|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 10 2016 12:30 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 12:27 ticklishmusic wrote:
moore's law means the number of processing units per amount of space doubles every few years which is good but I don't really think this qualifies as a proof of technological growth in some meaningful way. After all we do actually need to do something with all of that computing power, it doesn't help us in itself. If we look at increase in labour productivity it's pretty much linear and slowing down
Just grabbing some links: www.bls.gov
Assuming that is a reasonable and accurate representation, chart 2 becomes very important. That chart shows, crucially, percentage growth in labor productivity. Why is that important? Because percentage growth means exponential growth.
Two percent growth can be written as x^1.02, which means the growth is always faster and faster. We see that throughout most of US history, the rate of growth OF the rate of growth was also growing, and it is only in the last 6 or so years that the rate of change of rate of growth has lessened at all. Aside from a big drop in the mid/early 70s.
To me the takeaway is that not only is labor productivity still growing, it is growing exponentially. Now, one can make an argument that something fundamental has changed in the past 5-8 years and we will see that percentage change head toward zero (either no growth or linear growth), but I don't see that.
|
As an Estonian hearing Bernie say "US shouldn't have supported people overthrowing *enter name of communist government*" makes me so very happy that Bush sr. was in power in 1991.
|
Please get Bernie to the general.
|
United States43607 Posts
On March 10 2016 12:34 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 12:26 Nyxisto wrote:On March 10 2016 12:23 L_Master wrote:
The current progression in technologic growth throughout history has been following an exponential trajectory.
I hear this all the time but can someone explain to me what this actually means? How do you measure technological growth? Some examples: + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +I'm a little hesitant to link the article, because the author is known for being extremely aggressive in his predictions and expectations for the future, but he does a respectable job laying out what is going on here: www.kurzweilai.net
There is no objective measure of technological progress but take damn near any field and you'll see bigger leaps happening in smaller times. Look at agriculture. It took thousands of years to domesticate the basic plants we rely on and even after ten thousand years of domestication a lot of them still sucked. In the last 500 years fruit, grains, vegetables, they've all changed drastically in appearance, another 10,000 years in just 500. Then you get to Borlaug and the last 50 years and you have another huge revolution in just a decade.
Take communication, the written word took us thousands of years to master and for thousands more it was all we had. Then 500 years ago we come up with the printing press and now we only need humans to read, not to both write and read. Then 200 years ago we get the telegram. Not long after that we get the phone. Then we get faxes. Then we get email. Now we have the entire internet.
Damn near everything starts off glacially slow and then as smarter humans build on the achievements of already smart humans they accelerate progress and lay the foundations for smarter still humans. The teamliquid demographic won't recognize the world by the time we're old. We remember before home PCs and the internet.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 12:44 Ghanburighan wrote:
As an Estonian hearing Bernie say "US shouldn't have supported people overthrowing *enter name of communist government*" makes me so very happy that Bush sr. was in power in 1991.
dude is completely lost on the realities of his movement. i don't think he cares about foreigners at all.
|
On March 10 2016 12:38 Nyxisto wrote:
I actually expected Kurzweil lol but I really think that the guy is a snake oil salesman. I mean really all that happened in the picture is that you drew an exponential graph and then write more or less arbitrary things on it. We sure have more inventions today than ever before but who can actually quantify what the 'technological gain' is between a few apps and say the lightbulb and the steam-engine. There's just no real way to measure it. If we go by lives saved and costs spared I'm pretty sure penicillin and washing your hands catapulted us farther into the future than every app out there is going to
Further than robotics, rapidly increasing medical and biological knowledge, development of IoT and better machine learning/algorithms enabling things like self driving cars, automated drone deliveries, 3D printing of all kinds of stuff, including organs, etc?
Also, that second graph is exponential, but that's population. Not sure that's especially relevant, but the key point is the timescale of varies significant innovations and inventions and how much more clustered they are becoming, suggesting greater rate of development of new technologies. Certainly time for technological adoption is drastically less today than it was 50 or 100 years ago.
|
Bernie doesn't even get to answer the SCOTUS question.
dude is completely lost on the realities of his movement. i don't think he cares about foreigners at all.
