Skip to main content

Home/ Advanced Concepts Team/ Group items tagged awareness

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
LeopoldS

TWINKIND | 3D photo figurines - 1 views

www.twinkind.com/landing

3D gadget

shared by LeopoldS on 01 Sep 13 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 01 Sep 13
     
    looks like the first "killer app" for 3D printers I am aware of ... highly useful and solving humanities most pressing problems as expected
duncan barker

Vienna University of Technology: News Detail - 2 views

www.tuwien.ac.at/...6648

shared by duncan barker on 13 Oct 10 - No Cached
  • duncan barker on 13 Oct 10
     
    Storing energy with flywheels instead of batteries. This is not a new idea, but i just put it on here so you are aware of it.
ESA ACT

Espra and Plexnet - 0 views

www.24weeks.com/...24_concepts.pdf

web2.0

shared by ESA ACT on 24 Apr 09 - Cached
  • ESA ACT on 24 Apr 09
     
    "weapons for mass construction" - they want to solve everything with a new type of internet. including "swarm awareness" and "hive intelligence"
ESA ACT

Sustainability of Human Progress - 0 views

www-formal.stanford.edu/...progress

Sustainability energy AI NRG

shared by ESA ACT on 24 Apr 09 - Cached
  • ESA ACT on 24 Apr 09
     
    from the guy recipient of Turing awar 1971 (DI)
Marcus Maertens

Computer Scientists Generate A Self-Aware Mario That Can Learn And Feel | IFLScience - 2 views

www.iflscience.com/...aware-mario-can-learn-and-feel

AI FUN INF

shared by Marcus Maertens on 22 Jan 15 - No Cached
Paul N liked it
  • Marcus Maertens on 22 Jan 15
     
    Here we go! AI for Mario has arrived. What is still missing is the Italian accent in his robo-voice though. To compensate for that, we have a lot of German accent in the Youtube-video. Make sure to check it out if you always liked the background music from the games. Putting the trolling aside, I honestly like the idea! There is still some way to go, but maybe we will watch and even pay to be able to see twitch-streams of self-ware bots one day?
  • Paul N on 23 Jan 15
     
    I'm actually considering doing an twitch-bot channel. Why pay when you can cash in? Kind of lazy tho`
Guido de Croon

special section Bioinspiration and biomimetics on "smart solutions from the plant kingdom" - 4 views

iopscience.iop.org/2

BIO

shared by Guido de Croon on 15 May 13 - No Cached
LeopoldS liked it
  • Guido de Croon on 15 May 13
     
    I wanted to post this one, as plant-inspired robotic design and algorithms are a new kid on the block, and then noticed that some ACT-members may already be aware of this special issue...
Marcus Maertens

Everything You Wanted to Know about Space Tourism but Were Afraid to Ask | Space Safety... - 3 views

www.spacesafetymagazine.com/...wanted-space-tourism-afraid

space

shared by Marcus Maertens on 04 Feb 13 - No Cached
  • Marcus Maertens on 04 Feb 13
     
    "chances are that if 700 passengers are flown annually, up to 10 of them might not survive the flight in the first years of the operations." most remarkable also the question who is to blame if a dead and burned space tourist corps comes crashing down from the sky into your car.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • dejanpetkow on 07 Feb 13
     
    How sure is the information that a human body would not completely burn / ablate during atmospheric re-entry? I am not aware of any material ground tests in a plasma wind tunnel confirming that human tissue would survive re-entry from LEO.
  • Marcus Maertens on 07 Feb 13
     
    Since a steak would not even be cooked by dropping it from very high altitudes (http://what-if.xkcd.com/28/) I would doubt that a space tourists body would desintegrate by atmospheric re-entry.
  • dejanpetkow on 07 Feb 13
     
    Funny link, however, some things are not clear enough: 1. Ablation rate is unknown 2. What are the entry conditions? The link suggests that the steak is just dropped (no initial velocity). 3. What about the ballistic coefficient? 4. How would the entry body orientation? It would be a quite non-steady state configuration I guess with heavy accelerations. 5. How would vacuum exposure impact on the water in the body/steak and what would be the consequence for ablation behaviour? 6. Does surface chemistry play a role (not ablation, but catalysis)? My conclusion: the example with the steak is a funny and not so bad exercise, not more.
  • LeopoldS on 09 Feb 13
     
