Slashdot Mirror


As AI Explodes, Investors Pour Big Bucks Into Startups (siliconangle.com)

Investment in AI startups is on a tear as venture capitalists and corporate investors scramble to stake out a leadership position in what could be the driving trend in technology for decades to come. From a report: The financial interest in AI, machine learning and related technologies is hardly new. CB Insights has tracked some $18.4 billion invested in 2,541 AI-related startups since 2012. But the trend is only accelerating. In the latest MoneyTree report from PricewaterhouseCoopers and CB Insights, which showed otherwise mostly stagnant startup funding, AI and machine learning companies shined, reaching an eight-quarter high of $820 million invested in 90 companies. A flurry of significant investments in a number of AI-related companies this past week underscored the point. On Wednesday alone, for instance, AI-powered analytics software provider CognitiveScale raised a $15 million round, voice AI startup Snips raised $13 million and, to top it off, machine learning consultancy Element AI got an unusually large $102 million early-stage investment just eight months after the company was launched. Then on Thursday and Friday, two other AI-powered companies, Conviva and Codota, announced fundings too.

139 comments

  1. AI is not "exploding" by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First, there is nothing besides weak AI (i.e. the "AI" with no "I", better called "automation"). Second, it is not "exploding". There have been no fundamental breakthroughs for quite a while. There have been gradual speed-improvements, but they are, well, gradual. The only thing that has been "exploding" is the hype about AI, i.e. this is nothing but a bubble of hot air.

    Of course some people will get rich from this, but there will be no fundamentally new products or services from this anytime soon.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:AI is not "exploding" by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The exploding AI is the replacement for the blue screen of death.

    2. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two reasons why you are seeing AI applications explode recently. The first is the increase in computing power due to the use of GPUs and general-purpose GPU programming. The second is the availability of massive datasets for training purposes. Both are needed for many of the applications we're seeing today.

    3. Re:AI is not "exploding" by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Is "Explodes" a metaphor or a prescient description of the future under, "A.I."?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It is now safe to turn off your exploiding AI."

    5. Re:AI is not "exploding" by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

      Is "Explodes" a metaphor or a prescient description of the future under, "A.I."?

      I just finished re-reading "The Two Faces of Tomorrow," the first novel in "Cyber Rogue" by James P. Hogan, one of my favorite SF stories from the early 1980's, where scientists set up an advanced AI to manage a space station and the military went to war to determine whether or not they could pull the plug if the AI determines that humans are a nuisance. The only thing that almost exploded was the nuclear bomb that the military installed just in case the AI went kablooey.

    6. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I seem to recall quite a hype bubble about 3D printing. We were all going to drive 3D printed cars, printed right into the garage of our 3D printed houses.

      How's that working out?

      Yeah.

      Then it was private space. We were going to colonize the Galaxy because "the species", and technology always gets better.

      Except it does so within very strict limits.

      Oops.

      Now we're going to have self-piloting 3D printed private asteroid mining ships.

      Yup.

    7. Re:AI is not "exploding" by nine-times · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There have been gradual speed-improvements, but they are, well, gradual.

      Even with gradual speed improvements, you may reach a speed that represents a tipping point, where these processes go from taking an unacceptably long amount of time to taking an acceptably long amount of time.

      When you hit a tipping point like that, usage and adoption might expand dramatically (even if not "explosively), regardless of whether there's been real innovation.

    8. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that "AI" meant Ass of IT, and "exploding" meant diarrhea...

      They had to close the men's room for three days, creimer.

      PS: No Amazon link spam to a book about AI you didn't read, and couldn't understand anyways?

    9. Re:AI is not "exploding" by religionofpeas · · Score: 0

      Depends on what you call "fundamental". There are plenty of new ideas tried out. The number of research papers written on AI in the last couple of years eclipses all the papers that were written before that.

    10. Re:AI is not "exploding" by religionofpeas · · Score: 0

      And the 3rd reason is quickly improving algorithms. Also, the GPUs are being replaced by TPUs, dedicated for neural processing at much higher speeds and lower power.

    11. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You just posted that yesterday.

      https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10755649&cid=54644759

      Are you such a lazy fat asshole you copy/paste your Amazon spam here?

    12. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This summary is idiotic. I've read in other articles, "AI makes new language to communicate", and "So awesome, no one really knows how it works". Those popular statements when referring to Tensor Flow and Watson make this entire industry look stupid. You can't make use of a tool without understanding how it works.

    13. Re:AI is not "exploding" by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      We announced the TPU last year and recently followed up with a detailed study of its performance and architecture. In short, we found that the TPU delivered 15–30X higher performance and 30–80X higher performance-per-watt than contemporary CPUs and GPUs.

      I think that counts as a bit more than "gradual" speed improvement. And that was just the first generation. They've already made significant improvements in the second generation (45 TFLOPS/chip)

    14. Re:AI is not "exploding" by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Are you such a lazy fat asshole you copy/paste your Amazon spam here?

      Since I have a Python script to pull my comment history from Slashdot, I've been copying and pasting relevant comments for several months now.

    15. Re:AI is not "exploding" by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Ironically, "private space" became a huge customer for metal 3D printing recently. For their needs, the savings from small-scale manufacturing are substantial.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    16. Re:AI is not "exploding" by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      There's also Jevons' paradox; making an old thing cheaper often makes its usage explode rather than saving money for the same level of its usage.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    17. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that mean I should get out those old "Now With AI!" product stickers from the 90s out of my attic?

    18. Re:AI is not "exploding" by sycodon · · Score: 1
      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    19. Re:AI is not "exploding" by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"

      I've read many RAH novels but never got around to reading that one yet.

    20. Re:AI is not "exploding" by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      First, there is nothing besides weak AI (i.e. the "AI" with no "I", better called "automation"). Second, it is not "exploding". There have been no fundamental breakthroughs for quite a while. There have been gradual speed-improvements, but they are, well, gradual. The only thing that has been "exploding" is the hype about AI, i.e. this is nothing but a bubble of hot air.

      Investors investing in hype instead of actually understanding technology, no way! That's never happened before or has it? Pets.com sock puppet anyone?

