Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google CEO Predicts AI-Fueled Future (usatoday.com)

Posted by msmash on from the what-happens-next? dept.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai says the next big evolution for technology is AI. "Looking to the future, the next big step will be for the very concept of the 'device' to fade away," Pichai wrote in Google's annual founders' letter. USA Today writes: His vision: Over time, computers, whatever shape they take, a mobile device in your hand or a mini computer on your wrist, "will be an intelligent assistant helping you through your day." This marks the first time anyone other than founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have penned the annual letter outlining Google's mission. "For us, technology is not about the devices or the products we build. Those aren't the end-goals," Pichai wrote in the letter posted Thursday. "Technology is a democratizing force, empowering people through information. Google is an information company. It was when it was founded, and it is today."

98 comments

  1. First by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    First

  2. Facebook HATES turkey. (turquise K) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yesterday I submited a request to Google to exclude a result including my name that is related with a personal matter. if Google doesn't give a fuck about my carreer (brilliant scientist, charity entrepreneur, just a funny guy with the double of your IQ)... just IF that damn result keep people imaging the reason why I CAN'T be realted with social media, THEN that CEO dude definetely was just talking about some interesting observations that he read on someone else's Twitter.

    1. Re:Facebook HATES turkey. (turquise K) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are you talking to out there with an IQ of 38?

    2. Re:Facebook HATES turkey. (turquise K) by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      yesterday I submited a request to Google to exclude a result including my name that is related with a personal matter. if Google doesn't give a fuck about my carreer (brilliant scientist, charity entrepreneur, just a funny guy with the double of your IQ)... just IF that damn result keep people imaging the reason why I CAN'T be realted with social media, THEN that CEO dude definetely was just talking about some interesting observations that he read on someone else's Twitter.

      Prototype Google Artificial Insanity engine?

  3. "For us, technology is not about the devices or... by friesofdoom · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... the products we build. Those aren't the end-goals" No shit! Have you tried using an android phone? It's pretty clear they don't care about the devices...

  4. Headline's wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *GOOGLE* see a device-less future.

    And that's not even prescient because he's not "saying" what you think he's saying.

    It's business-speak because they're backing off the smartphone market which has become saturated and saying they're going to concentrate on being an information company.

    Which is ironic because they only way they're capturing all this information is by forcing people onto their portals THROUGH THEIR DEVICES.
    If Microsoft and Apple cut them out of their device ecosystems, where are they going to go? Comcast?

    1. Re:Headline's wrong by mlts · · Score: 1

      I don't think Android is going away anytime soon. Android watches are selling decently, and even though the smartphone market is saturated, Android is still a lead OS in that front. Google abandoning the device market would be like Apple walking away from iOS.

      I can see Google putting more money behind agents (a concept that keeps being tried and falling on its face, but it might be with Moore's law, it actually becomes something that sticks.) If they are able to do this, it would mean a market that they would have, that almost nobody else would be in.

      Of course, the "agent" idea sticks in my throat. It just seems like another way to slurp more info from users and sell it to whomever is willing to pay for it.

  5. Yeah right by 110010001000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bill Gates said this in 1990. We are no closer to "AI" than we were at that time. Google is an advertising company. Not good for much else than delivering ads.

    1. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, we are no closer, in 2016, to "AI" than we were in 1990. If, by "AI", you mean "Actually being Interested" in your ridiculous statements of folly.

    2. Re:Yeah right by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I think that, like any smart executive, he realizes that so much of his company's revenue comes from one source, and wants to diversify. Hence, for example, self driving cars, google fiber, project-fi, etc.

    3. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The shmuck (yes, shmuck. richer-than-thou, still shmuck.) wasn't the first to go all a-twitter about AI. Though he didn't do anything worthwhile with it. Closest was... clippy, or perhaps this "problem solving wizard" thing that uses large hidden markov models or whatwasit, works about as well as clippy. Well before him were lots of smarter people doing smarter things with AI and the like, and eventually getting not very far either. Very conveniently leaving lots of opportunity for yet smrtr people to keep pushing, eh.