    This calls for some we serious simulations by the Petkow code it seems to me ...
  • dejanpetkow on 09 Feb 13
     
    I still would need some serious input data...
LeopoldS

Schumpeter: More than just a game | The Economist - 3 views

www.economist.com/news/business/21565926-video-games-are-behind-latest-fad-management-more-just-game?fsrc=nlw|hig|11-8-2012|4090557|36947788|

economics game

shared by LeopoldS on 08 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • LeopoldS on 08 Nov 12
     
    remember the discussion I tried to trigger in the team a few weeks ago ...
  • ...5 more comments...
  • Luís F. Simões on 09 Nov 12
     
    main quote I take from the article: "gamification is really a cover for cynically exploiting human psychology for profit"
  • Francesco Biscani on 09 Nov 12
     
    I would say that it applies to management in general :-)
  • Dario Izzo on 09 Nov 12
     
    which is exactly why it will never work .... and surprisingly "managers" fail to understand this very simple fact.
  • johannessimon81 on 09 Nov 12
     
    ... "gamification is really a cover for cynically exploiting human psychology for profit" --> "Why Are Half a Million People Poking This Giant Cube?" http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/11/curiosity/
  • pacome delva on 13 Nov 12
     
    I think the "essence" of the game is its uselessness... workers need exactly the inverse, to find a meaning in what they do !
  • LeopoldS on 13 Nov 12
     
    I love the linked article provided by Johannes! It expresses very elegantly why I still fail to understand even extremely smart and busy people in my view apparently waiting their time in playing computer games - but I recognise that there is something in games that we apparently need / gives us something we cherish .... "In fact, half a million players so far have registered to help destroy the 64 billion tiny blocks that compose that one gigantic cube, all working in tandem toward a singular goal: discovering the secret that Curiosity's creator says awaits one lucky player inside. That's right: After millions of man-hours of work, only one player will ever see the center of the cube. Curiosity is the first release from 22Cans, an independent game studio founded earlier this year by Peter Molyneux, a longtime game designer known for ambitious projects like Populous, Black & White and Fable. Players can carve important messages (or shameless self-promotion) onto the face of the cube as they whittle it to nothing. Image: Wired Molyneux is equally famous for his tendency to overpromise and under-deliver on his games. In 2008, he said that his upcoming game would be "such a significant scientific achievement that it will be on the cover of Wired." That game turned out to be Milo & Kate, a Kinect tech demo that went nowhere and was canceled. Following this, Molyneux left Microsoft to go indie and form 22Cans. Not held back by the past, the Molyneux hype train is going full speed ahead with Curiosity, which the studio grandiosely promises will be merely the first of 22 similar "experiments." Somehow, it is wildly popular. The biggest challenge facing players of Curiosity isn't how to blast through the 2,000 layers of the cube, but rather successfully connecting to 22Cans' servers. So many players are attempting to log in that the server cannot handle it. Some players go for utter efficiency, tapping rapidly to rack up combo multipliers and get more
  • nikolas smyrlakis on 16 Nov 12
     
    why are video games so much different than collecting stamps or spotting birds or planes ? One could say they are all just hobbies
Luke O'Connor

Movember! - 3 views

uk.movember.com

shared by Luke O'Connor on 10 Nov 11 - Cached
  • Luke O'Connor on 10 Nov 11
     
    Movember (formerly November) is a moustache growing charity event during November. This month I am growing a moustache to raise awareness (and funds) for men's health. I will be putting a collection jar on my desk, so any donations of spare change would be very much appreciated! My 'mospace' can be found here: http://mobro.co/Lukeoc hijaking of diigo over...
  • Ma Ru on 10 Nov 11
Luís F. Simões

