Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Trying to run before you can walk (Score 1) 89

What you're proposing is basically a GA: Genetic algorithm.

Even when you give a system a biological analogy as its base, the results are unpredictable, un-interpretable, and don't confirm to any logical architecture.

There is a famous example of a chip designed to detect two different fixed frequencies of an input signal, and output which is active (if any). Designing the chip by hand results in a working, logical model of a certain size.

If you allow GA to run random "evolution" over the circuit contents, punishing it when it gets it wrong, and breeding from it when it gets it right, you end up with a circuit that appears to do the job.

Ironically, it even does it inside a smaller space than the human would have designed it. However, trying to interpret HOW it does that job is almost impossible and certainly not worth the effort. But the problem is, if you want to USE that chip, you have to do that effort. One day, there might be a corner case where it doesn't operate as you believe it might, and you won't know until you hit it.

At least with a logic circuit you can understand, you can in theory mathematically prove what it will do quite easily. With one that has multiple feedback loops and randomly-built interactions between parts, analysing it isn't worth the money you'd spend doing so, especially as it's quite likely that even after millions of generations of training, it could still contain quite prevalant bugs (i.e. when exposed to a real-world frequency close to the target ones that fluctuates differently to how whatever training inputs were used).

And GA's have proven themselves not quite as useful as we first hoping. Millions of generations later, you can still fall flat on your face and there's no real way to steer things differently without doing it all over again, and no reliable way to understand or adjust the output in even the smallest way.

Whenever you see that an AI has been "trained", you should be suspicious. It's like saying a dog has been trained. It's still an unpredictable, ever-changing, free-thinking animal that we don't understand but which usually gives us the output we want (sit, stay, heel). There's no telling, though, when it might decide to turn around and bite you, because it's range of inputs is not the only factor in how it makes a decision.

And that's a model of a system that, generally, abides by rules, accepts training, etc. and operates in certain logical ways to ensure survival after millions of generations of evolution. Anything we fabricate has even less guarantees.

Comment Re:Speculative Trading (Score 2) 111

Investing is always a gamble. You're giving a company capital and hoping that that company makes sufficient money that they can either pay you dividends, or that the value of your shares go up enough that you can sell them to make a profit. A share is a piece of property, to be used either as a means of collecting dividends, or to be sold.

Comment Re:"The highest bidder"? (Score 4, Insightful) 182

We have similar easements and accesses in my neck of the woods. One of the most contentious where I live is public access to lakes (I gather this is also an issue in Hawaii with access to beaches). Basically the law says that landowners are certainly allowed to own land up to the beach, but they cannot own the beach or any stretch of the water. There are some slight variances on this principle for self-contained bodies of water, like artificial lakes, but in general, you can own land adjacent to a lake or stream, but you don't own the lake or stream, or the immediate vicinity around it. Further, there are public access points to the beach, which often do cross peoples' property, but by law the property owners cannot impede peoples' access to the lake, nor can they attempt to block the access points. Further, if they build warfs or boat launches, well, they're doing so on public land, so while they may be free to locate those structures there, they can't prevent other people from using them.

Every year property owners around various lakes in the area try to block access trails, make absurd threats against people enjoying what constitute public lands, and generally be fucking assholes. That they bought this land knowing full well that they are not lawfully empower to prevent access is irrelevant. They're big crybabies who want to assert defacto ownership over land and water that explicitly does not belong to them, and never will.

Comment Re:Speculative Trading (Score 3, Interesting) 111

If the soon-to-be head of the Executive makes statements that look like they're going to lead to interference in a business's activities, you're saying there ought not be some sort of inevitable alteration in that company's overall trading performance? I'm not really sure you understand what stocks are, or what a stockmarket is.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm not afraid of dying, I just don't want to be there when it happens." -- Woody Allen