A lot of those glitches were things you had to work to make happen though. The kinds of bugs that we commonly see in AAA titles today are often triggered without the player doing anything particularly out of the ordinary.
So in other words they're saying it could have been too contaminated to tell where it came from.
More like there was already contamination there from other sources, so it was impossible to say for sure if the fracking was at fault or not.
Which opens up an interesting possibility for the whole fracking controversy: what if the fracking in and of itself isn't causing contamination, but something about it exacerbates already existing issues (e.g. natural sources of contaminates or long forgotten buried crap from the first half of the 1900s). Sort of like how someone might claim to be allergic to wifi, and even show symptoms when a router is turned on or off nearby, but in actuality it's the high frequency noise from the power supply switching kicking off their previously undiagnosed anxiety disorder.
A 1/4 liter honda CB250, which has probably the most fuel efficient small displacement engine ever built, doesn't even get that much and it weighs 350 pounds.
It's also not enclosed and aerodynamic. The drag coefficient of a cruising (as opposed to racing) motorcycle with an upright rider is around 1.2. Compare this with a racing bike and a fully tucked rider that can get maybe.5 if they're lucky. A modern car is around.25. If you plug that into the drag equations, it comes up to a cruising bike with upright rider taking some 40+ HP to overcome the drag at 65mph, while a passenger car is more like 10HP at that speed.
Actually at the time that this happened, I hadn't ever used a credit card to pay for a meal in this manner (I was always eating fast food back then, and the card never left my posession.) I have recently though, but haven't had any incidents of unauthorized use recently either.
The restaurant was just an example. There are still hundreds of ways someone could copy off your card even while you look and observe nothing wrong. Since you seem to be having trouble imagining your own scenarios, I'll give you another one: ever notice the security cameras at places of business focused down on the register? Those are there so the loss prevention guys can see the workers hands when the register is open and count the bills they place or remove if it comes up short. How carefully do you think they guard that video? A few minutes with security footage and liberal use of the pause button could get you plenty of card numbers and security codes. And ignoring any kind of technology at all, any person with a decent memory could steal the numbers no problem unless you exclusively swipe the card yourself (hoping they didn't put a skimmer on the machine at the beginning of their shift) while keeping black tape over the front to deter casual glances.
The bottom line is that if you give a business enough money to charge the card and a human handles the transaction, you've given at least one person all the info they need to charge it anywhere else they'd like.
Bad guys steal SO MANY card numbers from crappily built ecommerce web sites that the daily files of such card numbers REQUIRE A 64-bit FILESYSTEM.
Right, but why are you buying from sketchy startup e-commerce sites rather than the more established and well known places (e.g. amazon, newegg, etc.)?
I've had my credit card information stolen maybe 5 times (probably from a hacked website as I never lost my card.)
I almost guarantee it was stolen from physically using it rather than a hacked website. You know when you pay for a meal at a sit down restaurant and they take the card into the back? All they need to do is photograph both sides of the card and they have all the info they'll ever need to go on an amazon shopping spree. If they wanted to get slightly more risky, they could carry in a magstripe reader (the electronics are tiny now, it could fit in a pocket no problem) and use that to make perfect clones of the card.
Hell, when I worked for a small photography company there was an order form that had people write their card info down as one of the payment options. We weren't trained to handle the forms with any particular security in mind. If I'd been inclined to steal card numbers, 60 seconds with my smartphone could have given me more than numbers than I'd know what to do with (plus emails, passwords, and PIN numbers during little league season since the form had the kids name and DOB on it and we all know how good people are at picking passwords).
It could even be stolen via someone putting a skimmer over the magreader and keypad at a gas station. I've seen pictures of the things in action. Most were built such that unless you know what that gas stations keypad and card reader should look like, you'd really have no way of telling if there's a skimmer or not short of prying at both the reader and the keypad to see if they come off.
This is why I always laugh when the less tech savvy individuals I know seem to think they're somehow being safer by never using their credit cards online. If the site is encrypted and properly secured (I'd assume the big ones like amazon, newegg, etc. are), and your computer isn't loaded with viruses, there's less danger using your card online just because the human element is out of the equation.