      --
      We'll make great pets
    21. Re:AI is not "exploding" by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That thing does not exist. Algorithms are improving glacially slow or not at all at this time.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    22. Re:AI is not "exploding" by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Oh, it is nice than I can buy a reasonable (hobbyist use only) 3D printer kit for $300 or so. Gives me something to tinker with. The whole bubble was just exceptionally stupid though.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    23. Re:AI is not "exploding" by mjtaylor24601 · · Score: 1

      You can't make use of a tool without understanding how it works

      I know next to nothing about the workings of the internal combustion engine, and yet somehow I manage to drive my car to work every morning.

      --
      I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
    24. Re:AI is not "exploding" by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Useless metric. The actual scientific advancement from these papers is a tiny faction of what was known before. Science is unfortunately not immune to hypes, but they do not produce much advancement.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    25. Re:AI is not "exploding" by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I fully agree to that. Well, mostly, as really understanding large training data sets is difficult. But using a tool without understanding its limits and where it can have surprising behavior is dangerous and extremely unprofessional.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    26. Re:AI is not "exploding" by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is a _lot_ less of an improvement than it sounds and it has very limited scalability. All these algorithms have sub-linear performance and a factor of 10 or even 100 may not give you anything substantially better.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    27. Re:AI is not "exploding" by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That is why some will get rich (off other investors), even if there will not be any significant advances in products.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    28. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      Quite right, and it's gratifying to see that for once I'm not the first person to say what you're saying. What is 'exploding' is all the media hype, making technologically uninformed people think what they're erroneously calling 'artificial intelligence' is much much more than it actually is.

    29. Re:AI is not "exploding" by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That very much is it. Not the only hype going on, but one of the worst ones at the moment for sheer non-understanding.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    30. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, there are some tiny areas where there are some tiny gains in performance are made, for companies with the resources and staff. In no way does this lead to the post-scarcity revolution and Moon colonies. We don't even have the Concorde anymore.

      http://www.investivdaily.com/what-ever-happened-to-3d-printing/

      And you're still in "hype" mode... "huge"? Come on.

      Just own up. You were swept up in mindless hype. You failed to be a critical thinker. You were ignorant.

    31. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Worse: I'm thinking there seems to be a segment of the population that not only believes the hype, but that are eager to have so-called 'AIs' take their jobs, because they want to push for Universal Basic Income (they also seem to be bad at basic math, by the way) so they can live for free and never have to work their whole lives. Of course all the above is sheer fantasy. Hell, I'd rather be living in a post-Federation of Planets Earth of the 24th century, too, but that's also pure fantasy.

    32. Re:AI is not "exploding" by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

      There have been plenty of real advances in the last few years, not just speed improvements. For me, the most impressive thing was Generative Adversarial Networks in 2014, but there have been plenty of advances. The most recent article I read was on Relational Reasoning https://www.technologyreview.c... .

      Here as some more recent advances
      Turing Learning - https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/ne...
      Evolution Strategies - https://www.technologyreview.c...
      Bayesian Program Synthesis - https://techxplore.com/news/20...
      Gaussian Processes - https://www.wired.com/2017/02/...
      AI Passes Standard Intelligence Test - https://phys.org/news/2017-01-...
      Semi-Supervised Learning For Handwriting Recognition - https://phys.org/news/2016-12-...
      Lipreading - https://www.technologyreview.c...
      One-Shot Learning - https://www.technologyreview.c...
      Differentiable Neural Computer - http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-...
      Bayesian Program Learning - http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech...

    33. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I highly doubt you know next to nothing about that engine thing you mentioned especially since the future has told me engines aren't going to combust for much longer. (See Tesla Motors)

    34. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      never got around to reading that one yet.

      Another creimer gem.

      NEVER: (adverb) "at no time in the past or future; on no occasion; not ever."

      But your use of "yet" implies that you MAY read it at some point in the future.

      Either: "I haven't read that yet." or "I'll never read that."

      Take your pick. And you're welcome for giving you a grammar lesson.

    35. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      This. It is neither exploding nor AI. What's widely being called AI is nothing more than "machine learning". Not the same thing. At. All.

    36. Re:AI is not "exploding" by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      And you're welcome for giving you a grammar lesson.

      If you're going to be grammar nazi on Slashdot, you need to put more bite into your comments. This schoolmarm attitude doesn't cut it. You would be more effective if the person you're attacking actually cares about your opinion. You're wasting your time on me.

    37. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said the same thing not a week ago.

      https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10731353&cid=54610745

      For someone who doesn't care, you sure put a lot of effort into not caring...

      BTW, what's with this "bite" simile? Everything's about food with you, jigglycheeks?

    38. Re:AI is not "exploding" by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      That is why some will get rich (off other investors), even if there will not be any significant advances in products.

      You think the "other investors" care about any sort of progress? Most of those investors are like patent trolls so I don't see your statement as any sort of problem whatsoever. Sounds like business as usual to me.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    39. Re:AI is not "exploding" by ranton · · Score: 1

      That thing does not exist. Algorithms are improving glacially slow or not at all at this time.

      Your comment is at odds with all of the research I could find on the topic. For instance this paper estimates that between 33%-50% of recent improvements in AI come from algorithmic improvements. In a quick Google search I couldn't find any research papers claiming hardware improvements are the only source of new breakthroughs in AI or any other computation heavy domain.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    40. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This schoolmarm attitude doesn't cut it.

      You mean, correcting you requires that I call you names and degrade you? Why?

      You would be more effective if the person you're attacking actually cares about your opinion.

      You wrote a paragraph to tell me you "don't care about my opinion." Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

      You're wasting your time on me.

      I'm hurt, creimer. I spent the time to correct your grammar - you're a published author who hopes to build a devoted readership. If you have bad grammar and poor writing, then you will not achieve your dreams of fame and fortune as a writer. I expected a thank you, not a whining protest.

    41. Re:AI is not "exploding" by toonces33 · · Score: 1

      Even that would be an improvement over exploding batteries.

    42. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work in the field. What's changed is custom hardware for executing those algorithms. The algorithms themselves haven't changed much. There are novel applications of those algorithms to specific tasks (like image recognition) but the algorithms themselves are decades if not centuries old.

    43. Re:AI is not "exploding" by ranton · · Score: 2

      Exactly. I seem to recall quite a hype bubble about 3D printing. We were all going to drive 3D printed cars, printed right into the garage of our 3D printed houses.