Oh that's a load of crap. You're seriously turning into the Hillary version of GH and it's not amusing anymore.
|
kinda feels like sanders got robbed of an easy question there... the fuck
|
On March 10 2016 12:13 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 12:01 L_Master wrote:On March 10 2016 11:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 10 2016 11:55 farvacola wrote:On March 10 2016 11:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Claims that automating the physician's job is easy tend to rest on pretty fundamental misunderstandings of 1) a physician's job and 2) how things are actually diagnosed. I'm more open to the idea that surgery/dentistry can be automated, but I'm still skeptical. These claims often rely on an over-indulging faith in math and technology. Was gonna post about the same thing. Diagnostics are not what people think think they are lol. Diagnostics isn't a math equation. People have a grossly simplified understanding of health and the human body in general. Not at todays level. At an ultimate level it absolutely can be. If you know the chemical makeup and state of every atom in the body then there is no reason you cannot predict how all of these atoms, and thus the system, will behave. This is a pipe dream. Most careers dealing with people can't be automated - certainly not to a level that reduces or obviates the need for having a person in the loop. Jobs like education, law, medicine. When you introduce technological advances in these fields, it lets people do a better job, but the technology doesn't replace the people. You can make technology to perform surgery, but all that does is allow the surgeon to perform a surgery he couldn't before. It doesn't remove the human element. Like the use of powerpoint hasn't made teachers obsolete. The simplest refutation is the clients in all these fields want to be serviced by people, not robots. What you're talking about is the medical pod from Prometheus. That's not 15 years away. Medicine has huge unknown frontiers.
You're missing the point, as is the person who started this with:
On March 10 2016 11:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Claims that automating the physician's job is easy tend to rest on pretty fundamental misunderstandings of 1) a physician's job and 2) how things are actually diagnosed. I'm more open to the idea that surgery/dentistry can be automated, but I'm still skeptical. These claims often rely on an over-indulging faith in math and technology.
First, l the tool I posted comes from the scientific literature. The paper is in the quote. That doesn't put it beyond reproach by any means, but if you want to dismiss it casually you'd better be an expert on the subject. Second, I'm a biochemist so I have at least a passing understanding of what's involved in medicine.
In this particular case, the point is not that physicians will be completely replaced by patients interacting with computers. The point is that the highly skilled decision-making involved in diagnosis and treatment could be built into an expert system, which would be operated by a technician interacting with the patient. This reduces a function that requires dozens of years of training to a mid-tier function requiring a couple of years at college.
Highly skilled specialists would obviously still be essential for troubleshooting, oversight, design and training, but would you still need a half dozen of them in every clinic? Probably not.
|
I cant decide if these moderators are favoring Hilary by giving her so much time or just trying to make her the focus of the debate by basically attacking her with every question.
|
On March 10 2016 12:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 12:34 L_Master wrote:On March 10 2016 12:26 Nyxisto wrote:On March 10 2016 12:23 L_Master wrote:
The current progression in technologic growth throughout history has been following an exponential trajectory.
I hear this all the time but can someone explain to me what this actually means? How do you measure technological growth? Some examples: + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +I'm a little hesitant to link the article, because the author is known for being extremely aggressive in his predictions and expectations for the future, but he does a respectable job laying out what is going on here: www.kurzweilai.net There is no objective measure of technological progress but take damn near any field and you'll see bigger leaps happening in smaller times. Look at agriculture. It took thousands of years to domesticate the basic plants we rely on and even after ten thousand years of domestication a lot of them still sucked. In the last 500 years fruit, grains, vegetables, they've all changed drastically in appearance, another 10,000 years in just 500. Then you get to Borlaug and the last 50 years and you have another huge revolution in just a decade. Take communication, the written word took us thousands of years to master and for thousands more it was all we had. Then 500 years ago we come up with the printing press and now we only need humans to read, not to both write and read. Then 200 years ago we get the telegram. Not long after that we get the phone. Then we get faxes. Then we get email. Now we have the entire internet. Damn near everything starts off glacially slow and then as smarter humans build on the achievements of already smart humans they accelerate progress and lay the foundations for smarter still humans. The teamliquid demographic won't recognize the world by the time we're old. We remember before home PCs and the internet.
This is definitely the Kurzeweilan view. I don't know if I see as quick a timeline he does, but I certainly think all the evidence points to exponential growth. And I don't see much suggesting the curve is likely to be sigmoid (just doesn't really make logical sense to me, unless taken to the level of all the resources in the entire universe or something) or slowing radically over the next few decades.
Which means yea, the world is going to be pretty damn different in 2050 than it is now. Certainly 2050 will be much more different from 2015 than 2015 was from 1980.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 12:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:Bernie doesn't even get to answer the SCOTUS question. Show nested quote +dude is completely lost on the realities of his movement. i don't think he cares about foreigners at all. Oh that's a load of crap. You're seriously turning into the Hillary version of GH and it's not amusing anymore.
just telling you the facts. do you even know anything about this dude?
|
On March 10 2016 12:51 Adreme wrote:
I cant decide if these moderators are favoring Hilary by giving her so much time or just trying to make her the focus of the debate by basically attacking her with every question.
I've been taking notes of what everyone says, and I haven't noticed any timekeeping issues. I think it's just something that happens when you support a candidate, you get a subjective view that things are unfair. Think soccer referees appearing biased against their team to supporters on both sides.
|
On March 10 2016 12:52 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 12:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:Bernie doesn't even get to answer the SCOTUS question. dude is completely lost on the realities of his movement. i don't think he cares about foreigners at all. Oh that's a load of crap. You're seriously turning into the Hillary version of GH and it's not amusing anymore. just telling you the facts. do you even know anything about this dude?
I know plenty. You're not stating facts. You're spewing ridiculous Pro-Hillary spin at every possible turn and it makes you not even worth engaging with in a conversation at this point.
|
Although a messy debate, I'm still glad the issues we face today are being answered, not talking about their own dicks or lack thereof.
|
It's fun seeing the normally austere oneofthem get all hot and bothered by Sanders. Clearly, someone's feeling the Bern 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 12:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 12:52 oneofthem wrote:On March 10 2016 12:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:Bernie doesn't even get to answer the SCOTUS question. dude is completely lost on the realities of his movement. i don't think he cares about foreigners at all. Oh that's a load of crap. You're seriously turning into the Hillary version of GH and it's not amusing anymore. just telling you the facts. do you even know anything about this dude? I know plenty. You're not stating facts. You're spewing ridiculous Pro-Hillary spin at every possible turn and it makes you not even worth engaging with in a conversation at this point.
what part of the statement on sanders do you even dispute? he was your prototypical soviet loving radical and hasn't reformed much.
uchicago has these socialist organizations even today and i know them personally. they incidentally do think sanders isn't a sincere radical but lol
|
United States22883 Posts
|
Conclusions:
I don't think this debate will influence the race that much. Both candidates did their thing ok. I can't imagine people would change their minds based on performance.
The debate was uglier than the previous ones. Lots of attacks, even more testy than last time.
GOP wins more than democrats from the latter points.
Most memorable moments:
Immigration was split, with Clinton's record going against Sanders talking about detention better.
Clinton dominated the second stage thanks to the Benghazi question.
Healthcare I have down as a tie. Two different approaches that appeal to different groups. Both landed good punches.
Climate change: nothing was really said that I recorded as relevant (possibly because I was annoyed at moderation).
Socialism stab at the end hurt Sanders.
|
Was going to post this earlier but got distracted. There is truly something psychotic about being so willfully wrong about so many things and not care.
As for the debate, only caught bits and pieces, but it seemed like a complete shit show. Don't think it will have a huge impact on next week unlike the one last week seemed to have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3394/3656849977_c99b0a4606.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Blogs/techtank/2015/07/30-hoffman-biosciences/Invention-timeline.jpg?la=en)
