You want an AI which conforms to some expectations, don't let a bunch of random people on Twitter be the ones to train it. The internet doesn't care about your desired outcomes.
It would be interesting if the bot would respond to anyone but would only learn from people on a select list. Then, as the bot learns, expand the list bit by bit and see how the bot's learning changes. This would sort of mirror how a small child learns from a set group of people (parents, close family) and then this group expands bit by bit (friends, teachers, etc) until they are "learning" from everyone they meet. If they did this, their bot might have less chance of being corrupted so quickly.
The thing is, Microsoft built an AI that reacted to and incorporated tweets which the public sent to it. So, folks obligingly fed it tweets that made it into a frothing troll. Am I the only one who looked at the Microsoft dev team in question and said quite out loud "...what the hell else did you idiots expect!?" I mean, it's just like turning an innocent kid loose in the worst parts of the city at night, but without the vomit and dirty heroin needles.
That was my first reaction also. They sent the equivalent of a 4 year old child into the online equivalent of a seedy bar and then acted surprised when their 4 year old learned some nasty language. The interesting thing wasn't that this happened but how long it took for this to happen.
I can't personally comment on squash matches or sports in general but I can picture a market for a 3D VR sports package where you get to experience sitting in the best seat possible at a fraction of the cost. Or front row at a concert instead of having to choose between sitting in the nosebleed seats or draining your wallet dry. I can also picture 3D VR gaming arenas where you compete with other people in live versions of first person shooters. (Think high tech laser tag.) I'm not sure if it's going to be Google Cardboard that brings this or another VR headset, but this could be big if it's done right.
I actually got 3 Google Cardboards during the Verizon/Star Wars promotion and then a 4th when Google was giving them away for free. (That final deal only lasted a short time as people flooded their servers with requests.) My kids and I love them for watching 3D videos, rollercoaster apps, and just browsing Google Street View (go anywhere in the world and Google will show you a 3D panorama view of that location - it's like taking a mini-vacation minus the long plane ride). With the right 3D app and a good set of bluetooth headphones, it can even get quite immersive. It's definitely not as good as an Occulus Rift or another expensive VR headset, but it's very inexpensive.
Google actually published the specs so you could make one out of about $8 in parts and an old pizza box. Or you could buy a kit for about $10 on Amazon and put it together yourself. I found this one after a little searching. I haven't bought from that seller so I can't personally vouch for them, but the ratings seem decent. And at least you'll be able to show your friends it without uncomfortable "PornHub?!!!" questions.
Interesting. Applying this example in a completely different area, I've said that we might not recognize signals from alien life because they would be using alien encryption/compression/protocols that might be indistinguishable from random "data." If your professor couldn't tell which of the 10 human encoded files had real data and what it was, what's the chance of us telling that some signal is actually an alien's video file in an alien codec using an alien compression/encryption algorithm?
Step 1: Develop open-source AI that can carry on rudimentary conversations - occasionally peppering in some words like "bomb" or "ISIS" to trigger NSA searches. Step 2: Have people register multiple VoIP accounts to run the AIs on. Step 3. AIs call each other, have conversations, and hang up to call the next AI. (This step repeats ad infinitum.) Step 4. Sit back and watch as the NSA's servers burst from too much data.
I'm planning on using my Roku with whatever TV I get. I meant that I don't care about SmartTV features. If two TVs are essentially the same but one has SmartTV features and the other doesn't, I'd probably go with the non-Smart one. However, if a TV looked nice but had SmartTV features, I'd likely get it and just not set up the SmartTV - instead using my Roku to add "SmartTV" capabilities.
You're right that those bombers tend to use burner phones and unencrypted messaging (the Paris bombers used plain-text SMS). Still, that didn't stop some politicians from trying to claim that they could have stopped these attacks if only they had encryption back doors. Complete garbage, but many politicians can never pass up the chance to turn a tragedy into more power for themselves by tapping into people's fears.
True, but I was focused on security measures taken by the government/airlines. This was a change of the response of passengers involved in a hijacking was directly related to that changed expectation of what a hijacking involved. Keep this new passenger attitude and the locked cabin doors. Roll back the rest of the 911 "security enhancements" and we'll be just as safe as we are with the security enhancements.
I'm in the market for a HDTV (replacing an older SD set - it still works but we're using savings from cutting cable to upgrade). I'm not looking at 4K TVs at all right now since they are more money for very little 4K content. For the same reason, we're not looking at 3DTVs. As far as SmartTVs go, I'd rather plug in a Roku than have built-in SmartTV apps. It's a lot easier to replace an older, Roku box if it becomes unsupported than it is to replace the TV if the manufacturer stops supporting SmartTV features.