Stochastic Pattern Recognition Dramatically Outperforms Conventional Techniques - Techn... - 2 views

www.technologyreview.com/...27598

stochastic probabilistic computing pattern_recognition robotics navigation

shared by Luís F. Simões on 23 Feb 12 - No Cached
  • A stochastic computer, designed to help an autonomous vehicle navigate, outperforms a conventional computer by three orders of magnitude, say computer scientists
  • These guys have applied stochastic computing to the process of pattern recognition. The problem here is to compare an input signal with a reference signal to determine whether they match.   In the real world, of course, input signals are always noisy so a system that can cope with noise has an obvious advantage.  Canals and co use their technique to help an autonomous vehicle navigate its way through a simple environment for which it has an internal map. For this task, it has to measure the distance to the walls around it and work out where it is on the map. It then computes a trajectory taking it to its destination.
  • Although the idea of stochastic computing has been around for half a century, attempts to exploit have only just begun. Clearly there's much work to be done. And since one line of thought is that the brain might be a stochastic computer, at least in part, there could be exciting times ahead.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1202.4495: Stochastic-Based Pattern Recognition Analysis
  • Luís F. Simões on 23 Feb 12
     
    hey! This is essentially the Probabilistic Computing Ariadna
  • LeopoldS on 25 Feb 12
     
    The link is there but my understanding of our purpose is different than what I understood from the abstract. In any case,the authors are from Palma de Mallorca, Balears, Spain "somebody" should somehow make them aware of the Ariadna study ... E.g somebody no longer in the team :-)
Guido de Croon

Will robots be smarter than humans by 2029? - 2 views

robohub.org/be-smarter-than-humans-by-2029

AI

shared by Guido de Croon on 10 Mar 14 - No Cached
  • Guido de Croon on 10 Mar 14
     
    Nice discussion about the singularity. Made me think of drinking coffee with Luis... It raises some issues such as the necessity of embodiment, etc.
  • ...9 more comments...
  • Luís F. Simões on 12 Mar 14
     
    "Kurzweilians"... LOL. Still not sold on embodiment, btw.
  • Ma Ru on 12 Mar 14
     
    The biggest problem with embodiment is that, since the passive walkers (with which it all started), it hasn't delivered anything really interesting...
  • Paul N on 13 Mar 14
     
    The problem with embodiment is that it's done wrong. Embodiment needs to be treated like big data. More sensors, more data, more processing. Just putting a computer in a robot with a camera and microphone is not embodiment.
  • Marcus Maertens on 14 Mar 14
     
    I like how he attacks Moore's Law. It always looks a bit naive to me if people start to (ab)use it to make their point. No strong opinion about embodiment.
  • johannessimon81 on 14 Mar 14
     
    @Paul: How would embodiment be done RIGHT?
  • Guido de Croon on 16 Mar 14
     
    Embodiment has some obvious advantages. For example, in the vision domain many hard problems become easy when you have a body with which you can take actions (like looking at an object you don't immediately recognize from a different angle) - a point already made by researchers such as Aloimonos.and Ballard in the end 80s / beginning 90s. However, embodiment goes further than gathering information and "mental" recognition. In this respect, the evolutionary robotics work by for example Beer is interesting, where an agent discriminates between diamonds and circles by avoiding one and catching the other, without there being a clear "moment" in which the recognition takes place. "Recognition" is a behavioral property there, for which embodiment is obviously important. With embodiment the effort for recognizing an object behaviorally can be divided between the brain and the body, resulting in less computation for the brain. Also the article "Behavioural Categorisation: Behaviour makes up for bad vision" is interesting in this respect. In the field of embodied cognitive science, some say that recognition is constituted by the activation of sensorimotor correlations. I wonder to which extent this is true, and if it is valid for extremely simple creatures to more advanced ones, but it is an interesting idea nonetheless. This being said, if "embodiment" implies having a physical body, then I would argue that it is not a necessary requirement for intelligence. "Situatedness", being able to take (virtual or real) "actions" that influence the "inputs", may be.
  • Ma Ru on 17 Mar 14
     
    @Paul While I completely agree about the "embodiment done wrong" (or at least "not exactly correct") part, what you say goes exactly against one of the major claims which are connected with the notion of embodiment (google for "representational bottleneck"). The fact is your brain does *not* have resources to deal with big data. The idea therefore is that it is the body what helps to deal with what to a computer scientist appears like "big data". Understanding how this happens is key. Whether it is the problem of scale or of actually understanding what happens should be quite conclusively shown by the outcomes of the Blue Brain project.
  • johannessimon81 on 17 Mar 14
     
