Recent submissions

Comment · 4 months ago
What superhuman? This system will never have a 99.99% accuracy based on its current prediction models and data input, neither is it a targeted to make us superhumans in the first place.

It still will need human supervision for corrections and if it doesn't it won't require humans to process further. Humans are not in the central picture of the future of AI.

Comment · 10 years ago
These are factors that indirectly increase the probability of cancer occurring in your body. There is always a small chance your body would develop cancer.
Comment · 10 years ago
That does seem to be the case. It actually could be an interesting sales move. If the price would rise linearly, the saturation point in which the logos become "too expensive" would occur faster in sales. Gently lowering the additional value (from 40 to 20 and i assume from 20 to 10) would let the saturation point occur later, thus having more sales in total.
Comment · 10 years ago
Comment · 10 years ago
The brain, at least, plays a (somewhat local) observer role towards the Universe. The brain trying to understand the Universe is a nice byproduct of that role.
Comment · 10 years ago
Comment · 10 years ago
It seems to be an online course in the form of online slides and documentation, as this course has sadly already been given (Tu / Th 3:45PM - 5:35PM; April 4 - April 18). Nevertheless, interesting material.
Comment · 10 years ago
I do understand the procedure of this experiment. However doesn't the experiment strain mentally (thus possible generating incorrect results)?

Taking the following from the paper:(http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160719/ncomms12172/full/nc...):

Averaging across subjects’ responses and ratings from a total of 30,767 trials, 2,420 single-photon events passed post-selection and we found the averaged probability of correct response to be 0.516±0.010 (P=0.0545; Fig. 2a).

Edit: Having (quickly) read the paper, it does seem the psychology of the volunteers was taken into proper consideration, I stand corrected:

Before collecting data, subjects were extensively trained using a classical light source with photon number between 1 and 15 photons at the cornea (Supplementary Fig. 4a). The improved performance with experience is clearly and quantitatively visible (Supplementary Fig. 4b,c). Subjects typically required 6–8 sessions, performing one session a day, to reach their optimal performance level (Supplementary Fig. 4b,c). Each session took~2 h, when including dark adaption.

During data acquisition, each subject went through up to 20 sessions. Still this high amount of sessions was not enough to obtain statistically significant performance for individual subjects, and therefore we pooled the data together to increase significance (Fig. 2a–d). As subject’s sensitivity and criteria used to assign the confidence ratings might vary in psychophysics trials28, we aimed to minimize or normalize possible factors causing variability to achieve maximum sensitivity and similarity across subjects by using extensive training of the subjects and using our 2AFC paradigm.

Additionally, the research does have interesting observations:

Surprisingly, a strong dependence on the temporal separation of the two events was observed peaking at ~3.5 s, with a decay time on the order of seconds (Fig. 2c). Such a long timescale phenomenon represents more than an order of magnitude disparity with the known integration time of the visual system4. This result directly shows that the probability of correctly reporting a single photon is highly enhanced by the presence of an earlier photon within ~5 s time interval.

Thus, consistent with both observations, we suggest that the detection of a single photon – or equally a photon-like noise event (that is, spontaneous isomerization) – temporarily increases the effective gain of the visual system under extreme low-light conditions, such that a second temporally coinciding photon (or photon-like noise event) can be behaviourally detected with a higher probability.

Comment · 10 years ago
I'm honestly a bit surprised that such an article is placed in Nature, as there seem to be a couple questionable details in the article regarding the experiment:

- Only 3 volunteers on which the experiment has been tested

- The volunteers were left "in total darkness for around 40 minutes" before the actual experiment

- "In many cases, they got it wrong; this is to be expected, given that more than 90% of photons that enter the front of the eye never even reach a rod cell, because they are absorbed or reflected by other parts of the eye. Still, participants were able to answer correctly more frequently than would be expected if they had guessed at random and their confidence level was higher when they were right."

- The three volunteers sat through a total of more than 2,400 trials in which a single photon was emitted (and many more in which it was not).

- That high volume of testing, the researchers say, gives them strong statistical evidence of single-photon detection

- The participants had to say on which occasion they thought they saw a photon, and how confident they were (on a scale of 1 to 3) about their sighting.

In summation, they put 3 volunteers for 40 minutes in total darkness, then performed more than 2400 trials in total (i assume 1000+ trials per person, taking into account the tests in which no photon was emmitted). "Many" times the volunteers guessed wrong, but when they guessed right they were pretty confident of it (using a rather simplistic scale of 1-3).

What I'm seeing with this experiment is a result which is more confirmed due to psychological bias rather than actual results by putting these volunteers in a straining test. How would you, as a volunteer react, if you were left in the darkness for such a long test duration and would asked over a 1000 times whether you have seen a flash.

Edit: After having read the actual paper on the methodology, I do retract my comment.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton