I can't sleep and I'm bored as all hell. I'll reply to every post in this thread

I can't sleep and I'm bored as all hell. I'll reply to every post in this thread.

Attached: download.jpg (259x194, 4K)

Other urls found in this thread:

news.mit.edu/2016/programming-language-living-cells-bacteria-0331
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

will you suck on my foot fungus toes

Checked, no.

Do you believe in the gospel? If so, can you explain what it is, and if not, can you explain why?

Tell me about yourself, OP. I wanna hear your fears, your goals, what kind of food you like, anything you want. Go nuts

Attached: love.jpg (1200x1138, 159K)

No, I don't believe in the gospel. I've read the bible from cover to cover and I'm not willing to accept is as the truth or as the basis for my personal values because it seems like a story book.

reply to this nigger
origi

I'm afraid of wasps. In a different sense, I worry about never finding someone I can closely relate and open up to. My goals aren't specific, but I want to be able to contribute something to human progress. I want to feel like I'm part of my species' effort. That can mean anything I guess, it doesn't have to be instantly world-changing. I love seafood.

Here's your (You) for the day.

Historians tend to agree that there's a lot that the bible gets right. It might seem unbelievable that there's a hidden world of spiritual warfare, but we are quickly entering a world where prophecy is poured out on all who ask to receive it so that they may know the Father.

Personally, the Bible being historically accurate doesn't mean I should base my personal values off of its teachings. I guess a better reason I could cite for not believing in it is because I don't believe in Heaven or Hell. That's one of the missionaries' main talking points, right? That if you don't live by the Bible and believe in Jesus then you'll go to Hell forever? I'm not meaning to say that because I don't believe that I'll go to Hell when I die then I have nothing holding me back from living like a monkey. I still have personal values, but because it's been so long since I've read the Bible I couldn't tell you the specific differences between what I believe and what the Bible teaches as far as values go. Values are what I'm referring to this whole time. I don't believe in Jesus' miracles. Anyway, I guess the real reason is that I must not have found the Bible agreeable when I read it.

That's a very high aspiration you have there. I wish you luck. As for seafood, is there any specific kind you look for?

The miracles were just proof for the people of the time that Jesus came from God. Jesus' followers today that are full of the Holy Spirit are also capable of miracles in order to bring glory to the Father. I believe that the resurrection of the dead will occur very soon, in the wake of genetic programming languages, distributed databases, and self-replicating nanobots.

Well, like I said, it could be something minor. I'm not exactly looking to discover the secrets of the universe or to invent warp-drives or something. My favorites are crab legs, shrimp (grilled preferrably), lobster, then fish like salmon or tilapia, doesn't really matter. What about you? What do you fear and what are your goals?

Yes, I understand what the miracles were for, but I don't believe they actually happened. That's what I meant when I referred to the Bible as a storybook. Also, if you expect the resurrection of the dead to occur in the wake of genetic programming languages, distributed databases, and self-replicating nanobots, then it wouldn't really be induced by God, would it?

Why don't you believe? God is capable of anything.

>genetic programming languages
Genetic algorithms are just a search strategy for multivariate optimization problems. That is, if you have some function F(a, b, c, d, e, ... z), then genetic algorithms are a (shitty) technique for finding parameter values (that is, particular numbers for a, b, c, d...) that produce small values of F.
Now maybe you have some sci-fi bullshit in mind when you say "genetic programming languages," but in terms of things that actually happen in computer science, GAs are a nonentity.

I imagine you know the answer to this. Because you can't walk on water or turn it in to wine. Either there is a God or Jesus Christ was a fantastic con-man.

I've got a pretty bad fear that everyone I know just kinda tolerates me, and won't ever tell me.
My goals are to marry and hopefully start a family someday, though it probably won't ever happen.

Like I said, I'll reply to everything. You seem to know what you're talking about and I've never studied genetics but I am somewhat familiar with computer science and "genetic algorithm" in the sense that used it didn't ring a bell.

As someone who is reluctant to get close to people and to allow people to get close to me, I can relate to that fear in the sense that the people around me just acknowledge my presence and don't particularly enjoy or dislike it. I try not to worry about it. I hope you can find someone to marry naturally.

>Now maybe you have some sci-fi bullshit in mind when you say "genetic programming languages," but in terms of things that actually happen in computer science, GAs are a nonentity.
news.mit.edu/2016/programming-language-living-cells-bacteria-0331
I have had enough of your bullshit.

Cant sleep either but I got a kick out of this kid having a dino tail in his mouth

Attached: Screenshot_20190711-020617_Clover.jpg (720x390, 110K)

Well like most things that happen in very analytic fields, genetic algorithms are "inspired by" genetics, in the same sense as when a movie is "based on a true story." Which is to say, they have nothing whatsoever to do with genetics.
There's a problem in numerical optimization (which is, as I said, trying to find small values of a high-dimensional function), which they call local minima. If you have some bullshit function that goes all over the place, then you'll have a lot of peaks and a lot of troughs, and if you use a simple strategy for searching the values the function can produce, you're far more likely than not to end up with a value that's low, but nowhere near the lowest the function can take on. Genetic algorithms are really just about using a randomized search strategy to avoid getting trapped in a bad local minimum.
I know this is incredibly technical, and in a sense that points to the pointlessness of the technique--that I don't have a nontechnical explanation available, because it lacks real-world application.

