I would buy this in a heartbeat. I am profoundly bothered by the slop software that is on every TV these days. I keep joking that as tech invades more and more corners of our lives, we will at some point in the future be helping our parents with their couches by saying "Have you tried restarting your couch?"
Don't get me wrong, tech is great when it's a value-add, but TV tech has gotten out of control.
Any suggestions for a scanner meant for bulk scans of old family photos (think a few thousand images)? I bought, what I thought, was a reasonably solid scanner, the Pacific Image Powerfilm scanner but the software is so janky that it hangs every two strips and has to be restarted making the entire process super labor intensive. Also the entire "bulk feature" where it's meant to pull the strips one at a time iis not even close to working.
Granted my film scanner (epson v750) has gotten on in years the more prosumer-professional Epson scanners were good, software was still a bit janky but IIRC there is aftermarket scanner software for them.
It can do 36 exposures but you have to cut them into strips and place them in a carrier but it isn't terrible and if you store your negs in film protectors you are cutting them down anyway.
I am fairly sure the newest version (V850) is the same but be aware they aren't cheap, at least $1k+ USD but still cheaper than the next level up which are pro drum scanners and they are many orders of magnitude more expensive.
I'm curious what you mean when you say that this clearly is not intelligence because it's just Markov chains on steroids.
My interpretation of what you're saying is that since the next token is simply a function of the proceeding tokens, i.e. a Markov chain on steroids, then it can't come up with something novel. It's just regurgitating existing structures.
But let's take this to the extreme. Are you saying that systems that act in this kind of deterministic fashion can't be intelligent? Like if the next state of my system is simply some function of the current state, then there's no magic there, just unrolling into the future. That function may be complex but ultimately that's all it is, a "stochastic parrot"?
If so, I kind of feel like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The laws of physics are deterministic (I don't want to get into a conversation about QM here, there are senses in which that's deterministic too and regardless I would hope that you wouldn't need to invoke QM to get to intelligence), but we know that there are physical systems that are intelligent.
If anything, I would say that the issue isn't that these are Markov chains on steroids, but rather that they might be Markov chains that haven't taken enough steroids. In other words, it comes down to how complex the next token generation function is. If it's too simple, then you don't have intelligence but if it's sufficiently complex then you basically get a human brain.
Just to pile on here, there's also ambiguity around how the observed girl is selected. Consider the following framing:
I go to a random house on a random street and knock on the door. A young girl opens the door. I ask how many siblings they have and they say one. What's the probability that they have a sister?
Now it's 50% even though cosmetically it seems like it'd be fair to say that the family has at least one daughter. The reason is that once I see a girl at the door, I'm slightly more confident in that it's a GG household since a GB or BG household would sometimes show a boy opening the door (assuming the two kids are equally likely to open the door).
P(GG | G at door) = P(G at door | GG) P(GG) / P(G at door)
This is the crux of the "paradox," which is really just an interpretation problem. Most people assume that the question asks exactly your scenario, i.e. if a specific child is selected and it's a girl, what's the probability that the sibling is also a girl? In that case, the event space is just GB or GG, and p(GG)/(p(GB) + p(GG)) = 0.5. (BG is not in the event space because we are conditioning on a specific child being a girl.)
However, if the question is interpreted as "what's the probability of having two girls if we know there aren't two boys," then the event space is GB, BG, GG, and p(GG)/(p(GB) + p(BG) + p(GG)) = 1/3. Both GB and BG are in the event space because we are not conditioning on the sex of one specific child.
You’re making the classic mistake in conflating computing how pathways to conditions can rise from computing conditionals given the current state. There’s absolutely no information theoretical difference between you saying “A girl opened the door” and “I was told the family has a girl.”
Look at the more technical descriptions using conditional probabilities of the Monty Hall problem as it is essentially equivalent. You’re trying to factor in the probability of whether Monty knows if a goat is behind a door when the observable information is that there is an open door with a goat. One you make that observation many things collapse.
I think two possible effects of AI are often conflated.
On the one hand you can imagine that work gets supercharged, allowing companies to produce 10x the number of widgets at 1/10th the cost. The economy would grow rapidly, wealth inequality would presumably be exacerbated, jobs would be automated, we might need some version of universal basic income, and so on. People debate whether or not this kind of transition is imminent or if it'd take decades.
On the other hand, it's conceivable that not much would happen in the "bulk" of the economy while at the same time the frontier of humanity might be pushed forward. We may see new treatments for diseases, new types of energy production, and so on. In this version of the world, jobs would mostly remain unchanged (at least in the short to intermediate term), perhaps with some small multiplicative efficiency factor, the economy wouldn't grow rapidly, there wouldn't be any mass unemployment, and so on.
