You're probably thinking of Artificial General Intelligence, a very difficult problem. Applied AI (as opposed to strong or general AI) is used widely. There's a quote: "A lot of cutting edge AI has filtered into general applications, often without being called AI because once something becomes useful enough and common enough it's not labeled AI anymore," Nick Bostrom: Machine learning (rather than just following a preprogrammed set of instructions) has been around for ages and is used widely in commercial applications:
Huh, I learn something every day. I'll have to read more about it, and I don't know why it's not more common knowledge. I have up until now believed AI to be as far fetched as most here believe the return to a 15-1 GSR to be.
Eventually convinced the girlfriend of the diamond scam. Now she's happier putting the money into a bigger chunk of gold with cheap but pretty bling stones, rather than small gold with astronomously costly crappy diamonds
Some years ago during my PhD I needed to analyse masses of data, the largest part of which was 'noise'. Each unit of data had 10's of thousands of data points which I needed to 'thin' out and then search and quantify significant parts of the data and compare between the units of data. Using Excel, simple Boolean logic and basic arithmetic, I achieved results that amazed me and I am by no means an expert at doing this sort of thing and probably couldn't repeat it. Point is, AI isn't that difficult if all you need is decision making based upon sets of facts and probabilities. And this kind of "intelligence" can be educated. Creative intelligence is a whole different game, I suspect, but maybe not.
Must've been a tough talk, Crow. I think a lot of women make the mistake of associating $$$ with how much you love them. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU Here's an entertaining video about the whole thing.
If you shrink the diamond, it's amazing how much the gold part can grow ..... For mine, I wish I could just throw money at the problem, but she expects 'creativity' and thoughtfulness. Boy, am I in trouble when it comes to presents!
A diamond is forever ........ no, it's not! A fellow I know who lectures in chemistry, likes to get the audiences attention (we have mature age students come to residential schools) by telling them that their engagement rings are decaying back to the basic carbon from which they are made. Not sure the time frame now, could be 5,000 - 5,000,000 years (I know there was a 5 in it), but you can certainly see the sense of disappointment in the wearers of the rings.
That's funny. You can actually pay to have your ashes pressed into a diamond when you're gone. I bet those people would be even more disappointed about diamonds not being forever! I've never understood the fixation for diamonds, even before I knew it was a scam. Even gold I really am only interested in the value of it. Silver on the other hand is just an awesome element.
I did the diamond thing once and the relationship fell apart before we got married. Thankfully the ex worked at a diamond store so I got a good discount on it. Yeah the store gave their employees a 75% discount! Even with that they turned a profit! The 2nd time around (yeah this one worked out and life is all good) I got her an Aquamarine ring. I know I still paid a hefty premium but it was a fraction of the cost, looks better than the diamond I had bought last time and it is my "birthstone (more marketing BS)." This worked out well because the wife got a large stone that is blue (her favorite color) and since it is my birthstone it has more sentimental value. This was a win-win situation. Everyone is happy. Now she does have two diamond bands that weren't cheap but still better than the diamond engagement ring scam. People are tricked into this marketing hype and women take the over priced diamond because they are told they should. My wife wears her aquamarine every day and loves it. What is funny my wife's grandmother was given an emerald ring by her late husband. A nice untreated stone but it was a fraction of the cost of a diamond back then and granny got the ring she wanted, not the ring DeBeers wanted her to get. Independent thinking seems to run in the family. We also considered morganite and tanzanite, both awesome stones but aquamarine won out. Sapphire was another consideration but I had bought her a sapphire ring previously so that one got the axe, too. Her grandmother's ring (which granny gave her as a gift) is an emerald so she didn't like that idea and she isn't into rubies. Hopefully folks will wake up to the diamond scam. They aren't anywhere near as rare as we are told and women are vicitms of marketing hype that they should only accept a diamond for an engagement ring even if they aren't her stone of choice. If he doesn't buy her a diamond he doesn't really love her; what a crock!
