Grandwolf319

went to super compute this year and went to a talk about using machine learning/AI for tsunami detection

Thanks for the example.

So although I do agree this is a good thing, I wouldn’t call it revolutionary. If a tsunami is predicted, knowing a day or two earlier isn’t going to revolutionize response, it would help but it’s not in the same scale as being able to give live updates via the internet vs the speed or a newspaper.

AI as a whole is very much on the level of usefulness of an engine or the Internet.

Right so that’s what I’m kind of challenging here. What can machine learning do today that we couldn’t do without it.

I fully understand how you could have weather prediction models that might outperform traditional algorithms, but it would need waaay more power and the gain is a small increment instead of a difference of magnitude.

Remember those pictures in PC magazines from the 90s that showed how much data can be stored in a single CD vs paper? What’s the ML equivalent of that?

While I fully agree with him politically on this issue.

Anyone else doubts all these claims?

Before the dot com bubble popped, you could do online banking, send emails, buy stuff online and order pizza on a website. The speed was just very slow.

Today, the only applications of AI are either really evil (surveillance tech) or just sub par compared to the traditional method.

Email was superior to mail for most cases, and AI summery, art or code is pretty much always inferior to the human (or even algorithmic) version.

IMO this is far closer to crypto, which didn’t go away but hasn’t revolutionized shit except scams.

I’m guessing AI will just revolutionize surveillance, can’t see it do anything else “better”.

Edit: some great responses but I would like to clarify, I get how ML can make somethings better, the issue is that’s it’s incremental, whereas the internet was orders of magnitude. What is the ML equivalent of this (sorry to use Gates):

To retain ownership across state lines where the property is considered a limited person in the other state.

But that wouldn’t work for say heroin.

If your state says heroin is legal and the fed says it’s illegal, you can’t really leave your state and still legally be in possession of it.

I guess you could claim you own a person in a red state but once they leave, you no longer own them?

Wasn’t that the red states’ whole complaint? That their slaves shouldn’t be considered free men once they leave?

So in conclusion, the whole states rights argument doesn’t work because what they actually wanted was to have their state’s laws apply across the country.

And this doesn’t even talk about the moral issues which imo and most people’s opinion should override the above logic anyway.

Was there ever a time that Republicans actually stayed true to their principles when it wasn’t to their advantage?

In my life experience I honestly can’t think of a time.

Haves and not haves

Workers vs owners

Trust fund babies

Billionaires

Wealth hoarders

Today’s language actually has lots of options

And they are right,

One of the advantages of laser guns is very high capacity

Wasn’t that what the witch from Narnia did?

Close but false, the light doesn’t need to be natural.

“He sees you when your sleeping”

The Adams family are just privacy focused, very based as always.

Which features needed subscription?

I remember, on the ps3, if a game had multiplayer it was free whereas you had to pay for Xbox live on the 360.

Maybe it was for premium features? I didn’t really care about that

I believe the PS3 was.

Very powerful machine, Sony was losing money on every sale.

Full of features including a web browser (which at the time was very impressive).

Full online functionality without any monthly costs

Upgradable hard drive

Full backwards compatibility (at launch).

It just didn’t sell as much as the ps2