I don't know which system he's talking about, but the phalanx systems on battleships is a fully autonomous system that can shoot down enemy aircraft and even knock missiles out of the sky.
It's knows which is which because all of the friendly aircraft have IFF systems that identify themselves.
There are autonomous robots. One could easily design one that seeks out people and kills them specifically. Face tracking software + fully actuated firearm = robot that kills people without human-in-the-loop control.
IE, we are fully capable of building robots that control themselves in order to carry out this task.
It sounds a little different, though, I haven't read the patent. This is more like a computer using a human to complete a task, and like they've established some probabilistic bounds that the task will be done correctly, which is actually pretty cool.
It sounds kind of like having an interactive proof system, except that the prover is a person. It's kind of a unique twist from the patent side (though, perhaps not a giant conceptual leap), and it's not really a YRO issue, IMHOP, though one could imagine job satisfaction being kind of low for these jobs, nobody is saying that all humans will be compelled to slave labor by massive autonomous systems running this software.
No. The ways in which you are able to manipulate the cube prevent you from doing this. Left and right arrows flip it left and right, and you can flip to the top of the cube, but when you flip over, the cube rights itself. Dragging the cube around is transformed in a way that will also prevent you from ever flipping the graphics upside down. The only faces that it's possible to get into a weird orientation are the top and bottom of the cube, and there's a setting in the beryl settings manager that causes the image to flip when it's not straight up and down.
This is also kind of standard PR fluff. Heck, I knew a programmer who got canned who "moved on to brighter horizons," according to both he and his company.
Different researchers have different interests. Just because nanotechnology is important and interesting doesn't mean that everyone interested in space exploration and, heck, computer science and biology should drop what their doing, and the public should lose interest.
There's enough room in the world for both astrophysicists and materials technologists.
You got my point exactly. I'm pretty sure the notion put forth was a financial one, which was what I was talking about. I dropped a reply under the GP as well.
While you're right, I'm not sure that people really consider traditional AI to be dead.
Certainly it's been said that once we know how to do it, then people stop calling it AI. I think that Ronald Brachman even said something similar in his address to the AAAI a few years ago, but then, we can see at AAAI many examples of what can be considered traditional AI. I think that most of the participants in the "new AI," IE, behavioral-based systems, robotics, and related techniques consider themselves developing their approaches, certainly in contrast to other researchers who still pursue traditional techniques.
Certainly, machine learning has become more widely used, but I wouldn't really consider that part of the "new AI," though, perhaps that's not quite what you're driving at, but yes, certainly, it's become one of the most popular components in modern research. Of course, this seems to have been something that transitioned in slowly, and symbolic approaches are still alive and well.
The first AI bubble was actually covered in a class that I took. In the 1980s, businesses began adopting artificial intelligence for some of their operations. When businesses saw the limits of what the AI of the time could do, they lost interest, and it "bubbled." However, many of the systems from that era endure. Examples of systems from this time include expert systems that are used in tech support (didn't see that one coming, did ya!) and systems used in financial modeling, part of why computer scientists can still find tons of money in the financial sector if they've got advanced degrees.
Asking it to reach LEO is like asking the wright flyer to cross the atlantic.
Not quite. The Wright brothers didn't have a lot of precedent when they designed their machine. SpaceShipOne, on the other hand, builds on quite a bit of experience. You can get a degree in aerospace engineering and learn all about how space vehicles fly.
I'm not saying that there's no truth in what you're saying. SpaceShipOne wasn't designed to do that. I'm just saying that your analogy is imperfect. They could have built a design to go into orbit.
No offense to Second Life, but people get a bit silly about it. I understand that it's a an interesting, fun site, but I remember playing it in 1997 when it was called Alpha World
It's not just the summary (I read the article to be sure, hence posting after everyone else who made this point, hence losing the karma:-( ), the article is also incorrect.
Why can't the Mac users just boot directly into Vista?
Virtualization, in the sense that it's meant in this usage, only works if the operating system would have worked natively on the original hardware. IE, those Mac users could boot up to Windows with no problems. The issue only arises if they want to run it in a virtual machine monitor, which has myriad other uses than running applications for one OS "under" another.
Slashdot Mirror
This didn't happen online.
Great, someone who can't take a joke.
Somebody never saw the movie War Games.
I don't know which system he's talking about, but the phalanx systems on battleships is a fully autonomous system that can shoot down enemy aircraft and even knock missiles out of the sky.
It's knows which is which because all of the friendly aircraft have IFF systems that identify themselves.
There are autonomous robots. One could easily design one that seeks out people and kills them specifically. Face tracking software + fully actuated firearm = robot that kills people without human-in-the-loop control.
IE, we are fully capable of building robots that control themselves in order to carry out this task.
I thought that liking hot grits was central to the Slashdot experience.