I own exactly zero valuable diamonds. Personally, of the major precious stones most people are familiar with, opal is the one I am a lover of (both "natural" and lab-produced like high quality Gilson opals). I am also a huge fan of some lesser known minerals that are often considered or sold as gems if the quality is high; Labradorite, Ammolite, and to a lesser extent Fire Obsidian. With a precious metal piece like this, the value isn't just in the metal but in the quality of the opal.... http://jatelierinc.com/products/lightning-ridge-opal-ring-platinum/ .
Crow, you may be talking about hematite. I have worked with hematite and when you grind and polish it, it bleeds red...I think those are the oxides. Hematite polishes to a smooth, lustrous, medium black carbon-like finish. Pretty interesting material. .
] I think sonic, part of the issue you have is that you are looking for facts as evidence to proove what is ultimately an emotional problem. What do I mean? Someone mentioned rhodium before. It is a very rare metal with good demand but its price level is only around gold. Why? Because it is priced to meet costs of mining and refining plus profit. The law of supply and demand says that pricing (margin) will be high is demand is high and pricing will be low if demand is low. Rhodium conforms to this model well. But with gold & silver there are moderating factors. The main one is that they hold a special place in our hearts. There is a widely held public perception that gold and silver are valuable. It is a more held by cultures across the planet and so this perception affects the pricing. While silver and gold prices should be lower, the romantic attachment causes it to remain inflated. Like all romatic attachments, human factors rather than logical factors effect prices more. For instance, while an increase in demand over supply will push rhodium up, the same dynamic will cause gold or silver prices to skyrocket. The market is made of human investors (where rhodium is just a commodity and has no special treatment) who have a vested interest in these elements. This produces volatility and inflated expectations. So, what I am saying is that when you invest in gold and silver, you are investing in the romantic perception of these elements by the market. Silver appears to have fallen out of favour and is on the out a bit, being viewed more and more as 'industrial commodity' but the reality is that, while that suites the manufacturers, a large part of the world still sees it as a symbol of wealth and value. The difference in Royal Australian mint coins made from base metals vs silver is an example (about 9 to 10 times the price for the same impression in silver vs copper/nickel). Investing in romantic perception is always risky. Even the baselevel cost of mining/refining is not immune to price fluctuations in a bad crash. Mining companies will still sell silver for a time below cost as it is mainly a secondary product of the mine especially if the primary product (Lead/Zinc). Also, for your learning on the mining of commodities and the level of reserves (in Australia) see: http://www.ga.gov.au/metadata-gateway/metadata/record/gcat_78988 Cheers, M
^^^ But then should we restrict investment to only things that have intrinsic value? From another thread: "Mankind can live without gold but not without salt." - Cassiodorus, Roman statesman, circa 500 AD. ...Maybe people will again use gold and silver ubiquitously as a trusted medium of exchange, but it is a fallacy to believe these metals have intrinsic value and therefore are guaranteed to replace fiat. They are indisputably valuable over historic timescales, but gold especially, unlike salt, is only valuable because we agree it is. However, gold and silver are useful as money for their intrinsic properties; durability, divisibility and scarcity. An interesting web page: ECONOMICS & SALT:
Very interesting reading SilverPete. Where I see these folks are wrong is where they claim that salt as opposed to gold and silver, has intrinsic value. They are wrong....salt, just like gild and silver has no intrinsic value. The only value any of these substances ever had and ever will have is the extrinsic value we assign to them throughout the ages. Those value judgements have changed and will continue to change. Salt, gold, silver, and dog feces all have intrinsic properties or qualities....but not intrinsic value. What is value? It is a subjective, extrinsic judgement of worth. The worth of anything is always a subjective evaluation. Fifty million years ago, the value of salt and silver was exactly and precisely what? How could that be an intrinsic value??? Five hundred years from now, what will be the exact and precise value of dog feces and gold? Are you certain??? What is the intrinsic value of cowry shells? Wouldn't that depend on whom you ask and in what millenium you asked that? The same applies to silver, gold, salt, and a painting by Mrs Bluuk Blech. Which all goes to prove my point about "intrinsic value". Those who have a vested interest in salt but not silver will claim that silver has no intrinsic value but salt does. Those who have a vested interest in silver but not salt may tell you the exact opposite. Both would be wrong because neither has intrinsic value though both have intrinsic characteristics or properties that humans may subjectively value (which makes the value of the salt or silver an extrinsic value) at different levels at different times. .
