This is not a fundamental limitation. Google "explainable artificial intelligence". There's a huge amount of work being done right now on how to determine why a decision was made. This is a whole field in itself.
The dealer is totally trying to dodge responsibility for their own failure. This wasn't a private sale. She sold it back to the dealer, and then they sold it to someone else. Without making any effort to disable her access or check that she had disabled it. So they sold someone a car, knowing perfectly well the previous owner might have the ability to track its every movement. Do you think they warned the new owner about that? That they got his permission? That they told him how to prevent it? I'd bet quite a bit they didn't. They just sold a product that illegally infringed the buyer's privacy, and now they're trying to wiggle out of getting blamed.
They did look at lots of things, but in this case there really was no question what the cause was. The bleaching event happened very quickly. It precisely coincided with an El Niño that produced abnormally warm temperatures. The amount of coral loss in different locations perfectly matched how far above average the water temperature was in each location. Here's an article that goes into more technical detail about it: https://arstechnica.com/scienc.... For example:
Overall, individual reefs within the Great Barrier Reef experienced a huge range of temperatures, ranging from no significant change up to 10C degree heating weeks. And the authors conclude that the effects were non-linear. At lower temperatures (degree heating weeks of less than 4C), even though bleaching could affect up to a quarter of the corals, and some died, there was little to no loss of coral cover at eight months.
But things changed rapidly beyond that. At a 4C degree heating week, there was a 40 percent decline. And, by the time the warmth of a degree heating week went above 8C, more than 80 percent of the coral was dead at eight months.
That's not what this is about. Traditional robots can build complex things, but only because we've carefully designed the whole assembly process around the robots. "Pick up this part, which is guaranteed to be at exactly this position. Move it to this other position. Insert a screw that is fed directly into the robot. Let the conveyor belt carry it on to the next robot which does some other very specialized task."
This is different. It starts with unknown parts lying on the floor in unknown positions and orientations. A single robot has to do the whole assembly, figuring out on its own what sequence of motions are needed to perform each step. They haven't adapted the task to fit the robot. It's a task designed for humans, and the robot needs to do everything a human would do. That's a big advance.
That's not really the point of the story. They didn't create these robots because they thought there was a huge need for robots to assemble IKEA furniture. That just made a useful exercise.
The real point is that these robots perform a complex task combining vision, motion planning, and manual dexterity. It's a task designed for humans, not robots. Instead of adapting the task to suit the robots (the normal approach in industry), they required the robots to handle the full complexity of everything a human would do, from visually identifying the parts to figuring out how to arrange them to doing all the assembly. That's a major advance. This work is a big step in extending the range of tasks robots can do.
public safety had to be balanced with privacy concerns
In some ways he's right about this: there are situations where you really do need to balance one against the other. And that's the whole problem. The FBI, NSA, etc. decided it was up to them where to strike the balance, which of course meant giving themselves as much power as possible. And since they knew a lot of rabble rousing citizens wouldn't agree with their decisions, they went to huge lengths to hide what they were doing (and are still doing). If you keep your actions secret, you don't have to worry about anyone criticizing you.
By doing that, they betrayed democracy. If a balance has to be struck between safety and privacy, it's up to the people to decide where to strike it. Not the police. Not the government. And the people can only make that decision through a fully informed public debate. The FBI and NSA didn't want a public debate, so they just did what they wanted and slapped "top secret" on everything to keep the people from finding out. By doing that, they made themselves into the bad guys. And they will remain the bad guys until they come clean about everything they have done, and accept that it's up to the people, not up to themselves, to decide where to strike the balance.
Most of the trolling is done by bots, not humans posting one message at a time. They can easily generate a big surge of posts any time they want by activating a few million accounts across the major social networks and having each one post a few algorithmically generated messages. It's not hard, and they've spent years getting everything set up to enable it.
Only 12% percent responded that their organizations have a high level of competency with agile practices across the organization, and only 4% report that agile practices are enabling greater adaptability to market conditions...
