Yes, I would like to test for Scandinavian languages as there are not many multilingual NLP apis available. Not even Google/Microsoft/AWS has multilingual support.
The error I'm getting is:
Request Error
The server encountered an error processing the request. The exception message is 'Invalid JSON string literal format. At line 1, column 1.'. See server logs for more details. The exception stack trace is:
at System.Runtime.Serialization.Json.JavaScriptReader.ReadStringLiteral()
at System.Runtime.Serialization.Json.JavaScriptReader.ReadCore()
at System.Runtime.Serialization.Json.JavaScriptReader.Read()
at System.Json.JsonValue.Load(TextReader textReader)
at Tisane.Server.Parse(Stream json)
at SyncInvokeParse(Object , Object[] , Object[] )
at System.ServiceModel.Dispatcher.SyncMethodInvoker.Invoke(Object instance, Object[] inputs, Object[]& outputs)
at System.ServiceModel.Dispatcher.DispatchOperationRuntime.InvokeBegin(MessageRpc& rpc)
at System.ServiceModel.Dispatcher.ImmutableDispatchRuntime.ProcessMessage5(MessageRpc& rpc)
at System.ServiceModel.Dispatcher.ImmutableDispatchRuntime.ProcessMessage11(MessageRpc& rpc)
at System.ServiceModel.Dispatcher.MessageRpc.Process(Boolean isOperationContextSet)
using these parameters:
$parameters = array(
'content' => "Babylonians should not be allowed at managerial positions.",
'language' => 'en'
);
Ugh. The paper reeks of political agenda. The very first sentence is:
> One of capitalism's most durable myths is that it has reduced human toil.
What about the Communism? Why would they spread this durable myth? Because I remember hearing the same story in the Soviet school.
The paper does not make a real effort trying to consider different evidence and honestly investigate the subject. Most of the sources are related to the UK (specifically, England) with a couple referring to the US in XIX century. How do we know how much the Dutch, German, French, Russian peasants worked, let alone those in the rice-growing Asia? Finally, how about trying to research 1600s and 1700s in North America to compare apples with apples?
Even in her own paper, the results appear a bit, ahem, uneven:
> 1988 - Manufacturing workers, U.K.: 1856 hours
> 1400-1600 - Farmer-miner, adult male, U.K.: 1980 hours
> Calculated from Ian Blanchard's estimate of 180 days per year. Assumes 11-hour day
Yes, it's 180 days, but 11 hours each. Did she actually try working 11 hours on a backbreaking menial job? Does she actually believe that 11 hours being a miner in 1500s is the same as 11 hours in the office or even a modern assembly line?
"The paper does not make a real effort trying to consider different evidence and honestly investigate the subject."
Here's some food for thought: If you don't work an additional hour, because the economic environment you are in has provided you no meaningful economic task that would be worth doing in that hour, are you better off than someone who does have that opportunity and works for benefit in that time?
It's difficult to compare across such time spans meaningfully. I've often thought if we could bring someone forward in time from, say, a thousand years ago and give them a tour of your local 7-11 that it would re-align a lot of people's perspectives on our modern societies. (I'm not even picking that for the cold drinks or snacks, either; it's things like "here's a tube of cream that you can buy for roughly 10 minutes labor, tops, that when you smear it on a cut makes it so the cut won't kill you anymore". Or, "condoms", that work reliably. I'd expect tears from our visitor and a high likelihood of violent resistence if you try to send them back.)
Heh, your food for thought is a cherry picked, fairly detached piece of speculation.
Here's another equally meaningless "food for thought": we bring a native American from a thousand years ago to today. They go from a life of being very connected to their community, the environment, fairly plentiful sources of food, and so on, to a society where, statistically speaking, they have a high chance of living in poverty, being systematically discriminated against in ways that prevent them from pursuing education/employment/etc., facing substance abuse, being confined in meaningful ways to an arbitrarily defined "reservation", etc. etc.
Do you still expect tears and violent resistance if you try to send them back?
You can basically expand this thought experiment to most populations who are not upper middle class white people. Would you rather be born as a random Incan citizen, or a modern day coal miner in Peru?
> I'd expect tears from our visitor and a high likelihood of violent resistence if you try to send them back.
