It computes because it is detached, there is no feeling. To learn, we would need to first create something that is conscious, an ever-changing self. It needs to be in reference to itself, not some notion of compute in a detached paradigm.
> "A computer program is said to learn from experience E with respect to some class of tasks T and performance measure P, if its performance at tasks in T, as measured by P, improves with experience E". This definition is notable for its defining machine learning in fundamentally operational rather than cognitive terms, thus following Alan Turing's proposal in Turing's paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" that the question "Can machines think?" be replaced with the question "Can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?"
It's important, because we don't need to care about cognition or consciousness, and we can still write programs that solve problems well by making inferences from patterns in data.
It is interesting. He is intelligent and has a very good grasp on reality, but does not seem to know himself very well. (e.g. not being able to control his thoughts and visualizations/memories)
It would be tremendous to master the self as well as reality -- then one could control his emotions and visuals, as well as channel it according to their will.
I think this is one of the reasons TDD/BDD have caught on lately, small refactors are easier to manage than changing large chunks of code.
Looking back at my coding workflow early on, I would often get lost in my own code because I would attempt large changes without testing or version control. Interestingly, instead of developing a better workflow, I first learned to keep more inside my head.
Sensing is easier to model out than intuition. Intuition requires the self component because it comes from feelings and past experiences. The current algorithms are important too, but they do not model the self.
The problem here is that the whole security model is upside down. No one else should see or have access to my data.
I am sure that Congress could eventually interfere and set certain rules around the handling of personal data, but more likely, we will soon start seeing alternate technical solutions which puts each user's data in that specific user's hands.
There will come a time when it will not be ethical for companies to store un-encrypted personal data.
> The problem here is that the whole security model is upside down.
I had to scroll two screens down to find your comment.
At some point Google and Facebook(and everyone else, these two are just the most popular right now) inverted the rules. Years ago it was completely unacceptable for any piece of software to mine any piece of data without your consent. Screens had to be shown explicitly "do you authorize we contact server X in order to send data Y?"
Fast forward a few years and these companies are out there providing Javascript libraries that are essentially urchins on every web page. Every web site which uses Google gadgets for example, like maps or adsense or whatever is giving their visitor's client data to Google - screen resolution, IP address, web browser used, allows them to set tracking cookies, etc.... Same with Facebook javascript gadgets. Since when is this OK?
This would have been completely unacceptable a few years ago but somewhere it got lost. Now it's not only ok for Google and Facebook to track you everywhere, it also seems to be OK to FIGHT over having access to even more data!
The whole privacy thing has been turned upside down. These people are not fighting for our privacy, they are fighting over who gets to access MORE of our personal data.
The problem is that showing explicit screens and granting authorization and doing all this stuff manually is not a viable solution. I think it is natural that companies won't do this, specially when they make tons of money from the current model.
Privacy needs to be baked into the internet. This is more central to human needs than a google search or facebook connection. People are doing what is easy and using these services, but once a true privacy service comes up neither Larry/Sergey or Zuch will know how to respond. This will likely be outside of their mental framework and new privacy centric companies will emerge.
The problem is the ownership. Do you own the data or does the company you post the data on own the data? This is a decision that needs to be made, and I believe that everyone knows the answer but can't take their eyes off the dollar signs.
> Do you own the data or does the company you post the data on own the data? This is a decision that needs to be made
This decision was made long ago. The remedy is called habeas data and YOU own your personal data and nobody else. Whether other parties(like an employer) can USE your data, is a matter of contract and agreement. But who owns it is already decided.
> But how about if Google collects its OWN information about me. Does that fall under habeas data?
Anyone whom you suspect has data on you can be subpoenaed to give you, and only you, the data they have about you. The government included, even spy agencies - you have the right to request your personal information from any other person, corporation or governmental agency.
Bezos is trying to take over the world, like the guys at Google and Facebook. They are architecting the new world as they envision it. It isn't about just one industry or some obscure way of making profits, it is really about all of it.
Educated/uneducated may not be the right terms, but it is possible to have hindsight just by understanding the landscape.
Privacy is becoming a large problem in the internet and encryption will likely be part of the solution. Without encryption, the ownership of data is on the service provider instead of the person.
Privacy is a feature just like free storage. One day, privacy can be available to the masses just like storage is today. (also think back how many people actually wanted or needed multiple gb of free storage for their emails until one was provided by a service like gmail)
In the large projects that I have seen, when I think about how much of the work being done is the core product vs frameworky stuff and/or integration, I think 100-1000x is more accurate.
The pure business logic constitutes a very small part in comparison, but the type of environment/company also matters. Startups tend to have less fluff than large enterprises.