So if we look only at the organizations that have a level of competency with agile practices, 2/3 of them report those practices do not enable greater adaptability to market conditions. That should give second thoughts to anyone thinking of following their lead.
I've never heard of a pharma company that says it needs more sick people.
Then you haven't been listening to them. They do say it, frequently, and have been saying it for decades. This isn't a new idea. Lots of people in the pharma industry have been talking about this problem for a long time. And yes, they see it as a problem. A lot of people in the industry really want to help humanity by curing diseases, but the economic incentives make it really hard for them to do that. It's easy to get funding to develop a new weight loss medicine or a new drug for erectile dysfunction. But for decades malaria was basically ignored, even though it was one of the biggest killers in the world. It took Bill Gates donating a billion dollars toward curing malaria before any real progress finally started to happen.
Antibiotics are an even better (worse?) example. We've been overusing them for years, because that's how pharmaceutical companies made more money from them. As a result, there are now bacteria resistant to all known antibiotics. We desperately need to develop new ones, but hardly any money is getting spent on it. Why would a company spend money developing a drug when they know lots of restrictions will immediately get put on it to keep bacteria from becoming resistant to it too?
Sometimes capitalism just isn't the right tool for the job. This is one of them, and people in the industry have been saying it for a long time. If you haven't heard them, that means you haven't been listening to them.
Am I missing something, or this trying to invent a scandal where none exists? They're including contribution from Facebook employees. Facebook currently has about 25,000 employees who undoubtedly give money to all sorts of causes. Most of the recipients probably have no idea where the donors work. And we're talking about really small amounts of money. $6000 over ten years wouldn't come anywhere close to making you a major donor even if you gave all that money yourself. But more likely it's a whole bunch of donations, most of them under $100, coming from a bunch of people who just happen to work for Facebook. Do you think a senator knows the identifies of the thousands of people who send small donations to their campaigns, or what companies they work for?
Then perhaps you'd care to clarify. What is your point? That Waymo is evil because they're investing billions of dollars into developing technology and not giving it away for free? That capitalism is evil because it leads to companies investing in technology and not giving it away for free? Clearly not that Uber is evil for choosing to develop their own technology rather than licensing another company's superior technology, though that seems to me a more obvious conclusion. Of course, an even more obvious conclusion is that Waymo is evil for putting unsafe technology onto the roads. But that doesn't seem to be your point either.
Of course, you started your post with a totally false assertion, that there is "only one company seriously doing any work on self-driving cars." There are dozens of companies seriously working on self-driving cars. Including Uber, though they're pretty far behind some of the other companies. But Uber has distinguished itself by its willingness to rush technology to production, even when that technology isn't safe.
So explain, what is the point I am "spectacularly" missing?
If you can't make a self driving car that drives safely, the answer is not to make a self driving car. "We couldn't make safe cars on our own, so we just put dangerous ones on the road" is not an excuse. This is totally Uber's fault. Waymo started working on this long before Uber did, and they've been a lot more cautious about deploying it because they don't want to kill anyone.
Nobody gets a fair trial in the US, we all know that.
* Citation needed.
The US court system definitely has its issues, but you're drastically overstating the situation. Lots of people get fair trials in the US. It has an independent judiciary and lots of guarantees for people accused of crimes (right to a jury trial, right to a lawyer, right to examine the evidence against you, etc.). You weaken your argument when you distort the facts.
Every scientific paper should be viewed with skepticism. I don't mean that in a bad way. Skepticism is part of how science works. Every paper you read, assume it may have errors and the conclusions may be wrong. Hopefully the reviewers caught the worst problems, but don't count on it. It takes a lot of other people reading a paper to spot all the problems. Experiments also need to be reproduced. It takes years for the community to reach a consensus about whether a paper's conclusions were right or not.
Science is slow, but that's how it is. Don't think of a paper as a final product. It's just one very small step in a very long process. A lot of the steps along the way eventually turn out to have been missteps. That's ok. Scientists know not to put too much weight on any single paper. Science is done by people, and people make mistakes, but the process still gets us to the goal eventually.
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Right. Because liberals are constantly campaigning for increased police power, more government surveillance, and less protection of civil rights, while conservatives campaign against them.
Oh, wait a minute, it's the other way around. Well, whatever. I Know I'm Right Anyway.
The answers to most of your questions are available, you just need to follow the references. They didn't discuss those details because it wasn't relevant to the paper's main topic whether they were using Mandarin or Cantonese. Besides, they didn't create the training data. They used an existing data set someone else had created, which is actually a collection of several data sets from different sources. So if you want all the details, here's the data.
If only it were that easy! No, they can't just get together on their own. That is not an official meeting of the scientific advisory board. They can't officially consider any EPA business or issue any official advice.
Notice the agency's excuse. "Agency officials say the lapse isn't intentional and that it's just the result of delayed paperwork." And a bit later in the article. "He blamed the delay on the government's bureaucratic human resources process and said the official start date for many new members was Feb. 18. He expects to have a meeting at the end of May or in June." Right. It's all about paperwork. But this is a bureaucracy, and without the right paperwork, nothing is allowed to happen. And when you're in charge of the agency, it's easy to take advantage of that to prevent things from happening.
You're trying to change the subject. The EPA is supposed to get advice on both science and economics, and take both of them into account when issuing regulations. The science advisory board is there to advise them about science. But the administration doesn't like the science, so they shut down the advisory board so they don't have to listen to advice about it. You speak as if taking economic effects into account was somehow a replacement for taking science into account. It isn't. You need both, and they're ignoring the science.
But as for your question about the "science" of economics (believe me, it's not a science), yes, they're doing a pretty good job of ignoring that too. If they actually cared about long term economic effects, they'd be seriously worried about the massive costs of not addressing climate change. But their idea of "economics" is doing whatever's best for the companies that donate to their campaigns.
It's hardly the worst he's done. He hasn't even nominated someone for the post of White House science advisor. More than a year into his administration, it's still vacant.
But why would he want advice from scientists? If God had meant us to think rationally, he would have given us wings!
I was just about to post the same thing. No contradiction here. They could easily both be correct.
Another aspect is that "your job" does not mean "the type of job you do." In the long run, a lot more than 23 percent of jobs will be replaced. But if you plan to retire in 20 years, and it takes 20 years for robots to start doing your job, it's not a problem for you.
Also, you can think your job will be replaced but not be worried about it. Did they ask how many people were "hopeful" or "very hopeful" their job would be automated? A lot of people hate their jobs and would love to have a robot take it over.
Over the last few decades, technology has destroyed more jobs than it has created. You're trying to argue based on history, but in fact you're arguing against history. The recent trend has been that technology causes a net loss of jobs. That's the historical pattern. If you want to argue the future will be different from the past, you need to give reasons. Not just say "something tells me".
That means it's a hobby, not work. Really that's the only difference. Do you do it for money or because you enjoy it? Name just about any hobby, and you can find other people who do the same thing for a living.
So maybe that's the real goal. It isn't that people won't work. They'll do exactly as much work as they want, of exactly the kinds they want. Maybe we won't call it work anymore, but that's just because they're doing by choice, not need.
Have you ever heard of the "Information Technology & Innovation Foundation" before? Yeah, neither have I. Some random group we've never heard of puts out a "report" giving their opinions, and this is news?
This is partly an unintended consequence of job mobility. In the old days, you joined a company and stayed there your whole career. It made sense for them to hire junior people and invest in training them. Today people move around too much for that. A company hires a junior developer, spends a lot of money turning them into a senior developer, and then they leave and take that investment somewhere else.
It's a tragedy of the commons. If every company invested in junior people, the whole industry would benefit. But in that situation, any single company can get an advantage by only hiring senior people. They get the best developers and don't waste money on training. So every company follows that strategy, and the whole industry suffers.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a fundamental limitation. Google "explainable artificial intelligence". There's a huge amount of work being done right now on how to determine why a decision was made. This is a whole field in itself.