(At the risk of hijacking the thread, if anyone has recommendations for 40" or under HDTVs, I'd love to hear them.)
The only 9/11 security "upgrade" that actually improved security were locked, reinforced cockpit doors. Apart from that, we could go back to pre-911 levels of security and have no measurable increase in terrorism risk.
I've long said that it wouldn't be long before terrorists blew themselves up before the security checkpoint. I figured they would do it on line for security during a busy day, but the check-in line was (in hindsight) another target likely to cause maximum casualties with minimal risk of being stopped. Are they going to move the checkpoints to the airport entrances now? (Somehow accounting for the fact that people won't have boarding passes.) Then the attacks will just happen in the inevitable line leading up to the checkpoint. That's the main trouble with TSA-style checkpoints: No matter where you place them, there's always another target.
Of course, the risk of being killed by a terrorist is very low. Worldwide, there were 32,727 terrorism related fatalities in 2014 (the most recent statistic I could find). This is out of about 7 billion people, so your risk of being killed by a terrorist was about 0.0005%. Even if we doubled the terrorism fatalities (perhaps to account for other deaths weren't labeled as terrorism but might be stretched to fall under that), we'd only get to a 0.001% risk.
Obviously, living in different areas of the world gives you a greater or lower risk. If you live in Iraq, you likely have a higher risk than if you live in Smalltown, Kansas. However, you have a far greater risk of dying in a car accident (1.25 million deaths worldwide in 2013, or a 0.02% risk) than by terrorist.
We need to re-learn how to disagree with someone and their political views without needing to demonize them and accuse them of high crimes without any actual basis for those claims.
As someone who likely disagrees with you on many political points, I wholeheartedly agree on this. Unfortunately, as much as I love taking the optimistic route, I think things are going to get even worse (more partisan fighting, less cooperation and compromise) before they get better. I really hope I'm wrong, though.
You are talking nonsense. If you really believe that every university in the world has been somehow "compromised" by some kind of agenda that would cause scientists from those institutions to push a global warming agenda, then my guess is that you haven't met any scientists.
It all started one day when a bunch of scientists got together and said "How can we top the Moon landing hoax that all of NASA as well as tons of scientists and engineers were in on?" So they made a conspiracy that ALL scientists and universities are in on (and yet, somehow keep perfectly secret). Next up: Make a conspiracy that everyone in the world is in on!
(In case it's not obvious - Internet and all - I'm not serious.)
And Creationists aren't denying Evolution - they're just questioning the evidence and putting forward a different theory, right?
Questioning the science is one thing, but at some point the evidence becomes overwhelming. When that happens, "questioning the science/data" becomes "we have already decided what the outcome should be, this science/data doesn't fit our outcome, so the science/data must be wrong."
In light of the Brussels attacks, the conspiracy theorist in me is wondering how long until they crack the phone and find "evidence' that he had used the phone to talk to the Brussels terrorists? "If only Apple had just caved in and done everything we told them to do from the start, lives could have been saved!"
I find myself torn when my son is doing something socially inappropriate. I don't want him to continue the actions if they are bad enough (like touching someone in a manner that he doesn't realize is totally inappropriate) on the other hand, I don't want to instill my socialization fears into him so that he winds up over-thinking everything he says and does. Got to love the high-wire-act-with-no-net of parenting!
And what of people like Bill Watterson who own the copyrights on their own works. I know there are countless "Calvin peeing" decals for cars and (to my knowledge) he hasn't taken a "sue them all into oblivion" approach. Still, if someone were to have mass produced a "Hobbes" stuffed animal in 1990, should Bill Watterson have been given no recourse and receive no compensation?
By the way, this example does bump slightly into my theory that copyright terms should be more limited which is why I added "in 1990." I'm a proponent of 14 years plus a one-time 14 year renewal. The first Calvin and Hobbes was 31 years ago and, under a 14+14 system those first strips would be public domain. People might have been fine (copyright-wise) making Hobbes dolls and Calvin peeing decals under this system, but wouldn't have been in 1990 - a mere 5 years after Calvin and Hobbes debuted.
Ugh. I can't stand Autism Speaks. Up until recently, they clung to the "vaccines cause autism" mantra. Even when they ditched it, they still left the door slightly ajar. Something along the lines of "while no scientific studies support this, we should still look into it more." (Not giving their site the page views to look up their exact statement.) They view people with Autism as "damaged", "broken", and less than "normal" people.