I'm not so sure. See the antropologist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Good_(anthropologist) He married a native girl named Yarima, but after several years in Western society she choose to return to her tribe in the rain forest. Life as a Medieval peasant seem to me to be inferior to life in a hunter gatherer tribe, but I think it is far from certain that the peasant would refuse to go back.
Plus, the meaningfulness of the task sometimes is beyond economic; many people code in crazy hours because they love the job. I doubt it was the same with miners 500 years ago.
But all these nuances aren't even looked at in the paper.
The argument is not capitalism vs state socialism ("communism"). That you seem to think it is, shows exactly how well propaganda has worked on you, from both of those sources.
The word 'capitalism' was invented by communists, so the moment that someone uses the word in a disparaging sense it makes conjure up the 'capitalism vs state socialism' debate. Even if that weren't the case, the GP's point would still stand. Bringing up 'capitalism' in this manner reeks of political agenda. Whether that agenda is communism is irrelevant.
"The initial usage of the term "capitalism" in its modern sense has been attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 ("What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others") and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861 ("Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labour").[22]:237 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels referred to the "capitalistic system"[29][30] and to the "capitalist mode of production" in Capital (1867).[31] The use of the word "capitalism" in reference to an economic system appears twice in Volume I of Capital, p. 124 (German edition) and in Theories of Surplus Value, tome II, p. 493 (German edition). Marx did not extensively use the form capitalism, but instead those of capitalist and capitalist mode of production, which appear more than 2,600 times in the trilogy The Capital."
Louis Blanc was a 19th century socialist. Marx and Engels went on to popularize the term and concept. Marx's main work is Das Kapital, in which he criticizes 'capitalism'.
Yes, and Marx's use of the term was as a criticism of 19th century British industrialism. One of the many reasons why using these terms in polemic ends up leads to increasingly meaningless debates.
No, I generally agree that we've shifted things around so that most workers now are generally a bit better off than before in many ways. I think they could be better off still under alternative systems. I was however responding, primarily, to your apparent argument that anyone criticising capitalism can only be a Soviet-era state-supporting "communist".
> your apparent argument that anyone criticising capitalism can only be a Soviet-era state-supporting "communist"
That would be a highly creative way of summarising my post.
My problem with the paper was that it started what was supposed to be a historical research with a slogan-like claim that a particular ideology propagated it (literally the first sentence).
As in, there was no misunderstanding, no misinterpretation, or lack of evidence, but evil dudes came and lied to us all.
I countered that I witnessed firsthand how the competing ideology was "propagating" the same "myth", which, simply put, makes the author's assertion a sheer nonsense.
I don't think the quote intended to imply that Capitalism propagated a myth. I think the quote intended to imply that the subject of the myth was Capitalism.
E.g. suppose I said "One of bowling's most enduring myths is that wearing a bowler's hat improves your score". Does this imply that a cabal of bowlers spread propaganda? Or simply that the myth exists within the bowling community.
Suppose the article had said "One small step for man, one big step for mankind." You are responding with the equivalent of "What about womankind? There are female engineers at NASA. Isn't the moon landing a big step for women too? Neil Armstrong is clearly a misogynist." We can debate whether to replace "mankind" with a more gender-neutral term. But nobody would interpret Neil Armstrong as having a political agenda against women.
However, you've concluded that because the author described a problem with capitalism but not the equivalent problem with communism, the author must be a marxist.
I generally dislike the word "capitalism" because (like the word "man") it's ambiguous. By capitalism do you mean Private Ownership? a market economy? deregulation? Laissez Faire? Regardless of its definition and etymology, people irl use it to signify different concepts. Which dilutes the semantics and relies on context to properly resolve. In the article, perhaps "capitalism's most durable myths" should have been replaced with "industrialized-societies' most durable myths". But nobody except you seems to have interpreted the article as having a political agenda against Private Ownership.
> we are asked to imagine
not by a cabal, but by "The implicit -- but rarely articulated -- assumption".
> However, you've concluded that because the author described a problem with capitalism but not the equivalent problem with communism, the author must be a marxist.
How? Why? Where?
I am merely saying that since the opposing ideology makes the same statement, the claim that it's a "myth of capitalism" makes no sense.
The moon landing can actually provide a great example. Take the "moon landing hoax" conspiracies. One of the first counter-claims is, if it were really a hoax, wouldn't the Soviets shout about it from the rooftops?