In my mind, I'm much more excited about the second kind of impact that AI might have than the first. I guess I don't really feel like I want to have 10x the stuff that I already have while I'm really excited about someone curing cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, MS, and so on.
If stuff is 1/10th as expensive as it is now, you can also work 1/10th as hard for 1x as much stuff as you have now, instead of 1x as hard as you work now for 10x the stuff.
I'm not making a value judgement on how much I would or other people should consume in the first scenario. I'm simply saying that you could have profound effects due to AI without it being evident in the top-level metrics like economic growth, unemployment, and so on. It seems like we often say that either we see explosive economic growth or AI has either no, or at best very minimal impact in our lives. I don't think this dichotomy is correct.
I agree that that dichotomy is not necessarily true, but also you gave your reason for being "more excited" about one side of the dichotomy being that you "don't want 10x the stuff," and my point is that you're undervaluing the flexibility of material abundance.
Even if AI can't replace an entire worker, they may still be able to help one worker do the work of two which by itself could lead to massive unemployment (at least in the short term.)
In this instance, it may not lead to massive unemployment as it could be simply that we do more white collar work than we currently do. White collar work, for the large part, is not born out of necessity, as white-collars, we do not produce things, we oversee the process, we market, we sell, we do accounting, we support, and so on. The more of these we do, the better our companies can compete. But there is no inherent reason that a mature company could not reduce its white-collar jobs to a halt if there was not competition. White-collars work because the competition also hires and gets them to work. Hence we say "productivity is increasing but we have to work more". So even if AI leads to massive improvements in white-collar work productivity, as long as it is not entirely replacing people, it may not lead to job losses at all.
I think the OP was pointing out that the reason Strasssen's algorithm works is that it somehow uncovered a kind of repeated work that's not evident in a simple divide and conquer approach. It's by the clever definition of the various submatrices that this "overlapping" work can be avoided.
In other words, the power of Strasssens algorithm comes from a strategy that's similar to / reminiscent of dynamic programming.
Isn't it just that the IP router happens to use IPs in Russia as part of the rotation?
If they're trying to exfiltrate data, they might want to rotate through IP addresses in order to obfuscate what's going on or otherwise circumvent restrictions. Using a simple ip rotator like the post talks about would maybe be an approach they'd use. If they're not careful with the IP addresses, once in a while one might get caught due to some restriction like being outside the US. It'd maybe appear as though you're getting these weird requests from Russia, but that's just because you're not logging the requests that are not being flagged from the US.
Maybe I'm reading the post incorrectly though (if so, please correct me!)
Seems telling that an org had arguably the leading AI, as the planet knows it at least, and still can't exist without putting ads in front of eyes. So much for the hype.
For any dome-like shape, you can start a marble at the bottom and roll it up with some initial speed. If you roll it with insufficient initial speed it'll turn around and come back down. If you roll it too hard, it'll overshoot the peak. By continuity, there must exist some initial condition where it stops at the top.
Now, here's the thing that makes Norton's dome special: For a typical dome shape it'll take an infinite amount of time before that marble stops at the top. If you plot the position as a function of time it'll have some type of sigmoid-like shape. However, for the special case of Norton's dome, you can make it settle at the top in a finite amount of time where it'll sit for the rest of eternity. In other words, if you plot the position as a function of time, there will be some critical time after which its position is constant.
Now, the clever thing to do now is to realize that Newton's laws are time reversal symmetric which means that any motion forward in time could equally well happen backwards in time.
So, you're allowed to take any position plot and flip it horizontally; this is also going to be a valid trajectory.
For any typical dome shape this is not a problem. For a typical dome shape you have a sigmoid-like solution which, when flipped, is still sigmoid shaped. In particular this means that there is no finite time at which you can place the marble at the top of the dome and have it roll off. At any finite time, the marble will be slightly off the top and have a small nonzero speed.
Norton's dome is different. If you flip its trajectory horizontally you'll see that there are many moments in time where you can start the marble at the top to have it abruptly start rolling off the top at some later time. This is the paradox. You can choose to have it sit at the top for one second and then start rolling or sit at the top for one minute and then start rolling.
Unlike other domes, Norton's dome seems to violate our intuition for how initial conditions work. In all cases the marble starts at the top with zero initial speed and yet falls off the top att different moments.
Don't get me wrong, tech is great when it's a value-add, but TV tech has gotten out of control.