The dealer is totally trying to dodge responsibility for their own failure. This wasn't a private sale. She sold it back to the dealer, and then they sold it to someone else. Without making any effort to disable her access or check that she had disabled it. So they sold someone a car, knowing perfectly well the previous owner might have the ability to track its every movement. Do you think they warned the new owner about that? That they got his permission? That they told him how to prevent it? I'd bet quite a bit they didn't. They just sold a product that illegally infringed the buyer's privacy, and now they're trying to wiggle out of getting blamed.
They did look at lots of things, but in this case there really was no question what the cause was. The bleaching event happened very quickly. It precisely coincided with an El Niño that produced abnormally warm temperatures. The amount of coral loss in different locations perfectly matched how far above average the water temperature was in each location. Here's an article that goes into more technical detail about it: https://arstechnica.com/scienc.... For example:
Overall, individual reefs within the Great Barrier Reef experienced a huge range of temperatures, ranging from no significant change up to 10C degree heating weeks. And the authors conclude that the effects were non-linear. At lower temperatures (degree heating weeks of less than 4C), even though bleaching could affect up to a quarter of the corals, and some died, there was little to no loss of coral cover at eight months.
But things changed rapidly beyond that. At a 4C degree heating week, there was a 40 percent decline. And, by the time the warmth of a degree heating week went above 8C, more than 80 percent of the coral was dead at eight months.
That's not what this is about. Traditional robots can build complex things, but only because we've carefully designed the whole assembly process around the robots. "Pick up this part, which is guaranteed to be at exactly this position. Move it to this other position. Insert a screw that is fed directly into the robot. Let the conveyor belt carry it on to the next robot which does some other very specialized task."
This is different. It starts with unknown parts lying on the floor in unknown positions and orientations. A single robot has to do the whole assembly, figuring out on its own what sequence of motions are needed to perform each step. They haven't adapted the task to fit the robot. It's a task designed for humans, and the robot needs to do everything a human would do. That's a big advance.
That's not really the point of the story. They didn't create these robots because they thought there was a huge need for robots to assemble IKEA furniture. That just made a useful exercise.
The real point is that these robots perform a complex task combining vision, motion planning, and manual dexterity. It's a task designed for humans, not robots. Instead of adapting the task to suit the robots (the normal approach in industry), they required the robots to handle the full complexity of everything a human would do, from visually identifying the parts to figuring out how to arrange them to doing all the assembly. That's a major advance. This work is a big step in extending the range of tasks robots can do.
public safety had to be balanced with privacy concerns
In some ways he's right about this: there are situations where you really do need to balance one against the other. And that's the whole problem. The FBI, NSA, etc. decided it was up to them where to strike the balance, which of course meant giving themselves as much power as possible. And since they knew a lot of rabble rousing citizens wouldn't agree with their decisions, they went to huge lengths to hide what they were doing (and are still doing). If you keep your actions secret, you don't have to worry about anyone criticizing you.
By doing that, they betrayed democracy. If a balance has to be struck between safety and privacy, it's up to the people to decide where to strike it. Not the police. Not the government. And the people can only make that decision through a fully informed public debate. The FBI and NSA didn't want a public debate, so they just did what they wanted and slapped "top secret" on everything to keep the people from finding out. By doing that, they made themselves into the bad guys. And they will remain the bad guys until they come clean about everything they have done, and accept that it's up to the people, not up to themselves, to decide where to strike the balance.
Most of the trolling is done by bots, not humans posting one message at a time. They can easily generate a big surge of posts any time they want by activating a few million accounts across the major social networks and having each one post a few algorithmically generated messages. It's not hard, and they've spent years getting everything set up to enable it.
Only 12% percent responded that their organizations have a high level of competency with agile practices across the organization, and only 4% report that agile practices are enabling greater adaptability to market conditions...