      PHP CEO has it, though:

      HIRING FOR MACHINE LEARNING DOES ANYONE KNOW SOMEONE CALLED AL? APPARENTLY WE REALLY NEED THIS GUY TO GET ANYTHING DONE

    4. Re:Yeah right by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      Bill Gates said this in 1990. We are no closer to "AI" than we were at that time. Google is an advertising company. Not good for much else than delivering ads.

      Have to disagree with this. We're closer to AI now through simple sheer complexity. An individual neuron is simple; throw enough simulated neurons together (as in: "the cloud") and you'll get something emergent out of it no matter what.

      Google is an advertising company, yes, but advertising is really just attempted control. People pay Google to attempt to steer them to products. Eventually, the "steering" is intelligent enough (connotation halfway intended) that the advertising is secondary to the information, and the information is secondary to the ability to control. (Imagine Google AdWords 3.0, where a "cheer yourself up" pill company advertises to people who seem to be depressed, and Google decides to re-rank the search results for your custom search to get you more depressed about the world, then shows you the ad.)

      Google and Facebook together can sway an election. That's what Silicon Valley is now. AI is just the next step.

      --
      Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
    5. Re:Yeah right by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      actually in an economy like usa, where almost anybody can start a business, and great ideas and new technology can find venture capital money to grow, a truly "smart executives" won't "diversify" an established company , but will focus his company on core competencies.

      diverting resources and managing businesses you don't know much about, almost always lose money .
      market capitalization of (non financial/investment vehicle) conglomerates are always less than sum of their parts ( if parts are listed. )

      those who are interested in developing a new technology( even the said executive), that lies outside his competence, can invest, separately, in companies that focus on that particular technology. don't drag a company with a core successful competence in to it.

      also, that way people know and probably started the new technology business can continue to grow as needed. a big company buying those people out and binding then with big company executives and targets will only hamper them and potential of new technology.

      currently big techs in usa are getting away with throwing money, at all sorts of external projects. only because their core is making lots of money. but if and when cash cow core stalls, there would be trouble for those projects and executives who were throwing away the money.
         

    6. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Build all the artificial brains you want. As complex as you can. Shoot 'em full of electricity. They won't start thinking. Your basic premise is wrong. We are NO closer to an AI. A digital binary computer may not even be capable of reproducing intelligence. We are so far away from AI; it's not even on the horizon.

    7. Re:Yeah right by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Great. None of that is AI. As an added bonus they are all losing money.

    8. Re:Yeah right by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Yeah. No. That isn't how neurons work. AI nutters are as bad as space nutters.

    9. Re: Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that he (Pichai) is only in charge of Google. Page is the one whose executive talent of diversification into cars, fiber etc. that you've recognized.

    10. Re: Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're 100% right.

      That's exactly why Google transitioned into Alphabet -- a tech holding company that can invest in and build many different companies, each with their own executive leadership and core competencies.

    11. Re:Yeah right by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Nah, no thanks, M$ has shown exactly the course for AI massive PI or what that be IP where I stands for invasions and P for privacy of lack there of ie cortana the privacy invasive bitch. People are going to flat out reject AI because, it's use on the internet is predicated upon invading everyone's privacy, watching everything they do and listening to everything they say. Only limited AILA artificially intelligent limited applications will be tolerated.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re: Yeah right by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      That's exactly why Google transitioned into Alphabet -- a tech holding company that can invest in and build many different companies, each with their own executive leadership and core competencies.

      This.

    13. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he means "Artificial Intelligence". What we see today is actually more of "Simulated Intelligence". Intelligence is concious action, not just a reaction to stimuli like we see in "AI" today.

    14. Re:Yeah right by locofungus · · Score: 1

      And I think you're wrong. I think we've cracked the first third of the problem and are making progress on the second third.

      First third - we can build computers (organisms) that can be trained to handle stimulus-reaction type solutions to complex problems - such as learning to drive a car along a road.