      Um, we have 3D printed cars and 3D printed houses. Considering 3D printing hype arguably started in earnest in 2014 we are a decade or two away from being able to tell if it was all just hype. The 3D printing industry is still growing today and showing no signs of stopping.

      Then it was private space. We were going to colonize the Galaxy because "the species", and technology always gets better.

      I have not heard anything about companies such as SpaceX or Virgin Galactic pulling back on their commercial space travel ambitions.

      Overall you seem to be just complaining about new technologies and industries with nothing to back it up.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    44. Re:AI is not "exploding" by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I spent the time to correct your grammar - you're a published author who hopes to build a devoted readership.

      I explained this before but you're probably ignore it anyway. I don't have an editorial process for comments on Slashdots. I will never have an editorial process for comments on Slashdot. There isn't enough half-cents to make it worth my while.

    45. Re: AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Don't believe the hype" - chuck D of public enemy

      Even chuck and flavor flAv knew in the 90s not to believe The hype.

    46. Re: AI is not "exploding" by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      What I'm starting to believe is that there are two kinds of people who are buying into the hype: One, peope who see fictional 'AI' on television and in movies, and then see/hear the media hype about 'AI', and actually believe what's on the TV and in the movies is real. Then there's the fanbois who really want an AI-driven robot to take everyones' jobs, so they can push for Universal Basic Income, and never have to work a day for the rest of their lives (UBI is also media-driven hype/fantasy, too, because the math shows it just won't work on a large scale).

    47. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. It seems like a waste of time and money. And that's for all that big data analytics type stuff. It's mostly just fancy statistics used to attempt to market to you. I laugh every time Google shows me an add. It couldn't be more off in terms of the stuff that I buy.

    48. Re: AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I laugh every time Google shows me an add. It couldn't be more off in terms of the stuff that I buy.â
      Indeed. I only buy subtracts, and a multiply now and then.

    49. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I explained this before but you will probably ignore it anyway. I don't have an editorial process for comments on Slashdot. I will never have an editorial process for comments on Slashdot. There aren't enough half-cents to make it worth my while.

      (Fixed the above for you.)

      No "editorial process" required if you write properly from the start, champ. It takes literally seconds to re-read what you've written before clicking "Preview", and in doing that, you can avoid giving the impression that you're a moron who can't write.

      And since you're a writer, who's very concerned with his "personal brand," you should REALLY care if you're giving the impression that you're an illiterate mung bean.

    50. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >There have been gradual speed-improvements

      you may be living in a bubble where word of non-van-neuman cpu designs specifically designed for graph processing. incredibly fast arbitrary io machines 1k faster, 1k 'better for the job' will give you something about a million times more suitable for software to do inference on in not too long a time. you should check out what's coming at us to supplant the funky statistics optimized architectures we're used to. ... in any case.. the fuse has been lit!

    51. Re:AI is not "exploding" by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      And why would I do that? :-p The fact remains that additive manufacturing removes 80-90% of parts in a number of complicated assemblies. That's not "mindless hype", that's massive savings. Be careful with those complicated words at the end though; you could cut yourself on all that edginess.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    52. Re:AI is not "exploding" by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      No "editorial process" required if you write properly from the start [...]

      If you think my comments on Slashdot is bad, you should see my handwritten or typewritten rough drafts.

      And since you're a writer, who's very concerned with his "personal brand," you should REALLY care if you're giving the impression that you're an illiterate mung bean.

      An asshat thought it was cute to re-post my 2016 picture on an image website last night. A DMCA takedown notice took it down this morning.

    53. Re:AI is not "exploding" by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      In 2013, date of the report, Deep Learning was not yet on the table except for a small number of researchers. This is the case now. DL algorithms were devised in the 1990s, with improvement in better choices of activation functions (ReLU), improvements in back-propagation algorithms with stochastic gradient descent. Also crude but effective network simplification methods were found useful (dropout). The big game changer was progress in GPUs though.

    54. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think my comments on Slashdot is bad, you should see my handwritten or typewritten rough drafts.

      ARE bad, creimer. "my comments" is plural - therefore they ARE bad. Not IS bad. And I don't need to see your rough drafts, I've seen your finished product with typos, bad grammar, and run-ons. Frankly, I'm embarrassed for you that you think it's an acceptable quality for publication.

      An asshat thought it was cute to re-post my 2016 picture on an image website last night [slashdot.org]. A DMCA takedown notice took it down this morning.

      Why do you feel that your photos reflect so badly upon you as a writer, but that your grammar doesn't? Seriously - there are some ugly, fat dudes in the writing trade. Some of them are fabulously successful - see George R. R. Martin. Nobody gives a shit that he's an ugly fat old guy - because he's not known (or trying to be known) as a young handsome skinny guy. He's making his name as a writer, and he's done that by writing rich, complex stories full of interesting characters, and he's written those stories in a well-edited, well-written style.

      If you're concerned about your writerly reputation, you'd be FAR more concerned about your grammar when you're writing anything for public consumption, and you'd be FAR less concerned about where somebody posts your "I'm a fat guy" photos. You're a fat guy - that doesn't matter a whit to anybody who's reading your stories. What DOES matter is that your stories are well-written (they're not), interesting (they're not), and well-edited (they're not). No, nobody expects editorial brilliance from your Slashdot posts, but a demonstration of a reasonable command of the English language and the ability to avoid major, glaring typos, is not too high a bar to set for someone who professes to be a writer.

    55. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4th reason: it was made in China, where most things - bridges, roads, manholes, condoms, kindergartens - explode regularly.

    56. Re:AI is not "exploding" by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Why do you feel that your photos reflect so badly upon you as a writer, but that your grammar doesn't?

      If you want to admire my picture, go to my webpage with the updated 2017 picture — and thanks for the ad revenues.

    57. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear boss,
      I can't come to work today because my computer's AI exploded.
      -AC

    58. Re:AI is not "exploding" by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe. As to an UBI, it is certainly feasible financially in some countries and maybe in a lot more, as it basically is a simplification of the welfare system. The most serious problem with it is that many people will not be able to live well with not having a job. It gives meaning, substance and structure. I think we will see riots and massively increased mental health issues when UBIs are implemented carelessly. Ultimately, there really is no other choice I can see, as automation (not AI) will take a lot of jobs in the next decade or two, possibly more than half of them. But people (except for a very small minority) will need to find something worthwhile they can do with their time and doing that by themselves is difficult for many.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    59. Re:AI is not "exploding" by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I don't. I am criticizing the reporting here.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    60. Re:AI is not "exploding" by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And that is just my point. While my own research area is not really related, I have following AI research for now around 30 years and that is what I see.
      Of course, people mistaking some one-shot implementation optimization for an "algorithmic advance" are just as common today as they were back then.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    61. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What possible ad revenues can you get from someone looking at a picture of an idiot? Seriously creimer, no one believes your horseshit.

