| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Comments:
<0> the base misconception is that the technology is imminent irrespective of societal effort and ability
<0> it hinges on a few good men (yes men athena :) and for all you know it could have existed for a while now
<1> are you trolling or serious?
<0> I'm serious aside from slightly playful on the gender issue
<1> regarding the comment that only men can make a substantial contribution
<0> if it makes you feel any better you are often right when most of the guys here are not
<1> i'd like to hear you explain that view
<0> you want me to flatter you further without any particular reason? :)
<1> no
<0> or that women are no good at smart stuff? :)
<1> the view that only men can make a substantial contribution
<0> one could argue bias of interest as a cause but from a purely blind statistical perspective men seem to dominate at the top even in recent time where the social excuse has fallen away
<2> hey kiddies
<0> hi honey
<2> what's the topic?
<3> we recently started to question the social excuse. such traditional rolls often take very long time to change.
<3> roles
<0> athena, that said I believe our potential to be largely unbounded so the opportunities await you
<2> traditional rolls as opposed to ones with butter?
<0> chessguy, it's 'read the log'
<2> here's a question on swarm theory: what happens to the model when the individual agents are in competition?
<1> danf_drc: its obvious that men and women have different talents shall we say
<1> obvious from an evolutionary perspective where that came from
<1> what bothers me is that you make exaggerated absolute statements
<1> i could agree with "women aren't as good at left-brain stuff as men"... but "women are *no good* at smart stuff" is not only patently false but inflammatory
<4> i must say he also said he was joking about the subject :p
<1> http://pdf23ds.net/implications-and-debate/
<1> defty: where did he say it was a joke?
<4> He described himself being 'slightly playful on the gender issue'
<2> 17:26
<1> defty: that's not saying it was a joke... he later said "women are no good at smart stuff"
<1> defty: read the link i posted
<4> athena: Sarcasm drowns on the 'net :p And no, I'm not going to read it. Thanks though.
<3> jokes can also be of good or bad taste
<2> athena: that's rather a lot of words just to say 'fight nicely'
<4> athena: Still, I feel that the latter thing you quoted falls under the scope of 'being playful'. That's what is meant by the expression "subject".
<4> or, 'issue'. whatever
<0> the smiley should be a hint as well. I'm serious in the sense of that's how it's been so far but I'm kidding in the sense that I see no reason why women shouldn't be able to succeed in the future
<0> it's only friendly banter. like when I called chessguy honey :)
<4> I think the far biggest reason to women not excelling is the size of their fear center in the brain, or something ;-p It's as if a simple comment could turn into a serious threat, and the world just can't revolve until that tiny minor issue has been resolved.
<4> (amygdala is the single part in the brain that's a lot smaller in women)
<0> I think that might be too easy an explanation
<0> and as I said athena is often right when most of the guys here are wrong
<4> Probably. But it might also be an effect of the real cause.
<4> Or, parallel to it. Whatever.
<0> Defty, I think you will find that the certainty with which you can make that conclusion is tentative at best
<4> Yeah, but...
<4> for example, if you look at the inventions that men and women make/have made
<1> saying something inflammatory or insulting and then adding a smiley face doesn't make it ok
<4> Men make stupid inventions, that maybe can't be used anywhere. Many of them really pathetic. And women make 'practical' inventions, solving 'everyday' problems.
<4> That's just a difference in the "depth of experimentation", so to say.
<1> chessguy: "fight nicely"? why do you see this as a fight?
<4> So, you like to stick to safe waters, you make 'everyday' inventions.
<4> You like to blow stuff apart, you make a nuke.
<4> (And that has to do with the fear center in the brain, just IMO)
<0> athena, don't you know friendly jives and insults? if you call your girlfriend fat *** or similar. maybe you are pushing the point to hard without reason
<0> too*
<1> "friendly insults"?
<0> you want me to kiss it and make it better? :) see that's more friendly banter :)
<1> i'm wasting my time here
<1> good bye
<4> Must be a forbidden word combination :p
<0> could have been that time of the month :)
<0> I hope she comes back
<0> everyone should feel welcome
<4> Last time I spoke to a woman IRL, she said she couldn't trust anyone if she didn't see them face to face.
<4> (about this subject :>)
<4> So, she can't feel welcome because she's too paranoid of all the strange folks that she doesn't trust and that insult her...
<4> It's just impossible.