Whenever I see a charity in support of Autism, I always get excited and then invariably get disappointed when I see that they are raising money for Autism Speaks. They may be called Autism Speaks but they don't speak for me or for anyone else on the spectrum.
Thankfully, my son has never done anything as dangerous as this. I think the worst was when we made an offhand comment about how long his hair was getting and then he approached us asking "What do I do with this?" He had somehow reached the scissors (placed where we thought they would be out of his reach - they weren't) and gave himself a haircut. We had to make a quick run to a local place at about 7pm to get his hair properly cut so he wouldn't look horrible.
Five year olds do NOT give themselves good haircuts. Just one of the parenting lessons I never thought I'd learn before becoming a parent.
That's exactly the problem: Autistic people do not want to be alone. They just can't stand the company.
Growing up - before I knew what Autism was - I imagined it as if I was in a dark room. There was a bright spotlight there and, more than anything, I wanted to be in the spotlight. I wasn't sure exactly how to get in the spotlight, but eventually I would stumble my way into it. Then, I'd find that the spotlight was too bright and hurt my eyes. It was too much and I needed to retreat to the safety of the darkness to recover. Once in the darkness, I would want to be in the spotlight again. Repeat ad infinitum.
For many on the spectrum, the experience of "being in the spotlight" is so stressful and overwhelming that it is safer to "remain in the dark" rather than risk the spotlight's glare.
The same is true of my older son. He's 12, is diagnosed with Asperger's, and has no friends. He's got people he talks to in school and some who even talk back to him, but nobody who he sees outside of school activities. His neurotypical younger brother, on the other hand, has a few friends and one whose house he goes over on a near-daily basis. My oldest can go and play with them, but he wants friends his own age. Given my "experience" getting friends (I have no real life friends myself), I have no clue how to help him get friends. There is one kid from a local Autism support group that he gets along with and they wanted to get together with my son, but things haven't lined up for us quite yet. So apart from that might-be-a-friend-one-day and a bunch of friends-with-people-while-in-school, my son is left envying his younger brother's ability to make friends.
Exactly this. I don't have any real-life friends. I have co-workers I talk to, a wife and kids, and online people I chat with occasionally. However, I don't have a group of friends that I can just hang out with. I want a group of friends, but when I think "How do I get friends", I draw a blank. You might as well ask me to solve a quantum mechanics equation - I wouldn't even know where to start. Not to mention that the whole concept fills me with the kind of anxiety and dread that I haven't felt since my dating days, and it's no wonder that I find it easier to stay without real-life-friends.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be interesting if the bot would respond to anyone but would only learn from people on a select list. Then, as the bot learns, expand the list bit by bit and see how the bot's learning changes. This would sort of mirror how a small child learns from a set group of people (parents, close family) and then this group expands bit by bit (friends, teachers, etc) until they are "learning" from everyone they meet. If they did this, their bot might have less chance of being corrupted so quickly.
That was my first reaction also. They sent the equivalent of a 4 year old child into the online equivalent of a seedy bar and then acted surprised when their 4 year old learned some nasty language. The interesting thing wasn't that this happened but how long it took for this to happen.
I can't personally comment on squash matches or sports in general but I can picture a market for a 3D VR sports package where you get to experience sitting in the best seat possible at a fraction of the cost. Or front row at a concert instead of having to choose between sitting in the nosebleed seats or draining your wallet dry. I can also picture 3D VR gaming arenas where you compete with other people in live versions of first person shooters. (Think high tech laser tag.) I'm not sure if it's going to be Google Cardboard that brings this or another VR headset, but this could be big if it's done right.
I actually got 3 Google Cardboards during the Verizon/Star Wars promotion and then a 4th when Google was giving them away for free. (That final deal only lasted a short time as people flooded their servers with requests.) My kids and I love them for watching 3D videos, rollercoaster apps, and just browsing Google Street View (go anywhere in the world and Google will show you a 3D panorama view of that location - it's like taking a mini-vacation minus the long plane ride). With the right 3D app and a good set of bluetooth headphones, it can even get quite immersive. It's definitely not as good as an Occulus Rift or another expensive VR headset, but it's very inexpensive.
Google actually published the specs so you could make one out of about $8 in parts and an old pizza box. Or you could buy a kit for about $10 on Amazon and put it together yourself. I found this one after a little searching. I haven't bought from that seller so I can't personally vouch for them, but the ratings seem decent. And at least you'll be able to show your friends it without uncomfortable "PornHub?!!!" questions.
