I think it's time. Probably should have done it a long time ago. Hell, the corporate overlords have been laughing at us for not unionizing when we had the chance. Instead we got free lunches and ping pong tournaments. Well I think it's time we started thinking like they do. You think they give shit about us? This AI push just shows they don't and they want to replace us asap.

And AI will never replace us. It will just make us smarter. We can adapt and will.

Who would have thought that treating each other like objects and measuring self-worth by social media engagement would cause any harm. Like it says in the summary the only ones with the data to back up either conclusion are the tech companies themselves and the silence from them is deafening.

Generating the model and searching the model are two different operations. Like you said backpropagation is extremly costly but forwardpropagation is not. Yet the brain does both at such an efficiency it almost seems impossible with current methodologies. Not to say, to your point, maybe some time in future we can discover better methods but with the state of today's AI I would argue it can't be done.

The only reason these executives talk about their AI being a threat to humanity is to drive up interest in their shitty products. The AI of today is still a child relative to what the human brain is fully capable of. Mostly a parlor trick to fool investors. Secondly, is AGI even possible?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

If a given AI could generate another AI with the same Kolmogorov complexity then would P = NP? If not then there must exist a hierarchy of complexity classes and makes me then think P must not equal NP.

Kolmogorov Complexity Is not computable. Essentially it's impossible to know how _hard it is to write_ a particular algorithm if given the desired output. We have heuristic measures but that's all they are, heuristics. What can be measured is how an algorithm performs and that should be the measure of a programmer. Does the algorithm produce the desired output and does it perform optimally? But I feel like that's not what a programmer is truly measured on. They are more measured on how well they bend to the feature requirements of business. How do you measure that? If I want desired output how much work is required? Kolmogorov Complexity Is not computable.

like typos

oh yeah, the previous article on the front page

https://lock.cmpxchg8b.com/lin...

gimmie my Napster

You assume you can have a fair debate over twitter or facebook. I would argue that such a thing highly unlikely. You want a proper debate you cite sources and evidence. You use logic and question each other's assumptions. It takes work and high informational content to persuade another person. It's just not going to happen at less than 200 characters.

The promise of the Internet was supposed to be the freedom to exchange information. Instead information was commoditized and turned into short bytes of unhealthy content. It's equivalent to fast food. Easy, convenient, but it kills you. And instead of looking towards the platform owners who make money off this content, we fight amongst ourselves.

So I agree with you. We shouldn't cancel each other. We should debate. But the platforms we take to debate on are not conducive to allowing for the free exchange of information. But rather they allow us to instead point fingers and cite memes as evidence.

Mir and Wayland both use EGL. They are both essentially what Xegl might have become if the appropriate resources were attributed to it. Xegl was dumped because a consensus was reached in the xorg community at the time that the current display server with AIGLX would be fine. They did not want to rewrite a X display server from scratch. Without the support of the majority of the xorg community, which was necessary for such an endeavor, the project just died out.

And there was a schism focusing on that XGL was developed in house, "behind closed doors", at Novell by David Reveman (who now works at Google). The majority of which came from Red Hat who offered and wrote AIGLX. Was there blatant bullying? Of course not and I never suggested such. But was there some jealously and collision of egos? Yes.

Those were issues with Xglx (mostly raised by nVidia specifically) which was supposed to be a stop-gap measure. Xegl was the long term approach. It wasn't just purely technical but rather a debate if the current X display server was salvageable. Red Hat and nVidia thought it was.

I reference David Reveman's post to the xorg mailing list.

I think the arguments made by nvidia to why X on OpenGL would be worse
than the current driver architecture can be debated on until forever. I
think it all boils down to if we want put some more effort to it and
take the big scary step to something new or if we want to stick to the
old well known. Not too surprising, we have people who are in favor of
both and we'll likely have development being done on both, which I don't
think is that bad after all.

So far I haven't heard a single argument for why X on OpenGL is a a bad
idea other than that it's a big step and a lot of work will have to be
done. If that would stop me from working on Xgl, I wouldn't have started
working on it in the first place

So yes I did do my homework. I did it 7 years ago and the teacher just forgot to collect it.

We could have had a modern display server years ago with XGL/Xegl. But it was killed off because Red Hat and nVidia didn't like. Mainly because it wasn't their idea. Now it seems all the pissing and moaning is coming from the Red Hat camp. Well karma's a bitch ain't it.