Readit NewsName 1 bad thing that came from the invention of emojis that is comparable to the others
I don't know, you'd probably have to ask a billionaire that's ruining the lives of other people to earn their second (or tenth) billion.
Not all of them actively do that, but a large number very actively pursue that sort of thing.
Which is what TFA describes, and is why there is no unlimited flat-rate deal for utilities. But that's a mature market that is not relying on growth for valuations, and isn't appealing to VCs trained on net/mobile/crypto bubbles.
But those contracts are so much more expensive that virtually no one gets them.
HN might have over 100 chars per line of text. It could be better. I know I could do it myself, and I do. But "I fixed it for me" doesn't fix it for anyone else.
The earliest reference I know off the top of my head is Aristotle, which would be the 4th century BCE
> I can start with theorem provers
If you're going to talk about theorem provers, you may want to include the medieval theory of obligations and their game-semantic-like nature. Or the Socratic notion of a dialogue in which arguments are arrived at via a back and forth. Or you may want to consider that "logos" from which we get logic means "word". And if you contemplate these things for a minute or two you'll realize that logic since ancient times has been a model of speech and often specifically of speaking with another human. It's a way of having words (and later written symbols) constrain thought to increase the signal to noise ratio.
Chess is another kind of game played between two people. In this case it's a war game, but that seems not so essential. The essential thing is that chess is a game and games are relatively constrained forms of reasoning. They're modeling a human activity.
By 1950, Alan Turing had already written about the imitation game (or Turing test) that evaluated whether a computer could be said to be thinking based on its ability to hold a natural language conversation with humans. He also built an early chess system and was explicitly thinking about artificial intelligence as a model of what humans could do.
> Attention is misleadingly called that, reasoning is ill-defined,
None of this dismissiveness bears on the point. If you want to argue that humans are not the benchmark and model of intelligence (which frankly I think is a completely indefensible position, but that's up to you) then you have to argue that these things were not named or modeled after human activities. It's not sufficient that you think their names are poorly chosen.
> Producing artificial humans or imitating real ones was never the goal nor the point.
Artificial humans is exactly the concept of androids or humanoid robots. You are claiming that nobody has ever wanted to make humanoid robots? I'm sure you can't believe that but I'm at a loss for what point you're trying to make.
> 1950s is to produce systems that do something that is considered only doable by humans.
Unless this is a typo and you meant to write that this was NOT the goal, then you're conceding my point that humans are the benchmark and model for AI systems. They are, after all, the most intelligent beings we know to exist at present.
And so to reiterate my original point, talking about AI with the constraint that you can't compare them to humans is totally insane.
Give me a break. This is your literal job description, something you should be able to do blind.
If any random FE developer can put a proxy in front of their servers so can you.