That could be rather amusing if we have a new Vietnam. Suddenly everyone's a transsexual to avoid being drafted. I'm probably too old to be drafted but in 5 years my son will be of age. I'll start suggesting he consider becoming a woman if war breaks out immediately.
But what do you think is going to happen if in an emergency they miss their hormones? It might be undesirable for them, but it's not going to put anyone's life in danger, it's not going to be a problem for anyone other than them.
They should be free to decide whether that risk is worthwhile for them or not.
If a soldier has to take Hormone replacement pills every day, and then they are suddenly unavailable, I could see it causing some issues.
So are you suggesting an event like this:
Sgt. Bigman: Pvt Wassman, go shoot those Ruskies over there or the whole unit will perish.
Pvt Wassmann: Sorry Sarge! I ran out of hormone pills today, I can't carry out my orders.
* BOOM * - Entire US army wiped out because Wassmann ran out of hormone pills
I can see that being a legitimate concern. Just like people who normally take migraine medicine might run out of that- and then they will kill everyone and not follow orders rather than have a migraine.
Or how diabetics go psycho and mass murder their comrades when they miss their insulin.
No surprise. Trump is living in 1940's Italy. He's completely out of touch with the modern world or modern sensibilities. He's like the old drunk great uncle that every family has. The one that has no morality and complains about blacks and women.
No one is going to be upset when he "moves-on", and his antique anti-morality moves on.
Peak stupidity is a myth, there is more than enough stupidity to last forever.
Peak stupidity doesn't imply that there will be no more stupidity after we hit the peak. That is an incorrect understanding. The theory of peak stupidity implies stupidity will be harder to find and more expensive to maintain after that point.
There will always be some stupidity expressed by society, it will just necessarily be less once we pass peak stupidity.
See... and I assumed it was actually all the fapping to xHamster. Men in the west no longer have a chance to build up sperm count because it's constantly being shot out in front of a screen.
The vast majority of flights are 2 or 3 hours tops. Sure, for the longer flights it would be great- for most flights, the time spent "in-air between cities" is negligible compared to time going through security, boarding, waiting for takeoff, having plane de-iced, waiting to land, waiting to unboard.
So yes, I'm sure it will be great if you have a 13 hour flight. For your average 2 to 3 hour flight though it's not going to save you a large % of your time spent flying.
Lets face it: To have killer robots and the like as Musks imagines, we need to have a strong AI, of course we need to also have it go off the rails for some mysterious reason (whatever reason that causes this behaviour in movies wont cause it in reality), but first of all we need human-like AI.
No we don't. Basically all you need is a very weak AI. A strong AI might be less inclined to wipe us out than a rudimentary AI.
Not saying this will happen or likely to happen; but one scenario.
Military develops drones (we've got those).
Teaches drones to recognize humans (we've got computers that can do that)
Creates a swarm of them (we have robot swarming technologies)
Gives them algorithms to spread out, explore and take out enemy combatants in a war zone. (we've got search and explore algorithms)
Gives the drones weapons (we've got that already).
Releases them on enemy (we've got enemies)
Gives them solar recharging abilities or nuclear power them for long life (we've got both)
Drones not taught to recognise friend from Foe correctly or incorrectly programmed... ooops. (we've got incompetent programmers)
All we're missing is giving the drones a renewable form of ammunition that they can replenish themselves and you've got a potential drone army going around killing people. If they've got stealth technology (we've got that), are quiet (we can do that), they may be hard to track.
I don't think they would wipe out humanity, but the fact of the matter is, we already have the technology to really butt-frick ourselves already. Many could die- and that's from a very rudimentary AI... heck some would say, that's not even AI.
Both of them display a remarkable lack of knowledge about the limits of AI. Their respective knowledge about AI is purely from works of fiction, which is why at least one of them has, for the last five years, been bleating that self-driving cars are only five years away.
Well considering there are already self-driving cars, I think he's right. Sure they're still all rudimentary and not the complete package, they all require the occasional human intervention- but there are already cars out there with many of the first steps of self-driving abilities out there.
It all depends on where you draw the line of "self driving". Fully self-driving with no human intervention at all. Probably not in 5 years (for the public at least).
Mostly self-driving with humans having to act as a backup and perform some actions. We're already there.
I find it hard to believe the CEO of one of the largest tech companies in the world, whose services heavily rely on AI for recommendations, image recognition, etc, has a limited knowledge of the AI industry.
Honestly, I don't know what I think of Zuckerberg. Naturally, I don't know him personally. To me though, he often comes across as an idealistic but naive rich kid-got lucky and became mega-rich man.
He's probably more technically savvy than the average person, but I don't think he's necessarily even as tech savvy as the average Slashdot reader. He had a good marketable idea, got the right early staff to make it take off and is doing well for himself. I don't think he has the deep understanding of science and technology, nor the zeal, that someone like a Elon Musk has.
