I'm guessing it's to defeat youtube's content identification algorithms.

Well, I didn't sell no algorithm to Microsoft, but I'm sure some other sifters and I can pool our resources for that...

I'm fairly certain he is using both at once, which is not a difficult feat. You're already doing that and much more while playing games. I don't see how inputing language and numbers via a 2 analog input system is "insane". From someone who has tested input peripherals, it's just different, like so many systems already out there. You should watch me with a rubik's cube. Peripheral testers use cubes (among other analog devices) to warm up.

It's actually really cool to see this concept in the mainstream, though I'd imagine you may need to practice common positioning. For example, t, h, followed by a vowel will be a pattern that becomes muscle memory, just as w, e, and then r, etc. They're simple algorithms that you don't even realize you're following, but simple take practice.

You know what else is insane? Playing a drum kit using all 4 limbs independently. That's insane! Speed Metal is insane! Me playing Dance Dance Revolution on Challenge is INSANE! Alllllllll of these simple things which are "insane". LOL!!!

There's a big misunderstanding....let me try to explain.

The problem: flotsam has washed into a lagoon, causing damage to the reef inside.
The rule: no more than 2 pieces of flotsam can fit through the lagoon opening at once.
The 'genetic algorithm': waves wash the flotsam around, sometimes one piece may flow out, sometimes two may flow out, making the 'solution' better, sometimes 3 try to flow out and none leave, sometimes 4 try to flow out and none leave....
Solution: one or two at a time, waves will eventually wash the flotsam out.

No design, no intelligence, no set up, no hand in the process, no AI, yet this IS the process of 'genetic algorithm' in action (in a completely overly simplistic, barely evolutionary form).
Do you understand what I mean now? If not, forget it, you won't ever get it.

What you still fail to grasp, although it's been repeated ad nauseam, is no one talked about an AI, it was simply in the article about genetic algorithms, which show clearly that no creator or intelligent design is required for solutions, only a working evolutionary process applied to the problem.
You're stuck on AI, which was simply one (but far from the only) place you find genetic algorithms used.
Only YOU are talking about AI, no one else. You grabbed onto it, not understanding what was being said to you, and you continue to do the same, wheather willfully or out of confusion I can't say.

Many things are intelligently designed by creators...for instance, some bird and ant nests (proving 'intelligent design' does not require what we would call 'intelligence'). The universe does not appear to be one of those things, but I grant there is about a .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance it is, not 0%, just no facts or data yet point to intelligent design in anything we've discovered about the real universe and it's laws. OK?

I might call you stupid because you can't (or willingly won't, I'm unsure) understand a simple, repeatedly repeated point, that we aren't talking about AI, we're talking about genetic algorithms. I did not call you stupid yet....but I'm tempted.
You just can't get it...come on man, get it....please....just get it.
Do you like fish sticks?

What both of you seem completely unable to grasp is that to have the AI, you have to have a creator. Not a deity, but you have to have something create the AI. The point you are arguing is that there is no such thing as a creator because that would mean that there is 'something' intelligent that can create things.

As far as my intelligence vs yours, I never claimed to be smarter than you. But it is clear to me that both of you will utterly refuse any possibility of intelligent design simply because it goes against your convictions.

The fact is you can complain, call me stupid, refuse to accept anything that counters your opinions, or any other number of methods to make yourselves feel better. I'm personally done with both of you because it seems clear that any time someone posts a video with one of your trigger subjects, you knee-jerk into posting whatever you can to try to prove them wrong whether they are or not.

The fact remains, to even have something to do your algorithms you must have something create it. You can disseminate and try to muddle the picture, but that is the basic fact. An AI doesn't create it self from thin air, whether you want it to or not.

You don't understand genetic algorithms and you don't understand what intelligent design is, so I'm really not bothered explaining it to you.... again.