As opposed to "if it's good for stopping global warming, then full speed ahead!"? Because it would be a shame to miss the opportunity to blast those claims with your sarcasm cannon as well.
You've basically just described taping a magnet to a pole and suspending it in front of your car in order to make it go forwards, only in a slightly more complex way such that it's hard to see that's what's being proposed.
You seem to be forgetting that accelerating the particle towards A produces a backwards force. By the same token, diverting it sideways doesn't cancel out whatever backwards momentum it still contains, nor does hitting other particles to slow down (they hit other particles in turn and eventually transfer all the way to the back).
Correct.. But you can jump inside the case as well. When you are not into contact with it, it just transfer your momentum.
....that's literally the same thing? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you transfer momentum while in the air, you're going to move back and continue moving back until you contact something (the bottom or opposite wall of the cage). If you were in a frictionless vacuum, the momentum would cancel as soon as you hit the opposite wall. In this case it doesn't transfer back again because of static friction.
It is the same as if you are locked in a cage and bump yourself against the wall - the cage eventually moves. yet nothing is expelled outside of the cage.
Doesn't that only work because of static friction though? Bump hard enough to break the static friction and scoot across the floor, then move slowly when reversing such that you don't break the static friction on the way back.
You mean an AR clone? Rifles that fire more than one bullet per trigger pull (e.g., an M16) aren't up for sale to the general civilian population without jumping through some pretty annoying hoops and paying quite a bit of money. Here, I'll leave you with this nicely illustrated guide: http://imgur.com/a/zNc3a
A 100 round clip?
You mean a 100 round magazine? They banned 10-round magazines for a while federally, and in a few states (california in particular) possession of a magazine with more than 10 rounds is now a misdemeanor. This means that if you live in california and owned a magazine with more than 10 rounds of capacity (the vast majority of magazine fed handguns hold more than 10 rounds) you must now dispose of legally owned property and replace it with 10 round magazines.
Especially if the thing is labeled as Russian. Russian tip diameter might be given in mm, while american wire might be given in mils, two completely different yet similar sounding units.
I think the process would come about from running the power through a resistive load, which would generate heat and require cooling, potentially from a river.
I acutally do, since I did AI as a final-year elective in my CS degree and machine learning was a significant part of it
Oh boy, a whole half an elective. I strongly suspect you didn't "acutally" write any real code or implement any kind of machine learning. I actually have implemented real machine learning solutions that used everything from neural nets to HMM to bayesian statistics. I can promise you that in all of those occasions, the program was working exactly as programmed and not exhibiting any signs of even your wikipedia definition of Intelligence.
So instead of just continually being a dick and insulting my knowledge
I'm not trying to be, but there comes a point where I just can't sugar coat it anymore while still maintaining some semblance of rationality. You really either have no clue what you're talking about, or you're trying to get into an argument over semantics by making the term "intelligence" out to mean less than most people take it to mean.
Either way, 20 years ago it was people like you who set AI research back 20+ years by over promising on what AI actually was to the point no one would fund it when it became clear the false expectations weren't being met. Now your generation is posed to set it back again by going around spouting off clickbait headlines about how an animatronic puppet is an intelligent machine and switching it off is akin to murder.
What we see in chatterbots and neural nets isn't intelligence, or even the precursor to it. It's pure mimicry and nothing more.
actually never mind I have nothing to prove here or learn from you.
way to give up. I'd have loved to give you some more specifics if you'd actually have defined some terms and quit trying to argue semantics.
It really just depends on the learner and the situation. When I was getting my scuba certification I remember having all sorts of trouble taking my mask off underwater in the pool (I have an almost involuntary reaction to water being on/around my eyes). I practiced it like crazy in the pool, but it was a real challenge to the point I wasn't sure I'd be able to pull it off at 40 feet in the ocean for the open water dives.