ThaTs AckTauly An ALlOsAurus FragIlis.

You're definitely overestimating the implications of that.
kek
I have a good enough background to understand some of that, I think. Do you study genetics?

Which kid is that?

Oh, I actually saw a talk on that at, of all places, LambdaConf. Unfortunately, it's a hammer in search of a nail: without understanding what's going on with cells, being able to simulate logic with DNA recombination doesn't do anything. To put this into perspective, the creation of artificial DNA sequences (and the use of PCA to amplify those sequences) isn't new, and the idea of using DNA's consistent structuring mechanics to make nanostructures has been in vogue since at least I was an undergrad (which was, fuck, fifteen years ago). Yet this is still the sort of thing that's "full of promise," and you know, it'll pay off any day now.
In terms of the general capabilities of synthetic DNA, simulating logic is the least interesting thing.

What's your favourite FF game

>Do you study genetics?
No, I've obviously studied CS a lot, to a pretty inhuman extent, but I've come to despise it.

im gay are u gay yes no why not

I've never played a FF game.

Why have you come to despise it? Do you actually despise CS or is it something with academia?
I'm not gay, probably because I've never had an experience that caused me to be attracted to men.

What's your favourite GTA game and mission

I played 5 for a very small amount of time. I played 3 a long time ago and only finished half of it. So 3 was my favorite, but I don't remember any specific missions.

Whats your favorite animal?
Alive and extinct.
My favorite is Pliosaurus Funkei (or P. Macromerus)
Alive

Attached: tumblr_nfooniCYOP1qd479ro3_1280.jpg (1280x720, 81K)

>Do you actually despise CS or is it something with academia?
Well you know, they overlap. CS is not the same as programming, and they're not the same as computers. The best way of describing this is, computers are machines designed to satisfy computer scientists that computer science is happening--or to abuse CS terms a bit, CS is the use case of computers.
I guess I despise CS because it's gone as far as it ever will, as a research agenda, and all that's left is "spinning one's wheels" for all eternity. The actual last straw for me was reading the current canonical machine learning book (Goodfellow et al.), and learning that, not only do computer scientists have no shame, they have no awareness of what they're doing.
My experiences with scientists and academics from other fields only leave me thinking, the grass isn't going to be greener on the other side. So you know, I still use computers and I still write code as situations demand, but I also have total contempt for all the futurists who are constantly mouthing off about things they don't understand.

Alive, barn owls. Extinct, saber-toothed cats I guess. You didn't list an extinct one yourself.

So is the potential for progress what motivates you?
>they have no awareness of what they're doing
Details?

Well, I think one needs a lot of idealism to survive graduate school, so losing that idealism is a bit of a problem. I've lost faith in science, so I don't do it anymore.
As for details...
Machine learning boils down to what people call regression, or curve-fitting, or model-fitting. You have some data, and you have some function, and that function has coefficients, and you want to find the coefficients that minimize the average distance between the function and the data. Deep learning is based on doing this with a bunch of wacky nonlinear functions, and with millions or billions of coefficients.
Now there's a well-known problem in regression analysis called overfitting, and this might also test your technical intuitions. If you have some process that generates data, and you generate 10 data, and then fit them to an 9th-degree polynomial (f(x) = a*x^9 + b*x^8 + c*x^7...) then that function will go perfectly through all the data. But the polynomial also says nothing whatsoever about the process that generated the data--the analysis is utterly useless.
There's a technique that's been developed for this situation called out-of-sample validation. You split your data into "data you fit the model against" and "data you use to assess the quality of the fit." And deep learning is allegedly based on this technique, which is part of their arrogance. The problem is, they do another thing they call "regularization," which amounts to, having additional parameters, under the control of the computer scientist, that control how much the model overfits. Since this is done outside the out-of-sample validation, regularization is in-sample--that is, model regularization is itself vulnerable to overfitting.
This means that machine learning is a technique for producing impressive-looking results, that are completely useless in the real world. If you're interested, you can see the consequences in (e.g.) the "single-pixel attacks" on neural networks for image classification.

All that said (and I broke up this post because I hit the text limit), I really ought to go to sleep. Good luck with your boredom; maybe all this will inspire you to read something interesting.

I'm heading to sleep too I hope. I'm sort of following. I'll maybe read something about it, if it ever happens to pertain to anything I'm doing. Which by the sound of it is unlikely.

I can't sleep either, and I have a job interview in six hours.

if you were to copy your brain to a robot and you become the robot are you a cyborg, robot, or human

similar to the game soma

ah shit P. Macromerus and P. Funkei are extinct.
Alive? Komodo Dragons.