That person would be determining that they are talented at the game of Go, but without being able to ask what a cow is or apply a general intelligence test, they would have no evidence of general intelligence. Would you suggest that we turn all intelligence tests for people into a game of Go?
I don't think True Scotsman means what you think it means For that to work, a person would have to be saying 'if a computer can do artificial intelligence, then it isn't a computer'. We have well established examples of computers that do AI and are considered computers in movies and books. It doesn't cease to physically be made of electronics like a person can be declared NOT a true Scotsman.
If a person were to behave as this computer we would definitely not call that person intelligent. We call them savants. A person with one gift to do something very well. I have to agree, it is not intelligence in a true sense, it is a calculation approaching the complexity to the point that it is similar to playing a game like an amped up human. I guess the question is how can this be adapted to do something useful or is this just a party trick. Intelligence is the ability to acquire knowledge and apply it, but when the only knowledge it needs to acquire is a game with such few rules, where is the acquiring part? I guess in determining which part of the game to analyze next? How do we know if it is acquiring knowledge if it just beats everyone? Is it getting better at the game? Because that might be more like intelligence in the true sense. Will it learn to do other things or is it rooted with the knowledge it has?
I see it the opposite way. A good driver will anticipate correctly when there is a dangerous situation and slow down to a speed that is appropriate for that situation. Good driving records don't come from luck, they come from cautious driving. By putting someone in an automated car you are removing their ability to be cautious and putting that in the hands of an automated car. Then it truly does become luck, because this car is trying to make sense of bent signs, and turned signs, and the sum total is that it is only as cautious as the average driver. So this driver is making a sacrifice. I sure hope the driver doesn't have insurance premiums go up for it, or get injured, or die.
Then I have to factor in time that it costs me being on the road, housing, having someone take care of my kids with no family support, extra stress from possibly being away from work, and it doesn't make sense.
I an appreciate the fact that there will be a point of critical mass where 98% of all cars will be able to talk to each other (security issues aside) and that they will be safer when that happens, but that will be very long in the future. By that time we might have real AI in cars any way and they may be safer individually.
But you're not taking into account the fact that some people will never get into an accident. Why would they want a car that will get them into an average amount of accidents?
For 1) what do you do when every company tells you that they can pay you X because if they don't pay you X then they'll get into a wage war with company B? That's pretty much what I get in my city.
I think the point of the OP was, human drivers don't tend to drive into a construction site with a gasoline truck because they missed a detour sign because it was splashed with mud. Obviously this would be a bad scenario with a potential for many casualties and there hasn't been much evidence so far that we can trust self-driving to that extent.
If you only beat the average driver than you are creating accidents and injuries for half the people out there. If I buy an automated car, it had better be better than me. And for all you know I am the best driver in North America.
Well you may be a lot more organized than I am. I've woken up with my kids in the morning and realized I don't have lunch to send with them to school that day. It really helps to get to the grocery store and back in 15 minutes flat on those mornings. I don't know how I would give that freedom up.
But our buying power has gone down because salaries have not kept up to inflation. Companies are extracting capital from the economy and this decreases our buying power as well.
It depends. People keep telling me computers are far safer because they can process information faster than anyone can. I can't say I believe it is remotely that simple.
I don't think anyone thinks they will dock themselves soon, but it would still be a great money saver if they could park themselves at a hub and wait for a couple jockies to drive a foldable scooter out and bring them in. Eventually docks may be designed to accommodate self driven trucks rather than the other way around. I could see Amazon doing something like that.
And I wouldn't personally like to wait 10 minutes for a ride. For me the thing about owning is that you can walk out to your driveway without waiting. If I wanted to wait, have a cheap ride, and not have to drive, then I would be taking a bus already.
Right, 10-20. Yet I have argued with many people that think they will be far less than a taxi cab. More like a cheap Uber, or rickshaw dragged by someone very poor with a starving family.
I actually think that is a big part of the problem with the economy. Executives are happy as long as the money keeps rolling in. Very few actually have motivation to innovate and do things they need to do to grow and hire people.
though they're being careful with the tests and the conditions under which they conduct them
Sure.. and even though they are testing in very controlled conditions, their drivers still need to take control frequently. All I am saying is, where is the government oversight to ensure to the public that we know where and how these are being tested? Why have companies not been forced to at least build a simulated town to test these in? If Google cars are not getting in accidents then fine, but they are still not being completely forthright about how safe they are. This is something that requires transparency.
Slashdot Mirror
That person would be determining that they are talented at the game of Go, but without being able to ask what a cow is or apply a general intelligence test, they would have no evidence of general intelligence. Would you suggest that we turn all intelligence tests for people into a game of Go?