      Who would pay you for that? Why? How?

      You are obviously trying to compensate for your horrific nothingness.

    62. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The fact remains that additive manufacturing removes 80-90% of parts in a number of complicated assemblies."

      Show some evidence please.

      " That's not "mindless hype", that's massive savings"

      Show some evidence for "massive" savings. Also, the hype was never about "massive savings", it was about how we'll 3D print houses and a cars and live on Mars because some idiots put a glue gun on a stepper motor.

      "you could cut yourself on all that edginess."

      And you can lose yourself in the revisionism. The fact is 3D printing was hyped to the stratosphere for years but the reality is that it's 98% arts and crafts, and 2% of a few improvements here and there. No revolutions have happened anywhere, simply some refinements of already existing, decades-old technologies.

    63. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, those aren't 3D printed cars. Where did the tires come from? The paint?

      Why are you people so dishonest?

    64. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are your defenses so often of the variety "but I'm worse elsewhere"? You seem to be very happy in your sub-mediocre existence, your awful writing, your nothing "ad revenues", your general worthlessness.

      "If you think I'm a virgin, you should see my ad revenues!"

      "If you think I'm fat, you should see the dirt under my fingernails!"

      "If you think I'm ugly, you should see my toenail fungus!"

      "If you think I'm stupid, you should see my paycheck!"

      You are slashdot's equivalent of a parasitic worm. Unwelcome, not needed, not wanted, hard to get rid of.

    65. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    66. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you want to admire my picture"

      There's a concept; someone "admiring" a picture of you. Admired, like when they let you go (sorry, you fired yourself) three months early because of your "miracle" of cleaning out a storage closet?

      Like that? Or "admired" because you can dress yourself in the mornings?

    67. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do I send the bill for the years of therapy I'm going to need? That first picture of some kind of humanoid retard is going to haunt my dreams.

    68. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do I send the bill for the years of therapy I'm going to need?

      HateFuck39

    69. Re: AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if I visit, I'm running ad blocking software, so no danger of me increasing your income.

      And it's not about wanting to see your picture, anyway - it's about trying to understand why, in god's name, you would care so much about your photo being posted around, while at the same time, as a writer, you don't care a bit for the terrible grammar and writing ability you display here, on your blog, and in your books.

      As a writer, I would think the emphasis would be on the writing skills.

    70. Re:AI is not "exploding" by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Who would pay you for that? Why? How?

      Google. Every webpage that I control has a Google ad. Whenever someone clicks on my link and a Google ad successfully loads into a web browser, an "impression" is created. Many impressions add up to a penny. Many pennies add up to some serious money. If someone clicks on an ad, coffee money!

      You are obviously trying to compensate for your horrific nothingness.

      That compensation gets direct deposited into my business checking account every month.

    71. Re: AI is not "exploding" by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      As a writer, I would think the emphasis would be on the writing skills.

      Yes, for the markets I care about. Slashdot isn't one of them. That you think Slashdot is still relevant to the world at large is cute.

    72. Re: AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet you flog your Amazon affiliate spam here, you protect your "personal brand", you talk about these "ad revenues" that one or two curious bystanders will generate, and you seem to spend an awful lot of "world at large" time here, Jigglypuff.

      And in the "markets" (plural?) you care about, your writing seems even WORSE than here!

      You are a mystery wrapped in a enigma shrouded in large layer of blubber.

      You are unique here. You should be studied, understood, and either helped or explained to the rest of the world.

    73. Re:AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That compensation gets direct deposited into my business checking account every month."

      The whole penny? Or do you plan on some Superman III shenanigans?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing

    74. Re: AI is not "exploding" by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You should be studied, understood, and either helped or explained to the rest of the world.

      That's what I'm doing with Slashdot . I didn't think Slashdot had any female readers. You learn something new every day.

    75. Re: AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women aren't attracted to virgins, despite what the pedophile priest told you in your church.

      I'm attracted to you like a curious kid collecting insects. You're too big to mount with a pin, though.

    76. Re: AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, for the markets I care about. Slashdot isn't one of them.

      How you fail to see them as inter-related is beyond me.
      1) Your author website is full of bad grammar and typos.
      2) Your author website links to Slashdot posts you've made, which are also full of bad grammar and typos.
      3) Your author website flogs books that are full of bad grammar and typos.

      In all locations, you are reinforcing the impression that you are a sloppy writer with no worthwhile writing skills. Your writing *anywhere* in the public sphere is an advertisement for the writing that you're selling.

      That you think Slashdot is still relevant to the world at large is cute.

      YOU make it relevant by shit-posting here and then linking to Slashdot from your author website, showcasing your bad grammar and bad editing skills. Yet you seem incapable of drawing the connection between the two - I don't know what your mental defect is, but it's curious to watch you sit there and say "Slashdot is irrelevant to the rest of the world," while you link the SHIT out of your terrible posts here, as if somebody's going to read them and say, "Wow, this is a real smart, classy guy who's a good writer. I'm definitely buying his books."

    77. Re: AI is not "exploding" by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      How you fail to see them as inter-related is beyond me.

      When I submit my short stories to publications, I use a different email address, I don't provide a credit list and I don't link back to my website. My short stories are accepted or rejected on their own merits. Keep in mind that some of these editors are still using WordPerfect and haven't moved into the 21st century yet.

    78. Re: AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When I submit my short stories to publications, I use a different email address,"

      Yeah no shit, if I submitted the gibberish you write I'd try to stay anonymous as well. So you *do* have some sort of shame.

      I'd have thought you'd be proud of your mental feces.

    79. Re: AI is not "exploding" by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Yeah no shit, if I submitted the gibberish you write I'd try to stay anonymous as well. So you *do* have some sort of shame.

      Some editors won't provide feedback if they think that you had some success. If I come across as a noob, they're more likely to write something down on the rejection slip.

    80. Re: AI is not "exploding" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And another roll of the creimer 68-sided Excuse Dice...

      " If I come across as a noob, they're more likely to write something down on the rejection slip."

      Question is, DO YOU READ THE SLIPS?

      ....and we roll the dice again...

    81. Re: AI is not "exploding" by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      ....and we roll the dice again ...

      Go watch Eli the Computer Guy take a piss on vid.me (YouTube competitor).

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xPp0IEamTo

    82. Re:AI is not "exploding" by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Looks like you have a Grammar Stalker.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    83. Re: AI is not "exploding" by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Dude.

      You need help. Google OCD.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    84. Re: AI is not "exploding" by sycodon · · Score: 1

      You must be a Slashdot, "editor" because long before now regular uses are shut down with the message about "you've said enough on this topic today"

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  2. Uh-huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Too bad 'AI' is just a fancy term for computing. :P This isn't any different than health startups or VR a few years ago, the rate at which VCs throw good money after bad chasing fads is insanity. in another few years it'll be something else, and AI will have been dropped like a hot rock by most of them. It's a new form of day trading: get in, profit off of the hype, get out. Though it lines their pockets nicely, it does nothing to help anyone or progress anything in a meaningful way, and it artificially inflates expectations. It could easily take the economy out again, eventually. The SEC is fast asleep.

  3. Where the fuck is this "AI"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sure as hell haven't noticed it in any way whatsoever. What the hell are they talking about?

    1. Re:Where the fuck is this "AI"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "AI is the new electricity", seems simple enough. Too much of it can kill an elephant.

  4. Another AI Winter by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Could this be the foreshadowing of another AI Winter? I remember the AI Winter of the late 1980's and early 1990's. At that time, the hype was about some of the truly amazing things that could be done in Prolog like languages. Pattern matching. Deductive reasoning. Theorem provers. Computer Algebra Systems (CAS). And especially Expert Systems.

    The expectations got totally out of control. Wow! A knowledge expert could write a set of rules so that an expert system could predict who is a bad credit risk! Etc. Of course, modern statistical approaches might be much better at that. But I use it as an example of having too great of expectations.

    Like today, these modern statistical classifiers are amazing! But one day one of those statistical classifiers will mis-classify a pedestrian in front of a vehicle. Another possible way there could be wrong expectations is that both human beings and also managers might expect these systems to have some kind of insight or creativity. Or possibly deductive reasoning power (like the classic AI systems actually had, to a degree).

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    1. Re:Another AI Winter by Frederic54 · · Score: 1

      > I remember the AI Winter of the late 1980's and early 1990's

      oh god yes... I learnt Prolog and Caml in university, it was horrible :-/

      --
      "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:Another AI Winter by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      ((lisp is) (much (more better)))

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re: Another AI Winter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I.prefer.javascript.over.Everything(var youNoob);

  5. The same idiots who invest in cryptocurrencies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile, wheres the billions in providing people with decent housing and healthcare for all?

    1. Re:The same idiots who invest in cryptocurrencies by Junta · · Score: 1

      While I agree with the sentiment, the reality is that the dollar values are imaginary and translating from one imaginary context to another doesn't mean intuitive expectations would be met.

      Since we love car analogies, if you had the labor and resources to produce one Lamborghini Aventador, you could not take those same resources to make 20 Toyota Corollas, even though the price difference suggests you could (400k vs. 20k).

      It's still sad and unfair since, but not so easy to fix.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re: The same idiots who invest in cryptocurrencies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh there's no money in that. Make housing unaffordable/unattaimar and slowly spike rent fees. You'll have a population of servants who have to do whatever just to have a place to stay and eat.

  6. Glug glug blub pop by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    What's the connection between this and glug glub blub?

    They both sound like a bubble.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Glug glug blub pop by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      A bubble is when your mother gives you stock tips for the latest technology startups. That's a good sign to get out of the market while fools are still rushing in.

  7. AI is a big threat to index funds and indexers. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    Index fund idea is based on the wisdom of crowds. The mean value of a large number of independent predictions will be more correct than most of the individual predictions. The key is "independent". But with high frequency trades and very fast analysis independent AI systems might "sense" the phase differences and slowly synch themselves over time.

    At present active investors can't game index investors easily. The orders from traders for index funds get swamped out lost among the orders from actively managed fund traders. But with AI systems, it might learn to place a large buy order in a relatively thinly traded component of a large index, a few microseconds before selling a large lot of the index itself. How much to buy, how early to buy, what to buy, when to sell etc are not calculated deterministically by human traders. But AI might find the pattern and learn it.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:AI is a big threat to index funds and indexers. by Junta · · Score: 2

      a few microseconds before selling a large lot of the index itself.

      I've long thought this needs to be squashed. Sub-second trading granularity just isn't adding anything meaningful, but it causes crazy distorted and unfair trading practices. Something like shuffling transactions over a larger timescale that is more fair.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:AI is a big threat to index funds and indexers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best to move all secondary markets to a 1 hour trading window per week.
      Place your bets once weekly.
      Need liquidity in the interim? Hock the shares to the bank.

      There, now all folks can now go and do some work instead of conning each other over funny money.

    3. Re:AI is a big threat to index funds and indexers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something like shuffling transactions over a larger timescale that is more fair.

      Define a trade-day as 210 exchanges, all transactions are queued up for the next exchange, then calculated in bulk, returning a completely updated value chart for participants to squabble over in preparing for the next exchange.

    4. Re:AI is a big threat to index funds and indexers. by Frederic54 · · Score: 1

      lol microseconds you say? People doing HFT spend top $$$ to have nanosecond benefit on their 10/25/40/100Gig network, colocated in the same room as NASDAQ/NYSE servers

      --
      "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:AI is a big threat to index funds and indexers. by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

      That's why the most successful machine learning algorithms use a combination of weak predictors to average to a good prediction ( Random Forest, XG Boost, ensemble learning, bagging and boosting in general, ...).

  8. AI passed the muslim Turing test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    An AI passed the muslim Turing test. Say anythig to it ans it blows itself up

  9. You graybeards are always missing it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter whether or not these other people use the term "AI" in the same way that you do; you know what they're talking about: Advancements in machine-learning and neural-nets have created another opportunity for wealth creation and therefore investment.

