Yeah I love GDB. It's so mighty. The interesting that you can script your debuging and it's just mindblowing. It helped me much in debuging net communication. It was tough, but GDB let much! And It's for C/C++ too.
I would rethink statement, that AI doesn't change people. In my opinion it does it indirectly. AFAIK it's well documented fact that Google has changed the way our brains work. Would it be possible if Google had no AI? I ask, don't realy know.
How about computer games? I daresay that experience created with them can be beneficial to inteligence. Interaction with AI in games happen to be interesting to take a look at.
Except that think that process of creating AI is an IA experience. If you want to make AI you wonder what make you inteligent. As you observe your outcome you understand your inteligence better. Better understanding better inteligence.
All in all, I don't get why AI would exclude IA (or oposite). Although I'm grateful for sharing an idea of IA.
Fair enough. I think that we need both. Just that I believe that we benefit more from the IA than the AI. The AI is the tool that gets us there. We need AI, but it's not enough.
It's not even speculation: your point has tons of evidence backing it. I remember when I did AI that "automatic programming" was something we wanted. My research led to a project called The Programmer's Apprentice from MIT. The idea, since auto prog wasn't working, was a more limited A.I. that became an extension of programmer's mind to automate some work, analyse others, optimize even more, and so on. Not sure where that went but a Java programmer's explanation of NetBeans was deja vu. ;) A programmer with a text editor vs one with modern tools (I.A. + A.I.) is a game-changing difference that did effectively increase intelligence of the work.
Likewise, people not so smart with numbers had calculators. People needing conversions have Google and Frick. There's financial and accounting packages that can convert lots of numerical assessments into simpler forms to aid the user's understanding. ERP and BPM, done right, let a person ignore inconsequential details to focus on high-level aspects of business operation. Wikipedia for summaries + Google for details and verification let one amass expertise in a new domain rapidly.
And so on and so forth. Intelligence Augmentation and Artificial Intelligence both have proven value. Both are used today. So, we can keep both. :)
Impressive. I hardly remember an old internet, but well, created a website at times when people used to use <marque> tag. :-) This site made me think about it. Probably we've lost something with this whole progress and knowledge how to design, maybe started overdoing it often? I don't know. Thanks.
The topic is complex. Author is right that law/science/anything-orginated standard of language is a trap and misunderstanding. On the other hand this can be easly interpreted as "we can speak just as we want".
As a language freak (and polyglot by the way) I have found out that one should develop his own language and in fact he/she's gonna do it anyway, the only choise - consciously or not. I've choosen to constantly improve my language and I like this decision, I've seen how big is language's influence on speaker. It's just like an operating system for computer.
On the other hand if you want communicate efficiently you must accept the fact that everybody have own word meanings and speak a little differently and you should adapt to it. Another thing is relation language-subconsciousness, I belive there's very broad influence. Those factors that make caring about language worth. By the way conforming national standard is not the best way: "who's language - he/she rules", so if you want to rule, you need your personal.
Sounds reasonable. It seems to me that inteligence and creativity are about diversity of experience. Unstable behaviour probably means more diverse experience so it boosts creativity and inteligence. Except that those people can't easly live normal life, they must look for way to adapt - great training for inteligence.
But why to link it with genetics? It might be environmental, matter of upbringing or anything else, isn't it?
As people write, you have to decide on your own, but I can share what would I do.
First, consider technologigies. Do I like any of thechnologies more than those in second oportunity (I assume there aren't technologies you dislike). This is not very important though.
Second, think about what company do. I'd prefer security much more and this is very big plus. What would you do: design or maintenance (I think we all like first more ;)).
But still it is important how the work is arranged in the company. Using scrum or chaos, what tools are used? It's maybe 0,5 as important as second. Startups win over corpo, that's the rule for me.
People, I would choose nice, energetic team over dull corpo crowd. In fact, I already know I wouldn't choose second anyway. :)
If still in doubt I would refuse to both and look for something better. I don't know if you can afford, but I have better things to do than work in medicore environment. ;)
I hope this can help you a little bit, good luck!