What finally did it for me was laying in bed visualizing myself removing my mask, and convincing myself that the imagined scenario was real to the point that my pulse and breathing rates started to go up with anxiety. Then I started replaying it over and over in my head until I could do it while keeping my heart rate and breathing under control. It ended up being significantly more effective than all those hours of pool time, though I suspect that I still would have had to have attempted it for real at least a few times in order to convincingly visualize it (and realize that there was actually going to be a problem).
It depends on how well either technology is used to create an immersive environment such that the learner is enticed into pretending like the real thing is happening. Simulations or narratives that suck you in and make you feel like you're actually in that situation will always add more than situations that don't. Whether that's playing a game on a monitor, playing a game on a VR headset, reading a book, doing an actual training exercise, or just sitting quietly and mentally walking through it. The more you can get the learner to suspend disbelief and envision themselves in the actual situation as if they're a little kid playing pretend, the more effective it will be.
And again you show that you have no idea how machine learning actually works. By the way you choose to interpret the criteria, a piece of paper with some calculus written down on it is "intelligent".
some people think a cellphone is at least partially intelligent, hence the name smartphone.
And these people are idiots.
Thats why when you asked
>> Where in the world are actual intelligent networks?
it appeared to me to be a very ignorant question and was really my poiint in showing you lots of diverse links to differnet forms of what different smart people consider intelligence to be.
Two things here:
- I wasn't the one who asked that question, please pay attention to the usernames.
- All of your links demonstrated either reporters misreporting (e.g. the guardian article), or "smart" people trying to sensationalize something to get more funding (e.g. the turing test being passed, the vast majority of experts disagree that it actually passed). The other projects weren't even claimed to be intelligence (e.g. the animatronic chatterbot).
And that's exactly what the original asker of that question was getting at. There are no programs that can reliably pass the turing test without special rules in place, there are no actual "intelligent" networks, and most of the expert systems rely on a huge team of programmers and analysts to populate the database and create the search parameters. He asked the software equivalent of "where's my flying car" and then you did the software equivalent of calling him ignorant and linking the wikipedia article to a moller skycar and a sensationalist news report about flyboards, then claiming those are the beginnings of real jetpacks and flying cars.
Regardless of what you clearly thing about neural nets, I still belive they demonstrate at least some level of basic intelligence, as does most any algorithm that evaluates and adapts and so improves its own behaviour in order to reach some goal without needing ongoing input at each iteration (i.e. programming) by a human.
It's not a matter of what I "thing" about neural nets, it's a fact. And by the same token, what you "belive" about them doesn't change anything. Please please please go find a tutorial and implement a neural net on your own if you still can't understand that. They aren't "learning" or "adapting" anymore than a summation equation that approaches a limit is learning or adapting. A neural net boils down to literally a set of 1-dimmensional linear algebra matrices in which the numbers in one matrix are tweaked up or down after each iteration.
It seems to me that until someone can define "true" intellgience (whatever that means) there is no point in trying to diferentiate between it and apparent intelligence
That's a cop out. If you want to argue semantics, then by all means lay down some terms and we can have that discussion. Otherwise, by most accepted definitions of intelligence, there are no algorithms that exhibit signs of actually having it. The closest you might be able to get is swarm behavior, but even that is simply individual units responding in a very basic way to very basic stimulus. It appears complex and emergent because we have trouble following that many things at once.
Here's just one of the ones that have passed the turing test.
Your Turing test example is terrible. iirc the slashdot commentors ripped the story to shreds when it appeared here. Other people agreed: http://www.theguardian.com/tec...
Many software applications based on neural networks and other self-evolving/learning AI alogirthms are already in everyday use not only learning complex tasks but also themselves coming up with new and better solutions to them.
Another bad example. Self-learning algorithms aren't at all what you seem to imply here, and I'd love to see you continue to make the same claim after a few days of playing with a neural net implementation (there are tons of free libraries containing machine learning implementations, as well as tutorials).
Uh how about you do your own looking? just try Googling stuff? Its not like this stuff isn't easily findable..
I see you've linked:
- A hardware focused project appearing to emphasize simulating humanoid-like visuals more than implementing any kind of AI (the FAQ for the project even says it doesn't have memory and current research using the system doesn't require it: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/lb...)