I don't think so. My point is that silver has a romantic value and that regardless of what industrialists think it will retain that. I can't see mints and jewellers telling everyone that silver is worthless now and should be considered no more valuable than lead. In fact, unlike commodities that fall under the raw 'supply and demand' theory for pricing, pm's have a large likelihood for profit and for wild price swings etc. These are not bad things for stackers. Mik
I think that the advantage both bullion silver and gold have over diamonds is that they can measured in spot. Purity and weight will never be an issue. Diamonds require a more robust evaluation, few other than experts can appraise. Gold's main advantage over silver is its weight to value ratio, however it can be its detraction if required for bartering. In addition, fractional gold has a larger premium over spot than silver. As to the GSR, few stackers will ever exchange ounce for ounce at the current ratio without taking premiums into consideration. With the GSR currently sitting at 71.5, I would not give 214 fifties for an ounce of gold, 180 at best. This translates as a GSR of 60, and I would still feel cheated.
Good posts! Precious metals do have that precious place in our hearts, and I'm sure it's the history that PMs shared with humanity that is an intertwined part of it. For awhile I was interested in semi-precious gemstones, more for collecting than anything. I don't believe in the metaphysical properties (I wish I could, but I just have seen no proof) but it's fun to read about all the same. Silver (and gold) have their own listed properties. Silver is actually said to amplify the effects of all other gemstones, bring good fortune and prosperity, and help one's oratory abilities. I'm only listing these for the fun of it, not to start a debate over if it's real or not! I like tiger's eye, obsidian, citrine, amethyst and plain quartz (Quartz has a lot of really awesome physical properties. You can actually bang two pieces of quartz together in the dark and see 'sparks' come off it, I think it's just light of some sort). I have a beautiful amethyst and quartz crystal clusters. Amethyst is believed to be the sobriety stone and in Ancient Greece they would drink their wine in amethyst goblets to (supposedly) prevent getting too wasted and ward off hangovers. The thing about salt, is that (unlike everything else we're talking about) it is a a required nutrient. We have to have salt (which has a lot of metaphysical properties of its own ) Loved your post Milksture, just got one question for ya. You say that gold and silver both are actually overvalued? And that it's primarily our emotional investment in it that has driven its price over the years? That's probably true, but what do you think its actual value should be? Just the bare minimum of nothing beyond their practical uses? Sort of like a commodity like oil?
Sonic, you make some good points. As I see it though, just because a substance is required in our human bodies to function right, doesn't mean that the value it has, isn't derived extrinsically. In fact, we know that it is because by the same measure, some substance X that is not even found anywhere on earth would be seen as having no intrinsic value by those who believe salt has intrinsic value. Well, why would substance X have no intrinsic value yet salt would have intrinsic value according to that line of belief by the saltbugs/salt permabulls? Because humans attach values to things they desire or need. The project of doing just that does not describe an intrinsic value but rather an extrinsic value placed on that desired or needed thing. Therefore an extrinsic (and subjective of course) value is the only value that salt or substance X will ever have. If we want to say that salt has desirable intrinsic characteristics or properties then that makes absolute sense. Inanimate things and substances can only attain value when sentient individuals who can attach their own subjective judgements of the worth of those things and substances do so. What value did an 18.3714 gram piece of gold ore have 15 million years ago? And please try to avoid conflating intrinsic characteristics or properties with intrinsic value. In my view, it's a huge mistake and disservice that we do to ourselves to claim that substances have intrinsic value based on (by-and-large) our subjective human desire for that substance. By that measure then, a large hole drilled in a punkrocker's ear has intrinsic value. Is that really the road we want to be on (no disrespect meant to any punkrockers out there)? .
