That is an informative link, but nothing in it dispels the claim that they are digging a giant strip mine. If anything, it corroborates the statement by pointing out that they are building more coal plants. All it does is explain *why* they are building the plants, and that they have been planning to do so for a long time.

No one will probably follow that link anyone since you added insults into your post, guaranteeing it never goes above 0.

After reading a shameful article praising clickbait I realize the term isn't negative enough. "Bait" can be good or bad. Instead, please call them "misleading headlines" or "incomplete headlines" or "editorializing headlines."

That parenthetical comment changes the entire thing. When they said "coffee is connected to mugs" I read that as "the system learns that coffee is connected to mugs all by itself" but really that parenthetical part conveys that the human went through the video and made that connection for the computer.

I got the part about querying the system, I just thought they were saying that this "database" that it queried was something it built on its own. Throughout the article they reiterate how this program processed the videos, not that it processed the human's explanation of what is happening the videos. I would think they key about the system is this annotation process and how it works. I'd love to see that. It sounds like a neat Mechanical Turk kind of project.

I don't think they explained that clearly. Thank you for pointing it out.

Correct. Decision trees and neural nets can sorta do that, but they also need a human to mark which sections of the image correspond to those items.

This is completely different from facial recognition. In facial recognition, a human being writes code that defines what a "face" is. I believe the typical approach is to find 2 eyes, a nose, and a mouth. Then they calculate the size and spacing of those items and use that to identify the face. But that isn't general-purpose image recognition. Right now, you could make a program to do the same thing for coffee if you wanted.

The article claims that they wrote an anything recognition algorithm that can find anything, with no help from a human whatsoever, even if that thing is embedded in a video with a bunch of other images. That is not possible today. Even humans can't do that! I have a 5-year-old and a 1-year old. The nly way the 1-year-old would know that coffee is coffee is if I hold it in front of him and say "coffee."

There are actually algorithms that do try to recognize arbitrary objects. But they work on images of just that one object, and everything else cut out, along with some kind of annotation that tells them what the object is. They don't work with just any image.

This article is just a rant, full one one-liner insults and clichés. There are probably good debates on this topic, but this is not one of them.

Solar power in orbit is only useful for powering things that are in orbit, like satellites or space stations. Beaming it back to earth is useless because the energy required to launch the panels far exceeds the power the panels could ever deliver. Searches always reveal the JAXA plans to do this, but those plans never address the launch cost issue. A brief summary of the problem exists in the Wikipedia article on space-based solar.

Is there more information on this project? It sounds awesome, but the article seems quite sensationalized:

Let's break that down.
A robot that can watch someone do something then repeat it would be the height of AI, as far as I know.
Software that can watch a youtube video and generalize what is a "chair" or "coffee" merely from watching videos would be beyond any AI I am currently aware of.
Software that can do that, PLUS recognize that what it is looking at now is coffee is completely unbelievable.
Software + a robot that can do all of the 3 above is not something I expect within my lifetime. Pure science fiction.

I'm sure there is a good project here, but I can't tell what it is from the sensationalistic article. I don't accept that it merely watches youtube videos and learned to make coffee in a completely unrelated environment. There has to be a lot more going on that just watching videos and generalizing.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here:

Suppose we had a technology that allowed us to record the waitress movements, and then play them back. Perhaps a learning robot of some kind. In what ways would that change the scenario? Would the best waitresses be able to demand a royalty on their waitress-bot recordings?

This is one of the differences between intelligent and unintelligent people. Intelligent people are more likely to judge their own skills.

1. There was a study performed where they assigned people various tasks to perform in isolation. Then the researchers asked them to weigh how well they did compared to the general public. In the absense of information, the more intelligent people assumed they did average or below. The less intelligent people thought they did above average. The bad news about this is it means less intelligent people might not actually realize it.

2. I had a neighbor whose son was truly stupid. He was a pre-teen, and his mom was using drugs and alcohol during the pregnancy. Sometimes we would play Dance Dance Revolution together sometimes. No matter what the result of the game, he would always think he did great, or at least was really close to beating me. His responses were completely unrelated to how well he actually did. It was a bit awkward actually.

Because there is a strong, undeniable link between IQ and success. Unfortunately the second article is partially paywalled, but I don't see anything in it that asserts otherwise. Do not misconstrue the following excerpt:

One could read that and jump to the conclusion that this means that intelligence is not related to success. But that is not what it is saying. It is merely saying that if you butter-up an intelligent person, they will be more likely to fail. That is not the same as saying that IQ is not related to success.

Some of this is confirmation bias: I have free ad-supported apps on my phone and there is no option to pay to eliminate the ads. Another reason is the plethora of free and free/OSS apps

The article doesn't actually say what the summary says it does. It does not say that your ability in math and reading is equal.

The Slashdot summary draws a conclusion that seems unsupported by the paper:

But the paper says otherwise:

So your score is 50% correlated, not equal. That is a really important difference! If the paper said people were equally good at math and reading, that would be a startling conclusion!

True.

False. I'm unclear how you came to that conclusion based on the quote you highlighted. It does not say that learning environment has a *greater* impact. It says learning environment has *some* impact. Overall, but it is less than or equal to the importance of genetics.

This result is consistent with other studies on the topic. Unfortunately, this fact pisses people off, especially educators. (Understandably since it is their job to educate everyone equally, and especially to raise the level of the poorest performers). But it is well correlated at this point. Think back to high school: everyone realized this at some point - there were some students who just seemed smarter. Some of them didn't even have to work for it. It sucked if you sat in one of these kids' shadow. It doesn't mean hard work doesn't pay off, it doesn't mean you should not invest in your children, but it does mean that just like in sports, your genes are as big a contributor as the environment.

On that note: why are people willing to accept this in sports, but not in academics? It's totally cool to say something about Nigerian runners having long legs, or say "white men can't jump, hahaha" or "Asians are short" but if you say some people are genetically gifted in intelligence sets off everyone's alarm bells.

Excerpt from Freakanomics:

Eight factors that correlate to higher test scores
        Highly educated parents
        Parents have high socioeconomic status
        Mother was thirty or older at the time of first child's birth
        Child had low birth weight
        Parents speak English at home
        Child is adopted
        Parents are involved in the PTA
        Child has many books in the home

Eight factors that do NOT correlate with higher test scores:
        Family is intact
        Family's recent move to a better neighborhood
        Mother did not work between birth and kindergarten
        Child attended Head Start
        Parents bring children to museums regularly
        Child is regularly spanked
        Child frequently watches television
        Parents read to him nearly every day

I think this confirms that that they should not have flooded the reactor with seawater because the meltdown had already happened by the time they made that decision. They flooded the reactor on March 15th, as a last ditch attempt to prevent a meltdown. But it was too late to save the reactor since the fuel was already completely melted. So all the seawater did was let more nuclear material escape.

Or, alternatively, they should have flooded it with seawater days ahead of time. The tsunami was March 11th, so perhaps had they made that decision on March 12th it would have been in time to prevent the worst of it? Ehh... maybe not.... the reactor foundation was probably already damaged by that point. :-(