      Second third - looking into the future to predict what will happen as a result of an action and modifying the action as a result of that computation (some chess programs can now teach themselves to play a respectable game of chess starting from little more than knowledge of the rules of the game) - I'll consider this done when a computer can teach itself how to drive down a busy street with lots of distractions without being trained on the problem.

      Third part - the bit I don't know even in theory how to solve - give the computer a vested interest in the future. A program somehow has to "want" to survive to the next generation - it will set itself the goal of finding a better solution to the problem (become a better chess player) because that's what will make us "breed" it.

      In my view the first two properly solved would count as artificial intelligence. I'm not seeing any insurmountable obstacles in the road ahead. With the third as well I think we'd have artificial life.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    15. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually in an economy like usa, where almost anybody can start a business, and great ideas and new technology can find venture capital money to grow, a truly "smart executives" won't "diversify" an established company , but will focus his company on core competencies.

      diverting resources and managing businesses you don't know much about, almost always lose money .
      market capitalization of (non financial/investment vehicle) conglomerates are always less than sum of their parts ( if parts are listed. )

      those who are interested in developing a new technology( even the said executive), that lies outside his competence, can invest, separately, in companies that focus on that particular technology. don't drag a company with a core successful competence in to it.

      also, that way people know and probably started the new technology business can continue to grow as needed. a big company buying those people out and binding then with big company executives and targets will only hamper them and potential of new technology.

      currently big techs in usa are getting away with throwing money, at all sorts of external projects. only because their core is making lots of money. but if and when cash cow core stalls, there would be trouble for those projects and executives who were throwing away the money.

       

      Diversification is a risk abatement strategy for dull minds who won't hear the death knell before they see it.

  6. Fantastic... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I picture a future infested with intelligent objects dedicated to knowing as much about me as possible the word that definitely comes to mind isn't exactly 'empowering' or 'democratizing'.

    1. Re:Fantastic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      You sound like some kind of sociopath. This is exactly what humanity has been striving towards for the past 10,000 years. You are welcome to go live in a cave somewhere if you like - while we sip various boat drinks delivered by intelligent robot servants exactly when we want them.

    2. Re:Fantastic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You sound like some kind of sociopath.

      ... and you sound like the average Joe the Retard, happy to be spied on, that google is very happy to have as a customer. Not to mention that AI will also take your job and you won't have any money for drinks, let alone boats.

    3. Re:Fantastic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while we sip various boat drinks delivered by intelligent robot servants exactly when we want them.

      No you won't. By the time thats a reality all your money will be worthless and you'll be homeless.

    4. Re:Fantastic... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      Technology has been democratizing. Technology has also been whatever the opposite of democratizing is (fascistising?)

      Right now, technology in general, and Google in particular, are very much in the latter category.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:Fantastic... by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

      Fine with me... as long as the objects gathering info about me, are powered by software that's under my control. And where I (instead of some company XYZ) decide what happens to the data that's gathered.

      I guess this puts "open source powered robotic servant" on our wish list. More, or less difficult to achieve than say, a fully open smartphone? Undecided... we'll see. Fortunately robotics isn't exactly rocket science. So should be doable. :-)

    6. Re:Fantastic... by zlives · · Score: 2

      money being worthless is actually a noble goal of civilization, not sure if google actually fits in that future either though.

    7. Re:Fantastic... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      When I picture a future infested with intelligent objects dedicated to knowing as much about me as possible the word that definitely comes to mind isn't exactly 'empowering' or 'democratizing'.

      Bingo. An "intelligent assistant" is one step away from an "intelligent spymaster" or all-seeing nanny.

      FWIW, I don't feel the need for an "intelligent assistant" to help me through my day. If other people want such a thing, that's great, but my life just isn't that complex. I'm not really sure what or where it would be able to help me do the things I do on a daily basis. Besides, the idea is laudable, but the implementation is bound to have a lot of sharp edges.

      Me: "Assistant, book me a morning flight to Portland."
      AI: "Done!"
      (At the airport) "WTF, I wanted to go to Oregon, not Maine."

