Somewhat related: a few weeks ago the "Amigo" software sampler plugin was released and it has been a minor hit among music producers. It has nostalgic 8-bit graphics and it emulate's the Amiga's sound pretty well. If you're into music production, it might be worth checking out:
Presumably it would only be required to work on extremely sensitive projects with national security implications (no idea if that applies in this case).
That interpretation requires believing that the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, would sometimes open the door revealing the automobile and ask the contestant if they want to switch to that door. It doesn't really make sense, so that should tip off readers that they've misunderstood the show format.
Marilyn even made this explicit in her answer, writing that the host "knows what's behind the doors and will always avoid the one with the prize" [0]. So readers were arguing her answer was wrong even given this understanding of how the show works.
> That interpretation requires believing that the host, who knows what’s behind the doors
The host has to always open the door, too. Else-- if your strategy is always to switch when shown a goat, the host can choose to only show you a goat if you have already picked the car (which would cause you to lose 100%). Or various mixed strategies.
This is one of those problems that is hard to grasp at baseline, but a little harder to grasp because the situation isn't fully specified. As a result it tends to create a lot of controversy, like the one about an airplane on a treadmill.
In 2022, Calhoun received $22.5 million from Boeing. In February 2023, Boeing awarded Calhoun an incentive of about $5.29 million in restricted stock units to "induce him to stay throughout the company's recovery." In March 2023, Boeing announced Calhoun was being given shares worth $15 million that will vest in installments over three years.
When we get to that point -- beyond a machine regurgitating reasonable facsimiles of code based on human examples, but actually designing and implementing novel systems from the ground up -- we'll need far, far fewer workers in general.
Exactly. Far before high-level software engineering is perfected by machines, a revolution will have already come for the vast majority of white-collar work. This includes all creative work as well, since software engineering has a large component of that also.
Coding is not uniquely vulnerable to AI, it just feels that way because initial AI products are targeted at technical audiences, and a large corpus of training data could be snagged with minimal legal burdens.
Is there not some categorical difference between a purposefully-built system, which given enough time and effort and expertise and constraints, we can engineer to be effectively secure, and a stochastically-trained black box?
Yes? Kinda? Hard to say tbh. I think the distance between these categories is probably smaller than you're implying (or at least I'm interpreting), or rather the distinction between these categories is certainly not always clear or discernible (let alone meaningfully so).
Go is a game with no statistical elements yet there are so many possible move sets that it might as well be. I think we have a lower bound on the longest possible legal game being around 10^48 moves and an upper bound being around 10^170. At 10^31 moves per second (10 quettahertz) it'd still take you billions of years to play the lower bound longest possible game. It's pretty reasonable to believe we can never build a computer that can play the longest legal game even with insane amounts of parallelism and absurdly beautiful algorithms, let alone find a deterministic solution (the highest gamma ray we've ever detected is ~4RHz or 4x10^27) or "solving" Go. Go is just a board with 19x19 locations and 3 possible positions (nothing, white, black) (legal moves obviously reducing that 10^170 bound).
That might seem like a non-sequitur, but what I'm getting at is that there's a lot of permutations in software too and I don't think there are plenty of reasonably sized programs that would be impossible to validate correctness of within a reasonable amount of time. Pretty sure there's classes of programs we know that can't be validated in a finite time nor with finite resources. A different perspective on statistics is actually not viewing states as having randomness but viewing them as having levels of uncertainty. So there's a lot of statistics that is done in frameworks which do not have any value of true randomness (random like noise not random like np.random.randn()). Conceptually there's no difference between uncertainty and randomness, but I think it's easier to grasp the idea that there are many purposefully-built finite systems that have non-zero amounts of uncertainty, so those are no different than random systems.
More here on Go: https://senseis.xmp.net/?NumberOfPossibleGoGames And if someone knows more about go and wants to add more information or correct me I'd love to hear it. I definitely don't know enough about the game let alone the math, just using it as an example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT4V4dhef64