Re-read the article (if you read it at all). He was specifically discussing a tool used in/by AI, not AI itself. The AI doesn't create the algorithm, it uses it. It is also not a tool relegated solely to AI, other fields can use the algorithm/method to search for the best solutions to their problems without AI involved. It's trial and error, taking the best solutions, combining them randomly, trial and error again, take the best again, combine them randomly again.....no AI needed.
So because he didn't mix his examples, you deny both off hand? Wow. Interesting tactic, but misguided and adolescent IMO.
So you can get as fucking angry and dismissive as you like, you still don't seem able to grasp the simple point he made clearly, repeatedly, so there's no possibility of you not being dead wrong about it.

In the field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection. This heuristic (also sometimes called a metaheuristic) is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and search problems.[1] Genetic algorithms belong to the larger class of evolutionary algorithms (EA), which generate solutions to optimization problems using techniques inspired by natural evolution, such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover.

I direct your attention to the first sentence. In the field of AI, in other words, an artificially created intelligence. Now even if you go to the the idea Turing had that a computer could learn and adapt itself to the point of AI, it is a device that had to be created by an outside designer at some point. It didn't just manifest, it was created and reached AI level, then it could at that point begin to try to 'imitate' natural selection.

It has become clear to me over our last couple of discussions that you are incredibly reluctant to think outside of the box YOU have created for yourself. You believe what you believe and damn the torpedoes with the rest.

You specifically are discussing an artificial intelligence. Why is it artificial? BECAUSE SOMEONE FUCKING CREATED IT. It didn't manifest on it's own or it would be a natural intelligence. So, if I create an AI to create an algorithm, then by default the algorithm is the root product of an intelligent designer.

BTW, your shitty example of a plane design does not even take into account your own example. If it did, it would be a programmer creating an AI to design a plane of some type. The programmer would no longer have input, but he would be the creator of the system that did.

So you can toss out all the fucking examples and insults you like, but you and your little tag along friend are dead wrong.

Oh christ... do I really have to explain this?

@shinyblurry said "...that means it was intelligently designed."

I was specifically refuting that argument.

"intelligent design" means that something was designed on purpose by a designer, i.e. I want a plane, so I sit down and design the aerodynamics, propulsion, control surfaces, etc so that at the end, I have a means to fly from A to B. If the plane doesn't fly, as a designer, I need to work on it until it does.

A genetic algorithm is not "intelligently designed". The system itself creates the end product, often with no fixed goal or purpose. The designer does not have an input.

So, it's entirely possible that the universe is a computer simulation where a fixed set of constraints were set up at compile time and then left to run.

No specific end goal or purpose, merely to see emergent behaviours, which actually gels pretty well with what we know about the formation of the universe and life.

If you'd like to learn more, I recommend reading Artifical Life by Steven Levy as a good primer on the subject.

On the other hand, if you just want to make snide remarks, I suggest you stick to a topic you actually have a fucking clue about.

Actually there's an argument that software should be protected by copyright rather than patents.

While I agree that someone who comes up with a novel and interesting algorithm should have some protection, at this point, I tend to lean toward software patents doing more harm than good.

Basically, it should be a lot harder to get a software patent.

We coincidentally have a different algorithm (or actually many algorithms) that auto-ban spammers within their first 5 posts.

I think people are mostly unaware of it, which means my programming is working, but there are people auto-banned by siftbot every day.

I mostly use related for finding dupes, and only occasionally for finding vids to watch. The suggested vids algorithm sounds too much like what I'd normally click to the front page for.

I do have some suggestions though, some of which used to be a thing and one I'd like to see:

• The 5 newest submissions
• 5 other vids from this user
• 5 vids expiring soon
• 5 vids from beggar's canyon

Actually, I do quite often look at Top New Videos by Vote, even though I could just click through to the front page. I'm not adding it to my list though, because only taking 5 wouldn't be the same, or as good.

p.s. I also have an argument against removing related from the vs6 sidebar: It does have a place, but finding somewhere else for it in the new layout is a challenge.