Zuckerberg is a businessman in the tech industry. Musk is a techie into business. That's not to say that Musk doesn't have his head in the clouds a lot either.
I think in order to be ridiculously successful, as both men are, you have to be an optimist that your wacky ideas will work- and then have the luck, and skill to make sure they really do.
If you do it in your car on the way to work... how are you going to... um... dispose of your "essence"? Chuck it out the window? Hope they have some way to wash your hands before going in the office.
How many people want a job and can't get one, is a very different number to how many people don't have a job and aren't looking for one and that's OK.
Both numbers have their uses at different times and for evaluating different situations; to call one "a lie" is disingenuous.
I think the current method of defining "unemployement" from the basis of how many people can't find work that want it, is much more useful in most situations.
Except for Star Trek. it's real; unlike Star Wars, which even has the fighters cast shadows in the vacuum of space.
You mean like the moon casting a shadow across the earth during an eclipse through the vacuum of space? Or the Moon lander creating shadows on the moon in a near vacuum.
If an opaque object appears between a point and a light source it will cast a shadow. I understand light bends, and in space the sun could be less of a point-source so over distances shadows may appear less crisp, but you can still have shadows in a vacuum.
I really have to give Microsoft credit, figuring out a way to make people pay rent on something as simple as a word processor.
It's not just Microsoft though. Adobe does it too for their products, and others do too. They're all figuring out they can charge you many times the price of the software by getting you on a subscription. I always avoid subscriptions in general.
Music is the same way. How many hundreds of dollars are being thrown away by people on things like Spotify? Companies aren't stupid. They know if they can get you paying for the same product every month they make more money than just charging you once and most consumers don't even realize they are being had.
Right but there are a lot of safety standards that might not make ANY SENSE AT ALL for AVs. Should an AV for example be required to have a side and rear view mirrors for example? What about a rear backup camera with a display for the driver who does not exist?
There are current safety requirements that don't make sense when a human isn't the driver.
Unless, of course there is a manual override feature. If a human is able to take over at any point a rear view mirror and side mirrors become important again.
Even on a fully automated car that a human cannot take control on they'll probably have a rear view mirror so that women can apply makeup!;)
Unless they do the sensible thing and have all seats facing backwards for safety. If a human never takes over the driving then there is no technical reason to face forwards; since facing backwards is safer, an AV could have passengers face towards the rear for extra safety in a collision. The only reason they would still face forwards is for "preference" of seeing where you're going- that's why airplane seats face forwards despite it being safer for airplane seats to face backwards too.
(they could also have all seats in the car face the centre for a more intimate setting where half the group is safer).
Whereas that is possible, certainly there could be motive for a terrorist group, I hope security will be tight and the firmware updates aren't left on an unsecured AWS server.
Assuming decent security that passes all best practices- most coordinated and sophisticated computer attacks are by groups trying to make financial gain.
I'm sure at some point a car will get hacked eventually... it's inevitable. I still think, odds are, those cases will be rare and a computer will be safer than a human driving. I think you're more likely to have a human want to drive a car into a bunch of people as a missile, than a hacked car be set up to launch into people.
You don't even have to have a suicidal intent. After all, you can (and people have) configured cars to be remotely controlled (much easier than bypassing complex security) and yet I've never heard of anyone deliberately remote-controlling a car to crash into people. There's always been a driver in those attacks.
You'll never eliminate road fatalities. You might limit them, but never eliminate them.
A tyre bursts at 70mph on the motor-way. Possible death. Brakes fail. Possible death. A camera fails, or dirt on the lens makes it pass incorrect information to computer. Possible death. A human outside the vehicle jumps out in front of traffic and no time for car to stop. Possible death A deer runs in front of car from a bush that is roadside. Possible death. Car AI develops sentience and becomes suicidal and drives into lake Superior. Possible death.
Who is responsible for injuries when the fault is clearly with the self driving car?
I think that would depend on what caused the injuries. If it was linked to something ridiculous and programming error (like it mistakes black cars for asphalt) then it would be the fault of the manufacturer.
If the incident was due to a tyre bursting whilst driving, a maintenance issue, or something typically referred to as "an act of God" then the owner of the vehicle would be liable for any damages.
Slashdot Mirror
and if we have a draft will this last?
That could be rather amusing if we have a new Vietnam. Suddenly everyone's a transsexual to avoid being drafted. I'm probably too old to be drafted but in 5 years my son will be of age. I'll start suggesting he consider becoming a woman if war breaks out immediately.
But what do you think is going to happen if in an emergency they miss their hormones? It might be undesirable for them, but it's not going to put anyone's life in danger, it's not going to be a problem for anyone other than them.
They should be free to decide whether that risk is worthwhile for them or not.
If a soldier has to take Hormone replacement pills every day, and then they are suddenly unavailable, I could see it causing some issues.
