Plenty of studies have shown that it's true. If you can't see it, maybe you're one of the less productive ones?

Heading into management, eh? Definitely sounds like you're one of the less productive ones.

Yeah, doesn't build confidence in their services.

The best part of the article was a link to this blog, Shit Recruiters Say.

This company was already covered on Slashdot. In the story here they're talking $150-$250 an hour, which is reachable for the right set of skills (even without an agent). The reason recruiters get paid so much right now is because of the scarcity of programmers. If you get hired through a recruiter, know that they are getting up to 30% of your first year salary in payment, think that could be going to you as a hiring bonus.

I tried signing up with this company last time this story came around, and they weren't very helpful. Said they were working on getting more clients, and had enough programmers already. If they did get me $200 an hour, it would be worth it, but it seems they were having trouble at that time. Maybe things have changed now.

The article itself is a nice portrait of an area of the programming industry. Increased my respect for the writers of the New Yorker.

But can you accept that you were wrong? I suspect that's a rare occurrence for you, sir.

Because just as soon as the ACA passed, that's when hospitals started to be miserable places to be. Thanks Obama.

Oh, and it's spelled "succinctly". Why is spell check like kryptonite to Tea Partiers?

IQ tests are more involved than that, though it could be part of an IQ test

Electrical Engineers don't get taken seriously when they say "wiring faults are no big deal."
Programmers do get taken seriously when they say "bugs are no big deal."

That's why coding bootcamps have a chance, because our field is full of crappy programmers, adding a few more could be an improvement.

Changing the input isn't going to help the image recognition algorithm be smart. Can you post something that shows you understand that, or are you in over your head on this topic?

I know. :)

An image matching algorithm would fail hard on an IQ test. Especially when the proctor begins reading word problems to you. Even Watson, being a giant search engine, would have trouble on an IQ test.

It would be interesting to try to build an AI that could pass an IQ test, though. Your suggestion of using such a test to measure the intelligence of a computer is a good one. Your defense of weak AI sucked, though. :)

ok, so how well does your image recognition algorithm do on an IQ test? Do you think it would help to add more graphics cards?

Well yes, but the short term recovery is what we are talking about here.

It discusses more than brevity and is highly recommended.

How are you defining intelligence?

It's the only AI that's actually AI. "Weak AI" is a way of saying, "we know we're not actually creating intelligent machines, but we like the name so we'll keep it." If people don't understand the algorithm, you can tell them it's AI and they'll believe it.