- The MIT page for the department that made COG
- An system that uses image recognition to parse extremely simple handwritten commands and then write them out by hand. If this counts as machine intelligence, than so does a simple assembler.
- An "animatronic puppet" (the creators words, not mine), that uses speech recognition/TTS and a standard chatterbot interface to (poorly) mimic a humans responses. Did you notice how it kept talking over the people conversing with it? And that was a cherry picked clip of people talking to it who knew how to hold conversations with the thing. Show me an example of someone asking it a technical question (hell, they can type the question if that makes it easier to parse) and then getting a real answer out of it. e.g. "explain to me how a keyboard works".
There's nothing wrong with being excited about AI developments. It's just that historically, people like you who go around calling things AI that aren't really AI (and have no potential to actually be "AI") have done significant harm to the field by generating unrealistic hype and making promises that can't be delivered. Please take your own advice and google some tutorials and example projects for the neural nets that go into simple image recognition and the markov chains that go into making a chatterbot. Then get back to me about how your examples demonstrate some kind of true machine intelligence in the sensationalist sense of the word.
That's pretty much the main exception I had in mind. The only other one I can think of might be as a loan to establish credit and/or fix credit. In that case you'd have enough money in the bank to cover most/all of it and a plan to pay it off significantly (read: years) earlier than the default payment schedule does.
The price of cars is getting ridiculous compared to wages as it is. My wife is shopping for a car and you know what the standard financing is now? 60 months! And some people go out to 72 and even 92months! All to keep the payments affordable. In the meantime, the finance companies are raking it in at the expense of us.
I was with you up to this point. There's almost never a good reason to finance a car (plus most exceptions involve having enough money banked that you could buy it outright if necessary), and a decent new car should still run you under 20k. If you can't save up enough for that in a few years, then learn some basic maintenance skills and buy a used one. A lot of cars depreciate several thousand dollars after just a year or two.
It's all a matter of optimizing your financial decisions. If you want to drive around in a $90k BMW X5 because it makes you feel important, you'll either have to be rich or make sacrifices elsewhere. If you don't want to make sacrifices elsewhere and aren't rich, then I'd highly recommend a few year old used Hundai Elantra, Ford Focus, or Mazda 3. If you want sporty, a super nice used miata can be had for under 10k (one with paint damage and the like can be had for 4k)
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of those glitches were things you had to work to make happen though. The kinds of bugs that we commonly see in AAA titles today are often triggered without the player doing anything particularly out of the ordinary.
So in other words they're saying it could have been too contaminated to tell where it came from.
More like there was already contamination there from other sources, so it was impossible to say for sure if the fracking was at fault or not.
Which opens up an interesting possibility for the whole fracking controversy: what if the fracking in and of itself isn't causing contamination, but something about it exacerbates already existing issues (e.g. natural sources of contaminates or long forgotten buried crap from the first half of the 1900s). Sort of like how someone might claim to be allergic to wifi, and even show symptoms when a router is turned on or off nearby, but in actuality it's the high frequency noise from the power supply switching kicking off their previously undiagnosed anxiety disorder.
That's assuming the WiFi drivers aren't broken.
And that you don't screw something else up in the several hour project that getting the wifi drivers working usually turns into.
A 1/4 liter honda CB250, which has probably the most fuel efficient small displacement engine ever built, doesn't even get that much and it weighs 350 pounds.
It's also not enclosed and aerodynamic. The drag coefficient of a cruising (as opposed to racing) motorcycle with an upright rider is around 1.2. Compare this with a racing bike and a fully tucked rider that can get maybe .5 if they're lucky. A modern car is around .25. If you plug that into the drag equations, it comes up to a cruising bike with upright rider taking some 40+ HP to overcome the drag at 65mph, while a passenger car is more like 10HP at that speed.
A lot of it depends on specific job and workplace environment I'm sure. Also the method of drop bys.
Actually at the time that this happened, I hadn't ever used a credit card to pay for a meal in this manner (I was always eating fast food back then, and the card never left my posession.) I have recently though, but haven't had any incidents of unauthorized use recently either.
The restaurant was just an example. There are still hundreds of ways someone could copy off your card even while you look and observe nothing wrong. Since you seem to be having trouble imagining your own scenarios, I'll give you another one: ever notice the security cameras at places of business focused down on the register? Those are there so the loss prevention guys can see the workers hands when the register is open and count the bills they place or remove if it comes up short. How carefully do you think they guard that video? A few minutes with security footage and liberal use of the pause button could get you plenty of card numbers and security codes. And ignoring any kind of technology at all, any person with a decent memory could steal the numbers no problem unless you exclusively swipe the card yourself (hoping they didn't put a skimmer on the machine at the beginning of their shift) while keeping black tape over the front to deter casual glances.
The bottom line is that if you give a business enough money to charge the card and a human handles the transaction, you've given at least one person all the info they need to charge it anywhere else they'd like.
Bad guys steal SO MANY card numbers from crappily built ecommerce web sites that the daily files of such card numbers REQUIRE A 64-bit FILESYSTEM.
Right, but why are you buying from sketchy startup e-commerce sites rather than the more established and well known places (e.g. amazon, newegg, etc.)?
Getting really close to invoking Poe's law there.
I've had my credit card information stolen maybe 5 times (probably from a hacked website as I never lost my card.)
I almost guarantee it was stolen from physically using it rather than a hacked website. You know when you pay for a meal at a sit down restaurant and they take the card into the back? All they need to do is photograph both sides of the card and they have all the info they'll ever need to go on an amazon shopping spree. If they wanted to get slightly more risky, they could carry in a magstripe reader (the electronics are tiny now, it could fit in a pocket no problem) and use that to make perfect clones of the card.
Hell, when I worked for a small photography company there was an order form that had people write their card info down as one of the payment options. We weren't trained to handle the forms with any particular security in mind. If I'd been inclined to steal card numbers, 60 seconds with my smartphone could have given me more than numbers than I'd know what to do with (plus emails, passwords, and PIN numbers during little league season since the form had the kids name and DOB on it and we all know how good people are at picking passwords).
It could even be stolen via someone putting a skimmer over the magreader and keypad at a gas station. I've seen pictures of the things in action. Most were built such that unless you know what that gas stations keypad and card reader should look like, you'd really have no way of telling if there's a skimmer or not short of prying at both the reader and the keypad to see if they come off.
This is why I always laugh when the less tech savvy individuals I know seem to think they're somehow being safer by never using their credit cards online. If the site is encrypted and properly secured (I'd assume the big ones like amazon, newegg, etc. are), and your computer isn't loaded with viruses, there's less danger using your card online just because the human element is out of the equation.
As opposed to "if it's good for stopping global warming, then full speed ahead!"? Because it would be a shame to miss the opportunity to blast those claims with your sarcasm cannon as well.
You've basically just described taping a magnet to a pole and suspending it in front of your car in order to make it go forwards, only in a slightly more complex way such that it's hard to see that's what's being proposed.
You seem to be forgetting that accelerating the particle towards A produces a backwards force. By the same token, diverting it sideways doesn't cancel out whatever backwards momentum it still contains, nor does hitting other particles to slow down (they hit other particles in turn and eventually transfer all the way to the back).
Correct.. But you can jump inside the case as well. When you are not into contact with it, it just transfer your momentum.
It is the same as if you are locked in a cage and bump yourself against the wall - the cage eventually moves. yet nothing is expelled outside of the cage.
Doesn't that only work because of static friction though? Bump hard enough to break the static friction and scoot across the floor, then move slowly when reversing such that you don't break the static friction on the way back.
An M-16?
You mean an AR clone? Rifles that fire more than one bullet per trigger pull (e.g., an M16) aren't up for sale to the general civilian population without jumping through some pretty annoying hoops and paying quite a bit of money. Here, I'll leave you with this nicely illustrated guide: http://imgur.com/a/zNc3a
A 100 round clip?