It's like they say, Slashdot has changed.
It sounds a little different, though, I haven't read the patent. This is more like a computer using a human to complete a task, and like they've established some probabilistic bounds that the task will be done correctly, which is actually pretty cool.
It sounds kind of like having an interactive proof system, except that the prover is a person. It's kind of a unique twist from the patent side (though, perhaps not a giant conceptual leap), and it's not really a YRO issue, IMHOP, though one could imagine job satisfaction being kind of low for these jobs, nobody is saying that all humans will be compelled to slave labor by massive autonomous systems running this software.
Interactive proof system with a human prover == not terribly scary to me.
http://gallery.jobemedia.org/g/2003_02_19_toronto_ to_see_bon_jovi_w_niccole_laurna
I'm not sure that all of these photos were taken at that particular location *VBG*
No. The ways in which you are able to manipulate the cube prevent you from doing this. Left and right arrows flip it left and right, and you can flip to the top of the cube, but when you flip over, the cube rights itself. Dragging the cube around is transformed in a way that will also prevent you from ever flipping the graphics upside down. The only faces that it's possible to get into a weird orientation are the top and bottom of the cube, and there's a setting in the beryl settings manager that causes the image to flip when it's not straight up and down.
I'm missing something here. Which part of this is online?
Yeah, that's right, I was trolling when I made that observation.
I think that the notion of "Stuff that Matters" is "Stuff that Matters to Nerds," not "politics of some small town."
This is also kind of standard PR fluff. Heck, I knew a programmer who got canned who "moved on to brighter horizons," according to both he and his company.
Ditto. Spun's point of view is one that is appealing to hear, but false.
c le/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html/ nuclear
a r-faq.html
Here is the founder saying he was wrong to oppose nuclear energy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Here is Greenpeace's site saying that nuclear energy is evil: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns
Here is John McCarthy (a famous computer scientist) touting the benefits of nuclear energy, and why most of the concerns against nuclear power are not as valid as one would think: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nucle
Different researchers have different interests. Just because nanotechnology is important and interesting doesn't mean that everyone interested in space exploration and, heck, computer science and biology should drop what their doing, and the public should lose interest.
There's enough room in the world for both astrophysicists and materials technologists.
Much like the AC under you mentioned, I was talking about a financial bubble in the commercial sector. That was the 1980's.
You got my point exactly. I'm pretty sure the notion put forth was a financial one, which was what I was talking about. I dropped a reply under the GP as well.
While you're right, I'm not sure that people really consider traditional AI to be dead.
Certainly it's been said that once we know how to do it, then people stop calling it AI. I think that Ronald Brachman even said something similar in his address to the AAAI a few years ago, but then, we can see at AAAI many examples of what can be considered traditional AI. I think that most of the participants in the "new AI," IE, behavioral-based systems, robotics, and related techniques consider themselves developing their approaches, certainly in contrast to other researchers who still pursue traditional techniques.
Certainly, machine learning has become more widely used, but I wouldn't really consider that part of the "new AI," though, perhaps that's not quite what you're driving at, but yes, certainly, it's become one of the most popular components in modern research. Of course, this seems to have been something that transitioned in slowly, and symbolic approaches are still alive and well.
The first AI bubble was actually covered in a class that I took. In the 1980s, businesses began adopting artificial intelligence for some of their operations. When businesses saw the limits of what the AI of the time could do, they lost interest, and it "bubbled." However, many of the systems from that era endure. Examples of systems from this time include expert systems that are used in tech support (didn't see that one coming, did ya!) and systems used in financial modeling, part of why computer scientists can still find tons of money in the financial sector if they've got advanced degrees.
This joke gets even funnier every time I hear it. This is a good thing, since I hear it quite frequently.
I have another good one. Why did the chicken cross the road?
Asking it to reach LEO is like asking the wright flyer to cross the atlantic.
Not quite. The Wright brothers didn't have a lot of precedent when they designed their machine. SpaceShipOne, on the other hand, builds on quite a bit of experience. You can get a degree in aerospace engineering and learn all about how space vehicles fly.
I'm not saying that there's no truth in what you're saying. SpaceShipOne wasn't designed to do that. I'm just saying that your analogy is imperfect. They could have built a design to go into orbit.
No offense to Second Life, but people get a bit silly about it. I understand that it's a an interesting, fun site, but I remember playing it in 1997 when it was called Alpha World
It's not just the summary (I read the article to be sure, hence posting after everyone else who made this point, hence losing the karma :-( ), the article is also incorrect.
Why can't the Mac users just boot directly into Vista?
Virtualization, in the sense that it's meant in this usage, only works if the operating system would have worked natively on the original hardware. IE, those Mac users could boot up to Windows with no problems. The issue only arises if they want to run it in a virtual machine monitor, which has myriad other uses than running applications for one OS "under" another.