I don't think True Scotsman means what you think it means For that to work, a person would have to be saying 'if a computer can do artificial intelligence, then it isn't a computer'. We have well established examples of computers that do AI and are considered computers in movies and books. It doesn't cease to physically be made of electronics like a person can be declared NOT a true Scotsman.
If a person were to behave as this computer we would definitely not call that person intelligent. We call them savants. A person with one gift to do something very well. I have to agree, it is not intelligence in a true sense, it is a calculation approaching the complexity to the point that it is similar to playing a game like an amped up human. I guess the question is how can this be adapted to do something useful or is this just a party trick. Intelligence is the ability to acquire knowledge and apply it, but when the only knowledge it needs to acquire is a game with such few rules, where is the acquiring part? I guess in determining which part of the game to analyze next? How do we know if it is acquiring knowledge if it just beats everyone? Is it getting better at the game? Because that might be more like intelligence in the true sense. Will it learn to do other things or is it rooted with the knowledge it has?
I see it the opposite way. A good driver will anticipate correctly when there is a dangerous situation and slow down to a speed that is appropriate for that situation. Good driving records don't come from luck, they come from cautious driving. By putting someone in an automated car you are removing their ability to be cautious and putting that in the hands of an automated car. Then it truly does become luck, because this car is trying to make sense of bent signs, and turned signs, and the sum total is that it is only as cautious as the average driver. So this driver is making a sacrifice. I sure hope the driver doesn't have insurance premiums go up for it, or get injured, or die.
Then I have to factor in time that it costs me being on the road, housing, having someone take care of my kids with no family support, extra stress from possibly being away from work, and it doesn't make sense.
I an appreciate the fact that there will be a point of critical mass where 98% of all cars will be able to talk to each other (security issues aside) and that they will be safer when that happens, but that will be very long in the future. By that time we might have real AI in cars any way and they may be safer individually.
But you're not taking into account the fact that some people will never get into an accident. Why would they want a car that will get them into an average amount of accidents?
For 1) what do you do when every company tells you that they can pay you X because if they don't pay you X then they'll get into a wage war with company B? That's pretty much what I get in my city.
Sure that's all well and good if you only have to save lives, but you also have to make a viable product that makes sense for anyone to use.
Oh my God and they can both make phone calls! How does a person choose one over the other?
I had assumed you were talking about the warehouse workers. As a tech person I would never work long hours like that.
I think the point of the OP was, human drivers don't tend to drive into a construction site with a gasoline truck because they missed a detour sign because it was splashed with mud. Obviously this would be a bad scenario with a potential for many casualties and there hasn't been much evidence so far that we can trust self-driving to that extent.
If you only beat the average driver than you are creating accidents and injuries for half the people out there. If I buy an automated car, it had better be better than me. And for all you know I am the best driver in North America.
Amazon is what unions were fighting against. Like them or hate them, Amazon is what we get in an environment with weaker unions.
Well you may be a lot more organized than I am. I've woken up with my kids in the morning and realized I don't have lunch to send with them to school that day. It really helps to get to the grocery store and back in 15 minutes flat on those mornings. I don't know how I would give that freedom up.
But our buying power has gone down because salaries have not kept up to inflation. Companies are extracting capital from the economy and this decreases our buying power as well.
If it's about profit, at least don't pretend it is about saving lives.
I hear you. It's almost as if I posted this. The problem is, money tends to justify things.
It depends. People keep telling me computers are far safer because they can process information faster than anyone can. I can't say I believe it is remotely that simple.
I don't think anyone thinks they will dock themselves soon, but it would still be a great money saver if they could park themselves at a hub and wait for a couple jockies to drive a foldable scooter out and bring them in. Eventually docks may be designed to accommodate self driven trucks rather than the other way around. I could see Amazon doing something like that.
And I wouldn't personally like to wait 10 minutes for a ride. For me the thing about owning is that you can walk out to your driveway without waiting. If I wanted to wait, have a cheap ride, and not have to drive, then I would be taking a bus already.
Right, 10-20. Yet I have argued with many people that think they will be far less than a taxi cab. More like a cheap Uber, or rickshaw dragged by someone very poor with a starving family.
I actually think that is a big part of the problem with the economy. Executives are happy as long as the money keeps rolling in. Very few actually have motivation to innovate and do things they need to do to grow and hire people.
This really begs the question, why does the executive cost $800 an hour, besides the obvious cronyism that occurs in boardrooms?
though they're being careful with the tests and the conditions under which they conduct them
Sure.. and even though they are testing in very controlled conditions, their drivers still need to take control frequently. All I am saying is, where is the government oversight to ensure to the public that we know where and how these are being tested? Why have companies not been forced to at least build a simulated town to test these in? If Google cars are not getting in accidents then fine, but they are still not being completely forthright about how safe they are. This is something that requires transparency.