<4> Pretty much ,p
<4> I mean. Do you ever get 'excited', like, get high on adrenaline when you IRC? Maybe it's just too much for them =)
<4> Without the 'closeness' to comfort it.
<4> Just a thought :p
<0> so noted :)
<2> soo, anyway, back to ai.....
<2> any thoughts on my question from earlier? in swarm theory, what happens to the model if the individual agents are in competition? or does it matter?
<0> is there such a thing as swarm theory?
<2> you really need to read more, Dan
<0> hehe perhaps but not about swarm theory
<4> Don't know much about swarm theory ;-( Sorry, too depressed/filled with filth to learn too. :-)
<0> are you depressed and filled with filth??
<4> Sure.
<0> what does filled with filth mean?
<4> Other thoughts.
<4> Or, rather...
<4> Things that I don't want to arouse, that'll get aroused if I think too much. :-)
<4> Memories I don't want to touch.
<0> lost love?
<4> Not really.
<4> Sorry, I can't think about that now ;-)
<0> uncle feeling too frisky?
<4> I have no uncles.
<0> raped in a prison by bubba? :)
<4> Raped mentally on IRC..
<4> For a decade.
<0> eh never heard of that one. should be easy to get away from I would think
<4> I have no room to move amidst my filth.
<0> then clean up the mess
<0> don't dwell in it
<4> No means, sorry. :-)
<4> Not without touching the filth at least ,p
<4> Maybe I'll read up on swarm theory.. yawn.
<0> try Jesus if it's too much for you. but you can do it
<0> whatever it is that you are talking about
<4> chessguy: Ok so, ... what if they compete? Isn't that the same as saying, they try to 'specialize'?
<4> And the areas just overlap?
<0> chessguy, the notion swarm suggests cooperation. your questions seems to suggest the opposite
<0> -s
<4> chessguy: Do you mean the invididuals compete, or that there's competing swarms?
<2> the individuals
<2> DanF_DrCa: you don't even know what it is, so what makes you think you know what the term implies?
<4> What would you mean by competition among individuals... isn't that just another way of operating locally, producing some global behavior? How is competing different from cooperation in this context?
<2> hmm
<2> i guess you're right, whether they're competing or cooperating, it's still just a definition of some kind of local behavior
<2> that contributes to the global behavior
<2> just strange to think that trying to do something for oneself contributs something to the global behavior
<4> http://www.generatorx.no/20060119/swarm-1-generative-art-and-the-human-condition/ <-- just something I stumbled upon. Looks like at least a superficially interesting site...
<4> A bit art oriented it seems though.
<2> indeed
<4> it's a very strange thought indeed.. but not all problems are sub-optimal in that sense
<2> sub-optimal?
<4> that you could solve them by solving small problems
<4> suboptimal means something like.. you can divide the problem in parts, that you can solve optimally, to solve the whole thing optimally
<4> important in dynamic programming i guess
<4> so, not everything (I think) has a suboptimal structure
<2> aha
<2> also divide-and-conquer
<4> yep
<2> hm, i wonder if swarm theory and genetic programming could be combined somehow
<4> hehe.. why not, just make the genes to the local behavior and maybe measure the success from the global
<4> or 'genome'
<2> you'd have to create a swarm from each genome
<4> and maybe you could even have multiple populations exist simultaneously..
<4> if they're somehow compatible
<4> so that maybe some swarm couldn't exist on its own, but in conjunction with others
<4> (or, it could exist but wouldn't do much good)
<4> but in the most straightforward sense yeah I think you'd have to just look at the swarms individually
<4> Anyway, because the description for a swarm lies in the local structure, it leads to a much more efficient representation than describing the whole thing with a genome
<2> we're really talking about two different kinds of emergence though, i guess
<2> swarm theory is global behavior emerging from local behavior, GP is particular behavior emerging over time
<4> but that particular behavior should be the global behavior?
<4> or, ..
<4> if you combine them :p
<2> i suppose
<2> it would be a way of evolving group behavior
<4> yep
<2> an interesting idea
<5> Rawr
<2> hmm, i wonder about applying such an approach to chess
<4> somehow I don't think "local" is a good thing to apply to chess :)
<4> unless it means the whole board
Return to
#ai
or
Go to some related
logs:
#web
fucnrdthsur2cls
#perl
df: `minor': No such file or directory
df: `0': No such file or directory
df:
#perl
writing functions to be preprocessed by gcc
cedga +performance
ali ethernet stable netinst
rst.CursorLocation = adUseClient in MYSQL
#gentoo
|
|