In our example, claiming that the American workers work more than Medieval serfs would be an excellent point for the Soviet propaganda. But since they didn't, and since in my school, the capitalism (otherwise hated) was taught as a step forward, the reduction of working hours clearly isn't a "capitalism's enduring myth".
My main issue, like I said many times by now, is why bring -isms to the study in the first place? Publish the figures, bring more sources from all over the world, make conclusions, THEN try to explain why it emerged. But no, that's not what the article says.
Seriously, does the word "Communism" work like a magic incantation that makes people ignore everything else?
>> we are asked to imagine
> not by a cabal, but by "The implicit -- but rarely articulated -- assumption".
> why bring -isms to the study in the first place?
The article isn't bringing "-isms" or ideologies into the article. The article intended to contrast the Modern West's economic system [0] with the Feudal System. But you are interpreting the article to have contrasted Private Ownership with Public Ownership.
> the claim that it's a "myth of capitalism" makes no sense.
It makes sense under an interpretation you seem to have missed. Colloquially, "Capitalism" means different things under different contexts. Furthermore, it's possible to classify types of economies along boundaries other than Private Ownership vs Public Ownership. Analogously, there's more colors in the rainbow than just Red and Green. Attributing a property to Red doesn't necessarily attribute the opposite property to Green. Consider the possibility that your interpretation of the text was not the intended interpretation.
[0] which in reality is not a Free-Market Economy, but more accurately described as an Industrialized Mixed-Market Economy.
The excerpt doesn't come from a paper -- it comes from the book The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure, by Juliet B. Schor: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_w... If you want to be snarky, get the details right.
Peasants' work output were calorie-restricted. 11 hours backbreaking were the norm during harvest, but not in the less busier seasons. In the northern countries, snow and lack of sunlight made working impossible for several months per year. Instead, they ate very little food slept through most days.
> Ata’s bones contain DNA that not only shows she was human
The fact that there's a DNA already means it's not an alien, doesn't it? Having a life form with the same uber-complex chain of nucleotides as the life on earth developed is as improbable as a server on an alien mothership being compatible with a Macbook. (Quick primer on the subject: https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/cracking-aliens-gen...)
Having said that, the NYT article reads like the researchers are still unable to explain the discrepancies between the age and the well-formed skeleton as well as the number of mutations. Were there any secret nuclear tests conducted half a century ago in Chile? But that would also probably be insufficient to cause all that. I would bet on experiments trying to cause deliberate mutations.
Not necessarily. Can be also a contamination from an external source of DNA. The article claims a mixed chilean-european DNA but we don't know how many moved humans had touched this skeleton before
And there is the fact that we share DNA with other species. It seems [1] that we shared a 93% of DNA with Macaca mulatta for example.
I don't know any other hypothetical building blocks for complex life. It could possibly be the case that the alternatives are too unstable and that alien life would be made of something remarkably similar to (but obviously not identical to) Earth DNA.
Sounds like a part publicity (NYT was invited), part employment fair for the Bezos' ventures. He can talk to the candidates, observe how they behave, and at the same time intrigue them with the prospects of working for him.
Amazingly, the article does not mention what the presentations were about.
In addition to that, even if we were limited to the "last moment", there was about half a second or a second time to react. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that should be enough for the car to at least try something.
Isn't the car supposed to brake to minimise the collision, if the swerving is too dangerous (and it wasn't in this case, as the road wasn't too busy)?
And today they circulate articles bragging with the number of supercomputers. It's the same as publicly listed companies increase headcount to look like they are thriving ("X is profitable and hiring"). Microsoft, for example, created a specialised AI department. Does it mean we'll have AGI in a couple of years?
In the age of cloud computing, does the number of supercomputers even indicate anything except the ability to run simulations on climate and nuclear fallout?
Personally, I wish someone created a more intelligent, less cronyist, less wasteful, but as willing to experiment alternative to the US tech industry. But it's definitely not China today that is even more reliant on meaningless KPIs than the corporate America. Of course, when the dear leader has an ambition to make the country a superpower, it makes sense to order more supercomputers.
Agree, and given the standard "liquidity preference", the founders are likely to net $0, except for the Google bonuses for the engineering (Jack Barker-like Rosenthal is not likely to stick there).