    If you insist on being such a pedant, you'll miss out on this development, too, just like all the other lucrative developments that have flown over the heads of you Slashdotting fools. No matter, though; the world doesn't care that you leave yourself behind—your gnashing of teeth won't prevent the rest of us from having a good time!

    (Oh, but the way: You, too, are just an automation; at some point, automation becomes so complex that it is indistinguishable from "sentience".)

    1. Re: You graybeards are always missing it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they're talking about is the latest buzzword in technology. "Big Data" got old so "AI" is here to step in and confuse the general public. That "great opportunity" is making money off manipulating the general public and lagging industry perceptions into a new set of buzzwords to wrap fairly underwhelming products/services that will denigrate an otherwise reputable field.

      I'm a huge fan of statistical/ computational/ numrerical/ etc. modeling, machine learning, and to some degree, the endeavor to create true AI (with a great degree of caution). This, however, is a money grab... plain and simple. You can lie about it or you can be honest, that's your choice. You're quite right that no one got rich by being honest and anyone not serving the kool-aid may miss out on some cash grabs. I'm financially stable, not a sociopath, and sleep very well at night so I'll leave those "opportunities" to you. Enjoy your new , I'm happy already.

    2. Re: You graybeards are always missing it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a huge fan of statistical/ computational/ numrerical/ etc. modeling, machine learning, and to some degree, the endeavor to create true AI (with a great degree of caution).

      The only thing is...humans won't be capable of executing with caution if they don't even understand themselves. We study and understand more about ants then we do about ourselves. The apple fell on Netwon's head not Steve Jobs. Computers came from our own minds. Yet we don't really have organized thinking in place to realize we are just one species among other species, on a rock, in a solar system.

      Better functioning of our own analog minds might possibly just get us to mars and beyond way faster too.

    3. Re:You graybeards are always missing it! by gweihir · · Score: 1

      (Oh, but the way: You, too, are just an automation; at some point, automation becomes so complex that it is indistinguishable from "sentience".)

      You can spread your religion-surrogate crap somewhere else please. There is no scientific basis to your claim.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:You graybeards are always missing it! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's more like the news media doesn't use AI in the same way scientists use it:

      When the Media says "AI" they usually mean strong AI.
      When scientists say "AI", they usually mean weak AI.

      This confusion is why you get people like Bill Gates saying that AI is our biggest existential threat. The AI we're seeing today has nothing to do with existential threats. And if IBM tries to sell you Watson, it's just a marketing term, not the thing that won at Jeopardy.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:You graybeards are always missing it! by ACE209 · · Score: 1
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      You probably don't have the time for the whole series but the first few minutes of the first should be enough.

      In the first lecture of this series, Prof. Sapolsky asks (among some other questions) who believes in free will.

      There seems to be a majority of people raising hands.

      He raises a finger and promises that that's gonna change. ;)

      Add to this, the fact that you are completely made of atoms. There is no evidence for any secret life-force so far.

      True, the final verdict on this is still out. But there are strong hints that we are indeed some kind of automata. ;)

      --
      "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
    6. Re:You graybeards are always missing it! by ranton · · Score: 2

      (Oh, but the way: You, too, are just an automation; at some point, automation becomes so complex that it is indistinguishable from "sentience".)

      You can spread your religion-surrogate crap somewhere else please. There is no scientific basis to your claim.

      You appear to have it backwards. Nearly all if not all of our scientific knowledge points to humans being an automation just like any other robot, although much more complex and with fundamentally different hardware. Religion or religion-surrogates are the only source of belief to the contrary.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    7. Re:You graybeards are always missing it! by gweihir · · Score: 1

      There is pretty strong evidence that we are hybrids. Quite a few things clearly run on automation, but some things do not. It takes an act of will to decide to "think about something" though and many people manage that only rarely. Of course, many people falsely assume that they are using free will all the time and even for trivial decisions, but that is just not true.

      The problem here is that there is no mechanism for consciousness on physics and there is no known mechanism that can produce the intelligence of a smart human being physically. In fact, after many decades of AI research, it looks like "strong AI" may actually not be possible physically in this universe. You are falling for a "black box" argument, that says that anything observable at the interface of a black box must be crated in there. The problem here is that you may not be able to observe everything. In the age of the cell-hone, that idea should not be so hard to understand. The other problem is that the physicalist argument is circular: Assume everything is physical and you can proof everything is physical. That is not science, that is religion. At this time, the question is wide open.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re:You graybeards are always missing it! by gweihir · · Score: 1

      (Oh, but the way: You, too, are just an automation; at some point, automation becomes so complex that it is indistinguishable from "sentience".)

      You can spread your religion-surrogate crap somewhere else please. There is no scientific basis to your claim.

      You appear to have it backwards. Nearly all if not all of our scientific knowledge points to humans being an automation just like any other robot, although much more complex and with fundamentally different hardware. Religion or religion-surrogates are the only source of belief to the contrary.

      No, I do not. You are misinterpreting the Science. It actually says no such thing and the question is wide open. Now, I do not propose to put a "god" or any such nonsense in there (I am an atheist), but Physicalism is usually practiced and defended much the same way religion is. It is "obvious truth", and it assumes known Physics covers everything (when not even Physics makes such a claim and rather points out that it does not). People that do not buy it are accused of being religious (in the sense of "wrong god"). Rather strong evidence to the contrary is completely ignored (the nature of consciousness is completely unknown, how intelligence works in a smart person is completely unknown and consciousness and real intelligence are _only_ observable together) and available facts are misinterpreted to support the belief ("nearly if not all of our scientific knowledge...").

      Except for the absence of a "god", Physicalism is religion. Similar variations of the religious meme have existed before, see, e.g. some variants of communism or national socialism. These are religions in all but name and about as well-funded on actual facts.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:You graybeards are always missing it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " there is no known mechanism that can produce the intelligence of a smart human being physically."

      Your parents didn't have sex? You're so full of shit.

      "looks like "strong AI" may actually not be possible physically in this universe."

      Wow, you sure seem to have access to an awful lot of information. I was wrong about you, you're not a Space Nutter, you're just a regular nut.

      "Assume everything is physical and you can proof everything is physical. "

      "prove". Are you turning into creimer?

    10. Re:You graybeards are always missing it! by ranton · · Score: 1

      Except for the absence of a "god", Physicalism is religion. Similar variations of the religious meme have existed before, see, e.g. some variants of communism or national socialism. These are religions in all but name and about as well-funded on actual facts.

      Without a god or some form of metaphysical beliefs, you cannot classify something as a religion. You can describe it as a philosophy, belief system, etc. but not a religion. Physicalism is by definition not a religion because it does not consist of metaphysical or supernatural claims.

      Rather strong evidence to the contrary is completely ignored (the nature of consciousness is completely unknown, how intelligence works in a smart person is completely unknown and consciousness and real intelligence are _only_ observable together)

      Consciousness and intelligence variability provide no evidence for the existence of any force/substance/etc we have not yet been able to measure. The very fact we do not understand the mechanism behind consciousness makes it evidence of nothing. If I don't understand something I surely cannot use it as evidence of something else. How one person can be smarter than another is no more mystical than how one person can be stronger than another, even though we don't yet know how to measure intelligence on a genetic / cellular / etc level. Every time society attributes mysticism to the boundaries of our scientific knowledge they have been wrong so far, so there is no reason to think it will be any different with consciousness.

      Right now science describes a world where humans are no different than another other complex system. We could surely find out we are wrong in the future, but nothing we can measure now suggests we are wrong.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    11. Re:You graybeards are always missing it! by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Except for the absence of a "god", Physicalism is religion. Similar variations of the religious meme have existed before, see, e.g. some variants of communism or national socialism. These are religions in all but name and about as well-funded on actual facts.

      Without a god or some form of metaphysical beliefs, you cannot classify something as a religion. You can describe it as a philosophy, belief system, etc. but not a religion. Physicalism is by definition not a religion because it does not consist of metaphysical or supernatural claims.

      Of course I can. We can call is "quasi religion" or "religion surrogate", but it is basically the same thing. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it very likely is a duck, even if the color may be off.

      Rather strong evidence to the contrary is completely ignored (the nature of consciousness is completely unknown, how intelligence works in a smart person is completely unknown and consciousness and real intelligence are _only_ observable together)

      Consciousness and intelligence variability provide no evidence for the existence of any force/substance/etc we have not yet been able to measure. The very fact we do not understand the mechanism behind consciousness makes it evidence of nothing. If I don't understand something I surely cannot use it as evidence of something else. How one person can be smarter than another is no more mystical than how one person can be stronger than another, even though we don't yet know how to measure intelligence on a genetic / cellular / etc level. Every time society attributes mysticism to the boundaries of our scientific knowledge they have been wrong so far, so there is no reason to think it will be any different with consciousness.

      And wrong again. The very fact that we do not understand what consciousness is provides a very strong indicator that our current theories are incomplete. It does not indicate they just need to be extended among known lines, as you seem to assume.

      Right now science describes a world where humans are no different than another other complex system. We could surely find out we are wrong in the future, but nothing we can measure now suggests we are wrong.

      It does not. This is a belief, not something Science states. Science says that we have no clue how human consciousness and intelligence works. We can describe to a degree what consciousness and intelligence can do and we can describe to a degree how that manifests at the interface, but that is it. The scientific description of this world is incomplete in many aspects and this is one of them. An actual scientist does understand that.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:You graybeards are always missing it! by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      In fact, after many decades of AI research, it looks like "strong AI" may actually not be possible physically in this universe.

      Check back after many centuries of research.
      Computer science is younger than many people alive today.
      When you can use clairvoyance to predict what their descendants a dozen generations from now will achieve,
      then you will have a reason for making such a baseless claim.

    13. Re:You graybeards are always missing it! by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Physicalism is usually practiced and defended much the same way religion is.

      Everything that benefits your life, including modern nutrition, medicine, transportation
      and the computer you are typing on, all derive from one source: science.

      Science, in turn, is based on evidence.
      Evidence is based on objective measurements.
      Measurements are necessarily physical in nature, because what would a "non-physical measurement" mean?

      So we have:
      No physicality -> no measurements.
      No measurements -> no evidence.
      No evidence -> no science.
      No science -> superstitious twits like you.

    14. Re:You graybeards are always missing it! by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      It does not indicate they just need to be extended among known lines, as you seem to assume.

      In the case of "known lines" being science, which of course is physical in nature (there's no such thing as non-physical evidence), yes we do have to extend along those lines.

      An actual scientist does understand that.

      How would you know?

  10. They invested in my company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to STOP my project. I was working on an artificial creimer that could fill a website with Amazon affiliate spam in under 12 milliseconds. It also had an artificial ego that could take credit for thing other people did in other rooms, as well as endlessly revising its memory to upgrade everything to "miracle" status.

    I was glad I pulled the plug.

    1. Re:They invested in my company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to STOP my project. I was working on an artificial creimer that could fill a website with Amazon affiliate spam in under 12 milliseconds. It also had an artificial ego that could take credit for thing other people did in other rooms, as well as endlessly revising its memory to upgrade everything to "miracle" status.

      I was glad I pulled the plug.

      I think they implanted it in the president's brain.
      BTW, you misspelled "artificial creamer"

  11. Pied Piper should pivot into AI too by negrace · · Score: 1

    Compress AI or something :)

  12. AI ways to separate investors from their money by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    Seems to be the best application of AI yet.

  13. Who let the Marketing team in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously!

    At a recent healthcare conference in the US, the main topic of the entire conference was AI in healthcare. Primarily, its use in Imaging, and its future replacement of the human counterparts known as 'Radiologists'.

    We see big AI announcements with self-driving cars, coordinated drone maneuvers, Amazon with what I can only assume will become future drone grocery deliver, and now a budding AI startup bubble is in the midst...?!? Like many bubbles before it, and like much hype from the investment sector, there is no large breakthrough.

    This is once again the marketing drones being leveraged for the Fund managers, to sweep in and collect some easily earned gains, because more public & private enterprises are trying to leverage AI for project... X, Y, Z....

    And as with all announcements like these, 'a fool and his money are soon parted'. If there really was a big AI breakthrough, we wouldn't be hearing about it until well after the fact, potentially several years after, depending on the group doing the research.
    - See Government intervention for National Security concerns...

    1. Re:Who let the Marketing team in? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention healthcare. So my friend went into "big data" after college. Hadoop mostly. Eventually worked at an insurance company. With a big enough set he could spot the similarities between the fraudsters and identify when someone was committing insurance fraud. You know, with a hit-miss rate. It was really just a tool to point the auditors in the right direction.

