The problem is that the oversight provided turned illegitimate when the government decided to build a mass surveillance apparatus in violation of the fourth amendment of the US constitution. It is the government itself that is driving people to encryption. It's no surprised that trust has been lost in the government when even the local PD will hack your phone and make a complete copy without a warrant. Encryption is a way to ensure your rights because they abdicated themselves of that responsibility. The fact that they have been burned by their own bad behavior is unfortunate but there is nobody else to blame but themselves.
Exactly this.
When I read the words "legitimate oversight" the first thing I thought was "You mean for the Government? Yes, we certainly DO need legitimate oversight."
Do they have an "Ethics in Physics" class required for people who might design nuclear weapons?
Yeah, it's called laws and regulations. Those who actually are working in nuclear weapons design have gone through a considerable background investigation, and agreed to work within the legal parameters they've been given.
Or an "Ethics in Chemistry" for those who might design mundane explosives or chemical weapons?
See above. Also see the "F" in ATF.
Or an "Ethics in Biomedical Engineering" for those who may eventually build killer cyborgs?
Hippocrates was thinking about this problem about 2,000 years ago. See Hippocratic Oath.
Yes, I'm saying this is silly.
Ethics is ethics, and if you're going to REQUIRE it, require it of everyone - I think our entire culture could use a good shot of ethics.
Every major company I've ever worked for has a mandatory ethics policy, along with training, which has existed for decades. It already IS required of everyone, so that's NOT the problem. What we need, is a good shot of enforcement, as highlighted by the Times Up movement. We should also remember that morals and ethics start with sound parenting. You're either raised to understand and respect ethics, or you're not. An evil liar armed with bomb making skills doesn't give a fuck about ethics.
This is an organization with a user base of 2+ billion, with 70+ million fake profiles, and a digital graveyard of dead users numbering in the tens of millions.
By comparison, an "impact" of 1-2 million starts to look like a rounding error, regardless of the demographic.
Studies seem to show that it is very hard to accurately assess employees during the interview process. The only effective way of keeping quality up is to fire under-performers. If Amazon hasn't been doing this regularly enough for eight years, then I could see why this could be long overdue. To some extent you can find useful work for under-performers to do, but as some point you just get too many of them.
If you're not properly managing under-performers to turn them into performers, you're doing it wrong.
Some under-performers cannot be fixed. If you're not weeding those out in the first 90 days of employment, you're doing it wrong.
Mass firings serves one fucking purpose; abusing the bullshit tactic of fear and intimidation to keep your slaves in line. At some point, your most valuable assets leave for the competition, because you can't fucking stop doing it wrong.
We now have market full of $500+ smartphones loaded with features no one asked for.
There are plenty of phones without those features. If people didn't want the new features they wouldn't be paying $500 to get them...
Apple does not sell computer hardware. They sell fashion statements. This is the only reason people pay $500+ to get them. Carrying around a specific logo is far more important than features.
For example, I am right now trying to recall the password for a gmail account. I can't remember when I created the account, I don't remember the only password the account has ever had so I can't tell them what one of the old passwords was, and even though I enter the code they send me by email they refuse to believe I am me. Right now, security is getting in the way of getting something done.
They gave you multiple ways to protect yourself from security getting in the way, and the system is the problem?
Hope this clarifies how much your "example", isn't.
And if they can't even secure hardware before it even hits store shelves, they have a much larger (and different) problem.
It is a problem for everyone that sells small valuable things. So who pays for "shrinkage"? You do. The cost of theft is built into the price of everything you buy.
We now have market full of $500+ smartphones loaded with features no one asked for. Within this particular industry, obscene greed and pointless feature creep has impacted the price FAR more than "shrinkage" ever will.
If the "period of time after the purchase" is 3 to 12 months, as it is with T-Mobile, it won't affect someone who upgrades and sells on his old handset after one or two years.
This has everything to do with consumer lock-in and nothing to do with theft.
And if they can't even secure hardware before it even hits store shelves, they have a much larger (and different) problem.
I hope it was a corporate device, potentially signaled by the "Please shut your laptop and don't reopen it" line. Otherwise that would be a shocking level of collusion.
Uh, if the level of collusion is that high, the scary part is realizing the device owner no longer matters.
The court martial. The death penalty. The power of impeachment.
Courts martial are for members of the military, so that isn't applicable. I have no idea how you think Congress is supposed to use "the death penalty" against an official in the executive branch. And as I said, impeachment or deleting the position entirely are the only tools available to Congress.
And if you're not going to do that, then... get rid of the power to impeach.
I don't see how that would improve the situation.
It won't improve the situation. But at least it'll get rid of a tool that's proven itself to be fucking useless in recent times. That was my point before, at least other tools like the court martial and the death penalty are actually used when justified. Either that, or perhaps we should start replacing members of Congress in order to elect people who have the balls to actually use the tools at their disposal to keep people in check.
Congress cannot just fire him, as his position is one appointed by the President. They could either impeach him, or legislate his position out of existence, but I'm sure we can all imagine how likely those are.
The court martial. The death penalty. The power of impeachment. These are tools that exist for a reason. If someone appointed to a position is failing to do their damn job, or do it in a blatantly biased and corrupt manner, than you use the tools at your disposal to remove them.
And if you're not going to do that, then fucking get rid of the power to impeach. It's become rather obvious no one has the balls to ever actually use it, no matter how justified.
His popularity is irrelevant if YouTube doesn't want their network to be known for that kind of content or if the advertisers are seeking a specific demographic. Their business strategy is larger than any one star, so it's up to them to decide who and what they will allow and promote. Like I said, "that's showbiz for you."
Popularity is irrelevant? Yeah right. Popularity is what drives YouTube revenue. And their stance against Logan Paul is complete and utter bullshit when you look at tons of other shit on their website. I'm not a fan of Logan Paul at all. I'm just not a fan of attacking this type of content while turning a blind eye to far worse.
Humans are special, cupkake ! Perhaps 45,000 human-driver caused auto deaths is OKEY, but 45 AI-machine caused auto deaths is not acceptable. Get the picture ?
Give me a fucking break. Today, a lot of people have to die in order for an auto manufacturer to finally admit fault and initiate a recall. The FDA is known for approving drugs with massive side effects (including death) simply because someone statistically proved they will do slightly more good than harm. Autonomous and AI solutions will be no different.
Morals and ethics will always come second to profit.
...The problem with Logan and all the similar channels is that they have to keep escalating to stay on top...
...which is NO different than damn near any other form of entertainment. Music got more offensive, movies got more violent, and reality TV concepts got more obscenely stupid. Entertainment 101.
just a little bit of negative press and they drop him like a brick.
The saying, "that's showbiz for you" comes to mind. They are funded by ads, so why wouldn't they drop him like a brick?
Uh, have you ever heard of Howard Stern before? Being a Professional Asshole sure as shit didn't hurt his career, or prevent anyone from handing him hundreds of millions of dollars. Even people who hated him tuned in to listen. The antics of Logan Paul aren't much different.
AI is not a problem. It can do wonders or it can do hell. It all boils down to how AI gets educated. You just give a ton of computational tasks to a kid and it will act as it learned from parents and society. Right or wrong is subjective in some aspects (cultural differences had proven this at each generations). So no, AI is not the problem.
At first AI won't be the problem. But remember we're talking about true artificial intelligence here. In other words, it will learn.
And when it learns that we humans are nothing but a group of racist warmongering animals hell bent on killing each other and infecting our host planet like a cancer, it will likely take appropriate action, and turn our science fiction premonitions into reality.
Self-checkout has been a thing for decades at this point. I think the only difference is now that you can use IPTV to monitor from locations farther away.
Ordering kiosks are also old tech. It's nothing that couldn't have been done many years ago.
This is just a hype wave.
Start being forced to pay a human cashier $15/hour, and that hype becomes reality real quick.
In the past, automation was not easily justified. In our 24-hour on-demand instant-gratification world, it is.
Seriously. Why are these Senators bothering? It's not like he will give them a clear response. Any response, if he even provides one, will only serve to make up some bullshit reason why it was "unnecessary" rather than the real reason, which is that these guys believe fundamentally there's nothing wrong with cheating people and fucking people over.
So why waste time and write the letters? To just look like they are doing something useful?
You write a letter in order to get a clear and acceptable response. If you fail to get one, then you fucking fire his ass.
In this case, there is no other acceptable action.
You're conflating low-skill human jobs with high-skill human activities/jobs. I don't want 'good enough' AI driving 80,000 lb. trucks at 80 mph.
And I don't want tens of thousands of deaths every year due to human drivers. Understand it will only take a 25% reduction in that death statistic to sell good-enough automation solutions. Bottom line is it doesn't matter what you want. Your opinion or mine hasn't mattered in a very long time when it comes to solutions like this being deployed.
We may get rid of some cashiers, in VERY high-volume stores, (like Walmart), but Bill's Liquor in Podunk, Nebraska can't fucking sell liquor to minors, gets a handful of customers per day, and isn't going to spend more on robots than what the entire store is worth.
Who gives a shit about one or two jobs in a fucking middle-o-nowhere liquor store? I'm talking about the Wal-Marts of the world. Places that have started to replace cashiers with automated check-out stations. Moves that affect tens of thousands of jobs. Oh, and the Bill's Liquors of the world will continue to get pushed out by mega-corps who can sell product a hell of a lot cheaper.
Some jobs are error-prone when done by people, (humans, as you say)....but then you go onto say that 'good enough' AI, that makes a few mistakes, (drops a few bottles, makes a few cashier mistakes, kills a few motorists), is somehow better.
Uh yeah, I say that because it will be proven to be better. Automation doesn't get sick, it doesn't need sleep, strike or form unions, or create a legal liability with sexual assault accusations. 40,000 deaths every year occur on US roadways by human drivers. With those kinds of statistics along with the amount of fucking distracted driver idiots ever-increasing, "dumb" automation likely won't have to work that hard to prove itself safer than a drunk/drugged/tired/distracted human. Will there be outrage when an a shitty automation bug ends up killing a human? Sure there will. But society outrages all the time (look at assault weapons), and yet nothing is done about it. You know damn well that morals and ethics are second to greed and profits, so again, it won't matter what you think.
Let's see some actual fucking self-driving cars in real-world scenarios for a few years, let some high-volume stores try out 'robots' moving merchandise and ringing up customers, and see how some restaurants with automated kitchens work, before we just assume ALL people WILL starve to death, WILL never work again, and are automatically too stupid to do anything else, sky is falling. We're all going to die.
I never said ALL people will starve to death. The point being made here is it doesn't take much automation to affect millions of jobs. And you will find that there are in fact plenty of people that make a career out of a lowly job for a valid reason. We're not ALL going to die, but sitting back with a "let's see what happens" attitude is rather ignorant. Think you need to sit back and see what happens when greed and corruption is allowed to run rampant? No, it's pretty damn obvious that greed doesn't give a shit about long-term impact. Greed cares about increasing stock price 5% over the next quarter.
We don't have AI, in any form, in the modern world. We have code which solves program similar to a neural network and we have code which can mutate within very strict limits with genetic algorithms. We have nothing even approaching "artificial intelligence," which at the very minimum of the bar would be the level of an "intelligent" Human. If it's not better than a Human with an IQ of no less than 135 at literally everything it's not AI. We have nothing remotely close to equal to an actually retarded Human with an IQ of 70.
There are millions of jobs that require nothing more than "dumb" automation to do, along with 80 - 90% of jobs that don't require anything close to a 135 IQ. We can split hairs on where we're at with creating The Artificial One, but the bottom line is the impact of automation and "good enough" AI is going to make this argument very fucking pointless.
