To add: ideasware, this is a fertile environment for discussion of AI. There are a lot of us with at worst, an autodidactic lay perspective and at best, graduate level study in the subject. Our conclusions may not match yours because our exposure may not match yours. By putting these perspectives in contact they change in a lovely cumulative way. As a group we seem to enjoy it. It certainly teaches us things. We're even eager to discuss the maxim "IF: AI THEN: SKYNET" so long as you can decompile it, show us the comments and give us an opportunity to critique the code. Also - thunderstorm simulator? If you discussed that before link me and if you didn't, hop to, squire.
As someone who wants to get more hands on with AI/ML, what tool set would you recommend? I'm familiar with both Matlab and Python but haven't ran simulations other than some simple linear models. Tensorflow keeps popping up on sites I read but I feel like I miss half of the basics to know if that's what I need.
The tools don't matter, you need to know linear algebra, probability and statistics, and general broad level AI concepts.
I'd do that if I already had a thorough theoretical foundation instead of just the interest I have in the topic. This course has been recommended to me a few times. I'll have to admit, I still haven't found the time to just throw myself at the problem, so I haven't given either that course or Tensorflow courses a good run. My hope was that you might know some kind of silver bullet with which I can tackle AI / ML. I have two general goals with this endeavour: one, to get my hands dirty regarding AI/ML so I can understand it properly; two, to learn enough about it so that I can apply it when a problem arises. So I want to learn how it works and add it to my toolbox. More specifically, I want to figure out applications in the geographic domain - can I model geographic phenomena, and use ML to recognize patterns / make (spatial) predictions? A few years ago, I analysed demographic and economic spatial patterns in the Seattle area to help kleinbl00 find the best location for his birth center. I think it would be awesome if I could use ML to classify and predict urban patterns. Think your thunderstorm simulator (the coolest band name I've read this week) but on a larger scale, bounded by geographic place theory instead of physical fluid dynamics.I actually tried to make a lot of the tools myself, from the ground up.
Ok, at first I thought I'd just ignore you, but as you warmed up, I saw that after all you were really AI-junkies, and that I can get behind in a good way. Believe it or not (and I'm puzzled why you think I'm against you when I'm with you completely) I have very similar work as you, except probably 30 years before you -- I am 56. I am Peter Marshall, from Irvine, CA, and if you want to know more about me just google it and see for yourselves, or go on LinkedIn. I am a programmer's programmer, although for the last 10 years I have been more CEO, just managing programmers in personalized voice recognition, and now in AI. robotics, and nanotechnology and are not in programming in Python or Tensorflow any more per se. I have a very simple proposition. Job loss is real, and about to become obvious, and I think will lead to widespread unemployment starting essentially now. Military AI arms and the race to achieve them will be incredible and unwise, and sooner or later will lead to war of unimaginable consequences, bigger and more lethal than ever before. We can disagree (or agree -- either one is fine) but you do not have to be disagreeable -- that is just silly, and I do not want it. Quite simple.
I really want to hit on one major point about military AI arms buildup. I think you'll find if you re-read my initial note with a fresh, even, calm perspective, that you will find that I was not rude at all, not even slightly. I'm really genuinely puzzled by your actions. But on to the main point. Right now it's just ANI for military arms, and it will take a little while to warm up, but everyone agrees, including responsible generals or program managers with a need to know from DARPA, the DoD, General Mattis, Bob Work, etc. that in 10 years AI and super-drones that kill people with no human participation will be extremely sophisticated and advanced already, and in twenty long years with AGI now on the table it will be out of hand completely. You don't think that Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and Halliburton will be the first one who knows about the AI advances? And the Russians and the Chinese are right there with it for AI -- the Chinese are actually superior after 10 years. The slightest mistake could be absolutely deadly; end of the world deadly. Honestly how you don't know it with your advanced knowledge of AI and AGI just befuddles me -- a lot of true AI experts like Stuart Russell (professor of AI at Cal, my old school) agree with me. Elon Musk agrees with me -- HE SAYS it's the most important problem in the world, an existential threat to out survival as a species within our lifetime -- I'm just agreeing with HIM. And he's the CEO of OpenAI and CEO of Neuralink, and not just a "hands-off" CEO but an active player in their key decisions, and a fantastic one.
Mr. Hyperloop doesn't know shit, and there are a vast number of AI researchers, most of which do not agree with you, to my knowledge.a lot of true AI experts like Stuart Russell (professor of AI at Cal, my old school) agree with me. Elon Musk agrees with me
Yes, that's it, of course. LinkedIn (peter marshall irvine) is the other one that's pretty explanatory. BTW facebook is one also -- facebook. com /memememobile?v=feed. Friend me, with hubski as your message. Listen, so far there are three people, including Isherwood who at least tried to listen. I know eventually he'll come around -- it takes lot's of time, don't worry, even though right now you're unconvinced. But how about a few more speakers, even nay-sayers, so I can get an idea whether this is a very small operation, or there's lots of listeners just taking notes. I want to listen, not just talk -- this is supposed to be a dialogue.
Patronize - treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority. Example - Let's step away from Artificial Intelligence and shift to Emotional Intelligence and something called Transactional Analysis. Your old enough to have heard of it, but I'm going to explain to make sure we're on the same page. When two people enter a conversation they have the option of taking one of three ego states - Parent, Child, and Adult. Parent is a caricature of the parental figures from your life. Child is a caricature of the role you played in your childhood. Adult is a rational representation of your true self. When you create a thread like The problem is that you are new to this community and you don't know the dynamics at play here. Most of us enjoy adult to adult conversations, especially when the conversation is around predictions of the future or sciences. We have certain demands of people making big claims. In the thread mentioned I have tried to guide you to fulfilling these demands, but again and again your replies have the exact same problems: 1. You present no verifiable points 2. You present no cohesive argument 3. You provide no facts or references 4. You repeat the same vagaries over and over 5. You present a lack of agreement as a lack of understanding You present no Adult argument; you simply have the classic parent argument, "because I say so". Your experience as a CEO, your experience selling a company, your age, their sole purpose is to make you sound more impressive and to give more weight to the "I" in "because I say so". But, like I said, we enjoy these conversations from an Adult/Adult stance (or a willing child/parent stance, but you don't have the social currency for that yet). So when you come in, acting like a parent and implying we should act as children, you create a crossed transaction. In a crossed transaction, we want to stick to adult and hope you will change, but you want to stick to parent and hope we will change. I have tried to engage you, adult to adult, giving you opportunities to explain your stance and provide data to back up your very bold claims, but you have maintained parent and doubled down on "because I said so", a patronizing argument. Eventually I did break down and shift my stance to child, but it wasn't the good student, it was the petulant child - As long as you maintain your current parent state you will be met with many more crossed transactions and petulant children because you are not taking the time to understand the underlying dynamic of the community you engage with.I know eventually he'll come around -- it takes lot's of time, don't worry
I don't think your truly grok the problem
you are taking what is perceived as a parent stance by many - you have information that no one else here could possibly have and you're going to impart wisdom. You are also implying that we should all take a child stance and readily ingest whatever it is you decide to feed us.Goddamn you're patronizing.
I did this because you spoke for me, like you knew me, and like I was too stupid to have processed the good knowledge you gave me.
I think I understand. I really think that it's not what you claim; that I did everything I could to be reasonable and fair, and not be like a parent to a child, a important scholar to a hapless student, but just equal to equal -- as a re-reading of the actual content will show -- but let's see what the next posting brings.