Digital painting was a skill to learn on my bucket list. Emphasis on "was". Within the last 6 months all of that has changed. I no longer value digital painting as a skill.
It's easy to see why based on everything's that happened in the news. I'm sure a lot of people share my sentiment.
If you seriously take that attitude then it's hardly worth learning to do anything - there will always be someone or some computer who is better at it, so why even try?
You can still do digital painting while you are in a plane or taking a trip, just because AI advances in this space has made a lot of strides doesn't mean you necessarily have to give up on doing something.
Lots of tendancies are part of human behavior. So is cooperation, eusocial behavior, etc etc etc. NASA relied on the cooperation of many, many people, and the funding of everyone in the US.
The sentence is just a factual statement. 3 agencies have done it. That is fact.
The sentence did mention china has done it on the first attempt which is also factual and relevant to context. The article is about moon landings and associated failures.
As for the Apollo program everyone knows about it. There's no point in regurgitating obvious facts.
It's only relevant to context if it also includes the context in which the event occurred: China's first attempt is not a notable achievement in the same way the first successful landing after many failures is. I really hate these sinophiles' attempts to elevate China into some super-awesome, super-intelligent master race.
There is a...contingent...of people here and in other social media venues who seem quite set on elevating the achievements of their chosen group (China, in this case) with exaggerated, unmerited praise, and simultaneously poo-pooing the (usually equally or even more notable) achievements of others.
It's not just with China; it happens in other areas, too, usually focused on eastern nations or private enterprise (e.g., classical/ancient period mathematicians from India, SpaceX, etc.). I don't know if it's overcompensation for westerners' historically casual and sometimes active diminishing/ignoring these accomplishments or what, but it comes off as a tasteless attempt to assert superiority where none exists. And I'm just kinda tired of seeing it.
>I really hate these sinophiles' attempts to elevate China into some super-awesome, super-intelligent master race.
Please don't do this. You are seeing things in the text that isn't there and you seem to do the same just the other way around. It reads anti-chinese / racist.
There are two reasons to point "on the first try" and leave out all the other context (in particular, the giant body of work done by other space agencies and engineering technologies, especially the US's, that China built on): 1) to artificially elevate China's achievement; 2) out of ignorance. I suppose an assumption of ignorance might be considered more charitable somehow, since at least it implies the author could learn something.
I'm often suspicious of china's motives, but I didn't see any sinophilia in the posts they're replying to. You did say "perceived" though, but it's a fine line. Some crazy people also see "Jews" in every aspect of money and government and it eventually turns into hate.
But here's the problem. This saying: "Humans are not special" is completely true. To deny this idea is to deny the truth.
Ultimately to save ourselves, our culture must engage in self deception. We must trick ourselves into believing that AI content is inferior and thereby maintain economic demand for content not created by AI. I can see it happening as a mass hysteria similar to how the public was resistant against "new coke" (https://www.damninteresting.com/the-american-gustation-crisi...)
You will see that many people, including people on HN, are already doing this. There's a large cohort of people generating huge adamant denial on the potential of AI.
The OP is sort of being a bit too honest with himself, most people who flat out refuse to acknowledge AI will do so with the idea that AI is inferior and will always be that way.
> This saying: "Humans are not special" is completely true. To deny this idea is to deny the truth.
That's your truth. Humans get to decide what humans consider special. Your perspective is fair: humans are not special to you.
But they are certainly special to me and most other humans. That's my truth. That's not denying some objective truth, because "specialness" isn't an objective thing that can be measured. It's, effectively, an opinion.
You and I measure "specialness" differently.
But even if I agreed with you (and I could easily argue your side of this debate), it still wouldn't affect my attitude towards AI pretending to be human. Humans don't have to be special in some grand sense to consider that problematic.
>That's not denying some objective truth, because "specialness" isn't an objective thing that can be measured. It's, effectively, an opinion.
Well then let's talk about what I mean by "special".
If I gave you some art whether it's written, drawn or filmed and I asked you to tell me whether this "art" was created by a human and an AI, and you have trouble identifying the difference... then objectively speaking humans are no longer special. That is the definition I am using here.
There's no point in making up "opinions" and discussing those because they will always be different. Thus when communicating we are always talking about a shared reality. That includes the "term" special. I have defined what I mean by "special" here concretely so we can keep the conversation consistent rather then diverge onto branches according to our own personal definitions of "special".
