Financial topics

[Nathan G]

The World View observations are totally based on Generational Dynamics
theory. But very few people understand the relationship between
generational analysis behind the news reports. Most people just
accept them as the news without understanding the theory behind them,
just as most people drive a car without understanding how the engine
works. This has become increasingly true in recent years, because
everything I've been predicting for years has been coming true, one
thing after another. The Iran prediction coming true has been
particularly convincing.

That's incredible. I do hope you get more recognition in the future.

[Nathan G]

I believe I understand the context of your answer, as in:

Professor 1: "What do you think of Xenakis' GD Theory?"
Professor 2: "I hate it."

You are framing it as an ideological debate about the overall theory.

However, I think there are many specific side discussions that academics would be interested in because they are looking for topics to research or perhaps questioning whether to devote 5 years of their lives to researching a narrow area, as in:

Professor 1: "What do you think about Higgenbotham's claim that self-replicating machines with superior intelligence would return humans to hunter-gatherer status and then exterminate themselves?"
Professor 2: "Wouldn't talking about that blow any chances we would have to get more funding to study AI?"
Professor 1: "Oh yeah, I thought that sounded like bullshit anyway."

As a matter a fact, I did ask my history professor about Generation Theory recently
I find it usually goes more like this:
Me: "What are your thoughts on Xenakis' Generation Dynamic's Theory?"
Professor: "Xenakis who?"
Me: "The idea that history is cyclical because the older generation dies off"
Professor: "Well, if you put a hundred historians in a room and asked 'does history repeat itself?' you would get a wild variety of answers, with the prevailing opinion being 'no'. But it is an interesting idea that I would like to see investigated."

On the other hand, I asked a computer science professor about the Singularity (during a robotics course) and it went like this:
Me: "What do you think about the Singularity?"
Professor: "What singularity?" (in his characteristic Greek accent)
Me: "A time when AI can be smart enough to replace humanity"
Professor: "No, no, no. People have been saying this since before computers existed. It's nonsense"

[John]

> On the other hand, I asked a computer science professor about the
> Singularity (during a robotics course) and it went like this: Me:
> "What do you think about the Singularity?" Professor: "What
> singularity?" (in his characteristic Greek accent) Me: "A time
> when AI can be smart enough to replace humanity" Professor: "No,
> no, no. People have been saying this since before computers
> existed. It's nonsense"

Hmm. That's interesting. I'll bet that Charles Babbage worried about
that a lot.

[Higgenbotham]

I believe I understand the context of your answer, as in:

Professor 1: "What do you think of Xenakis' GD Theory?"
Professor 2: "I hate it."

You are framing it as an ideological debate about the overall theory.

As a matter a fact, I did ask my history professor about Generation Theory recently
I find it usually goes more like this:
Me: "What are your thoughts on Xenakis' Generation Dynamic's Theory?"
Professor: "Xenakis who?"
Me: "The idea that history is cyclical because the older generation dies off"
Professor: "Well, if you put a hundred historians in a room and asked 'does history repeat itself?' you would get a wild variety of answers, with the prevailing opinion being 'no'. "

Professor: "Well, if you put a hundred historians in a room and asked 'does history repeat itself?' you would get a wild variety of answers, with the prevailing opinion being 'no'.
Translation: "Probably nobody would agree with Xenakis, whoever he is."
Professor: But it is an interesting idea that I would like to see investigated. (If somebody could get paid to do it)

Yes, that rings true to form.

[Higgenbotham]

> On the other hand, I asked a computer science professor about the
> Singularity (during a robotics course) and it went like this: Me:
> "What do you think about the Singularity?" Professor: "What
> singularity?" (in his characteristic Greek accent) Me: "A time
> when AI can be smart enough to replace humanity" Professor: "No,
> no, no. People have been saying this since before computers
> existed. It's nonsense"

Hmm. That's interesting. I'll bet that Charles Babbage worried about
that a lot.

That seems to be some version of, "This is soooooo complicated only we can understand it. More funding please." It always leads to the conclusion of more funding (i.e. research) needed.

Discussions between colleagues of the same rank are probably more forthright.

[aedens]

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/01/240777- ... ma-threat/ Junior Varsity

Given twenty percent will never assimilate we will see if POTUS will let them camp out in the rose garden and serve tea at five for them. Since Lincoln had two fronts as discussed since it began in the House of Representatives as an indemnity bill, introduced on December 5, 1862, releasing the president and his subordinates from any liability for having suspended habeas corpus without congressional approval.