You mean a 100 round magazine? They banned 10-round magazines for a while federally, and in a few states (california in particular) possession of a magazine with more than 10 rounds is now a misdemeanor. This means that if you live in california and owned a magazine with more than 10 rounds of capacity (the vast majority of magazine fed handguns hold more than 10 rounds) you must now dispose of legally owned property and replace it with 10 round magazines.
Especially if the thing is labeled as Russian. Russian tip diameter might be given in mm, while american wire might be given in mils, two completely different yet similar sounding units.
I think the process would come about from running the power through a resistive load, which would generate heat and require cooling, potentially from a river.
I acutally do, since I did AI as a final-year elective in my CS degree and machine learning was a significant part of it
Oh boy, a whole half an elective. I strongly suspect you didn't "acutally" write any real code or implement any kind of machine learning. I actually have implemented real machine learning solutions that used everything from neural nets to HMM to bayesian statistics. I can promise you that in all of those occasions, the program was working exactly as programmed and not exhibiting any signs of even your wikipedia definition of Intelligence.
So instead of just continually being a dick and insulting my knowledge
I'm not trying to be, but there comes a point where I just can't sugar coat it anymore while still maintaining some semblance of rationality. You really either have no clue what you're talking about, or you're trying to get into an argument over semantics by making the term "intelligence" out to mean less than most people take it to mean.
Either way, 20 years ago it was people like you who set AI research back 20+ years by over promising on what AI actually was to the point no one would fund it when it became clear the false expectations weren't being met. Now your generation is posed to set it back again by going around spouting off clickbait headlines about how an animatronic puppet is an intelligent machine and switching it off is akin to murder.
What we see in chatterbots and neural nets isn't intelligence, or even the precursor to it. It's pure mimicry and nothing more.
actually never mind I have nothing to prove here or learn from you.
way to give up. I'd have loved to give you some more specifics if you'd actually have defined some terms and quit trying to argue semantics.
It really just depends on the learner and the situation. When I was getting my scuba certification I remember having all sorts of trouble taking my mask off underwater in the pool (I have an almost involuntary reaction to water being on/around my eyes). I practiced it like crazy in the pool, but it was a real challenge to the point I wasn't sure I'd be able to pull it off at 40 feet in the ocean for the open water dives.
What finally did it for me was laying in bed visualizing myself removing my mask, and convincing myself that the imagined scenario was real to the point that my pulse and breathing rates started to go up with anxiety. Then I started replaying it over and over in my head until I could do it while keeping my heart rate and breathing under control. It ended up being significantly more effective than all those hours of pool time, though I suspect that I still would have had to have attempted it for real at least a few times in order to convincingly visualize it (and realize that there was actually going to be a problem).
It depends on how well either technology is used to create an immersive environment such that the learner is enticed into pretending like the real thing is happening. Simulations or narratives that suck you in and make you feel like you're actually in that situation will always add more than situations that don't. Whether that's playing a game on a monitor, playing a game on a VR headset, reading a book, doing an actual training exercise, or just sitting quietly and mentally walking through it. The more you can get the learner to suspend disbelief and envision themselves in the actual situation as if they're a little kid playing pretend, the more effective it will be.
rational anti-vaxxers
Assuming you don't mean people with autoimmune disorders or legitimate allergies, I'm really curious to know what exactly falls into this category.
And again you show that you have no idea how machine learning actually works. By the way you choose to interpret the criteria, a piece of paper with some calculus written down on it is "intelligent".
some people think a cellphone is at least partially intelligent, hence the name smartphone.
And these people are idiots.
Thats why when you asked >> Where in the world are actual intelligent networks? it appeared to me to be a very ignorant question and was really my poiint in showing you lots of diverse links to differnet forms of what different smart people consider intelligence to be.
Two things here:
- I wasn't the one who asked that question, please pay attention to the usernames.
- All of your links demonstrated either reporters misreporting (e.g. the guardian article), or "smart" people trying to sensationalize something to get more funding (e.g. the turing test being passed, the vast majority of experts disagree that it actually passed). The other projects weren't even claimed to be intelligence (e.g. the animatronic chatterbot).