The argument that AI isn't even close, or isn't here, is just plain stupid. It won't take "perfect" or "true" AI to replace an imperfect prone-to-error human in a job. We're being blinded by the need for perfection when it will only take "good-enough" AI to start replacing human workers.
Even worrying about the problem of AI is rather stupid when the problem of automation is the more immediate issue staring the economy in the face. We're working quickly to replace cashiers, warehouse and assembly line workers, and soon we will be replacing drivers. Just targeting these jobs will make millions of people unemployable. And don't try and regurgitate that age-old mantra of go-get-an-education either. Not every human is capable of being re-trained for a more advanced skill, and we have a hell of a lot more humans on the planet to employ with this next evolution of job decimation. And when you start thinking about the types of jobs you held in order to get an education, you quickly realize that automation is looking to remove the bottom half of the ladder of success. Rather hard to climb that proverbial ladder when the first rung is 12 fucking feet in the air, and you're competing with a few million people.
Our economy is going to feel this pain well before we start having to worry about any shitty form of AI.
....a German union responded to increasing automation by striking for a 28 hour work week with a pay increase....and they won.
Good for them. Now let's see how well their products compete.
Seems we're rather fucking oblivious to the fact that price rules over all. Amazon didn't become the dominant market because consumers care about quality...
Punishing those who exploit the holes, doesn't solve the problem.
I said punish those who make the systems insecure in the first place. I'm talking about leaders of organizations who don't give a shit about investing in proper security, to include hiring properly trained staff and recognizing that a CSO has every right to tell even the CEO no if the situation demands it. And that CEO should fucking respect that justified decision.
A lack of priority and respect for security is why we continue to have these discussions over and over and over again.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the oversight provided turned illegitimate when the government decided to build a mass surveillance apparatus in violation of the fourth amendment of the US constitution. It is the government itself that is driving people to encryption. It's no surprised that trust has been lost in the government when even the local PD will hack your phone and make a complete copy without a warrant. Encryption is a way to ensure your rights because they abdicated themselves of that responsibility. The fact that they have been burned by their own bad behavior is unfortunate but there is nobody else to blame but themselves.
Exactly this.
When I read the words "legitimate oversight" the first thing I thought was "You mean for the Government? Yes, we certainly DO need legitimate oversight."
Do they have an "Ethics in Physics" class required for people who might design nuclear weapons?
Yeah, it's called laws and regulations. Those who actually are working in nuclear weapons design have gone through a considerable background investigation, and agreed to work within the legal parameters they've been given.
Or an "Ethics in Chemistry" for those who might design mundane explosives or chemical weapons?
See above. Also see the "F" in ATF.
Or an "Ethics in Biomedical Engineering" for those who may eventually build killer cyborgs?
Hippocrates was thinking about this problem about 2,000 years ago. See Hippocratic Oath.
Yes, I'm saying this is silly. Ethics is ethics, and if you're going to REQUIRE it, require it of everyone - I think our entire culture could use a good shot of ethics.
Every major company I've ever worked for has a mandatory ethics policy, along with training, which has existed for decades. It already IS required of everyone, so that's NOT the problem. What we need, is a good shot of enforcement, as highlighted by the Times Up movement. We should also remember that morals and ethics start with sound parenting. You're either raised to understand and respect ethics, or you're not. An evil liar armed with bomb making skills doesn't give a fuck about ethics.
How much of this is the age cohort shrinking?
I know there baby boom echo is getting older.
This is an organization with a user base of 2+ billion, with 70+ million fake profiles, and a digital graveyard of dead users numbering in the tens of millions.
By comparison, an "impact" of 1-2 million starts to look like a rounding error, regardless of the demographic.
Studies seem to show that it is very hard to accurately assess employees during the interview process. The only effective way of keeping quality up is to fire under-performers. If Amazon hasn't been doing this regularly enough for eight years, then I could see why this could be long overdue. To some extent you can find useful work for under-performers to do, but as some point you just get too many of them.
