> The reality is that only has a chance of working if there are no manually controlled vehicles on the road period.
I like an expert with firm predictions. Where did you get your self driving car PhD? You should be hired at the Amish Self Driving Vehicle (ASDV) project.
Google might be able to make the self driving car but they still can't make Google Maps work right in 100% of routes. That means self driving cars driving into bad places.
Hey guys! I have an idea. Google should make an Android app where you drive a car on the map by tilting the phone. The real car should follow the same route. How's that for control?
I feel for the loss of privacy, but we need to accept it. Hard drives are cheap, webcams are cheap, bandwidth is cheap, everyone carries a cellphone, and AI can pre-screen lots of data -> nothing can stop it now. We need to think about how can a surveillance society function. We need to discover the new "normal life".
It's hype. The title is misleading. "Language" here stands for numerical representation that is transmitted between two neural nets. In fact, there is a different representation (language?) between each pair of consecutive layers of the net. It's not a language unless it understands how it relates to the world and is based on abstract understanding. It cannot do such things because current AI level on perception=80% good, abstraction=10% good, reasoning=10% good - we're still far from that moment.
You lack the ability to appreciate a bunch of if-then-else's. A neural net that beats humans in vision tasks or is almost as good as a human in translation can be implemented as a bunch of additions, multiplications and a few comparisons.
And you got it in reverse - we are much more advanced in neural nets than in robotic mechatronics. What's keeping robotics now is a lack of cheap and efficient batteries and mechanics.
This is a misconception, it's not exponential, it cannot be exponential. It's sigmoid. It will become exponentially slower in advancement after some time. Just like the CPU frequency.
Nobody's a minority on FB, and nobody's a majority on FB. Why? Because, if you're a latin immigrant, you got your whole country on FB as well, if you're a Syrian refugee, same - got all your community on FB with you (and they do use cell phones just as anyone). So basically everyone is inside his own community on FB. Who's a minority when you're with all your people? Who's a majority when there are so many countries and societies there?
So you propose that Uber drivers invest from their bountiful accounts into special modifications for their personal cars, that they use for personal purposes most of the time? Won't that make Uber close shop because nobody can afford it or want to mess with their cars?
I have another idea: how about you or someone with your views make a new company that caters for people with special needs? You could get appropriate cars right from the beginning.
Then you shouldn't be expecting police, healthcare, public education or military protection. You can build a house made of money bricks that you saved and be safe inside.
If trends are to be extrapolated, in 1-2 years there will be an open source clone of Google Assistant or Alexa that runs on your PC or phone and doesn't need to touch Google or any other web company and disclose the contents of their activity.
What I can't answer is why it is so limited. I mean, I understand that speech to text and NLP are not there yet and we can't have a decent chatbot. What is missing is ability to reason over longer dialogue intervals. But WHY is the API towards all sorts of things so limited? I can't tell Google to play something on Youtube because it will display a list of melodies instead of just playing the one I asked for. So I still need to tap the phone to play music. Defeats the purpose.
There could be 10,000 or 1,000,000 voice chat uses but we only have timer, alarms, trivia, sms and a few of others. This isn't AI, it's plain old programming. They need to connect the useful parts of the OS and app ecosystem to chat, and they don't. All voice assistants are excessively narrow and the problem is not AI, but willingness.
But that's exactly what AI is - hierarchical pattern matching, creating invariant representations of objects and words. Your IFs don't teach themselves from raw data.
I predict in 20 years kids that don't put enough hours on FaceBook are going to be taken to the psychiatrist for a check to see if they are ok. The situation of smartphones is analogous that of books. Before books were a thing, there was little reading as well. After books became cheap, some people became obsessed with reading. But today it is considered a mark of culture to be well read, even obsessively well read. Society has normalized book obsession. But not phone obsession, yet.
Slashdot Mirror
> Push buttons are so 20th century.
Yep. They should integrate voice recognition. When passengers start yelling at the top of their lungs, the car should safely pull over. Hands-free!
> The reality is that only has a chance of working if there are no manually controlled vehicles on the road period.
I like an expert with firm predictions. Where did you get your self driving car PhD? You should be hired at the Amish Self Driving Vehicle (ASDV) project.
