twak
Joined 18 years ago
Joined 18 years ago
I do believe in intelligence (which is measured against a particular task) and ego (which inflates the self over the other).
Through a career SWEs start rigid and overly focused on the immediate problem and become flexible/error-tolerant[1] as they become system (mechanical or meat) managers. this maps to an observation that managers like AI solutions - because they compare favourably to the new hire - and because they have the context to make this observation.
[1] https://grugbrain.dev/#:~:text=grug%20note%20humourous%20gra...
i have my own archive of my own bugs/"artworks" - https://twak.org/glitches-in-the-worlds-geometry-engine/
It's recently struggling for relevance.
https://www.ft.com/content/6bfea441-e16c-499a-a887-69f735c29... (https://archive.ph/ujfhb)
I hope they turn it around because the UK need for AI academic coordination/leadership is so high.
I haven't found a definition of consciousness which is quantifiable or stands up to serious rigour. If it can't be measured and isn't necessary for intelligence, perhaps there is no magic cut-off between the likes of Dall-E and human intelligence. Perhaps the Chinese-room is as conscious as a human (and a brick)?
In these situations, I have suggested releasing anonymous implementations after the paper is accepted just to get the code out there. I am not certain this is the right thing to do!
Frequently the PIs (bosses) will not even glance at the repositories written by junior members, probably can't read code anyway, and certainly won't allocate time for their maintenance. Even worse, most academics who do publish code have never been exposed to real world software engineers, their techniques, or tools.
adobe research scientists are crazy-strong in the area of deep/neural graphics[1]. Perhaps we should disentangle adobe research from photoshop?
(Don't confuse "track bikes" and "road bikes"...)