So if we look only at the organizations that have a level of competency with agile practices, 2/3 of them report those practices do not enable greater adaptability to market conditions. That should give second thoughts to anyone thinking of following their lead.
I've never heard of a pharma company that says it needs more sick people.
Then you haven't been listening to them. They do say it, frequently, and have been saying it for decades. This isn't a new idea. Lots of people in the pharma industry have been talking about this problem for a long time. And yes, they see it as a problem. A lot of people in the industry really want to help humanity by curing diseases, but the economic incentives make it really hard for them to do that. It's easy to get funding to develop a new weight loss medicine or a new drug for erectile dysfunction. But for decades malaria was basically ignored, even though it was one of the biggest killers in the world. It took Bill Gates donating a billion dollars toward curing malaria before any real progress finally started to happen.
Antibiotics are an even better (worse?) example. We've been overusing them for years, because that's how pharmaceutical companies made more money from them. As a result, there are now bacteria resistant to all known antibiotics. We desperately need to develop new ones, but hardly any money is getting spent on it. Why would a company spend money developing a drug when they know lots of restrictions will immediately get put on it to keep bacteria from becoming resistant to it too?
Sometimes capitalism just isn't the right tool for the job. This is one of them, and people in the industry have been saying it for a long time. If you haven't heard them, that means you haven't been listening to them.
Am I missing something, or this trying to invent a scandal where none exists? They're including contribution from Facebook employees. Facebook currently has about 25,000 employees who undoubtedly give money to all sorts of causes. Most of the recipients probably have no idea where the donors work. And we're talking about really small amounts of money. $6000 over ten years wouldn't come anywhere close to making you a major donor even if you gave all that money yourself. But more likely it's a whole bunch of donations, most of them under $100, coming from a bunch of people who just happen to work for Facebook. Do you think a senator knows the identifies of the thousands of people who send small donations to their campaigns, or what companies they work for?
Then perhaps you'd care to clarify. What is your point? That Waymo is evil because they're investing billions of dollars into developing technology and not giving it away for free? That capitalism is evil because it leads to companies investing in technology and not giving it away for free? Clearly not that Uber is evil for choosing to develop their own technology rather than licensing another company's superior technology, though that seems to me a more obvious conclusion. Of course, an even more obvious conclusion is that Waymo is evil for putting unsafe technology onto the roads. But that doesn't seem to be your point either.
Of course, you started your post with a totally false assertion, that there is "only one company seriously doing any work on self-driving cars." There are dozens of companies seriously working on self-driving cars. Including Uber, though they're pretty far behind some of the other companies. But Uber has distinguished itself by its willingness to rush technology to production, even when that technology isn't safe.
So explain, what is the point I am "spectacularly" missing?
If you can't make a self driving car that drives safely, the answer is not to make a self driving car. "We couldn't make safe cars on our own, so we just put dangerous ones on the road" is not an excuse. This is totally Uber's fault. Waymo started working on this long before Uber did, and they've been a lot more cautious about deploying it because they don't want to kill anyone.
Nobody gets a fair trial in the US, we all know that.
* Citation needed.
The US court system definitely has its issues, but you're drastically overstating the situation. Lots of people get fair trials in the US. It has an independent judiciary and lots of guarantees for people accused of crimes (right to a jury trial, right to a lawyer, right to examine the evidence against you, etc.). You weaken your argument when you distort the facts.
Every scientific paper should be viewed with skepticism. I don't mean that in a bad way. Skepticism is part of how science works. Every paper you read, assume it may have errors and the conclusions may be wrong. Hopefully the reviewers caught the worst problems, but don't count on it. It takes a lot of other people reading a paper to spot all the problems. Experiments also need to be reproduced. It takes years for the community to reach a consensus about whether a paper's conclusions were right or not.
Science is slow, but that's how it is. Don't think of a paper as a final product. It's just one very small step in a very long process. A lot of the steps along the way eventually turn out to have been missteps. That's ok. Scientists know not to put too much weight on any single paper. Science is done by people, and people make mistakes, but the process still gets us to the goal eventually.