    Wouldn't one expect that to produce consciousness (even in a lower form) an approach resembling that of nature would be essential? All animals grow from a very simple initial state (just a few cells) and have only a very limited number of sensors AND processing units. This would allow for a fairly simple way to create simple neural networks and to start up stable neural excitation patterns. Over time as complexity of the body (sensors, processors, actuators) increases the system should be able to adapt in a continuous manner and increase its degree of self-awareness and consciousness. On the other hand, building a simulated brain that resembles (parts of) the human one in its final state seems to me like taking a person who is just dead and trying to restart the brain by means of electric shocks.
  • Paul N on 17 Mar 14
     
    Actually on a neuronal level all information gets processed. Not all of it makes it into "conscious" processing or attention. Whatever makes it into conscious processing is a highly reduced representation of the data you get. However that doesn't get lost. Basic, low processed data forms the basis of proprioception and reflexes. Every step you take is a macro command your brain issues to the intricate sensory-motor system that puts your legs in motion by actuating every muscle and correcting every step deviation from its desired trajectory using the complicated system of nerve endings and motor commands. Reflexes which were build over the years, as those massive amounts of data slowly get integrated into the nervous system and the the incipient parts of the brain. But without all those sensors scattered throughout the body, all the little inputs in massive amounts that slowly get filtered through, you would not be able to experience your body, and experience the world. Every concept that you conjure up from your mind is a sort of loose association of your sensorimotor input. How can a robot understand the concept of a strawberry if all it can perceive of it is its shape and color and maybe the sound that it makes as it gets squished? How can you understand the "abstract" notion of strawberry without the incredibly sensible tactile feel, without the act of ripping off the stem, without the motor action of taking it to our mouths, without its texture and taste? When we as humans summon the strawberry thought, all of these concepts and ideas converge (distributed throughout the neurons in our minds) to form this abstract concept formed out of all of these many many correlations. A robot with no touch, no taste, no delicate articulate motions, no "serious" way to interact with and perceive its environment, no massive flow of information from which to chose and and reduce, will never attain human level intelligence. That's point 1. Point 2 is that mere pattern recogn
  • Ma Ru on 18 Mar 14
     
    All information *that gets processed* gets processed but now we arrived at a tautology. The whole problem is ultimately nobody knows what gets processed (not to mention how). In fact an absolute statement "all information" gets processed is very easy to dismiss because the characteristics of our sensors are such that a lot of information is filtered out already at the input level (e.g. eyes). I'm not saying it's not a valid and even interesting assumption, but it's still just an assumption and the next step is to explore scientifically where it leads you. And until you show its superiority experimentally it's as good as all other alternative assumptions you can make. I only wanted to point out is that "more processing" is not exactly compatible with some of the fundamental assumptions of the embodiment. I recommend Wilson, 2002 as a crash course.
  • Paul N on 24 Mar 14
     
    These deal with different things in human intelligence. One is the depth of the intelligence (how much of the bigger picture can you see, how abstract can you form concept and ideas), another is the breadth of the intelligence (how well can you actually generalize, how encompassing those concepts are and what is the level of detail in which you perceive all the information you have) and another is the relevance of the information (this is where the embodiment comes in. What you do is to a purpose, tied into the environment and ultimately linked to survival). As far as I see it, these form the pillars of human intelligence, and of the intelligence of biological beings. They are quite contradictory to each other mainly due to physical constraints (such as for example energy usage, and training time). "More processing" is not exactly compatible with some aspects of embodiment, but it is important for human level intelligence. Embodiment is necessary for establishing an environmental context of actions, a constraint space if you will, failure of human minds (i.e. schizophrenia) is ultimately a failure of perceived embodiment. What we do know is that we perform a lot of compression and a lot of integration on a lot of data in an environmental coupling. Imo, take any of these parts out, and you cannot attain human+ intelligence. Vary the quantities and you'll obtain different manifestations of intelligence, from cockroach to cat to google to random quake bot. Increase them all beyond human levels and you're on your way towards the singularity.
Athanasia Nikolaou

Nature Paper: Rivers and streams release more CO2 than previously believed - 6 views

www.klimacampus.de/631+M59214efc590.html

climate emissions

shared by Athanasia Nikolaou on 25 Nov 13 - No Cached
LeopoldS liked it
  • Athanasia Nikolaou on 25 Nov 13
     