>Humans don't have to be special in some grand sense to consider that problematic.
I never said it wasn't problematic. I said it was truth. The truth is the problem. Being honest and aware of reality is the intrinsic problem here. Being delusional is the cure.
So if humans aren't special at anything, then humans don't really have a purpose. I envision a future similar to the one in Wall-E and it's not exactly bad so long as the AI actually acts in our interest.
My purpose is to sit while AI takes care of everything and keeps me happy. I want to live in the matrix where I have 30 hot model wives and not know any better. The simulation of course will make me a chad and emperor of the world. That's my purpose.
This is what I believe we already have with social media , a primitive version of the matrix where you fish for likes and validation, and it’s what VR will create, there may not be a technological singularity but rather, a place where each ego is stroked so intensely that we care less of reality.
You can be totally distracted from your real existence for 90% of you life, you won’t need anything else. Just have “20 hot wives” or whatever superficial thing makes you happy.
That's great, if that's what you want your purpose to be then go for it. Lots of people already live similarly, like hikikomori. Your comment changes nothing about the fact that a person's purpose is not driven externally by society or by the fact that one is human, it is derived entirely from oneself.
An evolutionary biologist might say (in a candid moment), that our purpose is to increase our fitness (=fecundity) and the fitness of those genetically related to us.
Brain facilities that were previously evolved to gain a darwinian competitive edge through strategic intelligence can now be utilized to break the mold of natural selection.
There was no direct selection pressure that coordinated the development of your ability to understand evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology is a side effect of intelligence. Breaking past our darwinian purpose is a side effect of our meta understanding of evolutionary biology and intelligence. As someone else said we, to a limited extend, can make our own purpose.
It will not. It will serve the capitalist class as an instrument to enrich at the expense of the masses. And it will be done while telling most people that they just didn't "work hard enough".
Just look at it and use your logic. It's simply very basic geometry combined with a specific font. That's it. There's decorative stuff like the curved spine but the layout is very simple. The buttons are rectangular there's nothing super complex here that is very far from a basic flat design. I would say lcars is a precursor to flat design.
Don't let your thinking be flat where you can only come to conclusions that are data driven. Use your intuition and project the creative consequences yourself. LCARS is owned by paramount so it can't really be used as a UI theme anywhere else without permission.
But what if it could? Just imagine it, it's not that hard. Hacker news can be themed into lcars with largely zero change to the XY location of every element. Picture it with your minds eye.
edit: I ended up finding an example: https://www.thelcars.com/menu/. But everyone should be able to come to the same conclusion without data. It's so trivial that illegal fan made examples do exist.
People don't have to dance. Incentive to dance is very strong though.
Here's the thing, when you look at the behavior of large groups of people the overall incentive is the overall outcome. As an individual you can resist but groups act predictably and follow straightforward patterns.
Think of it like drugs. You going to tell people to stop doing heroin and end the problem forever? No. You gonna tell people to stop dancing and end the problem forever? No.
The only thing that will bend the industry in favor of your idea is software unions. Centralized control can influence individuals to act in cohesion. Without leadership the short term incentive wins.
>You’re saying people are weak and can’t enable change if they chose to behave a certain way and instead we need more governance and powers above us
Yes, I am saying people in aggregate are fundamentally weak. Certain individuals can overcome weaknesses but in aggregate we can't.
>I fundamentally don’t agree. It’s simple: prioritize dignity in yourself and the world will give it
Then you fundamentally don't agree with reality. Tell that dignity thing to a drug addict. Tell him to Prioritize his dignity and stop doing heroin. End the drug problem because people are strong. A few people will listen. In aggregate, nothing changes.
>I don’t accept interviews where i’m required to dance. My career has only gotten better since I made that choice.
On one hand you have control. On the other hand maybe you don't dance because you can't dance. There are people where "dancing" is equivalent to donating a dime to charity. A Trivial effort. To them the interview process is the equivalent of giving a dime in return for half a million dollars. Why the hell not?
>Even on the individual level you can make this right. It just takes effort.
The individual level is the only place where someone can refuse to "dance." For the industry to change it has to happen in aggregate. The aggregate change is impossible. There will always be people willing to dance, and there will always be people where "dancing" is a zero effort hand wave.