So are you suggesting an event like this:
Sgt. Bigman: Pvt Wassman, go shoot those Ruskies over there or the whole unit will perish.
Pvt Wassmann: Sorry Sarge! I ran out of hormone pills today, I can't carry out my orders.
* BOOM * - Entire US army wiped out because Wassmann ran out of hormone pills
I can see that being a legitimate concern. Just like people who normally take migraine medicine might run out of that- and then they will kill everyone and not follow orders rather than have a migraine.
Or how diabetics go psycho and mass murder their comrades when they miss their insulin.
No surprise. Trump is living in 1940's Italy. He's completely out of touch with the modern world or modern sensibilities. He's like the old drunk great uncle that every family has. The one that has no morality and complains about blacks and women.
No one is going to be upset when he "moves-on", and his antique anti-morality moves on.
Peak stupidity is a myth, there is more than enough stupidity to last forever.
Peak stupidity doesn't imply that there will be no more stupidity after we hit the peak. That is an incorrect understanding. The theory of peak stupidity implies stupidity will be harder to find and more expensive to maintain after that point.
There will always be some stupidity expressed by society, it will just necessarily be less once we pass peak stupidity.
Evolution. All the idiots who won't get their kids vaccinated will see their genetic line die off. Those with vaccinations will be OK.
Eventually we'll only have sensible people left, the kind that vaccinate their kids.
See... and I assumed it was actually all the fapping to xHamster. Men in the west no longer have a chance to build up sperm count because it's constantly being shot out in front of a screen.
Says the guy who has never flown outside the continental United States.
Quite wrong. I'm not even American. I'm currently in the US, but I'm not American.
The vast majority of flights are 2 or 3 hours tops. Sure, for the longer flights it would be great- for most flights, the time spent "in-air between cities" is negligible compared to time going through security, boarding, waiting for takeoff, having plane de-iced, waiting to land, waiting to unboard.
So yes, I'm sure it will be great if you have a 13 hour flight. For your average 2 to 3 hour flight though it's not going to save you a large % of your time spent flying.
I'd rather have a cheaper flight.
Or a more comfortable flight.
Or a more private flight (fewer passengers sat on top of me).
A quicker flight is very low on my list of priorities. Flights are already pretty fast.
I've had the opposite experience. I don't remember the last time I saw Flash anywhere.
Lets face it: To have killer robots and the like as Musks imagines, we need to have a strong AI, of course we need to also have it go off the rails for some mysterious reason (whatever reason that causes this behaviour in movies wont cause it in reality), but first of all we need human-like AI.
No we don't. Basically all you need is a very weak AI. A strong AI might be less inclined to wipe us out than a rudimentary AI.
Not saying this will happen or likely to happen; but one scenario.
Military develops drones (we've got those).
Teaches drones to recognize humans (we've got computers that can do that)
Creates a swarm of them (we have robot swarming technologies)
Gives them algorithms to spread out, explore and take out enemy combatants in a war zone. (we've got search and explore algorithms)
Gives the drones weapons (we've got that already).
Releases them on enemy (we've got enemies)
Gives them solar recharging abilities or nuclear power them for long life (we've got both)
Drones not taught to recognise friend from Foe correctly or incorrectly programmed... ooops. (we've got incompetent programmers)
All we're missing is giving the drones a renewable form of ammunition that they can replenish themselves and you've got a potential drone army going around killing people. If they've got stealth technology (we've got that), are quiet (we can do that), they may be hard to track.
I don't think they would wipe out humanity, but the fact of the matter is, we already have the technology to really butt-frick ourselves already. Many could die- and that's from a very rudimentary AI... heck some would say, that's not even AI.
Both of them display a remarkable lack of knowledge about the limits of AI. Their respective knowledge about AI is purely from works of fiction, which is why at least one of them has, for the last five years, been bleating that self-driving cars are only five years away.
Well considering there are already self-driving cars, I think he's right. Sure they're still all rudimentary and not the complete package, they all require the occasional human intervention- but there are already cars out there with many of the first steps of self-driving abilities out there.
It all depends on where you draw the line of "self driving". Fully self-driving with no human intervention at all. Probably not in 5 years (for the public at least).
Mostly self-driving with humans having to act as a backup and perform some actions. We're already there.
I find it hard to believe the CEO of one of the largest tech companies in the world, whose services heavily rely on AI for recommendations, image recognition, etc, has a limited knowledge of the AI industry.
Honestly, I don't know what I think of Zuckerberg. Naturally, I don't know him personally. To me though, he often comes across as an idealistic but naive rich kid-got lucky and became mega-rich man.
He's probably more technically savvy than the average person, but I don't think he's necessarily even as tech savvy as the average Slashdot reader. He had a good marketable idea, got the right early staff to make it take off and is doing well for himself. I don't think he has the deep understanding of science and technology, nor the zeal, that someone like a Elon Musk has.