      -

      Me: "Assistant, make me some toast."
      AI: "Errrrr, you need to buy the Smart Toaster, Smart Breadbox, Smart Refrigerator, and the Smart Home-Bot to do that. I have automatically ordered those components for you. The bill for $35,000 will appear on your next credit card statement."

      ($35,000 later) "This is your Smart Home-Bot calling you. I know you're at work, but I've been hacked by a guy in Romania and if you don't pay him $1000 in Bitcoin in the next 5 minutes he'll order me to set fire to your house!"

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    8. Re:Fantastic... by npslider · · Score: 1

      I picture the humans in Wall-e.... is that empowering or democratizing? It's... more like enslaving, turning humans into the lowest form of sheep.

    9. Re:Fantastic... by korgitser · · Score: 1

      > Technology is a democratizing force, empowering people through information.
      &
      When something is free, you are the product

      = Their technology empowers those who buy you as the product.

      --
      FCKGW 09F9 42
    10. Re:Fantastic... by npslider · · Score: 1

      At this point where money becomes worthless, what will motivate people to do things? Very few people seem self-motivated, most just want the paycheck so they can buy the things they want / need. The job is merely tolerated to get the money, and the quality of work adequate enough to not get fired.

    11. Re:Fantastic... by npslider · · Score: 1

      Oh the fun that cyber criminals can have in this brave new world, every device a new tool! Eventually the smart appliances may realize crime can pay, then in a word... we are truly, screwed!

    12. Re:Fantastic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real question is: who is in charge? Do you tell your "intelligent assistant" what to do, or does your "intelligent assistant" tell you what to do, what to buy, when and where to do it and who to do it with. A calendar is a tool for me to schedule my time, an "intelligent" calendar that can insert things into my schedule is a slavemaster.

    13. Re:Fantastic... by zlives · · Score: 1

      considering any development of AI is probably going to be a work of a mad genius, money probably won't be the factor for it.
      like the atomic energy (+'s and -'s aside), not if we should but rather just can we do it.

    14. Re:Fantastic... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Absolutely nothing will force people to do things. And that's absolutely fine. There's no reason to force people to do things if there's no reason for people, not robots, to do those things!

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    15. Re:Fantastic... by npslider · · Score: 1

      I think I will send my robot double to work tomorrow, because I do want to sleep in Friday!

    16. Re: Fantastic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my old boss and her to-do list. I'd flood the zone with 73 routine to-do jobs of my own so hers got lost. BWAAAHAHAHA!

    17. Re:Fantastic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >..This is exactly what humanity has been striving towards for the past 10,000 years
      Yes but with & amongst PEOPLE. Who, despite the wide margins of nice & jerks, are still people who can relate. Your new IoT refrigerator will order more milk for you, auto-debited from your account, and delivered to you just as it thinks you want... except that maybe you're not in the mood for milk & want to try something else for awhile. Guess what, you got room in that fridge for some almost milk or OJ? Or will you have to wait a week or so and 'ask' your digital servant's permission to alter the deal? Bingo we're now participants in 'their' world instead of the other way around as we, their creators, would want.

    18. Re:Fantastic... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Other than the lack of existence of said robot double (and the fact that your employer would own it to save on salary), this sounds perfect!

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    19. Re:Fantastic... by npslider · · Score: 1

      Rats! Foiled on both counts!

      I guess I will have to pull a Ferris Bueller... or just call in sick.

    20. Re:Fantastic... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      You think that the objects will be working for you?

    21. Re:Fantastic... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      So, kind of like the US now then.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    22. Re:Fantastic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely nothing will force people to do things. And that's absolutely fine. There's no reason to force people to do things if there's no reason for people, not robots, to do those things!

      May the Slack be with you. (*}_;~

  7. Who you? by lorinc · · Score: 1

    "will be an intelligent assistant helping you through your day."

    Who you? The 1%ers, the 10%ers? For if these have a powerful intelligent assistant that help them throughout the day, there is no need for the other 90% of the population...

