I'm not really sure I want to reduce all my trust to the emotional mindset of the programer. Emotions are often proven to be very instable, and in case of critical systems the consequences will be desastrous. I'd prefer to use a well defined and robust methodology, ideally involving proven programs.
Seriously? You are judging the work of someone solely on the shape of his citation curve on scholar? Compressed sensing is all but new, right, but selling these guys as bad because they have only 2k citations (!!!) on scholar is a bit exagerated, to say the least.
I'd say never. Why? Because driving on random roads and locations in varying conditions requires *intelligence*.
So what if someone creates a computer that is really intelligent enough to do that? Well, I'd suggest getting out of its way as it kills all humans.
You say it requires intelligence, yet you seem not to have a proper definition of it. That's a bit of a paradox, isn't it?
Moreover, the examples you give are more pattern recognition and decision making problems, tasks for which algorithms are known to be very efficient, often far better than humans.
I've always thought of Verisign&co as a very reliable evidence that I'm paying something over the real paypal and not to some Russian based thugs. I would never trust them for my privacy.
Wasn't it the same situation 2 years ago in Libya with the gov certificate being trusted by default by some OS?
I don't know. I was trying to measure this "percentage". But how do you measure it?
I have OSS that being useful, I hardly use (HDGraph for example), while I have particular software I use all the time. In your case, if you use Matlab 8 hours a day, but you putty ssh into your server for 1 min a day, how does that count?.
Is it size in bytes? Length of the package name (OSS probably wins with their odd naming conventions)?
In short, the "regularly use" seems like a non-quantifiable value I failed to understand.
Well, even if I was running Matlab 8 hours a day, it would be using a OSS desktop environment using an OSS graphic server running on an OSS kernel, which means its percentage of wasted resources cannot exceed 25%. If you add all the remaining apps (web browser, mail client, terms and text editors, and so on), I doubt it will ever be over 20%.
Well, apart of Matlab (which I could easily swap for octave or scilab, but I'm too lazy to rewrite all my code) and 2 or 3 games I use once in the year, all the other 3k+ packages on my computers are FOSS, which is probably >80%. I guess it is more or less the same for any linux user with no alternative OS.
Why do so many developers waste time on obfuscation and other ways of hiding the source in scripting languages?
Using utilities like IonCube to 'protect' PHP-code will never stop the dedicated people from reverse engineering the application or re-engineering it. I've seen that countless times. It is security-through-obscurity at best and it will prevent people from both fixing bugs and re-submitting the fixed code to the developers, and finding security issues from simple code reviewing.
If developers of competing applications needs to steal code they're really crappy developers and whatever that makes their application unique will be equally crappy and thus not a threat.
Which brings us to the next point: If obfuscation is worthless and someone will steal you code whatever you do, just release it with an open source license in the first place.
My guess is that the short amount of time between the release and the cracking is where the management expects to make profit, and even more profit than if it was FLOSS in the first place. This highlights greatly the short-term objectives of today's business.
Isn't this like unreported employment, where workers have no rights and the state gets nothing (for maintaining the infrastructures used). I know
These deregulated systems are utopias that only work if people are equally smart and potent, which will definitely never be the case.
le-mans (which is prounounced le mons).
Not really in France. "Le Mans" is pronounced without the final 's' (this is a french classic), with the sound [], like in the end of croissant (again, no final 't'), which doesn't exist in many languages.
When working on Unix systems, it is easy to get lost at C. Let's hope she'll hack her way to the coast.
Still it is difficult not to feel a little shame from the fact we all belong to the same species. Of course you are by no way responsible for the actions of others, but you can still fell a little sad and ashamed by the incommensurable stupidity of our fellows.
I am exactly in the same case. It has been a very long time since I wiped out any windows off my computers at home (never had one at work). I am so used to linux it would take me ages to regain my productivity if I were to switch to another OS.
Moreover, as far as I know, Windows is still no free software. I cannot count the number of things I learned thanks to the openness of linux by just browsing the code (things on filesystems, memory management, processes and scheduling, etc). Plus colsed things do not correspond to my ethics, which is a personal choice.
What is the point in having a TV or not? I do not get it.
As far as I can tell, "AI" has succeeded only in keeping the same name after endless redefinitions resulting from it's numerous failures.
Your blind faith in AI seems to indicate that you're either hopelessly misguided or one of those singularity nuts.
Absolutely not. The improvement in fields that were said to be impossible for AI are just astonishing, and I am among the first surprised by such successes. Let's state it clear: computing power is increasing, theoretical models are improving, practical implementations are getting more efficient. So yeah, basically Turing was right, we are just impressively capable computers and nothing more.
Around 5 or 6 years ago, there were some image classification benchmarks that were incredibly tough and said to be almost impossible to solve with a machine, with very low accuracies. Were are we now? Well the improvements have been far better than expected. Far better than I expected, to be honest. In some sense I would have loved if it didn't, since the pressure of this ever growing progress is stressful to my students and complicates the publication of novel ideas. But basically, yeah, it is improving a lot. It is science, it just works.
You could argue computer vision is not AI, but it is. Everything that allows a computer to make a statement that you thought was only possible by a human is AI.
Again, I am not interested in the the colorful stories about consciousness or whatever. What I'm saying is that there is basically no task that a computer will not be able to perform in the long run. Get over it, we are all replaceable by machines. Engineers, researchers, artists, name what you want, it is only a question of time and not of possibility.
It is bound to fail trying to do it with AI.
And still you know it will work very well in the long run, like almost every other task that was set to fail with AI.
Well, the truck can deliver the goods to a local market. Then, you can go to that market using your feet or even a bike. I guess it is even more green. It is the way our grandparents did. Why do we different? Because we have plenty of cheap energy and it is more comfortable the other way.
It might change when the energy will not be that cheap, though. I am pretty pessimistic at the idea some environmental enlightenment will win against laziness...
"Luke, I'm yer father, eh. Come over to the dark side, you hoser." -- Dave Thomas, "Strange Brew"
