to a thousand years
2. Do you know what a log function looks like? The rate decays over time. If you lose 50% in 30 years, that doesn't mean you'll lose another 50% the next 30 years.
3. Again, being vulnerable to automation =/= becoming automated
4. Again, you need more than one study to validate a large claim
You can't just blow past everything I say and repeat your previous point.
If 50% of jobs are vulnerable now, it's not going to take anywhere close to a thousand years to automate the majority of jobs.
*sigh*
It's ok, I know you don't understand.
Take a look at 50 years ago, or even a hundred.
Exponential trends (in real life) flat off, challenger. They don't just fly up with no end, generally they turn into logs as the rate continuously slows down.
3395
« on: October 28, 2014, 07:14:28 PM »
You linked me to a forum post by a user named SoulSkill.
Which follows quite easily to this:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/
I saw, but the fact that challenger thinks he's proving me wrong (even though all I said was merely an estimation, not even a claim) is still stunning. Firstly, there is no concrete time line we're dealing with. Just because half of all US jobs are vulnerable doesn't mean we're going to lose half of all US jobs. Secondly, we're looking at a logarithmic pattern (really a bell shape if you include the first half) where the rate of automation of jobs will slow down as you begin to deal with harder and more complex jobs. You can't honestly believe we'll hit a point where we'll only have a small percentage left any time in the next one hundred years. Technology may be speeding up, but society still always overestimates how fast technology is actually developing. Thirdly, you need more than one study to validate something as ground shaking as that. I'm not saying it isn't reliable, but large claims need larger evidence.
>A THOUSAND YEARS
>half of US jobs are vulnerable to automation
I'll let you do the math.
1. *a few hundred to a thousand years
2. Do you know what a log function looks like? The rate decays over time. If you lose 50% in 30 years, that doesn't mean you'll lose another 50% the next 30 years.
3. Again, being vulnerable to automation =/= becoming automated
4. Again, you need more than one study to validate a large claim
You can't just blow past everything I say and repeat your previous point.
If 50% of jobs are vulnerable now, it's not going to take anywhere close to a thousand years to automate the majority of jobs.
*sigh*
3396
« on: October 28, 2014, 07:11:11 PM »
(really a bell shape if you include the first half)
The thrust of innovation comes not from our ability to programme, but the robots' ability to learn. I think you're underestimating the rate at which we can replace human labour which is more "intellectual".
Isn't that sentence a tad redundant? You have to program robots to learn, they don't just evolve on their own. I don't mean this to be 'tu quoque,' but I honestly think you're overestimating how fast technology develops, which is a fairly common phenomena.
3397
« on: October 28, 2014, 07:05:50 PM »
You linked me to a forum post by a user named SoulSkill.
Which follows quite easily to this:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/
I saw, but the fact that challenger thinks he's proving me wrong (even though all I said was merely an estimation, not even a claim) is still stunning. Firstly, there is no concrete time line we're dealing with. Just because half of all US jobs are vulnerable doesn't mean we're going to lose half of all US jobs. Secondly, we're looking at a logarithmic pattern (really a bell shape if you include the first half) where the rate of automation of jobs will slow down as you begin to deal with harder and more complex jobs. You can't honestly believe we'll hit a point where we'll only have a small percentage left any time in the next one hundred years. Technology may be speeding up, but society still always overestimates how fast technology is actually developing. Thirdly, you need more than one study to validate something as ground shaking as that. I'm not saying it isn't reliable, but large claims need larger evidence.
>A THOUSAND YEARS
>half of US jobs are vulnerable to automation
I'll let you do the math.
1. *a few hundred to a thousand years 2. Do you know what a log function looks like? The rate decays over time. If you lose 50% in 30 years, that doesn't mean you'll lose another 50% the next 30 years. 3. Again, being vulnerable to automation =/= becoming automated 4. Again, you need more than one study to validate a large claim You can't just blow past everything I say and repeat your previous point.
3398
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:54:20 PM »
You linked me to a forum post by a user named SoulSkill.
Which follows quite easily to this:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/
I saw, but the fact that challenger thinks he's proving me wrong (even though all I said was merely an estimation, not even a claim) is still stunning. Firstly, there is no concrete time line we're dealing with. Just because half of all US jobs are vulnerable doesn't mean we're going to lose half of all US jobs. Secondly, we're looking at a logarithmic pattern (really a bell shape if you include the first half) where the rate of automation of jobs will slow down as you begin to deal with harder and more complex jobs. You can't honestly believe we'll hit a point where we'll only have a small percentage left any time in the next one hundred years. Technology may be speeding up, but society still always overestimates how fast technology is actually developing. Thirdly, you need more than one study to validate something as ground shaking as that. I'm not saying it isn't reliable, but large claims need larger evidence.