Google might be able to make the self driving car but they still can't make Google Maps work right in 100% of routes. That means self driving cars driving into bad places.
Hey guys! I have an idea. Google should make an Android app where you drive a car on the map by tilting the phone. The real car should follow the same route. How's that for control?
I think I've seen this movie.
I trust that people of the future will be able to fight fire with fire and compensate their losses in other ways.
I feel for the loss of privacy, but we need to accept it. Hard drives are cheap, webcams are cheap, bandwidth is cheap, everyone carries a cellphone, and AI can pre-screen lots of data -> nothing can stop it now. We need to think about how can a surveillance society function. We need to discover the new "normal life".
This is what Aaron was set up to do when he got in trouble. Many years later, and on a much larger scale, data clearly wants to be free.
It's hype. The title is misleading. "Language" here stands for numerical representation that is transmitted between two neural nets. In fact, there is a different representation (language?) between each pair of consecutive layers of the net. It's not a language unless it understands how it relates to the world and is based on abstract understanding. It cannot do such things because current AI level on perception=80% good, abstraction=10% good, reasoning=10% good - we're still far from that moment.
You lack the ability to appreciate a bunch of if-then-else's. A neural net that beats humans in vision tasks or is almost as good as a human in translation can be implemented as a bunch of additions, multiplications and a few comparisons.
And you got it in reverse - we are much more advanced in neural nets than in robotic mechatronics. What's keeping robotics now is a lack of cheap and efficient batteries and mechanics.
As Elon Musk is worried about AI, I too am worried about overpopulation on Mars. (adapted from Andrew Ng)
This is a misconception, it's not exponential, it cannot be exponential. It's sigmoid. It will become exponentially slower in advancement after some time. Just like the CPU frequency.
Or a taxi?
Imagine how many GPUs you can buy with that money. Spending it all on one car seems like such a waste.
What about the hand? Do we ban sex with one's hand?
Nobody's a minority on FB, and nobody's a majority on FB. Why? Because, if you're a latin immigrant, you got your whole country on FB as well, if you're a Syrian refugee, same - got all your community on FB with you (and they do use cell phones just as anyone). So basically everyone is inside his own community on FB. Who's a minority when you're with all your people? Who's a majority when there are so many countries and societies there?
So you propose that Uber drivers invest from their bountiful accounts into special modifications for their personal cars, that they use for personal purposes most of the time? Won't that make Uber close shop because nobody can afford it or want to mess with their cars?
I have another idea: how about you or someone with your views make a new company that caters for people with special needs? You could get appropriate cars right from the beginning.
> There shouldn't be any income or wealth taxes,
Then you shouldn't be expecting police, healthcare, public education or military protection. You can build a house made of money bricks that you saved and be safe inside.
We all know you can't fire the person with root access to your devices. These companies never learn. /s
If trends are to be extrapolated, in 1-2 years there will be an open source clone of Google Assistant or Alexa that runs on your PC or phone and doesn't need to touch Google or any other web company and disclose the contents of their activity.
What I can't answer is why it is so limited. I mean, I understand that speech to text and NLP are not there yet and we can't have a decent chatbot. What is missing is ability to reason over longer dialogue intervals. But WHY is the API towards all sorts of things so limited? I can't tell Google to play something on Youtube because it will display a list of melodies instead of just playing the one I asked for. So I still need to tap the phone to play music. Defeats the purpose.
There could be 10,000 or 1,000,000 voice chat uses but we only have timer, alarms, trivia, sms and a few of others. This isn't AI, it's plain old programming. They need to connect the useful parts of the OS and app ecosystem to chat, and they don't. All voice assistants are excessively narrow and the problem is not AI, but willingness.
Too bad I had mod points yesterday instead of today, I'd upvote you.
Well, the system got to protect the interests of important people first, right?
But that's exactly what AI is - hierarchical pattern matching, creating invariant representations of objects and words. Your IFs don't teach themselves from raw data.
I predict in 20 years kids that don't put enough hours on FaceBook are going to be taken to the psychiatrist for a check to see if they are ok. The situation of smartphones is analogous that of books. Before books were a thing, there was little reading as well. After books became cheap, some people became obsessed with reading. But today it is considered a mark of culture to be well read, even obsessively well read. Society has normalized book obsession. But not phone obsession, yet.