It's sad, really. It's one of the really innovative companies, but it's not easy to sell tech ahead of its time. Yet another incident that will encourage to pick copycats over real innovation.
I guess Google is no longer as generous with the acquisitions.
> It's sad, really. It's one of the really innovative companies, but it's not easy to sell tech ahead of its time.
This glorifies failure quite a bit. One major objective of tech companies is to produce products that customers value and like. Lytro failed to do this. Just because the underlying science is complicated doesn't make the tech "ahead of its time" due to the fact that maybe the tech, as implemented, just isn't what people want, now or in the future!
Having complicated science underlying a product certainly doesn't excuse a company from producing products that people want.
> Having complicated science underlying a product certainly doesn't excuse a company from producing products that people want.
That's not the biggest obstacle, actually. The biggest obstacle that the sales strategy has no case studies to work with.
What market does the new tech appeal to? Should it be B2C or B2B? (In their case, they tried both IIRC.)
You may hold the collective entity responsible, if you wish, but in this case, they required both sharp and inventive techies (which they had), and a business leader with a vision (which they didn't have). It's not easy to put together, especially if the investors make the call for the CEO's replacement.
An analogy from a different area, Siri could be another dead curio if Steve Jobs didn't decide to make it a centerpiece of their new iPhone.
>Lytro failed to do this. Just because the underlying science is complicated doesn't make the tech "ahead of its time" due to the fact that maybe the tech, as implemented, just isn't what people want, now or in the future!
As we speaking abstractly? What theoretically could be if we didn't know anything about the tech?
Because otherwise this specific tech is very much an "ahead of its time" technology, whether consumers adopted it or not.
Besides, consumer adoption is a BS test for a technology being ahead of its time.
Failure in the market can simply be because the implementation was not good, or the marketing wasn't, or the support was lacking, or the price too high, or 200 other reasons, that don't depend on the technology not being ahead of its time.
The high price was primary due to them trying to offset the high RD cost vs the actual hardware cost. Google might be able to sell it cheaper if they can get ROI with other applications.
Google never really was generous with its acquisitions: many of its most successful ones like Blogger, KeyHole (Earth), Where2 (Maps), Writely (Docs), Zenter (Presentations), Urchin (Analytics) and Android were for tiny dollar amounts, sub-$100M. And the really big ones - YouTube and DoubleClick, and to a lesser extent Metaweb - turned out to be worth way more than Google paid for them. The only big duds I can think of where Google paid a "generous" amount for something that didn't really make them a whole lot were Motorola, Andy Rubin's robot collection (Boston Dynamics etc.), and Skybox, and in all cases they managed to sell them off for decent amounts.
Yes, it's a shame for the founders in this situation, particularly if the wished to continue whilst their investors wished to exit and recoup any losses they may have had.
I'm reminded every day that the adoption curve can be brutal for those at the sharp end of the stick.
Apologies in advance for the oversimplification. It depends on the actual contract you signed but in general it goes like this:
VC puts in 1 dollar, you sell at 1.2, VC will take the first dollar and MAY take the next 20 cents. That could mean a liquidity preference of 1.2x. If you sold at 1.4, it COULD mean VC takes 1.2 and you split the next 20cents according to your share split with the VC.
It may be easier to think of a VC as a bank that doesn't ask you to pay back a loan every month BUT if a liquidity event occurs (i.e. someone buys your company), they absolutely want all their money back first (i.e. "senior" in debt to equity holders (you)) before you get to dip your hands in.
Not all shares are the same. Corporations have different classes of stock: as a simple example there may be common stock and preferred stock.
In a "liquidity event", and especially in a "down round" where the company is bought at a lower price per share than previous investors paid, those shares are not treated the same. Preferred shares may get something from the new investment round (perhaps less than they invested), while common shares may have their value wiped out to zero.
(Source: I have been a "commoner" in a company that was bought in a down round where my stock was zeroed but the preferred shares were still worth something.)
I remember early reports about self-driving experiments saying that some of the issues where because the cars were driving at the speed limit, which is usually not the case in the US with the human drivers.
If they just track human driver habits then we're no more safer! What's the point left about self-driving cars then? Free up drivers of even more responsibility when they kill people?
> What's the point left about self-driving cars then?