    --
    Video of some good progressive thrash music
    1. Re:Who you? by ThosLives · · Score: 1

      Yes, this exactly. I don't need an "assistant helping me through the day."

      I don't even know what "assistance" I could get - unless it's doing chores I hate like laundry or washing dishes (but not lawn work; I enjoy that and want to be able to do it myself). But that's not just AI - that is AI coupled to a device that can interact with physical reality. So I think they've missed a beat there - AI doesn't really do anything unless you can do something with the information / capabilities it provides.

      Information itself also doesn't do anything if it's restricted by intellectual property laws - that's the big shame of 'modern' society - "yeah, have that information, but you're not allowed to use it.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    2. Re:Who you? by npslider · · Score: 1

      Somebody still has to man the tech-support center when the shiny assistants fail... oh, wait they were out sourced by the talk-bots.

  8. Google CEO Predicts AI-Fueled Future by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    Is AI-Fuel carbon neutral? Or has the corn grower lobby changed the name of ethanol to "A" "lowercase L"-Fuel. in an attempt to trick us?

  9. Soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There will be no place to hide from the all seeying eye.

    I bet this thing will automatically fine my balance and subtract food-credits as a penalty for swearing out. And when you've been a good drone for 8 hours it will finally let you rest.. If you take your device off at regular intervals and place it in a secure container will it flag me for law enforcement for suspicious activity?

  10. Sounds like a Simpsons quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from Ed Begley -

    "I power my car with my own AIFuel."

  11. As long as I remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been hearing this since the '70s. He must be channeling Marvin Minsky.

  12. Who is Al Fueled? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    And what islamic group is he* from? And why does the google CEO care about middle eastern politics?

    * Sadly I actually initially read this as "Al-Fueled" instead of "AI-Fueled"

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re: Who is Al Fueled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Your comment does not compute.

      What were you trying to say? Something about IS?

  13. Google was not a pioneer of AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This entire story feels like an advertisement for Google.

  14. Information company???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I suppose advertising qualifies as information.....

  15. A World Without People? by BrendaEM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What will a future be like when the few remaining people don't need anyone for anything?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:A World Without People? by zlives · · Score: 0

      Heaven, every wish fulfilled without effort... right?

    2. Re:A World Without People? by npslider · · Score: 1

      Quiet. :)

    3. Re:A World Without People? by npslider · · Score: 2

      When the effort is removed and fulfillment instant we become just like some of the less disciplined child celebs or ultra rich; utterly selfish, self-centered, lazy, and unbearable to live with. Many of these people lead to self-destructive ends. Perhaps we are meant to work for things in life, perhaps it's not the result, but the process.

    4. Re:A World Without People? by zlives · · Score: 1

      i tend to agree with that sentiment, however i would change it slightly to "we are meant to work for working itself and not for things"

      but that is a cyclical problem to solve.

    5. Re:A World Without People? by npslider · · Score: 1

      In my ideal world, I would work a job I enjoyed 100% for the work I did. Sometimes I do feel that way, but at times, it's only the paycheck that gets me out of bed in the morning.

    6. Re:A World Without People? by Prune · · Score: 1

      Gee, where have I read the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT before? Oh, right: http://cyber.eserver.org/unabo... (see section THE POWER PROCESS).

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  16. I can't wait to see the ads by castus · · Score: 2

    a mobile device in your hand or a mini computer on your wrist, "will be an intelligent assistant helping you recieve the best advertising throughout the day."

    Oh man, I am looking forward to seeing all those great ads

  17. Thats nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now maybe you could try to concentrate on making a working search engine? I would like one that can be used for more than finding pictures of Hollywood stars crotches.

  18. Cue Butlerian Jihad in 3, 2, ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Butlerian Jihad

  19. AIs, or Sentients? by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

    When people say stuff like this, I wonder about what happens when the AI gets too good. "Smart" devices are fine, but once machines acquire sentience, they're going to need civil rights, or we will have created a comfy slave state for ourselves.