      He could ALSO spot trends with people who got certain diagnosis's and certain tests as those who might have a particular disease. The way he described it was that most people who had a list of symptoms, went to a skin specialist, then had two certain tests performed commonly were diagnosed with a certain disease. But not all of them. He made a system that recommended the ones that didn't get diagnosed to go get checked for that particular disease, and lo and behold a lot of them had it. Now.... That's likely just catching doctor's screw-ups. But it's getting people help and having a complete non-doctor and a tool diagnosing people through their medical records. ...Which saved the insurance company some money eventually, hence why he was paid to do it.

      But wtf is with Slashdot's kneejerk attacks against AI?

    2. Re:Who let the Marketing team in? by snookiex · · Score: 1

      But isn't what you describe just statistical analysis rather than actual AI? Data processing is not AI per se. However, I do agree with you that the consensus within Slashdot community seems to be that the only valid kind of AI is the one that gains self-awareness and start killing its creator.

      --
      Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
    3. Re:Who let the Marketing team in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wtf is your kneejerk reaction that /. hates AI ? Everyone here just hates the mis-use of the term, much like your entire post.

      Statistical and data analysis, especially when applied to give people better quality of life, is hated by no man.

    4. Re:Who let the Marketing team in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously!

      At a recent healthcare conference in the US, the main topic of the entire conference was AI in healthcare. Primarily, its use in Imaging, and its future replacement of the human counterparts known as 'Radiologists'.

      We see big AI announcements with self-driving cars, coordinated drone maneuvers, Amazon with what I can only assume will become future drone grocery deliver, and now a budding AI startup bubble is in the midst...?!? Like many bubbles before it, and like much hype from the investment sector, there is no large breakthrough.

      This is once again the marketing drones being leveraged for the Fund managers, to sweep in and collect some easily earned gains, because more public & private enterprises are trying to leverage AI for project... X, Y, Z....

      And as with all announcements like these, 'a fool and his money are soon parted'. If there really was a big AI breakthrough, we wouldn't be hearing about it until well after the fact, potentially several years after, depending on the group doing the research. - See Government intervention for National Security concerns...

      See sooner we can replace the marketing drones and Fund managers with AI, the better.

    5. Re:Who let the Marketing team in? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      I don't know, there was a lot about the process he never told me. But if it ever starts to teach itself how to apply statistical analysis to the data set and identify "probable fraud" or "probable cancer" all by itself without a statistician in the loop, then it's AI. And my friend isn't a statistician.

      My point was that there's actual real meaningful work with gains to be made in healthcare by software. Statistical analysis, big data, hadoop, AI, or whatever.

      Slashdot community seems to be that the only valid kind of AI is the one that gains self-awareness

      Yeah, good luck defining whateverthefuck that means. I think this is that sort of egocentric thing where people like to think humanity is fundamentally special somehow. They didn't want to admit that humans are animals. Or that other animals recognized themselves in mirrors. Or that they use tools or language or drugs. "Self-awareness" might as well be a synonym with "soul" for all the good that does.

  14. AI is doomed to fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The machines will NEVER defeat the Human Resistance!!

  15. Translation by kelanos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Please fund our bubble

  16. What are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is a single cell sentient? You're a conglomeration of trillions of single cells; whence comes your sentience?

    1. Re: What are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't know and that's exactly what OP stated, there's absolutely no scientific evidence on the matter.

  17. HFT and the polarized neutrino by epine · · Score: 1

    Sub-second trading granularity just isn't adding anything meaningful, but it causes crazy distorted and unfair trading practices. Something like shuffling transactions over a larger timescale that is more fair.

    It's extremely hard to create a batch clearance protocol (say, once per minute) where you don't create an information hazard where firm A arranges to receive a vital public stock press release a 0.1 ms before the cutoff time, while it's competitor receives the same press release 0.1 ms after the cutoff time. You just have to pick the right city to post the first formal announcement.

    Trust me, with this kind of trading advantage available, Bitcoin would flow into the dark wallets of press release enter-key jockeys everywhere.

    Okay, you have a better idea. So you create a worldwide publication system that makes the same information available to everyone 10 s before the trade block, after which even Twitter falls silent. Now everyone bidding is on a level information playing field. (Hey there, Mr Greedy Stockbroker, no talking out of school using spread spectrum!) Maybe you settle a global trade auction once per hour, prior to which all new information on the planet that makes the cut is bundled up into some kind of giant ZFS Merkel tree, and everyone gets a copy. Then, for 10 s before the hour, all global fiber and radio goes dark until everyone places their fair bids, to be resolved by the One True Settlement Pass.

    Sound like a plan?

    HFT truly is a pox on humanity, but unfortunately, the pox has a billion year precedent: organisms have always competed for having the fastest nervous systems, and figuring out a way to gain proximity on the vital and timely survival information.

    At the end of the day, HFT is just biology pursued by other means.

    But with some peculiar twists.

    Imagine how—in this New World Order—the Pompeii office places some extremely shrewd bets in the microseconds before it ceases to exist.

    I've so far only managed to come up with one proper solution: build a Ringworld. A Ringworld where all news is effectively local news (so long as walls perform). A Fukushima incident takes out the entire conflict metal supply in Scorpio quadrant? Surely the localized market blip is hard to detect a mere 5 light-seconds upring or downring.

    Some of the most interesting features of the Ringworld economy are dictated less by its size, than it's fundamentally linear macro-scale geometry.

    Now, there would still be some competition to create the fastest possible communication network, Ringworld-wide ("wide" on Ringworld generally means "trivial in size", but we'll ignore this). The fastest diametric system probably involves shooting polarized neutrinos straight through the sun. If macro-HFT nanoseconds matter enough to you, surely you'll figure this out.

    1. Re:HFT and the polarized neutrino by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've solved this problem already...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEX

    2. Re:HFT and the polarized neutrino by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      I've so far only managed to come up with one proper solution: build a Ringworld.

      How about a 1% tax on each transaction? That would slow things down.

  18. AI Bubble by Zorro · · Score: 2

    Same as Social Media Bubble.

  19. Smart by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 2

    My AI is telling me that I should invest BIG bucks into AI startups.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.