Adjectives are just messengers being shot. 1861 Internecine Slaughter, not a civil war.....

“I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the financial institutions in the rear. Of the two, the one in my rear is my greatest foe.”
One month after the inauguration of President Abraham Lincoln, the American Civil War got underway . . .
The real reason for the war is that . . .
Northern industrialists had used trade tariffs to prevent the Southern States from buying cheaper European goods. Europe subsequently retaliated by stopping cotton imports from the South. Thus the South were being forced to pay more for goods whilst having their income slashed.
This is when the money changers saw the opportunity to divide and conquer America by plunging it into Civil War. This is confirmed by Otto Von Bismarck when he was Chancellor of Germany (1871 - 1890), who stated,
"The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe, these bankers were afraid that the United States if they remained as one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence which would upset their financial domination over the world.

One might ask the question, "Aren't American socialists in favor of their own country's survival?"
To answer this question, we must turn to abnormal psychology.

So we monitor the USD, YEN, YUAN who just closed the exchange on the limit down rule as the Junior Varsity's warms up in another zone.
Indications are just that as the half time show so to speak will be in a few more simple years. As a friend asked, what now?
I suggested he listen to the point we are being slaughtered in the thousands so maybe they will get the point
as Martin Niemoller told us. We will see if Merkels opportunitys indeed pan out on another note.
I still consider Ankara the hinge to events and noted long before.

Since 1202 of the common era the quest remains the same. The raw and ruthelessly pragmatic markets of the Oreint fueled by the abounding veiled cross currents of apathy. The points of the compass vary little over time.

[vincecate]

On the other hand, I asked a computer science professor about the Singularity (during a robotics course) and it went like this:
Me: "What do you think about the Singularity?"
Professor: "What singularity?" (in his characteristic Greek accent)
Me: "A time when AI can be smart enough to replace humanity"
Professor: "No, no, no. People have been saying this since before computers existed. It's nonsense"

When I was in computer science grad school at CMU, 22 years ago, Hans Moravec was a prof at CMU and he had written a book "Mind Children" which predicted 2030 to 2040. I think the general view with my CS friends back then was that it would happen but those dates might have been optimistic. I see that in 2008 he was saying human smart around 2040 and much smarter than human by 2050.

Note that just because there is a $50 million supercomputer someplace that is as smart as a human it probably does not change the world much. My guess is things really start to change after human+ smart computers are "affordable" to companies. So it may be another 10 years after the first smart computer before they are really taking off as far and doing lots of human type smart work.

For X-mass I ordered a $99 computer that has more power than the fastest supercomputer did when I left grad school. Humans have not improved much in the last 5,000 years. So it is probably less than 20 years after the first human smart computer before things take off.

Anyway, it seems clear that some day they will be smarter than us. Just a question of when.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Moravec

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... he-robots/

http://makezine.com/2015/11/05/exclusiv ... r-just-99/

Update: A very expensive and smart supercomputer would make sense for Google or Siri. And it could make a difference, but in making humans more productive, not in replacing them. This is probably where the first really smart computers will be used, something like Siri. So my guess is things really start to change 10 to 20 years after Siri type things become really smart.

[aedens]

The only question is when the OCR programs are allowed to pull the trigger.
The rest is pointless contention. The only issue was the bots decompiled
and who sent them guys.

[Nathan G]

The problem is that computers have always been smarter than us. That's why we've been deferring to their judgment since 1948. Why? Because a computer is so simple. All of it's electronics are specifically engineered to give the quantitative answer you need in a moment's notice. Even Siri, which is usually classified as "Artificial Intelligence", is nothing more than just a more sophisticated means of doing its function. Siri can't think for itself.

By comparison, a computer specifically designed to be sentient (like those machines submitted for the Turing test) are extremely complicated. So complicated, in fact, that all of the computer's processing power would be used up to be sentient. No longer will it be able to make such lightning-fast calculations as before.

In other words, if you make a computer think like a human, it will literally think like a human, complete with all of our flaws, sins, and shortcomings. You can't make a superior being.

[aedens]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-1 ... e-be-fired

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/04/teflons ... y_partner/

http://thermidorianreaction.com/

Nothing is real until Noske is paid to shows up.
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showpost ... stcount=68
Warning: This is long. If it hurts you to read for ten minutes, then you are probably too weak and/or stupid to be involved with making comments about serious issues. Please go to another topic somewhere else on the board.