3399
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:38:59 PM »
Translation: I don't have a rebuttal so I'm just going to talk shit.
Yet you do that constantly yourself.
No, I always have a point to make.
If by point you mean 'way to defend yourself,' then I really can't say I disagree.
Nope.
I make a post. You and/or Kinder come running along and start posting the same ignorant shit over and over, or in your case pathetic attempts at insults. I respond, prove you wrong, and then you guys either stop replying or just start lame attempts at insults.
Posting memes proves people wrong? Wow, learn something new everyday.
No, the image was because I was laughing at how wrong you are.
The link under the image proved you wrong.
You linked me to a forum post by a user named SoulSkill.
3400
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:35:34 PM »
Translation: I don't have a rebuttal so I'm just going to talk shit.
Yet you do that constantly yourself.
No, I always have a point to make.
If by point you mean 'way to defend yourself,' then I really can't say I disagree.
Nope.
I make a post. You and/or Kinder come running along and start posting the same ignorant shit over and over, or in your case pathetic attempts at insults. I respond, prove you wrong, and then you guys either stop replying or just start lame attempts at insults.
Posting memes proves people wrong? Wow, learn something new everyday.
3401
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:21:25 PM »
The process of eliminating the societal need of a work force will probably take a thousand years
 http://slashdot.org/story/191595
Taking your angst to another thread eh? I'm sure Cheat will soon take my advise and actually ban non-serious posts, or essentially all of yours. Who actually uses memes to respond to people anyway?
3402
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:19:12 PM »
add me
dustin.ms
3403
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:15:57 PM »
Translation: I don't have a rebuttal so I'm just going to talk shit.
Yet you do that constantly yourself.
No, I always have a point to make.
If by point you mean 'way to defend yourself,' then I really can't say I disagree.
3404
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:10:42 PM »
"Leftist countries like China"
AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That was the the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Ok, time for some facts because I just lost a shit ton of brain cells listening to that dude without any testicles.
http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/owow/waterqualityfacts.cfmAbout 44% of assessed stream miles, 64% of assessed lake acres, and 30% of assessed bay and estuarine square miles are not clean enough to support uses such as fishing and swimming.
A recent study of the nation's streams found that only 28% have healthy biological communities compared to best possible conditions in their region
http://stateoftheair.orgMore than 147.6 million people—47 percent of the nation—live where pollution levels are too often dangerous to breathe, an increase from last year's report. Despite that risk, some seek to weaken the Clean Air Act, the public health law that has driven the cuts in pollution since 1970.
http://www.saveamericasforests.org/crisis.htm
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States
>missing the point
Compare what's going on today in America to that of past America. Water is more cleaner, more trees are being planted, and animal populations have increased in America. Now compare America to China and you will see that America has cleaner air, water, etc, etc than China
There's literally no refuting that America has cleaned up it's act and if you actually think America was better in the past then just lol
Why are we comparing America to China in the first place? It's a fascist shithole run by a dictator. America is democratic.
It's well known China has the worst pollution in the world. But calling it a "leftist country" and comparing it to America as a "right wing" country is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. And what that woman meant with her sign, is that money is not worth destroying our planet. And then he goes on to assume she's uneducated and ignorant and rants for the rest of the video cherry picking facts to support his extremely ridiculous argument.
America is far better than it was in the past, but that doesn't mean there's isn't a lot to improve. The entire video is ridiculous, because nobody makes any of the points he was "countering".
If you think that man in the video is intelligent then FUCKING LOL.
If you watched the video, then you'd understand why we're using China as a comparison. China is a left-wing nation that utilizes socialism and communism
Lol wut? Socialism/Communism is on the left side of the spectrum whilst Capitalism/Republicanism is on the right. China follows the left ideology while America follows the right ideology. Tell me how that's stupid. Except anybody with an average/above average IQ understand that the environment is needed to ensure life, which is why you see capitalistic nations, like America, enforce policies to protect the enviroment and domestic logging companies plant 2-3 trees for every tree they cut down. On the flip-side, the left (communist/socialist) nations, like China, do nothing to curb pollution and such
There is of course more to be done to improve but the point is that America has been impriroving over decades and centuries while the same ideologies that the women promotes (the left) is what countries like China posses but are backwards in protecting the enviroment
I think it's pretty damn obvious I watched the video.
China is not communist. If anything, it's fascist. Not only that, it's also capitalist. The point is they're so fucking corrupt that they don't give a shit about polluting the environment.
You didn't read a single one of my links, did you? These trees that are being planted in the place of trees that have been around for years are susceptible to forest fires and several other problems. It's a shitty cop out to just cut everything down. Do yourself a favor and read my links.
China IS Communist. Sorry, but trying to twist the facts will not work in your favor. And how can it be capitalist when the entire economy is ruled by the government? Talk about contradictions. Corruption is what Communists do best. See, in nations that promote liberty and freedom, enviromental and living conditions stomp on that of communist nations
>facts show that trees are being planted far more than ever
>tries to move the goal posts and construct a loaded question
Oh Chally, why do I waste my time with you?
I don't know why you waste your time regurgitating the same old ignorant bullshit over and over.
Considering you do it all the time, I'll direct it to you
Translation: I don't have a rebuttal so I'm just going to talk shit.
Funny, because you always talk shit
Never.
I always have a point to make. You're just butthurt 24/7.
I wonder if challenger actually believes this or if he just recites it in his head enough times that he doesn't have to question it.
3405
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:07:10 PM »
Translation: I don't have a rebuttal so I'm just going to talk shit.
Yet you do that constantly yourself.
3406
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:03:40 PM »
The process of eliminating the societal need of a work force will probably take a thousand years, maybe a few hundred at best.
m80
45% of jobs are at risk of automation over the next 2-3 decades. The unemployment rate during the Great Depression was 25%. This is something we will witness within our lifetimes. It might not totally complete itself, but we'll definitely be seeing at minimum it gain momentum.
Not sure if I should be happy or upset that research can't automate.
3407
« on: October 28, 2014, 05:57:07 PM »
The process of eliminating the societal need of a work force will probably take a thousand years, maybe a few hundred at best. Getting to that point is probably only going to get worse and worse with higher rates of unemployment.
3408
« on: October 28, 2014, 05:54:10 PM »
omg i might actually get to kiss kiyo wouldn't that be so dreamy?
3409
« on: October 28, 2014, 05:39:57 PM »
whats a pegboy?
When you allow this happen
3410
« on: October 28, 2014, 05:38:47 PM »
inb4 classic pegboy denial
3411
« on: October 28, 2014, 05:26:52 PM »
Is that your style?
3412
« on: October 28, 2014, 05:19:36 PM »
I would just say it's a war for stable oil prices.
That doesn't make sense, though. The CCASG, which is unfortunately falling apart at the moment, has done the most for stable oil prices in recent history.
However, is the desire for stable oil prices that reprehensible in the first place?
The West has no influence on CCASG. Sixty years ago ago the US oil companies could make 90% of the profit, and they only had to pay Saudi Arabia about 10% of it.
3413
« on: October 28, 2014, 04:45:51 PM »
I would just say it's a war for stable oil prices.
3414
« on: October 28, 2014, 04:43:50 PM »
As an origins hypothesis it essentially solves nothing. Because instead of asking where the universe came from you're forced to ask where the clockmaker came from.
But if it's supernatural you don't really necessarily have to answer where it came from, considering it's supernatural. Maybe the laws of physics behave differently in a completely void Universe, and maybe that just might mean creating something from nothing.
3415
« on: October 28, 2014, 04:39:27 PM »
Deism is much more intellectually respectable than theism when it comes to a cosmological playing field. However, as Laplace said to Napoleon: "I had no need of that hypothesis."
I thought you were agnostic though?
3416
« on: October 28, 2014, 04:37:21 PM »
I'm really not mad though, since you're all essentially proving the point.
But we aren't in Serious.
They're still being ironic though, and probably on purpose.
3417
« on: October 28, 2014, 04:34:52 PM »
I'm really not mad though, since you're all essentially proving the point.
3418
« on: October 28, 2014, 04:33:15 PM »
This isn't a troll thread just because I'm thinking about a certain idea, though I bet the shitposters of the Serious board will inevitably shitpost here anyway with "LOLOLOLOL" and "you're such an idiot."
Moving forward, is it really such a radical idea to consider, agnostically, that it's possible that a supernatural act (specifically using the word 'act' instead of 'thing') gave rise to the Universe? Yes, we don't know what happened or even what this all really is, and most likely we'll probably never know, but there hasn't yet been much of a sound answer for why we have anything rather than nothing. In fact it's almost certainly rather illogical anyway you think about it. So do you think the possibility of some supernatural act (or supernatural thing if you really insist) could explain what gave rise to the Universe or not?
3419
« on: October 28, 2014, 04:20:54 PM »
If we could all create our own separate countries, I doubt we'd move into anyone else's.
3420
« on: October 28, 2014, 04:19:09 PM »
There's no point in having a separate Serious forum when no one actually takes it seriously. And I already know what you guys are going to say to this, but just because I post opinions that I don't always agree with doesn't mean I'm shitposting. It's shitposting when you start typing "LOLOLOLOL" and other stupid shit in all caps as well as all the countless insults everyone throws around there.
Pages: 1 ... 112113114 115116 ... 194
|
Show Posts
