Why do people like you assume if it is enabled in production cars that it is better? Tesla has a very low standard for releasing their autopilot system that the other automakers don't share. Other automakers think that auto-driving shouldn't suddenly drive into a truck if the operator happens to avert their eyes, Tesla does. Doesn't make Tesla better at all.
If they're going to send my pizza in an autonomous car, they had better send someone in it to walk it to the door for me. Otherwise I'll order elsewhere.
I knew a person that got hired and moved, and then found out that the contract he was to work on fell through when he got there. The truth is, often once you factor in the mortgage, commuting time and costs, and risks like these, there are very few jobs that actually provide enough of a margin to make it worthwhile to move.
The problem with certificates is that they were very poor learning quality. Instructor reads notes, you study notes, you regurgitate them in test. All this does is prove you can retain information for at least two weeks, not demonstrate an actual skill. I imagine workers who hired people with these certificates found that these people were not exactly premium and so rejected certifications.
I think most companies understand this but the investors simply don't care, and companies must do as the investors say. Managing the growth paths of employees is work, and investors don't want to work they want to make money.
I'd like to ask this serious question as well. I do almost everything and I'd work for $150k per year in an instant if it was stable; meaning I would be guaranteed of having the job for 5 years or more.
I can understand this argument if you live in some small town somewhere, but if the economy is truly healthy there should be IT jobs in every major city in the US. Wasn't this supposed to be the great career for kids of the 90's to go into?
I think part of the problem is that investing in a business is supposed to be risky, but it seems that investors forget this and then put pressure on the business to omit any kind of risk. This is turn causes things like not being willing to train people because they might leave, and people get less interested in the IT industry as a whole. It's always the same fucking race to the bottom when it comes to big money.
So in other words at some point it got too hard for companies to both train people AND provide enough incentive to stay. Cry me a river. You should be paying to retain the employees you train and the ones that still leave are called expected business expense.
You realize that this is actually a valid technique that has been used for many years, right? It does work if done properly because the female body does give signs when fertile. The problem is that it should be done with a lot of coaching from someone who knows what they are doing, which tends to be a failure of most apps.
But is this the kind of inferences the AI is making, or would it be asked a question like: 'What was it raining?' without being expected to make the connection you describe. The only example given in the article is fairly clearly worded; 'What causes rain?'. No evidence the test attempts to confirm such abstract reasoning.
There isn't that much difference between processing the rules of arithmetic and processing the rules of grammar. Grammar is the one that people generally understand less, but it is still a finite rule set like mathematics.
So far there is only AI capability when there is a well-defined set of rules. Chess and Go have a small set of rules. Language has rules that are complex but it's not like grammar isn't something that is studied and well understood. Compare that to an activity like driving, where you may need to judge if a bent and half-obscured stop sign is a legal one, or interpret whether a front end loader operator wants you to wait for it or pass around it, or interpret what construction workers mean by analyzing poorly laid out road markers, where the rules are almost infinite AI will have trouble.
I didn't say anything of the sort. I said a person should be able to figure out unsupportable systems and at least leave them better than they found them.
I'm still struggling to understand why this is such a sticking point for people. Why do we need everyone to work? We are already producing too much crap globally, and mostly crap that humans don't need. Are you jealous because someone doesn't have to work and you do? Well go try sitting at home with very little money and see how fun that is for you. That may be what some people do but it's not for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Two camera level five autonomy would never be able to work in every real-world situation that a human can work in.
Why do people like you assume if it is enabled in production cars that it is better? Tesla has a very low standard for releasing their autopilot system that the other automakers don't share. Other automakers think that auto-driving shouldn't suddenly drive into a truck if the operator happens to avert their eyes, Tesla does. Doesn't make Tesla better at all.
Sure because why do something that's safer if it makes your car look like shit.
Bonuses are the new raise. Because they can get immediate recognition for it, and then conveniently forget to give it ever again.
If they're going to send my pizza in an autonomous car, they had better send someone in it to walk it to the door for me. Otherwise I'll order elsewhere.
I knew a person that got hired and moved, and then found out that the contract he was to work on fell through when he got there. The truth is, often once you factor in the mortgage, commuting time and costs, and risks like these, there are very few jobs that actually provide enough of a margin to make it worthwhile to move.
The problem with certificates is that they were very poor learning quality. Instructor reads notes, you study notes, you regurgitate them in test. All this does is prove you can retain information for at least two weeks, not demonstrate an actual skill. I imagine workers who hired people with these certificates found that these people were not exactly premium and so rejected certifications.
That sounds like a huge PITA to go through every day. How would you keep from just offing yourself?
I came to this article thinking they were talking about Google Home!
That's awesome. Everyone should just stop spending money on everything. Nothing but good times ahead.
Well what's the point of switching then? I have that guarantee where I am now.
I think most companies understand this but the investors simply don't care, and companies must do as the investors say. Managing the growth paths of employees is work, and investors don't want to work they want to make money.
I'd like to ask this serious question as well. I do almost everything and I'd work for $150k per year in an instant if it was stable; meaning I would be guaranteed of having the job for 5 years or more.
I can understand this argument if you live in some small town somewhere, but if the economy is truly healthy there should be IT jobs in every major city in the US. Wasn't this supposed to be the great career for kids of the 90's to go into?
I think part of the problem is that investing in a business is supposed to be risky, but it seems that investors forget this and then put pressure on the business to omit any kind of risk. This is turn causes things like not being willing to train people because they might leave, and people get less interested in the IT industry as a whole. It's always the same fucking race to the bottom when it comes to big money.
So in other words at some point it got too hard for companies to both train people AND provide enough incentive to stay. Cry me a river. You should be paying to retain the employees you train and the ones that still leave are called expected business expense.
You realize that this is actually a valid technique that has been used for many years, right? It does work if done properly because the female body does give signs when fertile. The problem is that it should be done with a lot of coaching from someone who knows what they are doing, which tends to be a failure of most apps.
But is this the kind of inferences the AI is making, or would it be asked a question like: 'What was it raining?' without being expected to make the connection you describe. The only example given in the article is fairly clearly worded; 'What causes rain?'. No evidence the test attempts to confirm such abstract reasoning.
There isn't that much difference between processing the rules of arithmetic and processing the rules of grammar. Grammar is the one that people generally understand less, but it is still a finite rule set like mathematics.
So far there is only AI capability when there is a well-defined set of rules. Chess and Go have a small set of rules. Language has rules that are complex but it's not like grammar isn't something that is studied and well understood. Compare that to an activity like driving, where you may need to judge if a bent and half-obscured stop sign is a legal one, or interpret whether a front end loader operator wants you to wait for it or pass around it, or interpret what construction workers mean by analyzing poorly laid out road markers, where the rules are almost infinite AI will have trouble.
Never did I say I was excusing crappy code. What I said is that you figure it out if you're good.
I didn't say anything of the sort. I said a person should be able to figure out unsupportable systems and at least leave them better than they found them.
Fine, so power to them. Most of us here would get bored with that. If that works for them than fine.
I donate money to some organizations that run soup kitchens, why should I have to put up with being approached by beggars in the street?
I'm still struggling to understand why this is such a sticking point for people. Why do we need everyone to work? We are already producing too much crap globally, and mostly crap that humans don't need. Are you jealous because someone doesn't have to work and you do? Well go try sitting at home with very little money and see how fun that is for you. That may be what some people do but it's not for everyone.