If you're not properly managing under-performers to turn them into performers, you're doing it wrong.
Some under-performers cannot be fixed. If you're not weeding those out in the first 90 days of employment, you're doing it wrong.
Mass firings serves one fucking purpose; abusing the bullshit tactic of fear and intimidation to keep your slaves in line. At some point, your most valuable assets leave for the competition, because you can't fucking stop doing it wrong.
We now have market full of $500+ smartphones loaded with features no one asked for.
There are plenty of phones without those features. If people didn't want the new features they wouldn't be paying $500 to get them...
Apple does not sell computer hardware. They sell fashion statements. This is the only reason people pay $500+ to get them. Carrying around a specific logo is far more important than features.
I've worked with end users for 25 years. Security over convenience? 100% BULLSHIT. Not a chance.
Exactly. Security has never been a priority over convenience, and asking 4,000 people sure as shit isn't proof.
For example, I am right now trying to recall the password for a gmail account. I can't remember when I created the account, I don't remember the only password the account has ever had so I can't tell them what one of the old passwords was, and even though I enter the code they send me by email they refuse to believe I am me. Right now, security is getting in the way of getting something done.
They gave you multiple ways to protect yourself from security getting in the way, and the system is the problem?
Hope this clarifies how much your "example", isn't.
And if they can't even secure hardware before it even hits store shelves, they have a much larger (and different) problem.
It is a problem for everyone that sells small valuable things. So who pays for "shrinkage"? You do. The cost of theft is built into the price of everything you buy.
We now have market full of $500+ smartphones loaded with features no one asked for. Within this particular industry, obscene greed and pointless feature creep has impacted the price FAR more than "shrinkage" ever will.
If the "period of time after the purchase" is 3 to 12 months, as it is with T-Mobile, it won't affect someone who upgrades and sells on his old handset after one or two years.
This has everything to do with consumer lock-in and nothing to do with theft.
And if they can't even secure hardware before it even hits store shelves, they have a much larger (and different) problem.
I hope it was a corporate device, potentially signaled by the "Please shut your laptop and don't reopen it" line. Otherwise that would be a shocking level of collusion.
Uh, if the level of collusion is that high, the scary part is realizing the device owner no longer matters.
The court martial. The death penalty. The power of impeachment.
Courts martial are for members of the military, so that isn't applicable. I have no idea how you think Congress is supposed to use "the death penalty" against an official in the executive branch. And as I said, impeachment or deleting the position entirely are the only tools available to Congress.
And if you're not going to do that, then... get rid of the power to impeach.
I don't see how that would improve the situation.
It won't improve the situation. But at least it'll get rid of a tool that's proven itself to be fucking useless in recent times. That was my point before, at least other tools like the court martial and the death penalty are actually used when justified. Either that, or perhaps we should start replacing members of Congress in order to elect people who have the balls to actually use the tools at their disposal to keep people in check.
Congress cannot just fire him, as his position is one appointed by the President. They could either impeach him, or legislate his position out of existence, but I'm sure we can all imagine how likely those are.
The court martial. The death penalty. The power of impeachment. These are tools that exist for a reason. If someone appointed to a position is failing to do their damn job, or do it in a blatantly biased and corrupt manner, than you use the tools at your disposal to remove them.
And if you're not going to do that, then fucking get rid of the power to impeach. It's become rather obvious no one has the balls to ever actually use it, no matter how justified.
The antics of Logan Paul aren't much different.
His popularity is irrelevant if YouTube doesn't want their network to be known for that kind of content or if the advertisers are seeking a specific demographic. Their business strategy is larger than any one star, so it's up to them to decide who and what they will allow and promote. Like I said, "that's showbiz for you."
Popularity is irrelevant? Yeah right. Popularity is what drives YouTube revenue. And their stance against Logan Paul is complete and utter bullshit when you look at tons of other shit on their website. I'm not a fan of Logan Paul at all. I'm just not a fan of attacking this type of content while turning a blind eye to far worse.
