Hearted Youtube comments on Dr Ben Miles (@DrBenMiles) channel.
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Very cool video, I love your channel, just found it! 🙂 I tried using trend prediction from the study of Chaos Theory to win at Blackjack in the casinos. Chaos Theory shows that the odds of any given coin toss are not 50%, that is, each flip shouldn't be considered by itself, independent of the others. There ARE runs of 'good luck' and 'bad luck', and counterintuitively, the longer a run goes, the more likely it is to continue. Statisticians don't like this, but the data from the study of dynamical systems show it to be true. (Regardless of whether they can explain it, it's still true.) And of course you are right, casinos capp the maximum bet so you can't employ the 'double your bet' strategy to win using that method. Love this video. 🙂
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Thank you for this video! I'd like to add few additional really important things: Theranos was located in Silicon Valley, the center of high tech, but in the same neighborhood are hundreds of biotech companies. Theranos initially tried and failed to get biotech investors - the biotech VC's saw that the science was dubious and walked away. Theranos also had several early partnerships with pharma companies, including Pfizer, who also walked away because they saw that the technology didn''t work as advertised. The only investors they were able to get were people who knew nothing about science.
Elizabeth Holmes wanted to fashion herself after Steve Jobs, but Theranos wasn't a high tech company, it was a medical device company, a very different beast. As you pointed out, a 19 year old college dropout can learn to code and make something really cool, but biotech is much more complicated. The logistical issue of "trying" to run 200 assays on a minute sample of blood aside, they had to figure out how to miniaturize all the different assays, validate them, and get them approved by the FDA. I work in biotech/pharma and it takes a LOT of work to get even a single assay validated and approved by the FDA, and you need to know what you're doing. Theranos got advice on the regulatory path they should take to do this (i.e. how to get the assays approved by the FDA), but Elizabeth thought she was smarter than the experts. Hubris - it'll get you every time.
6
-
6
-
6
-
Thank you for this most interesting (and somewhat scary) video!
"...If these images become commonplace, easily scattered across the Internet, constantly in your newsfeed, what happens? Just like the instant access of the Internet has dulled our attention spans and kept us hungry for the next novel thing, will this devalue our own imaginations, because we can create without consequence or without effort?"
That's a darn good question. I wish I could just say no, this kind of AI will help us use our imaginations in ways we normally don't use them now because it's too difficult or costs too much - but that's just some people, the ones who are already creatively motivated to express themselves. What about the rest of us, the majority who are just consuming information? Will we lose interest in art itself, because "anybody can do that?"
Wish I knew the answer to your question.
"In training an AI we are teaching it about our world. If we aren't careful we'll imprint the imperfections of our society into the brain of that AI. You're only as good as the examples you learn from, which is true both for people as well as for artificial intelligence."
This is another extremely fascinating subject. I'm not sure I agree with the statement "you're only as good as the examples you learn from," but I agree you only start out as good as the examples you've learned from. Humans can learn on their own by rational deduction, detecting our implicit biases and overcoming them. It isn't easy, in fact it's one of the hardest things we can do, and it seems to get harder with age. But surely an AI could do the same thing. I used to think there was no way a computer could paint an original picture, but here we are.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Loved the video! I wonder if the catalytic converters, and the mechanism/materials behind them, could be used in the capture of carbon. I wonder how it compares to the activated carbon/carbon salt filter.
Heck, I see no reason why we can't make cars carbon negative, once we switch to electric, we could keep the catalytic converts in cars and have them eat the air in front of them and release a less carbonated version. Maybe start installing these carbon eaters on wind turbines. Gotta have them more decentralized, embedded in other products, can't just have giant factories for them only, that's not feasible. At best they'll be marketed towards factories that require carbon in their manufacturing process, putting these in the middle of no where is just silly. Transportation costs of carbon will likely reduce what little economic advantage it might have. Also has potential in extreme areas, where a constant supply of trucks/trains/boats is not possible, such as far up north when the ice roads don't exist or in the middle of a desert for oil stuffs.
No ones going to pay any money to setup a giant factory in the middle of nowhere that's designed to burry material, there's 0 direct profit incentive. Once someone designs a carbon capturing machine for less than $100 and figures out a way to market it so that it appears or actually does provide both individuals and companies legitimate value, it'll finally work, until then it's just an expensive experiment. Imagine if I could get 10M+ in funding for my poorly thought out ideas lol, that'd be fun. "Hey guys I built a shapeshifting robot it only cost 10M" :'). Anyone could build anything for 10M, once they make it for less than $1000 and I'll be impressed. I know "well you gotta start somewhere", but starting at such an insane price likely means they're approaching the problem with "gold coloured glasses", and not in a way that might be economically efficient and therefor likely to hit the market or see mass adoption.
If I had insane funding, my projects would all be completed, but they'd suck mechanically due to the lack of limitations. It's like trying to build a house in creative mode in Minecraft, you can build all sorts of stuff but building it again in "the real game"/survival mode isn't feasible. That is where too many researchers are today. They get really good at using practically unobtainable blocks in creative mode, then when they're put into the survival game they have no idea how to use cobblestone and wood properly. That is why the great inventors actually sold their own products, they not only had the theoretical ability but the understanding of manufacturing and supply chain that allowed them to steer their inventions in directions that where manufacturable and that provided value to their customers, instead of just theoretically doing something once in a lab with someone else's money.
The trick, is having a carbon capturing device that everyone owns (either in their car or house), that is affordable to the individual and that captures at least 1.2x the average human carbon output. Not only that, but there must be an economic incentive for the individual to own it, either because it'll give them a reliable source of cheap carbon or because it's already built into cars/turbines/things they own as a result of sanctions.
I worry blasting a shittonne of carbonated water into our crust might make things even worse, sounds a bit like fracking to me lol. What if it somehow expands, like a pothole, and causes giant cracks in the earth? Very dangerous and careless approach, but im a highschool dropout who am I to judge. I'm also sceptical of membranes, their use in industry generally seems temporary before superior, more reliable and efficient tools are found. It's almost like, a lazy catch all mechanism (pun intended). Can't we use like electricity or something? Maybe a giant gas chromatography
machine :')?
I'm curious about recycling and consumer level mass spectrometry. Methods of separating materials and checking what's inside them. We're a year or two away from sub $1000 3d printers capable of printing basic ICs and computers like an arduino at home, the real gap is in the sourcing of materials. We throw away all this copper and plastic, yet when we need copper and plastic we buy it from another continent. There's so much sitting in our local garbages! We need an affordable decentralized approach that allows individuals to recycle their own materials for use in home manufacturing.
5
-
5