Zuckerberg is a businessman in the tech industry. Musk is a techie into business. That's not to say that Musk doesn't have his head in the clouds a lot either.
I think in order to be ridiculously successful, as both men are, you have to be an optimist that your wacky ideas will work- and then have the luck, and skill to make sure they really do.
If you do it in your car on the way to work... how are you going to... um... dispose of your "essence"? Chuck it out the window? Hope they have some way to wash your hands before going in the office.
Indeed. Two completely different statistics.
How many people want a job and can't get one, is a very different number to how many people don't have a job and aren't looking for one and that's OK.
Both numbers have their uses at different times and for evaluating different situations; to call one "a lie" is disingenuous.
I think the current method of defining "unemployement" from the basis of how many people can't find work that want it, is much more useful in most situations.
Our bigger problem at the moment are killer generals (US and elsewhere).
The average person you meet is more likely to kill you than the average robot you meet. At least for now.
Except for Star Trek. it's real; unlike Star Wars, which even has the fighters cast shadows in the vacuum of space.
You mean like the moon casting a shadow across the earth during an eclipse through the vacuum of space? Or the Moon lander creating shadows on the moon in a near vacuum.
If an opaque object appears between a point and a light source it will cast a shadow. I understand light bends, and in space the sun could be less of a point-source so over distances shadows may appear less crisp, but you can still have shadows in a vacuum.
They don't want thinking people why would they want thinking machines?
Creative thought = "disharmonious"
Because machines can be programmed to equate communist party leaders with good and their enemies as bad.
I really have to give Microsoft credit, figuring out a way to make people pay rent on something as simple as a word processor.
It's not just Microsoft though. Adobe does it too for their products, and others do too. They're all figuring out they can charge you many times the price of the software by getting you on a subscription. I always avoid subscriptions in general.
Music is the same way. How many hundreds of dollars are being thrown away by people on things like Spotify? Companies aren't stupid. They know if they can get you paying for the same product every month they make more money than just charging you once and most consumers don't even realize they are being had.
If it is a software error, does the programmer go to jail?
The QA manager?
The CEO?
Who should be held accountable?
I would suspect the company gets fined and no one would go to jail. (unless someone could prove deliberate intent or gross negligence).
Right but there are a lot of safety standards that might not make ANY SENSE AT ALL for AVs. Should an AV for example be required to have a side and rear view mirrors for example? What about a rear backup camera with a display for the driver who does not exist?
There are current safety requirements that don't make sense when a human isn't the driver.
Unless, of course there is a manual override feature. If a human is able to take over at any point a rear view mirror and side mirrors become important again.
Even on a fully automated car that a human cannot take control on they'll probably have a rear view mirror so that women can apply makeup! ;)
Unless they do the sensible thing and have all seats facing backwards for safety. If a human never takes over the driving then there is no technical reason to face forwards; since facing backwards is safer, an AV could have passengers face towards the rear for extra safety in a collision. The only reason they would still face forwards is for "preference" of seeing where you're going- that's why airplane seats face forwards despite it being safer for airplane seats to face backwards too.
(they could also have all seats in the car face the centre for a more intimate setting where half the group is safer).
Whereas that is possible, certainly there could be motive for a terrorist group, I hope security will be tight and the firmware updates aren't left on an unsecured AWS server.
Assuming decent security that passes all best practices- most coordinated and sophisticated computer attacks are by groups trying to make financial gain.
I'm sure at some point a car will get hacked eventually... it's inevitable. I still think, odds are, those cases will be rare and a computer will be safer than a human driving. I think you're more likely to have a human want to drive a car into a bunch of people as a missile, than a hacked car be set up to launch into people.
You don't even have to have a suicidal intent. After all, you can (and people have) configured cars to be remotely controlled (much easier than bypassing complex security) and yet I've never heard of anyone deliberately remote-controlling a car to crash into people. There's always been a driver in those attacks.
You'll never eliminate road fatalities. You might limit them, but never eliminate them.
A tyre bursts at 70mph on the motor-way. Possible death.
Brakes fail. Possible death.
A camera fails, or dirt on the lens makes it pass incorrect information to computer. Possible death.
A human outside the vehicle jumps out in front of traffic and no time for car to stop. Possible death
A deer runs in front of car from a bush that is roadside. Possible death.
Car AI develops sentience and becomes suicidal and drives into lake Superior. Possible death.
Who is responsible for injuries when the fault is clearly with the self driving car?
I think that would depend on what caused the injuries. If it was linked to something ridiculous and programming error (like it mistakes black cars for asphalt) then it would be the fault of the manufacturer.
If the incident was due to a tyre bursting whilst driving, a maintenance issue, or something typically referred to as "an act of God" then the owner of the vehicle would be liable for any damages.