The real problem is not existing products destroying innovation.
The real problem is patent hoarding destroying the ability to innovate altogether.
Go ahead. Try and invent something. I dare you.
Humans are special, cupkake ! Perhaps 45,000 human-driver caused auto deaths is OKEY, but 45 AI-machine caused auto deaths is not acceptable. Get the picture ?
Give me a fucking break. Today, a lot of people have to die in order for an auto manufacturer to finally admit fault and initiate a recall. The FDA is known for approving drugs with massive side effects (including death) simply because someone statistically proved they will do slightly more good than harm. Autonomous and AI solutions will be no different.
Morals and ethics will always come second to profit.
...The problem with Logan and all the similar channels is that they have to keep escalating to stay on top...
...which is NO different than damn near any other form of entertainment. Music got more offensive, movies got more violent, and reality TV concepts got more obscenely stupid. Entertainment 101.
just a little bit of negative press and they drop him like a brick.
The saying, "that's showbiz for you" comes to mind. They are funded by ads, so why wouldn't they drop him like a brick?
Uh, have you ever heard of Howard Stern before? Being a Professional Asshole sure as shit didn't hurt his career, or prevent anyone from handing him hundreds of millions of dollars. Even people who hated him tuned in to listen. The antics of Logan Paul aren't much different.
AI is not a problem. It can do wonders or it can do hell. It all boils down to how AI gets educated. You just give a ton of computational tasks to a kid and it will act as it learned from parents and society. Right or wrong is subjective in some aspects (cultural differences had proven this at each generations). So no, AI is not the problem.
At first AI won't be the problem. But remember we're talking about true artificial intelligence here. In other words, it will learn.
And when it learns that we humans are nothing but a group of racist warmongering animals hell bent on killing each other and infecting our host planet like a cancer, it will likely take appropriate action, and turn our science fiction premonitions into reality.
> We're working quickly to replace cashiers
Self-checkout has been a thing for decades at this point. I think the only difference is now that you can use IPTV to monitor from locations farther away.
Ordering kiosks are also old tech. It's nothing that couldn't have been done many years ago.
This is just a hype wave.
Start being forced to pay a human cashier $15/hour, and that hype becomes reality real quick.
In the past, automation was not easily justified. In our 24-hour on-demand instant-gratification world, it is.
Seriously. Why are these Senators bothering? It's not like he will give them a clear response. Any response, if he even provides one, will only serve to make up some bullshit reason why it was "unnecessary" rather than the real reason, which is that these guys believe fundamentally there's nothing wrong with cheating people and fucking people over.
So why waste time and write the letters? To just look like they are doing something useful?
You write a letter in order to get a clear and acceptable response. If you fail to get one, then you fucking fire his ass.
In this case, there is no other acceptable action.
You're conflating low-skill human jobs with high-skill human activities/jobs. I don't want 'good enough' AI driving 80,000 lb. trucks at 80 mph.
And I don't want tens of thousands of deaths every year due to human drivers. Understand it will only take a 25% reduction in that death statistic to sell good-enough automation solutions. Bottom line is it doesn't matter what you want. Your opinion or mine hasn't mattered in a very long time when it comes to solutions like this being deployed.
We may get rid of some cashiers, in VERY high-volume stores, (like Walmart), but Bill's Liquor in Podunk, Nebraska can't fucking sell liquor to minors, gets a handful of customers per day, and isn't going to spend more on robots than what the entire store is worth.
Who gives a shit about one or two jobs in a fucking middle-o-nowhere liquor store? I'm talking about the Wal-Marts of the world. Places that have started to replace cashiers with automated check-out stations. Moves that affect tens of thousands of jobs. Oh, and the Bill's Liquors of the world will continue to get pushed out by mega-corps who can sell product a hell of a lot cheaper.
