I heard a story at my call center about a guy who called his own extension with his cell phone. So it looked like he was on a call when he really wasn't. I don't know how long he got away with it, but eventually he got walked.
Where I worked we couldn't explain anything away, the numbers were basically set in stone except for extreme circumstances like the customer that came back into chat and closed out immediately a dozen times to leave bad surveys.
Doesn't matter if you did everything right, doesn't matter if the customer gave YOU a glowing review, if the overall satisfaction wasn't an 8 or higher you're screwed.
Indeed. One of the best parts about doing chat support was being able to tell people "Click on this" and have their problem resolved in 10 seconds instead of having to painstakingly guide them step-by-step through how to get to the page with the instructions.
One problem with that is that someone who's overqualified can't be trusted to stay either. Sure you might like the idea of the job, but the pay cut is going to sting and when the novelty of the job wears off who's to say you won't bounce and leave them looking for another new person?
Humans are just as likely to be confused by countermeasures as anything else. An AI can collate the data from a dozen different sensors at once to filter through and find the truth. A human on the other may go as far as to simply lose sight of something.
Umm, you are aware that this is a SIMULATION, not the real world, right? We're not talking about a real jet with a real AI in real combat conditions. Yeah, computer can beat people in games - we've been able to do that for a long time.
You say that like it means something. The human pilot can't win in simulations, IRL it's unlikely to do much better. In fact putting them in a real fighter is likely to make things worse as the human pilot will be subject to g-lock and the AI won't. Going a step further an AI piloted plane could be built to be stealthier and withstand more g forces, meaning the human pilot would have all it's disadvantages PLUS be flying an inferior plane. Computers are able to examine an entire battlespace in milliseconds and respond to all the factors at once, humans are tightly restricted on what they can manage.
Not at all the same thing as a real world fight in conditions where the rules of engagement are unclear, the political situation is fraught, and the decision to fire is difficult. We put humans as pilots as much for their decision making abilities as we do their ability to actually fight.
THAT is the only thing stopping AIs from being the only reasonable choice to fly planes.
It was only a matter of time, computers are able to keep complete situational awareness while analyzing what the target is doing. The only question is how long until we can trust them to work totally autonomously. THAT probably won't come for a while.
I think it may be partly because of the spread of the term "emergency brake" which indicates it's only useful in emergencies. It's stupid, I'd rather have the brake on and the car in N than the brake off and the car in P myself. Both is, of course, best.
I'm pretty sure most of the major shootings took place some time after the purchases, most of the shootings appear to have been planned for some time. A waiting period would make a minor reduction in killings of the types you mentioned, I agree. And if that was on the table and the only thing being saought I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it.
Probably not the Democrats. It's only in the last 10-20 years that politics has gotten truly divided. Back in the day "bipartisan" wasn't an uncommon word. During Bush's time the Democrats fought a lot of things, but never went full retard.
The problem is simple. We compromise, then something else happens, then we compromise again, then something else happens, then we compromise again. Eventually our rights are compromised out of existence.
The problem is that the grabbers aren't interested in an endpoint, they're interested in stripping our rights away completely, so every step back is a permanent loss.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish you'd posted this yesterday so I still had points.
I heard a story at my call center about a guy who called his own extension with his cell phone. So it looked like he was on a call when he really wasn't. I don't know how long he got away with it, but eventually he got walked.
Oh boy, I worked in a all center for 4 years. I have heard some stupid shit.
Probably didn't believe. As someone that's done Tier 2 support I can't even count how many times the problem could have been resolved at Tier 1.
Where I worked we couldn't explain anything away, the numbers were basically set in stone except for extreme circumstances like the customer that came back into chat and closed out immediately a dozen times to leave bad surveys.
Doesn't matter if you did everything right, doesn't matter if the customer gave YOU a glowing review, if the overall satisfaction wasn't an 8 or higher you're screwed.
Indeed. One of the best parts about doing chat support was being able to tell people "Click on this" and have their problem resolved in 10 seconds instead of having to painstakingly guide them step-by-step through how to get to the page with the instructions.
Where I worked it was 2 chats, occasionally 3 if the agent pulled one from the queue early.
I'm curious, have they prosecuted a higher percentage of whistleblowers?
It's paid for by a robust advertising network. Same for radio. Pandora doesn't have that.
One problem with that is that someone who's overqualified can't be trusted to stay either. Sure you might like the idea of the job, but the pay cut is going to sting and when the novelty of the job wears off who's to say you won't bounce and leave them looking for another new person?
Indeed.
Humans are just as likely to be confused by countermeasures as anything else. An AI can collate the data from a dozen different sensors at once to filter through and find the truth. A human on the other may go as far as to simply lose sight of something.
Umm, you are aware that this is a SIMULATION, not the real world, right? We're not talking about a real jet with a real AI in real combat conditions. Yeah, computer can beat people in games - we've been able to do that for a long time.
You say that like it means something. The human pilot can't win in simulations, IRL it's unlikely to do much better. In fact putting them in a real fighter is likely to make things worse as the human pilot will be subject to g-lock and the AI won't. Going a step further an AI piloted plane could be built to be stealthier and withstand more g forces, meaning the human pilot would have all it's disadvantages PLUS be flying an inferior plane. Computers are able to examine an entire battlespace in milliseconds and respond to all the factors at once, humans are tightly restricted on what they can manage.
Not at all the same thing as a real world fight in conditions where the rules of engagement are unclear, the political situation is fraught, and the decision to fire is difficult. We put humans as pilots as much for their decision making abilities as we do their ability to actually fight.
THAT is the only thing stopping AIs from being the only reasonable choice to fly planes.
Sure, but that's a ways off, we've barely started paying off the MIC for the F-35.
It was only a matter of time, computers are able to keep complete situational awareness while analyzing what the target is doing. The only question is how long until we can trust them to work totally autonomously. THAT probably won't come for a while.
That's...weird. With an auto you should be able to run the RPMs up a bit without a problem.
At which point you apply the brake, then when you need to go forward, the gas, it's not very complicated with an auto.
I think it may be partly because of the spread of the term "emergency brake" which indicates it's only useful in emergencies. It's stupid, I'd rather have the brake on and the car in N than the brake off and the car in P myself. Both is, of course, best.
In 'Murica the vast majority of cars are automatic, so that's not needed.
Well they didn't exist when the Constitution was written. The founding fathers were only referring to things like parchment at the time.
I'm pretty sure most of the major shootings took place some time after the purchases, most of the shootings appear to have been planned for some time. A waiting period would make a minor reduction in killings of the types you mentioned, I agree. And if that was on the table and the only thing being saought I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it.
Sure. So if you think the amendment is obsolete, change it.
Probably not the Democrats. It's only in the last 10-20 years that politics has gotten truly divided. Back in the day "bipartisan" wasn't an uncommon word. During Bush's time the Democrats fought a lot of things, but never went full retard.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpu...
The problem is simple. We compromise, then something else happens, then we compromise again, then something else happens, then we compromise again. Eventually our rights are compromised out of existence.
The problem is that the grabbers aren't interested in an endpoint, they're interested in stripping our rights away completely, so every step back is a permanent loss.