cleverly-designed
The cleverness was the ability to allow learning from large quantities of unstructured data, just like people can
finally
???
hard limits
???
it will help temper our expectations
Your expectations already sound tempered?
actual intelligence
Akshualling can be done to people too, slashdot is primarily a platform for this
The fact that they're organizing this on Facebook certainly isn't Facebook's fault. If Facebook cracked down, it'd just move to another site, or back to the non-digital form it's had for decades.
Facebook is profiting hand over fist in open view as a publicly traded company.
How can you say "this is literally no different than if done in someone's basement on a hand-cranked printing machine"?
For one thing, the global reach of Facebook acts a massive efficiency boost for this illegal and immoral boost by connect demand and supply across oceans.
Who benefits from defeatism and false equivalencies here? Are you holding FB calls or something?
are also only going to be doing relatively light-weight tasks on it like internet browsing and running Microsoft's Office suite
Satya? Is that you?
What's the native terminal on the "Galaxy Books S"?
But now that Angolans are causing headaches for Wikipedia editors and the Wikimedia Foundation, no one is sure what to do about it.
Crazy thought but how about limiting uploads to, say, 2MB?
Second crazy thought, how about scanning the files they already have uploaded, identifying the ones that are way too big for what they are (say, over 2MB) and checking each one manually?
Crazy thought: isn't there a way to, I don't know, break up a big file into lots of little files, in a way that's easy to reassemble the little files into the big file?
There's no problem at all with being a mathematician or a philosopher of science. I'm a physicist, and I don't think any of my colleagues would argue that these fields should go away or that physicists shouldn't work in them. Emmy Noether is a great example of how people outside physics can help develop new physics.
But... relativity wasn't accepted until it was tested. Neither should any other theory coming out of advanced mathematics. Simply being around for a long time is not enough to move a set of math from clever speculation into physics. We've been down this path before. Allowing foundational theories to be integrated into the rest of physics without verification might end up fine, or it might waste the careers of a generation of physicists. Today, that also might mean many billions of dollars of funding and significant public trust.
You say this like there's some cabal deciding on 'allowing foundational theories into the rest of physics without verification'.
If you look at the Dec. 2014 Nature article that sparked the NYTimes article, you'd see that the concern there isn't even about the conduct of science itself -- it's about the worry that apparent dissent among scientists will fuel anti-scientism. So we'd better work out these 'what's experimentally verifiable' questions far away from the inquiring public.
There's no real worry that somehow the world's best and brightest physicists have forgotten about falsifiability.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