Some jobs are error-prone when done by people, (humans, as you say)....but then you go onto say that 'good enough' AI, that makes a few mistakes, (drops a few bottles, makes a few cashier mistakes, kills a few motorists), is somehow better.
Uh yeah, I say that because it will be proven to be better. Automation doesn't get sick, it doesn't need sleep, strike or form unions, or create a legal liability with sexual assault accusations. 40,000 deaths every year occur on US roadways by human drivers. With those kinds of statistics along with the amount of fucking distracted driver idiots ever-increasing, "dumb" automation likely won't have to work that hard to prove itself safer than a drunk/drugged/tired/distracted human. Will there be outrage when an a shitty automation bug ends up killing a human? Sure there will. But society outrages all the time (look at assault weapons), and yet nothing is done about it. You know damn well that morals and ethics are second to greed and profits, so again, it won't matter what you think.
Let's see some actual fucking self-driving cars in real-world scenarios for a few years, let some high-volume stores try out 'robots' moving merchandise and ringing up customers, and see how some restaurants with automated kitchens work, before we just assume ALL people WILL starve to death, WILL never work again, and are automatically too stupid to do anything else, sky is falling. We're all going to die.
I never said ALL people will starve to death. The point being made here is it doesn't take much automation to affect millions of jobs. And you will find that there are in fact plenty of people that make a career out of a lowly job for a valid reason. We're not ALL going to die, but sitting back with a "let's see what happens" attitude is rather ignorant. Think you need to sit back and see what happens when greed and corruption is allowed to run rampant? No, it's pretty damn obvious that greed doesn't give a shit about long-term impact. Greed cares about increasing stock price 5% over the next quarter.
We don't have AI, in any form, in the modern world. We have code which solves program similar to a neural network and we have code which can mutate within very strict limits with genetic algorithms. We have nothing even approaching "artificial intelligence," which at the very minimum of the bar would be the level of an "intelligent" Human. If it's not better than a Human with an IQ of no less than 135 at literally everything it's not AI. We have nothing remotely close to equal to an actually retarded Human with an IQ of 70.
There are millions of jobs that require nothing more than "dumb" automation to do, along with 80 - 90% of jobs that don't require anything close to a 135 IQ. We can split hairs on where we're at with creating The Artificial One, but the bottom line is the impact of automation and "good enough" AI is going to make this argument very fucking pointless.
The argument that AI isn't even close, or isn't here, is just plain stupid. It won't take "perfect" or "true" AI to replace an imperfect prone-to-error human in a job. We're being blinded by the need for perfection when it will only take "good-enough" AI to start replacing human workers.
Even worrying about the problem of AI is rather stupid when the problem of automation is the more immediate issue staring the economy in the face. We're working quickly to replace cashiers, warehouse and assembly line workers, and soon we will be replacing drivers. Just targeting these jobs will make millions of people unemployable. And don't try and regurgitate that age-old mantra of go-get-an-education either. Not every human is capable of being re-trained for a more advanced skill, and we have a hell of a lot more humans on the planet to employ with this next evolution of job decimation. And when you start thinking about the types of jobs you held in order to get an education, you quickly realize that automation is looking to remove the bottom half of the ladder of success. Rather hard to climb that proverbial ladder when the first rung is 12 fucking feet in the air, and you're competing with a few million people.
Our economy is going to feel this pain well before we start having to worry about any shitty form of AI.
....a German union responded to increasing automation by striking for a 28 hour work week with a pay increase....and they won.
Good for them. Now let's see how well their products compete.
Seems we're rather fucking oblivious to the fact that price rules over all. Amazon didn't become the dominant market because consumers care about quality...
Punishing those who exploit the holes, doesn't solve the problem.
I said punish those who make the systems insecure in the first place. I'm talking about leaders of organizations who don't give a shit about investing in proper security, to include hiring properly trained staff and recognizing that a CSO has every right to tell even the CEO no if the situation demands it. And that CEO should fucking respect that justified decision.
A lack of priority and respect for security is why we continue to have these discussions over and over and over again.