    Another underestimated source of CO2, are turbulent waters. "The stronger the turbulences at the water's surface, the more CO2 is released into the atmosphere. The combination of maps and data revealed that, while the CO2 emissions from lakes and reservoirs are lower than assumed, those from rivers and streams are three times as high as previously believed." Alltogether the emitted CO2 equates to roughly one-fifth of the emissions caused by humans. Yet more stuff to model...
  • ...10 more comments...
  • Dario Izzo on 26 Nov 13
     
    This could also be a mechanism to counter human CO2 emission ... the more we emit, the less turbulent rivers and stream, the less CO2 is emitted there ... makes sense?
  • johannessimon81 on 27 Nov 13
     
    I guess there is a natural equilibrium there. Once the climate warms up enough for all rivers and streams to evaporate they will not contribute CO2 anymore - which stops their contribution to global warming. So the problem is also the solution (as always).
  • Athanasia Nikolaou on 27 Nov 13
     
    "The source of inland water CO2 is still not known with certainty and new studies are needed to research the mechanisms controlling CO2 evasion globally." It is another source of CO2 this one, and the turbulence in the rivers is independent of our emissions in CO2 and just facilitates the process of releasing CO2 waters. Dario, if I understood correct you have in mind a finite quantity of CO2 that the atmosphere can accomodate, and to my knowledge this does not happen, so I cannot find a relevant feedback there. Johannes, H2O is a powerful greenhouse gas :-)
  • Dario Izzo on 27 Nov 13
     
    Nasia I think you did not get my point (a joke, really, that Johannes continued) .... by emitting more CO2 we warm up the planet thus drying up rivers and lakes which will, in turn emit less CO2 :) No finite quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere is needed to close this loop ... ... as for the H2O it could just go into non turbulent waters rather than staying into the atmosphere ...
  • Athanasia Nikolaou on 03 Dec 13
     
    Really awkward joke explanation: I got the joke of Johannes, but maybe you did not get mine: by warming up the planet to get rid of the rivers and their problems, the water of the rivers will be accomodated in the atmosphere, therefore, the greenhouse gas of water.
  • Dario Izzo on 03 Dec 13
     
    from my previous post: "... as for the H2O it could just go into non turbulent waters rather than staying into the atmosphere ..."
  • johannessimon81 on 03 Dec 13
     
    I guess the emphasis is on "could"... ;-) Also, everybody knows that rain is cold - so more water in the atmosphere makes the climate colder.
  • LeopoldS on 03 Dec 13
     
    do you have the nature paper also? looks like very nice, meticulous typically german research lasting over 10 years with painstakingly many researchers from all over the world involved .... and while important the total is still only 20% of human emissions ... so a variation in it does not seem to change the overall picture
  • Athanasia Nikolaou on 04 Dec 13
     
    here is the nature paper : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v503/n7476/full/nature12760.html I appreciate Johannes' and Dario's jokes, since climate is the common ground that all of us can have an opinion, taking honours from experiencing weather. But, the same as if I am trying to make jokes for material science, or A.I. I take a high risk of failing(!) :-S Water is a greenhouse gas, rain rather releases latent heat to the environment in order to be formed, Johannes, nice trolling effort ;-) Between this and the next jokes to come, I would stop to take a look here, provided you have 10 minutes: how/where rain forms http://www.scribd.com/doc/58033704/Tephigrams-for-Dummies
  • Dario Izzo on 04 Dec 13
     
    omg
  • johannessimon81 on 09 Dec 13
     
    Nasia, I thought about your statement carefully - and I cannot agree with you. Water is not a greenhouse gas. It is instead a liquid. Also, I can't believe you keep feeding the troll! :-P But on a more topical note: I think it is an over-simplification to call water a greenhouse gas - water is one of the most important mechanisms in the way Earth handles heat input from the sun. The latent heat that you mention actually cools Earth: solar energy that would otherwise heat Earth's surface is ABSORBED as latent heat by water which consequently evaporates - the same water condenses into rain drops at high altitudes and releases this stored heat. In effect the water cycle is a mechanism of heat transport from low altitude to high altitude where the chance of infrared radiation escaping into space is much higher due to the much thinner layer of atmosphere above (including the smaller abundance of greenhouse gasses). Also, as I know you are well aware, the cloud cover that results from water condensation in the troposphere dramatically increases albedo which has a cooling effect on climate. Furthermore the heat capacity of wet air ("humid heat") is much larger than that of dry air - so any advective heat transfer due to air currents is more efficient in wet air - transporting heat from warm areas to a natural heat sink e.g. polar regions. Of course there are also climate heating effects of water like the absorption of IR radiation. But I stand by my statement (as defended in the above) that rain cools the atmosphere. Oh and also some nice reading material on the complexities related to climate feedback due to sea surface temperature: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442(1993)006%3C2049%3ALSEOTR%3E2.0.CO%3B2
  • Athanasia Nikolaou on 10 Dec 13
     