The point of a self-driving car is unburdening the user from the task of driving it, allowing them to engage in other activities if they chose to do so.
That it has the potential of being safer is a nice perk but definitely not the primary goal. Right now the challenge is whether we can make them as safe on average as human drivers do, that way we can avoid effectively sacrificing people for the convenience such a system would provide.
> Free up drivers of even more responsibility when they kill people?
That's a strange way to put it. Surely if someone is not driving their car, they can't be responsible if the car kills people (assuming of course the car was well-maintained and the model was legal). I don't see how that's a bad thing, since they have zero control over the situation.
Do you mean that it could make car users feel less responsible for deaths, even though cars will presumably still kill people?
Responsibility isn't being absolved, it's being shifted to the one that actually operates the vehicle - probably either the car vendor (who either manufactured or licensed the self-driving car software), or the fleet operator depending on what kind of sales and operations model self-driving cars adopt. When human escalator operators were replaced with automatic escalators, was there are problem with shifting responsibility over to Otis and other escalator manufacturers?
As with automatic escalators, there are two primary benefits to society: greater aggregate safety[1], and freeing up people's time. You point to the lack of a human operator to hold responsible as a detriment, but the statistics point the other way around: human drivers are horribly irresponsible and even if we can punish them when they do wrong that doesn't substantially change their behavior. Freeing up people's time is self-explanatory.
So I think you have a great analogy, and I generally like your perspective. The problem is that I think this accident clearly demonstrates that the suggestion that AV's would be safer than human drivers is now suspect. A post elsewhere compared the deaths per mile for human drivers to that of this pilots' and it's worse by orders of magnitude.[0]
That's my point. I 100% agree, if self-driving cars did make things better, than the safety aspect is a good thing.
I think the freeing up people's time is okay too but only if all of society has access to AV's. However, like many innovations of the past, advancements which are not accessible to all people just free up the time of some people while offsetting burdens onto others (ie., those who can't afford AV's). BUT, that is a separate issue.
[0] It is just one data point, but it's a bad sign to be so quick to kill a pedestrian so soon out of the gate.
Worse by an order of magnitude is only the case if you exclusively measure fatalities - and as you point out there is exactly one data point and not enough miles logged to produce any meaningful conclusion. The data on non-fatal accidents for Waymo indicates that self-driving cars are an order of magnitude less likely to be at fault for an accident that human drivers: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-safe-are-self-drivi...
Concerning another dead mobile OS, I never understood why Microsoft did not try to spin off or open-source their mobile effort.
In fact, the rationale for killing it seems an example of corporate waste: it had user base in double-digits in mid-size markets like the UK and a growing base in major non-North America markets. Why not let it grow outside of America?
It was also an OS ahead of its time, at least in terms of the UI. Where else can I pin a huge preconfigured icon to the main screen to quickly activate it when I'm in a rush? Where else I don't have to scroll through the endless list of tiny icons to find what I want?
It's likely that Microsoft's mobile OS contained large modules that the company was not going to open source either for reasons of company strategy (e.g., the kernel was probably a variant of the Windows kernel) or due to licensing restrictions.
Much the same as iOS exists as a fork of OSX and shares the kernel and a lot of userland frameworks, Windows Phone 8 and 10 were just forks of Windows and shared the kernel and even more of the userland. It's unlikely Microsoft would want to open-source that.
Unfortunately, very plausible. It's ridiculous how much neat stuff is buried by corporate lawyers "mitigating" a danger as probable as a meteorite strike.
> By 2020, China’s AI industry will be “in line” with the most advanced countries, with a core AI industry gross output exceeding RMB 150 billion (USD 22.5 billion) and AI-related industry gross output exceeding RMB 1 trillion (USD 150.8 billion)
And I'm confident the goal will be reached. Incidentally, much of the software that today is classified as "just software" will be called "AI".
Not that it's different from elsewhere, of course (I saw screenscraping being called "AI"), it's just there are government incentives to do so.
What was the issue? Any error messages or you just didn't get the output you wanted?
I imagine you're interested in Norwegian?
EDIT: I forgot to mention that you don't need to code to test-drive. You can simply dump your JSON in the console (the "Try it" button: https://dev.tisane.ai/docs/services/5a3b6668a3511b11cc292655...).