SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A new social network, Candid, will use machine learning to try and moderate posts:
We use a deep learning NLP (Natural Language Processing) algorithm, which basically looks at what you're saying and decides ... whether it's positive or negative. So it kind of classifies things as having a negative sentiment or a positive sentiment. It then gives it a score of how kind of strong your statement is — let's say you said something about someone or you threatened someone, it classifies that as saying, "Hey this is a very strong statement," because these kinds of categories are not good in terms of social discourse. And when we do that, we basically say if this thing has a score which is more than a particular level, a cut-off, then we basically take out the whole post. So whether it's self harm or like bullying or harassment, we look for certain phrases and the context of those phrases.
On the line between moderation and censorship
I mean, here is the thing between what is "loud free speech," quote-unquote, right? At some level you should be able to say what you want to say, but on another level, you also want to facilitate, you know, what I would say constructive social discussion. ... There is a kind of a trade-off or a fine line that you need to walk, because if you let everything in, you know the fear is that social discussion stops and it just becomes a name-calling game. And that's what happens if you just leave — like certain discussions, just let them be, don't pull things down — you will see they quickly devolve into people calling each other names and not having any kind of constructive conversations.
They've succeeded in getting some free press, if nothing else.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday August 05 2016, @08:15PM
but it's a separate issue.
Not completely separate. I guess it depends a bit on where you come down on the semantics of 'computer'. But if you think of a computer as simply a machine that executes an algorithm, then if something needs to acheive consciousness to do X better than a human; then that something may no longer 'be' merely a computer.
Quantum effects would still be described by natural laws. Even if, at bottom, there is some randomness fed into the system, you can account for that randomness in a rigorous way that can be described statistically.
I cannot factor large numbers any faster by using a conventional computer to simulate a quantum one. Likewise, simulating a quantum effect based consciousness may not be practical with a conventional computer; even if its theoretically possible with an infinitely fast computer with an infinite amount of ram. :)
But the brain probably doesn't use quantum effects in a way meaningful for describing consciousness.
Perhaps not. I was just using it to illustrate there is room to rationally believe that you can't simulate the brain with a conventional computer without invoking a "magical brain".
We don't know much about consciousness. It may not simply be the product of computation, it may arise from the structure of the brain itself in ways that cannot be 'simulated'. (In the same way that simulating an internal combustion engine in a computer yields no useful mechanical power, no kinetic energy we can use to power a car or turn a crank. It just yields a calculation of how much power would be generated... without actually generating it. Perhaps likewise, its possible that even perfectly simulating a brain in a conventional computer only yields information about energy potentials, neuron states, etc, etc... without generating actual consciousness that is self aware in the process. Perhaps we need to 'build an artificial brain' that is structurally capable of hosting consciousness -- and such an artifact may be fundamentally different from a conventional computer in important ways, where simply throwing more cycles and ram and 'better programs' just can't get you there.