    I enjoy trolling conversations when there is a gain for both sides at the end :-) . I had to check upon some of the facts in order to explain my self properly. The IPCC report states the greenhouse gases here, and water vapour is included: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html Honestly, I read only the abstract of the article you posted, which is a very interesting hypothesis on the mechanism of regulating sea surface temperature, but it is very localized to the tropics (vivid convection, storms) a region of which I have very little expertise, and is difficult to study because it has non-hydrostatic dynamics. The only thing I can comment there is that the authors define constant relative humidity for the bottom layer, supplied by the oceanic surface, which limits the implementation of the concept on other earth regions. Also, we may confuse during the conversation the greenhouse gas with the Radiative Forcing of each greenhouse gas: I see your point of the latent heat trapped in the water vapour, and I agree, but the effect of the water is that it traps even as latent heat an amount of LR that would otherwise escape back to space. That is the greenhouse gas identity and an image to see the absorption bands in the atmosphere and how important the water is, without vain authority-based arguments that miss the explanation in the end: http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.solarchords.com/uploaded/82/87-33833-450015_44absorbspec.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.solarchords.com/agw-science/4/greenhouse--1-radiation/33784/&h=468&w=458&sz=28&tbnid=x2NtfKh5OPM7lM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=96&zoom=1&usg=__KldteWbV19nVPbbsC4jsOgzCK6E=&docid=cMRZ9f22jbtYPM&sa=X&ei=SwynUq2TMqiS0QXVq4C4Aw&ved=0CDkQ9QEwAw
Thijs Versloot

Norway loves electric cars - 0 views

cleantechnica.com/...-cars-two-months-row-7-reasons

technology EV market

shared by Thijs Versloot on 03 Dec 13 - No Cached
  • Thijs Versloot on 03 Dec 13
     
    The main reasons: (1) awareness, people know that a variety of consumer cars exist (2) negative incentives that push people away from gasoline powered cars, eg fuel taxes (3) positive incentives, exemption from road tax, purchase tax and free parking (all temporary) and (4) extensive recharging infrastructure. Other countries have some/all of these elements, but Norway has pushes mostly and the result is that the nissan leaf was the best sold car in September and October, beating all other cars.
  • Ma Ru on 03 Dec 13
     
    If there's anyone who could afford such things, it is Norway... According to http://xkcd.com/980/, Oljefondet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway) is currently worth nearly as much as US has spent on wars. I mean, all of them together... One of the biggest problems in Norway is what to do with this money without damaging the economy in the long run :-)
johannessimon81

IBM Speech Recognition, 1986 - 0 views

www.wired.com/...bms-speech-savvy-computer-1986

AI technology

shared by johannessimon81 on 09 Nov 13 - No Cached
  • johannessimon81 on 09 Nov 13
     
    Interesting historical perspective. Progress since the late '80 really seems to be fairly slow. ?: Do we need to wait for the singularity until speech recognition works without flaws?
  • ...1 more comment...
  • LeopoldS on 09 Nov 13
     
    funny - tried just yesterday the one built in on mavericks: sending one email took three times as long at least as typing it And now my speech PowerPoint Funny, trade trust yesterday they're built in speech recognition in Mavericks sending one e-mail to at least three times a talk as long as typing it. Well this was actually quite okay and relatively fast cheers nice evening
  • johannessimon81 on 13 Nov 13
     
    "I thought I would give it a try on my android sexy seems to work pretty well and I'm speaking more less at normal speed" Actually I was speaking as fast as I could because it was for the google search input - if you make a pause it will think you finished your input and start the query. Also you might notice that Android thinks it is "android sexy" - this was meant to be "on my Android. THIS seems to work...". Still it is not too bad - maybe in a year or two they have it working. Of course it might also be that I just use the word "sexy" randomly... :-\
  • Paul N on 13 Nov 13
     
    The problem is that we don't yet understand how speech in humans actually works. As long as we merely build either inference or statistical language models we'll never get perfect speech recognition. A lot of recognition in humans has a predictive/expectational basis to it that stems from our understanding of higher lvl concepts and context awareness. Sadly I suspect that as long as machines remain unembodied in their perceptual abilities their ability to either properly recognize sounds/speech or objects and other features will never reach perfection.
Juxi Leitner

The Associated Press: Launch set for US satellite to monitor space junk - 0 views

www.google.com/..._b5weFCgVAaZ5ZzRsSUiQD9ID5T000

technology space situational awareness

shared by Juxi Leitner on 24 Sep 10 - No Cached
  • It's designed to give the Air Force its first full-time, space-based surveillance of satellites and debris in Earth's orbit. It monitors them for possible collisions.
Francesco Biscani

The End Of Gravity As a Fundamental Force - 6 views

science.slashdot.org/...Gravity-As-a-Fundamental-Force

phy

shared by Francesco Biscani on 11 Jan 10 - Cached
LeopoldS liked it
  • Francesco Biscani on 11 Jan 10
     
    "At a symposium at the Dutch Spinoza-instituut on 8 December, 2009, string theorist Erik Verlinde introduced a theory that derives Newton's classical mechanics. In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings. He does not consider gravity as fundamental, but as an emergent phenomenon that arises from a deeper microscropic reality. A relativistic extension of his argument leads directly to Einstein's equations."
  • ...8 more comments...
  • Dario Izzo on 12 Jan 10
     
    Diffcult for me to fully understand / believe in the holographic principle at macroscopical scales ... potentially it looks though as a revolutionary idea.....
  • pacome delva on 13 Jan 10
     
    never heard about it... seems interesting. At first sight it seems that it is based on fundamental principle that could lead to a new phenomenology, so that could be tested. Perhaps Luzi knows more about this ? Did we ever work on this concept ?
  • Luzi Bergamin on 13 Jan 10
     
    The paper is quite long and I don't have the time right now to read it in detail. Just a few comments: * We (ACT) definitely never did anything in this direction? But: is there a new phenomenology? I'm not sure, if the aim is just to get Einstein's theory as emergent theory, then GR should not change (or only change in extreme conditions.) * Emergent gravity is not new, also Erik admits that. The claim to have found a solution appears quite frequently, but most proposals actually are not emergent at all. At least, I have the impression that Erik is aware of the relevant steps to be performed. * It's very difficult to judge from a short glance at the paper, up to which point the claims are serious and where it just starts to be advertisments. Section 6 is pretty much a collection of self-praise. * Most importantly: I don't understand how exactly space and time should be emergent. I think it's not new to observe that space is related to special canonical variables in thermodynamics. If anybody can see anything "emergent" in the first paragraphs of section 3, then please explain me. For me, this is not emergent space, but space introduced with a "sledge hammer." Time anyway seems to be a precondition, else there is nothing like energy and nothing like dynamics. * Finally, holography appears to be a precondition, to my knowledge no proof exists that normal (non-supersymmetric, non-stringy, non-whatever) GR has a holographic dual.
  • Luzi Bergamin on 13 Jan 10
     
    Update: meanwhile I understood roughly what this should be about. It's well known that BH physics follow the laws of theormodynamics, suggesting the existence of underlying microstates. But if this is true, shouldn't the gravitational force then be emergent from these microstates in the same way as any theromdynamical effect is emergent from the behavior of its constituents (e.g. a gas)? If this can be prooven, then indeed gravity is emergent. Problem: one has to proof that *any* configuration in GR may be interpreted as thermodynamical, not just BHs. That's probably where holography comes into the play. To me this smells pretty much like N=4 SYM vs. QCD. The former is not QCD, but can be solved, so all stringy people study just that one and claim to learn something about QCD. Here, we look at holographic models, GR is not holographic, but who cares... Engineering problems...
  • LeopoldS on 13 Jan 10
     
    is there any experimental or observational evidence that points to this "solution"?
  • Luzi Bergamin on 13 Jan 10
     
    Are you joking??? :D
  • pacome delva on 14 Jan 10
     
    I was a bit fast to say it could be tested... apparently we don't even know a theory that is holographic, perhaps a string theory (see http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9409089v2). So very far from any test...
  • LeopoldS on 14 Jan 10
     
    Luzi, I miss you!!!
  • Luzi Bergamin on 14 Jan 10
     
    Leo, do you mean you liked my comment on your question more than Pacome's? Well, the ACT has to evolve and fledge, so no bullshitting anymore, but serious and calculating answers... :-) Sorry Pacome, nothing against you!! I just LOVE this Diigo because it gives me the opportunity for a happy revival of my ACT mood.
  • pacome delva on 14 Jan 10
     
    haha, today would have been great to show your mood... we had a talk on the connection between mind and matter !!
pacome delva

Novel negative-index metamaterial bends light 'wrong' direction - 1 views

www.sciencedaily.com/...100422153939.htm

phy nan metamaterials

shared by pacome delva on 23 Apr 10 - Cached
  • the first negative index metamaterial to operate at visible frequencies
  • By engineering a metamaterial with such properties, we are opening the door to such unusual -- but potentially useful -- phenomena as superlensing (high-resolution imaging past the diffraction limit), invisibility cloaking, and the synthesis of materials index-matched to air, for potential enhancement of light collection in solar cells
  • Luzi Bergamin on 23 Apr 10
     
    I forwarded the link to my experimental colleagues and here is the comment from Sergei (the master himself:) "this is what Igor has been doing - an array of plasmonic nanocables. This basically works as a wire-medium slab. All their epsilon and mu are rubbish." * If Sergei is as strict as in this comment, then it IS rubbish. He's not one of the notorious complainer (as e.g. myself.) * Please DO NOT FORWARD this to anybody else, Sergei's comment is NOT FOR PUBLIC USE!
  • Luzi Bergamin on 23 Apr 10
     
    UPDATE: I had a short chat with Sergei and Pekka, Sergei noticed that there is an increasing number of papers on metamaterials, especially in Nature and Science, which are simply wrong, this one being an example. * The idea is based on a very well known effect of wired media. What appears to be interesting about this paper is that they manage to make an optical analogue with aparently low losses. This could be interesting. * The whole interpretation as NIM, "wrong" refraction etc. is total nonsense.
  • pacome delva on 23 Apr 10
     
    wow, good to know ! But for the privacy you should be aware that this is a public group, so anyone has access to our comments i think !
Eduardo Martin Moraud

Forecasting Brain Science and its impact on technology - 3 views

www.youtube.com/watch

shared by Eduardo Martin Moraud on 19 Oct 09 - Cached
  • Eduardo Martin Moraud on 19 Oct 09
     
    For those sceptics about the use of neuroscience: A 20min talk (by a computer scientist!) about brain science and its use to build intelligent technology
  • Christos Ampatzis on 20 Oct 09
     
    so what does he sell? 22' without saying anything? Just "intelligence is prediction" - great but what are you gonna do mate?
  • Eduardo Martin Moraud on 20 Oct 09
     
    I do not think his intention is to sell anything... Just to make people (from a non neuroscience background) aware that brain science will have an impact on technology. Also: I am a firm believer in that "prediction"defines intelligence, as he states, and that making machines that behave in such a way is the way to go :) (the talk is from 2003 btw :p)
Christos Ampatzis

International Experts Blend Space Technologies and Crowdsourcing to Enhance Disaster Ma... - 1 views

www.newswise.com/...ance-disaster-management-tools

science space

shared by Christos Ampatzis on 14 Jul 11 - No Cached
LeopoldS liked it
  • Christos Ampatzis on 14 Jul 11
     
    Crowsourcing Awareness: "To augment the use of these space technologies, virtual communities of group intelligence - called "Crowdsourcing" - can aide in emergency planning and post-disaster coordination."
LeopoldS

Fooling automated surveillance cameras: adversarial patches to attack person detection - 3 views

arxiv.org/1904.08653.pdf

AI adversial ML

shared by LeopoldS on 24 May 19 - No Cached
icheibas liked it
  • LeopoldS on 24 May 19
     
    beautiful! anybody knows of similar trials to fool EO data classifiers?
  • icheibas on 24 May 19
     
    I am not aware of any similar trials, yet this study remind me of generative adversarial talking heads https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.07716.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1b5aiTrGzY
1 - 20 of 20
Showing 20▼ items per page