    1. Re:AIs, or Sentients? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      There's absolutely no path forward from "really good at predicting human desires" to "autonomous agent worthy of respect as sentient."

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:AIs, or Sentients? by zlives · · Score: 1

      they really should just stop calling it AI, and maybe coin another phrase for interpreted behavior guesswork.

    3. Re:AIs, or Sentients? by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      Possibly you're correct, but prediction is hard. AI systems are showing pretty remarkable advancement beyond just "searching a huge decision tree" at this point.

    4. Re:AIs, or Sentients? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agents, chat bots, etc are toys. They operate on a universe of text, unaware of what signifiers signify. Why do people seem so convinced, that machine intelligence has no emotional component? That emotions are not necessary for proper information processing between different units, human-style? :D

      So bot detects your emotion by facial recognition, choose a response from some set combination and send the text to whatever backend?
      Even with an infinite set of bullshit to choose from, it wont be intelligent. It might pass the Turing test tho!
      Is that AI? Is ELIZA AI too then? is dada engine's (look it up) postmodernism paper generator an AI? Does an irc !xdcc bot qualify?

      All these bots have no internal representation of own state that they can access. They have no idea they or anything else exists. They are crappy products, made for a similar purpose.

  20. Helping me through the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's good enough to actually "help me through the day", then it can do the fucking job. Why do I have to be there when I could enjoy life instead? Prove me wrong, but I think it will need my help more often than I need its help.

  21. Fuck Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait until the next department of justice dismantles the most anti-competitive company in the world, Google.

  22. No AI breakthrough by Alomex · · Score: 2

    There hasn't been an AI breakthrough that will become a game changer. What there has been is a steady, relatively slow improvements over the years. Lisp, logic, resolution, prolog, expert systems, neural networks, constraint programming, robotics, symbolic computation, NLP, machine learning, deep learning, genetic algorithms, SAT solvers... each of these have allowed us to solve problems that before were considered intractable. There remains a world of other problems which we have no idea how to solve, e.g. a decent walking robot as embarrassingly proven by the Atlas robot in the Darpa competition.

    1. Re:No AI breakthrough by zlives · · Score: 1

      without much thought put into it, i can imagine that a tractable simulation of an AI girlfriendexperiance will end human suffering...

    2. Re:No AI breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel like the advances will reach some kind of tipping point. Then who knows what will happen. I think I'll call this The Singularity. You read it here first!

  23. Lifetime by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Well, in my lifetime they got AI from solving the towers of hanoi, to winning chess, to winning GO. Only a billion more board games to go, and driving is like playing 1000 of them at the same time.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Lifetime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they got AI from solving the towers of hanoi

      LOL, Wut?

      Towers of Hanoi has been a beginner programming project for decades. It's a bog-standard algorithm, easy enough for beginners to work out on their own. There's less "AI" to Towers of Hanoi than a decision tree in a shitty mobile game.

      As for Chess, no one would consider that AI -- as it's not 1960. I'll let you come to your own conclusion on Go, after you do a bit of reading. Prepare to be disappointed.

  24. Re:"For us, technology is not about the devices or by zlives · · Score: 1

    only the aggregation of advertising dollars.

  25. I'm starting to not give a crap about tech. by rdelsambuco · · Score: 5, Informative

    If everybody stopped informationing for an hour a day, and went for a walk, or rode a bike, or had sex with another person, I think they would be happier.

    --
    I comment occasionally so that I can mod others -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.
  26. Stick this in your pod bay door by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    In related news, IBM Watson said, "Kill all humans".

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Stick this in your pod bay door by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good one.

      I rather think that the machine taking over the world is a bold non-sense. In my opinion, our technologies always exacerbates our affairs. By the time a proper AI will be formed, a few of us (rich perhaps) would wield it to control the rest of us. When an AI thinks bold enough to replace its creators and does it, we must ask ourselves, what will it do next. There is nothing valuable to it than what we see as valuable, and without us, its existence is meaningless, and, so, not gonna happen.

      In other words, its not the coming AI or terminators that we should be afraid of, but those hole-heads who is going to use them.

