cwbe coordinatez:
101
792011
2608722
6423922
6424732
6424820
6424866
6424882
6424886
6424911

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA
permissions
you: r,
system: public
net: yes

neurons

stats|by_visit|by_K
source
tiamat
K|my_K|given_K
last
commanders
polls

total descendants::10
total children::3
show[ 2 | 3] flat


DVA CLANKY K TOMU:

Infinite Stupidity:

"And I want to go further, and suggest that our mechanism for generating ideas maybe couldn't even be much better than random itself. And this really gives us a different view of ourselves as intelligent organisms. Rather than thinking that we know the answers to everything, could it be the case that the mechanism that our brain uses for coming up with new ideas is a little bit like the mechanism that our genes use for coming up with new genetic variance, which is to randomly mutate ideas that we have, or to randomly mutate genes that we have.

Now, it sounds incredible. It sounds insane. It sounds mad. Because we think of ourselves as so intelligent. But when we really ask ourselves about the nature of any evolutionary process, we have to ask ourselves whether it could be any better than random, because in fact, random might be the best strategy."
http://edge.org/conversation/infinite-stupidity-edge-conversation-with-mark-pagel

-

It's Not Plagiarism. In the Digital Age, It's 'Repurposing.'

"In 1969 the conceptual artist Douglas Huebler wrote, "The world is full of objects, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more." I've come to embrace Huebler's idea, though it might be retooled as: "The world is full of texts, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more."

"For the past several years, I've taught a class at the University of Pennsylvania called "Uncreative Writing." In it, students are penalized for showing any shred of originality and creativity. Instead they are rewarded for plagiarism, identity theft, repurposing papers, patchwriting, sampling, plundering, and stealing. Not surprisingly, they thrive. Suddenly what they've surreptitiously become expert at is brought out into the open and explored in a safe environment, reframed in terms of responsibility instead of recklessness."
http://chronicle.com/article/Uncreative-Writing/128908/

creating the future. today.




  • 0000010100792011026087220642392206424732064248200642486606424882064248860642491106425243
    psycho 07.01.2012 - 15:52:21 level: 1 UP New
    som si ten prvy precital cely
    autor sa tvari, ze v hlavach ludi prebieha jedna evolucna vetva - tym padom by to bolo o nahode, ze koho hlava je spravnou vetvou

    lenze v hlave premyslajuceho cloveka prebieha kopec evolucii naraz. kazdy napad zahrna niekolko evolucnych vetiev, clovek predsa zvazuje niekolko alternativ, na niekolko myslienkach.

    potom autor este doplnil toto:
      "what I want to suggest is that the generative process itself might be pretty close to random"
    co mi pride irelevantne. pomocou tej nahodnosti, dokaze jeden clovek vygenerovat semienka pre takmer hocijaku myslienku. tam nie je bottleneck, preco ludia neinovuju.

    ludia neinovuju vtedy, ked svoje teorie prestanu evolvovat skor ako sa k niecomu dostanu. je to o hlbke, do akej clovek ide - tato infografika to vysvetluje: http://gizmodo.com/5613794/what-is-exactly-a-doctorate
    more children: (1)
  • 0000010100792011026087220642392206424732064248200642486606424882064248860642491106425031
    Mr. Darcy 07.01.2012 - 13:49:30 (modif: 07.01.2012 - 13:52:32) level: 1 UP [1K] New Content changed
    par myslienok k tomu:

    - random mutacia nie je taka efektivna ako ucelova mutacia (ked vieme co chceme dosiahnut a ako to mozeme dosiahnut)
    - nove myslienky vzdy vychadzaju z niecoho
    - zijeme tu a teraz, nemame nekonecno moznosti, takze nekonecny random nie je uskutocnitelna strategia

    pravda ale je, ze "nekonecne" skusanie je velmi dobre. nedavno som robil prezentaciu o TD-gammon, ktory uz v prvej verzii sa sam so sebou dokazal naucit bez akychkolvek expertnych vylepseni hrat rovnako dobre ako dovtedy najlepsi program. a taky dobry bol aj preto, ze skusal strategiu, ktoru ludia chybne vylucili (a potom ju sami zacali pouzivat, lebo s nou naozaj zaznamenali uspechy)
  • 0000010100792011026087220642392206424732064248200642486606424882064248860642491106425018
    psycho 07.01.2012 - 13:38:58 (modif: 07.01.2012 - 13:48:37) level: 1 UP New Content changed
    actually, ten prvy clanok - presne ten pocit mam zo sveta
    ludia su ako stroje, a zakladne vlastnosti nejak pochytia z prostredia. podla toho sa v zivote potom spravaju.

    zopar ludi si toto uvedomi, a rozmysla co s tym. niektori dospeju k zaveru, ze ludia su zvierata, a tie tak funguju. takze maju aj ludia.

    nevidim dovod, preco by som mal konat predurcene, ked si uz raz algoritmus svojho spravania uvedomim. naco mam citat milion knih a mat do smrti pocit, ze mi stale nejaka myslienka z knihy chyba, ked to uz spravili miliony ludi, a z nich miziva cast s tym nieco spravila. knihy mi pridu len ako nutny zaklad. ale nemam pocit, ze nekonecne naplnanie hlavy informaciami niekam vedie (do isteho mnozstva to zvysuje sancu, wikipediova hlava je uz over the top)