I've been trying to be considerate to the NSA by just posting jibber and leaving out the jabber. Won't someone think of the NSA?
Interesting. Applying this example in a completely different area, I've said that we might not recognize signals from alien life because they would be using alien encryption/compression/protocols that might be indistinguishable from random "data." If your professor couldn't tell which of the 10 human encoded files had real data and what it was, what's the chance of us telling that some signal is actually an alien's video file in an alien codec using an alien compression/encryption algorithm?
Step 1: Develop open-source AI that can carry on rudimentary conversations - occasionally peppering in some words like "bomb" or "ISIS" to trigger NSA searches.
Step 2: Have people register multiple VoIP accounts to run the AIs on.
Step 3. AIs call each other, have conversations, and hang up to call the next AI. (This step repeats ad infinitum.)
Step 4. Sit back and watch as the NSA's servers burst from too much data.
Oh, great. Now you've flagged this story in the NSA results as well as everyone commenting on it!
I'm planning on using my Roku with whatever TV I get. I meant that I don't care about SmartTV features. If two TVs are essentially the same but one has SmartTV features and the other doesn't, I'd probably go with the non-Smart one. However, if a TV looked nice but had SmartTV features, I'd likely get it and just not set up the SmartTV - instead using my Roku to add "SmartTV" capabilities.
You're right that those bombers tend to use burner phones and unencrypted messaging (the Paris bombers used plain-text SMS). Still, that didn't stop some politicians from trying to claim that they could have stopped these attacks if only they had encryption back doors. Complete garbage, but many politicians can never pass up the chance to turn a tragedy into more power for themselves by tapping into people's fears.
True, but I was focused on security measures taken by the government/airlines. This was a change of the response of passengers involved in a hijacking was directly related to that changed expectation of what a hijacking involved. Keep this new passenger attitude and the locked cabin doors. Roll back the rest of the 911 "security enhancements" and we'll be just as safe as we are with the security enhancements.
I'm in the market for a HDTV (replacing an older SD set - it still works but we're using savings from cutting cable to upgrade). I'm not looking at 4K TVs at all right now since they are more money for very little 4K content. For the same reason, we're not looking at 3DTVs. As far as SmartTVs go, I'd rather plug in a Roku than have built-in SmartTV apps. It's a lot easier to replace an older, Roku box if it becomes unsupported than it is to replace the TV if the manufacturer stops supporting SmartTV features.
(At the risk of hijacking the thread, if anyone has recommendations for 40" or under HDTVs, I'd love to hear them.)
The only 9/11 security "upgrade" that actually improved security were locked, reinforced cockpit doors. Apart from that, we could go back to pre-911 levels of security and have no measurable increase in terrorism risk.
I've long said that it wouldn't be long before terrorists blew themselves up before the security checkpoint. I figured they would do it on line for security during a busy day, but the check-in line was (in hindsight) another target likely to cause maximum casualties with minimal risk of being stopped. Are they going to move the checkpoints to the airport entrances now? (Somehow accounting for the fact that people won't have boarding passes.) Then the attacks will just happen in the inevitable line leading up to the checkpoint. That's the main trouble with TSA-style checkpoints: No matter where you place them, there's always another target.
Of course, the risk of being killed by a terrorist is very low. Worldwide, there were 32,727 terrorism related fatalities in 2014 (the most recent statistic I could find). This is out of about 7 billion people, so your risk of being killed by a terrorist was about 0.0005%. Even if we doubled the terrorism fatalities (perhaps to account for other deaths weren't labeled as terrorism but might be stretched to fall under that), we'd only get to a 0.001% risk.
Obviously, living in different areas of the world gives you a greater or lower risk. If you live in Iraq, you likely have a higher risk than if you live in Smalltown, Kansas. However, you have a far greater risk of dying in a car accident (1.25 million deaths worldwide in 2013, or a 0.02% risk) than by terrorist.
As someone who likely disagrees with you on many political points, I wholeheartedly agree on this. Unfortunately, as much as I love taking the optimistic route, I think things are going to get even worse (more partisan fighting, less cooperation and compromise) before they get better. I really hope I'm wrong, though.
It all started one day when a bunch of scientists got together and said "How can we top the Moon landing hoax that all of NASA as well as tons of scientists and engineers were in on?" So they made a conspiracy that ALL scientists and universities are in on (and yet, somehow keep perfectly secret). Next up: Make a conspiracy that everyone in the world is in on!