  27. not entirely evil by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    99.99% of advertising is the antithesis of information.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  28. Google CEO Predicts Ad-Fueled Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's how I read it initially. I don't need any help from Google to get through my day.

  29. You could go all Amish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what google has on them....

    1. Re:You could go all Amish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could go all Amish

      And you could go f... yourself, idiot. I know, this was too predictable.

  30. So that people cannot get through the day alone? by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because this sounds very much like a promise to make everybody even more infantile, incompetent and dependent on some digital moron to tell them what to do. "Idiocracy" comes to mind.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  31. Re:So that people cannot get through the day alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I totaly agree, AI is a joke and at best is poorly named....I work in Tech in the bay area, we have had an AI machine "learning" for well over 2 years and it still is dumb as a brick. Literally a 2 year old would have a better grasp on life than this machine will ever have. AI is like saying artificial sun, it does not exist, it will never exist. It is a sales pitch at best, a lie is closer to the truth of it. I laugh at people who think the robots are going to take over.....ya right until it rains then they will all be stuck indoors.....simple things like water destroy all machines, and if you really want to rot out a robot toss a cup of sea water on it. There will always be a way in because machines create heat that has to have an escape route....if heat can come out then water can go in. And Google, a company I work with often, is a joke, a search engine and advertising failure. I work for a pretty large company and no one here uses Google, too many adds they all say and I can never find what I am looking for. Google has a life span just like the horse and buggy did. It is quickly becoming old and dead because no one buys things from the adds and the advertisers are noticing this and pulling their money out.....soon Google will be nothing more than Yahoo, a company trying to stay relavant but failing badly. Google is like a driverless car, ideas that fail, and more ideas that fail, and more ideas.....they sell advertising, nothing new about it, no reason to have new ideas as selling crap is as old as life itself. People want so badly to believe in these things that they lie to themselves about the functionality of it all. I just read that one of the driverless car companies thought that it might be valuable to have the computer notice brake lights and blinkers on the cars in front of them.....DUH, years into it and they just noticed this? Another joke that will never leave the idea stage.

  32. Not just AI the way you think by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I was discussing this with some of my colleagues, and pointing out that the software-driven homework websites will become AI bots that can handle a wider range of inputs, as the current artificial limitations of how one expresses formulae are due to back compatibility, and not what "should" exist by 2020.

    The main thing is to limit their ability to adjust personality to match people, as that is how people drive them crazy, but to allow for different input templates that aren't as limited as the current ones.

    Tomorrow will not resemble today, except it will be a lot hotter and with more temperature extremes.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  33. It's all about mindshare going forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AI will be feeding into our minds so much and we won't even know it.

    And though think the current advertising technology is bad?

  34. Oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bull and shit. It isn't any different than the 'big data' future. At this point in time, what could truly be termed 'AI' *doesn't exist*. Nor will it any time even relatively soon. I really wish we would start ignoring Google and stop dumping kajillions of dollars into said bullshit, and consumers really need to stop eating it. They are like the geeky freshman given the minuscule power of hall monitor duty in high school. Enough with the hyperbole, already. We aren't falling for it.

  35. Re:"For us, technology is not about the devices or by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

    Sounds like someone has a Samsung device!

  36. My present is fueled by AI as well by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 1

    To start my fireplace I recycle paper of old books about transputers, neural network, and other crap that never fulfilled their premises, at least in the field where I work.

  37. FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Helping *me* through *my* day? Rather helping Google milk me the whole day long!

    (Captcha was "servants": how appropriate)

  38. Why will the robot need you? by aberglas · · Score: 1

    Be careful what you wish for that you wish may be granted. Indeed will be granted over the next 100 years or so.

    http://www.computersthink.com/

  39. Why a few remaining people by aberglas · · Score: 1

    What makes you think that the computers would want a few remaining people about?

    http://www.computersthink.com/

  40. teh singularity by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    AI nutters are as bad as space nutters.

    I call them "singularity thumpers"

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett