corethree

This is a rarity.

Many interviewers are so biased and lack nuance that they literally just go with whether or not the person passed the question.

No way. The people at the forefront of AI, most of them will have a much harder time learning quantum physics. Yes ML is hard but it's nowhere near QE, theoretical math or physics.

The reason is simply because ML is incomplete and thus right now is more art then science. We only understand these neural networks from the perspective of an analogy. The curve fitting analogy. Its nowhere near something like general relativity where even an analogy doesn't convey full understanding.

And You're fucking rude. What the hell is up with that Wild u turn there into hostility. You need to fucking tone your shit down.

This is causal conversation not a scientifically rigorous paper making bold claims. That comparison with highschool was Totally uncalled for. Next time either ask nicely for evidence or if you want to be rude please do so somewhere else.

For now we are done. This conversation is over.

Just thought I reference this:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Is SB1047 the first instance of AI regulation?

I don't think he undertands people are more and more hating CA, both inside and outside of the state.

Same reason why Tesla moved and why tons of people are moving out of CA. There's a huge benefit.

Also don't think that this workforce is exclusive to CA. AI is easy to learn, it's not quantum physics.

Of course it's nicer to give everyone a humane job. It's not about what's nicer. It's about reality. There's simply not enough jobs to go around if there are no bullshit jobs. Your statement here doesn't make sense to me. Yeah it's better but what does better have to do with the realistic consequence? Nothing.

Very little jobs for people with sub 80 IQ which makes up a significant portion of the population. If any of these people hold jobs it's most likely bullshit.

If millions are unemployed that doesn't mean they won't get paid. But if they didn't it doesn't mean money has no meaning. I didn't mention the consequences of that. You did.

All I said here is that if we get rid of all bullshit jobs. Millions will be unemployed. What that means is up to you decide, I simply stated the immediate realistic consequence of no bullshit jobs.

If you want to create a world where there's no bullshit jobs at all then you'd be creating a world where millions are unemployed.

We are rapidly heading in this direction with automation. AI is beginning to fulfill the final step in this process creating a world where 90% of jobs don't need a human.

Does anyone know what I have to learn to "know" about this theory? Is it control theory and classical mechanics?

Is there a way to model this theoretically? Or is it always trial and error?

I mean I realize you have to test the thing for "bugs" just wondering if a theory to perfectly model it is even possible.

I disagree. The colloquial understanding for logic is technical. OP is using the term incorrectly and in a strange way. I understand that most of us can still 'understand' his point but that does not mean he's using the term colloquially or correctly. Think about it.

I get what your saying here but basically the article and all responders are dodging the real issue here with this wordplay.

The OP article is actually saying CSS is not terrible. And people who disagree are saying yes in fact css is terrible. It's just a way to be not so on the nose about saying css is a shitty way to do things.

You missed my point which may be my fault as it's a bit obscure the way I said it. Let me rephrase it to be more clear:

I'm saying it's pointless to say or claim css is logical. He's using the term incorrectly. The real argument here is really about whether or not css is shitty or not shitty and using the term logical is not only dodging the point, but also awkwardly using the word logic.

I'm kidding a bit here. My post is actually agreeing with the parent poster but in a sort of roundabout deceptive way of appearing to disagree.

It got flagged and several downvotes. Likely from saying that css is terrible. But I mean that's the essence of the parents actual argument is it not? He's essentially saying css is just not well made or poorly designed. I'm just more on the nose about what he's actually saying.

Either way as you pointed out css being logical is from a very technical perspective correct.

>FWIW, I'm amused because I recognize your behavior as that of someone quite young. I acted similar ways 20 years ago and now I think it's just kind of funny to see in other people.

If you are actually amused then you're a bully. This statement here shows you like to bully people younger then you and laugh in there face. You enjoy angering people and triggering them. But I don't believe this statement. I think you're not being honest here.

I don't think you're actually amused now. But we both know it's clear your intent on overtly displaying that you feel amusement.

>If it wasn't for this arrogance I may have. But now I'm going to reply to every reply you make just to see how long you stick with it. I'm as curious as I am fascinated.

Arrogance? You left out the part where I thanked you for leaving. Now you want to stay and ignite the conflict even further? Does conflict "fascinate" you? I don't think it does. I think you're only pretending.

I think it's the dominance game at play. You want to play it till you win. The problem is, I'm not playing the game. You're just playing it with yourself.

>There is a key sentence in the reply to the other user that I put effort into (since they were friendly and humble unlike yourself) that addresses that nuance, and I encourage you to re-read it with an open mind and without hate/spite in your heart.

I don't hate you. But I do think your a malicious person. I think you're not moral nor a person I would trust ever with anything. But I don't hate you.

Im not sure what your implying here as the key sentence. Why don't you stop being vague ish and just spell it out so we can explicitly point by point examine every facet of our arguments.

>Looking forward to your next reply. Cheers.

Yeah. I'm not. But I will respond. Would appreciate it also in your reply if you just stick with your point and not have to overtly display how "amused" or how "fascinated" you are at this whole thing. I already know your intent here so doing that is just repetitive on your part, thank you.

Right. So that's my point. Css is logical. The point made by the article has no point.

A claim that css is terrible, has a point.