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Right. Because liberals are constantly campaigning for increased police power, more government surveillance, and less protection of civil rights, while conservatives campaign against them.
Oh, wait a minute, it's the other way around. Well, whatever. I Know I'm Right Anyway.
The answers to most of your questions are available, you just need to follow the references. They didn't discuss those details because it wasn't relevant to the paper's main topic whether they were using Mandarin or Cantonese. Besides, they didn't create the training data. They used an existing data set someone else had created, which is actually a collection of several data sets from different sources. So if you want all the details, here's the data.
BART has been automated from the very beginning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If only it were that easy! No, they can't just get together on their own. That is not an official meeting of the scientific advisory board. They can't officially consider any EPA business or issue any official advice.
Notice the agency's excuse. "Agency officials say the lapse isn't intentional and that it's just the result of delayed paperwork." And a bit later in the article. "He blamed the delay on the government's bureaucratic human resources process and said the official start date for many new members was Feb. 18. He expects to have a meeting at the end of May or in June." Right. It's all about paperwork. But this is a bureaucracy, and without the right paperwork, nothing is allowed to happen. And when you're in charge of the agency, it's easy to take advantage of that to prevent things from happening.
You're trying to change the subject. The EPA is supposed to get advice on both science and economics, and take both of them into account when issuing regulations. The science advisory board is there to advise them about science. But the administration doesn't like the science, so they shut down the advisory board so they don't have to listen to advice about it. You speak as if taking economic effects into account was somehow a replacement for taking science into account. It isn't. You need both, and they're ignoring the science.
But as for your question about the "science" of economics (believe me, it's not a science), yes, they're doing a pretty good job of ignoring that too. If they actually cared about long term economic effects, they'd be seriously worried about the massive costs of not addressing climate change. But their idea of "economics" is doing whatever's best for the companies that donate to their campaigns.
It's hardly the worst he's done. He hasn't even nominated someone for the post of White House science advisor. More than a year into his administration, it's still vacant.
But why would he want advice from scientists? If God had meant us to think rationally, he would have given us wings!
I was just about to post the same thing. No contradiction here. They could easily both be correct.
Another aspect is that "your job" does not mean "the type of job you do." In the long run, a lot more than 23 percent of jobs will be replaced. But if you plan to retire in 20 years, and it takes 20 years for robots to start doing your job, it's not a problem for you.
Also, you can think your job will be replaced but not be worried about it. Did they ask how many people were "hopeful" or "very hopeful" their job would be automated? A lot of people hate their jobs and would love to have a robot take it over.
Over the last few decades, technology has destroyed more jobs than it has created. You're trying to argue based on history, but in fact you're arguing against history. The recent trend has been that technology causes a net loss of jobs. That's the historical pattern. If you want to argue the future will be different from the past, you need to give reasons. Not just say "something tells me".
That means it's a hobby, not work. Really that's the only difference. Do you do it for money or because you enjoy it? Name just about any hobby, and you can find other people who do the same thing for a living.
So maybe that's the real goal. It isn't that people won't work. They'll do exactly as much work as they want, of exactly the kinds they want. Maybe we won't call it work anymore, but that's just because they're doing by choice, not need.
Have you ever heard of the "Information Technology & Innovation Foundation" before? Yeah, neither have I. Some random group we've never heard of puts out a "report" giving their opinions, and this is news?
This is partly an unintended consequence of job mobility. In the old days, you joined a company and stayed there your whole career. It made sense for them to hire junior people and invest in training them. Today people move around too much for that. A company hires a junior developer, spends a lot of money turning them into a senior developer, and then they leave and take that investment somewhere else.
It's a tragedy of the commons. If every company invested in junior people, the whole industry would benefit. But in that situation, any single company can get an advantage by only hiring senior people. They get the best developers and don't waste money on training. So every company follows that strategy, and the whole industry suffers.