It’s not impossible, you’re just giving up and refusing to be a part of the solution
The path of least resistance long run is demand dignity. The path of more resistance long term but ease short term is accept undignifying circumstances
You can make your situation and the worlds better by doing the right thing. Or you can sit and argue to a stranger why it’s ‘impossible’ to tell a potential employer to pound sand when they ask you to do something demeaning
if you can mutate the graph and mark a node as traversed that's the easiest way. If you can't then save the addresses to a hash set. Both are extra memory but you don't have to deal with "parallel BFS," which honestly is just over complicated imo.
With "parallel bfs" comparing "layers" of traversal has runtime cost that effects the big oh so I think the above solution is better overall even though it feels cheap.
But the whole point of the "cute solution" is to solve with O(1) memory; if you're willing to allow O(n) then the linked list also admits more sane solutions.
I'm not sure what you mean by comparing "layers" of traversal. Tortoise and hare is about provide a termination condition in the case that a cycle exists. In the case that there's no cycle, every algorithm must inspect each node, so is O(n). In both the linked list and the DAG case, if there is at least one cycle, (a) both pointers will enter it in at most O(n) time, and they will match in at most O(n) additional time, so this stays big-oh optimal.
I'd argue the point of the exercise isn't to implement an O(1) solution, but to verify that the applicant understands how the logic they're writing actually executes, and is capable of minimizing complexity.
Whether they arrive at an O(1) solution doesn't matter a bit to me. Most of the time, I don't even care if they phrase it in big-O notation - or have even heard the term!
Given the choice between someone who completed the exercise with an O(1) solution in half the allotted time and someone who never wrote a single line of valid code, I'll choose the person who is able to articulate the problem and potential solutions best every time.
It's far easier to search the web and find a "cute solution" than it is to learn how to think about and communicate complexity.
> But the whole point of the "cute solution" is to solve with O(1) memory; if you're willing to allow O(n) then the linked list also admits more sane solutions.
Yeah but the "parallel BFS" solution is actually slower. Overall people sacrifice memory for speed in these algorithm problems.
Additionally the input is already O(N) so if you count the input as memory the addition of O(2N) doesn't shift it. If you don't count it well you're deliberately removing real world actuality and making the problem harder.
>I'm not sure what you mean by comparing "layers" of traversal. Tortoise and hare is about provide a termination condition in the case that a cycle exists. In the case that there's no cycle, every algorithm must inspect each node, so is O(n). In both the linked list and the DAG case, if there is at least one cycle, (a) both pointers will enter it in at most O(n) time, and they will match in at most O(n) additional time, so this stays big-oh optimal.
It's layer based traversal via BFS. You have to compare the layers produced by the tortoise and the hare. Let's see for a binary tree:
For traversal:
hare: O(N)
tortoise: O(N)
There are N total nodes so traversal via bfs or dfs will always be N.
BFS traversal happens in layers of breadth. The height of a full binary tree is log2(N + 1) - 1. The length of the last layer is 2^height. So the amount of nodes in the last layer is (N+1)/2
Because at each stage of traversal from the turtle and the hare we have to compare the "layer" of traversal between the hare and the tortoise to see if they overlap there is a roughly O(((N+1)/2 )^ 2) comparison as we cycle through each node in the layer to see if it exists in the other layer being compared. This reduces to O(N^2) processing time.
So total is O(N^3) because you have O(N) traversal time, and O(N^2) comparison time on each traversal step. You can reduce the layer comparison to O(N) if you save one layer to a hashset and then compare that set to the other layer, but that has a memory cost and only reduces the total big O to O(N^2).
The comparison happens at every level and NOT every node so, it's O(N) for traversal then when a layer is completed a comparison occurs at a cost of O(N^2). The amount of times this happens is equal to the height of the tree which can be simplified to logN. So total big O is O(N) + O(N^2 * log2(N)).
This simplifies to O(N^2 * log2(N)) which, while better than O(N^3), is still really bad.
I forgot to mention, BFS requires a queue. So if the graph is size N and with one root node and all the rest of the nodes as children that queue will go up to size N. So your solution doesn't actually get away from the memory issue at all.
It's easy to see why based on everything's that happened in the news. I'm sure a lot of people share my sentiment.