(In case it's not obvious - Internet and all - I'm not serious.)
And Creationists aren't denying Evolution - they're just questioning the evidence and putting forward a different theory, right?
Questioning the science is one thing, but at some point the evidence becomes overwhelming. When that happens, "questioning the science/data" becomes "we have already decided what the outcome should be, this science/data doesn't fit our outcome, so the science/data must be wrong."
In light of the Brussels attacks, the conspiracy theorist in me is wondering how long until they crack the phone and find "evidence' that he had used the phone to talk to the Brussels terrorists? "If only Apple had just caved in and done everything we told them to do from the start, lives could have been saved!"
I find myself torn when my son is doing something socially inappropriate. I don't want him to continue the actions if they are bad enough (like touching someone in a manner that he doesn't realize is totally inappropriate) on the other hand, I don't want to instill my socialization fears into him so that he winds up over-thinking everything he says and does. Got to love the high-wire-act-with-no-net of parenting!
And what of people like Bill Watterson who own the copyrights on their own works. I know there are countless "Calvin peeing" decals for cars and (to my knowledge) he hasn't taken a "sue them all into oblivion" approach. Still, if someone were to have mass produced a "Hobbes" stuffed animal in 1990, should Bill Watterson have been given no recourse and receive no compensation?
By the way, this example does bump slightly into my theory that copyright terms should be more limited which is why I added "in 1990." I'm a proponent of 14 years plus a one-time 14 year renewal. The first Calvin and Hobbes was 31 years ago and, under a 14+14 system those first strips would be public domain. People might have been fine (copyright-wise) making Hobbes dolls and Calvin peeing decals under this system, but wouldn't have been in 1990 - a mere 5 years after Calvin and Hobbes debuted.
Ugh. I can't stand Autism Speaks. Up until recently, they clung to the "vaccines cause autism" mantra. Even when they ditched it, they still left the door slightly ajar. Something along the lines of "while no scientific studies support this, we should still look into it more." (Not giving their site the page views to look up their exact statement.) They view people with Autism as "damaged", "broken", and less than "normal" people.
Whenever I see a charity in support of Autism, I always get excited and then invariably get disappointed when I see that they are raising money for Autism Speaks. They may be called Autism Speaks but they don't speak for me or for anyone else on the spectrum.
Thankfully, my son has never done anything as dangerous as this. I think the worst was when we made an offhand comment about how long his hair was getting and then he approached us asking "What do I do with this?" He had somehow reached the scissors (placed where we thought they would be out of his reach - they weren't) and gave himself a haircut. We had to make a quick run to a local place at about 7pm to get his hair properly cut so he wouldn't look horrible.
Five year olds do NOT give themselves good haircuts. Just one of the parenting lessons I never thought I'd learn before becoming a parent.
Growing up - before I knew what Autism was - I imagined it as if I was in a dark room. There was a bright spotlight there and, more than anything, I wanted to be in the spotlight. I wasn't sure exactly how to get in the spotlight, but eventually I would stumble my way into it. Then, I'd find that the spotlight was too bright and hurt my eyes. It was too much and I needed to retreat to the safety of the darkness to recover. Once in the darkness, I would want to be in the spotlight again. Repeat ad infinitum.
For many on the spectrum, the experience of "being in the spotlight" is so stressful and overwhelming that it is safer to "remain in the dark" rather than risk the spotlight's glare.
The same is true of my older son. He's 12, is diagnosed with Asperger's, and has no friends. He's got people he talks to in school and some who even talk back to him, but nobody who he sees outside of school activities. His neurotypical younger brother, on the other hand, has a few friends and one whose house he goes over on a near-daily basis. My oldest can go and play with them, but he wants friends his own age. Given my "experience" getting friends (I have no real life friends myself), I have no clue how to help him get friends. There is one kid from a local Autism support group that he gets along with and they wanted to get together with my son, but things haven't lined up for us quite yet. So apart from that might-be-a-friend-one-day and a bunch of friends-with-people-while-in-school, my son is left envying his younger brother's ability to make friends.
Exactly this. I don't have any real-life friends. I have co-workers I talk to, a wife and kids, and online people I chat with occasionally. However, I don't have a group of friends that I can just hang out with. I want a group of friends, but when I think "How do I get friends", I draw a blank. You might as well ask me to solve a quantum mechanics equation - I wouldn't even know where to start. Not to mention that the whole concept fills me with the kind of anxiety and dread that I haven't felt since my dating days, and it's no wonder that I find it easier to stay without real-life-friends.