And that's exactly what the original asker of that question was getting at. There are no programs that can reliably pass the turing test without special rules in place, there are no actual "intelligent" networks, and most of the expert systems rely on a huge team of programmers and analysts to populate the database and create the search parameters. He asked the software equivalent of "where's my flying car" and then you did the software equivalent of calling him ignorant and linking the wikipedia article to a moller skycar and a sensationalist news report about flyboards, then claiming those are the beginnings of real jetpacks and flying cars.
Regardless of what you clearly thing about neural nets, I still belive they demonstrate at least some level of basic intelligence, as does most any algorithm that evaluates and adapts and so improves its own behaviour in order to reach some goal without needing ongoing input at each iteration (i.e. programming) by a human.
It's not a matter of what I "thing" about neural nets, it's a fact. And by the same token, what you "belive" about them doesn't change anything. Please please please go find a tutorial and implement a neural net on your own if you still can't understand that. They aren't "learning" or "adapting" anymore than a summation equation that approaches a limit is learning or adapting. A neural net boils down to literally a set of 1-dimmensional linear algebra matrices in which the numbers in one matrix are tweaked up or down after each iteration.
It seems to me that until someone can define "true" intellgience (whatever that means) there is no point in trying to diferentiate between it and apparent intelligence
That's a cop out. If you want to argue semantics, then by all means lay down some terms and we can have that discussion. Otherwise, by most accepted definitions of intelligence, there are no algorithms that exhibit signs of actually having it. The closest you might be able to get is swarm behavior, but even that is simply individual units responding in a very basic way to very basic stimulus. It appears complex and emergent because we have trouble following that many things at once.
Here's just one of the ones that have passed the turing test.
Your Turing test example is terrible. iirc the slashdot commentors ripped the story to shreds when it appeared here. Other people agreed: http://www.theguardian.com/tec...
Many software applications based on neural networks and other self-evolving/learning AI alogirthms are already in everyday use not only learning complex tasks but also themselves coming up with new and better solutions to them.
Another bad example. Self-learning algorithms aren't at all what you seem to imply here, and I'd love to see you continue to make the same claim after a few days of playing with a neural net implementation (there are tons of free libraries containing machine learning implementations, as well as tutorials).
Uh how about you do your own looking? just try Googling stuff? Its not like this stuff isn't easily findable..
I see you've linked:
- A hardware focused project appearing to emphasize simulating humanoid-like visuals more than implementing any kind of AI (the FAQ for the project even says it doesn't have memory and current research using the system doesn't require it: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/lb...)
- The MIT page for the department that made COG
- An system that uses image recognition to parse extremely simple handwritten commands and then write them out by hand. If this counts as machine intelligence, than so does a simple assembler.
- An "animatronic puppet" (the creators words, not mine), that uses speech recognition/TTS and a standard chatterbot interface to (poorly) mimic a humans responses. Did you notice how it kept talking over the people conversing with it? And that was a cherry picked clip of people talking to it who knew how to hold conversations with the thing. Show me an example of someone asking it a technical question (hell, they can type the question if that makes it easier to parse) and then getting a real answer out of it. e.g. "explain to me how a keyboard works".
There's nothing wrong with being excited about AI developments. It's just that historically, people like you who go around calling things AI that aren't really AI (and have no potential to actually be "AI") have done significant harm to the field by generating unrealistic hype and making promises that can't be delivered. Please take your own advice and google some tutorials and example projects for the neural nets that go into simple image recognition and the markov chains that go into making a chatterbot. Then get back to me about how your examples demonstrate some kind of true machine intelligence in the sensationalist sense of the word.
That's pretty much the main exception I had in mind. The only other one I can think of might be as a loan to establish credit and/or fix credit. In that case you'd have enough money in the bank to cover most/all of it and a plan to pay it off significantly (read: years) earlier than the default payment schedule does.
The price of cars is getting ridiculous compared to wages as it is. My wife is shopping for a car and you know what the standard financing is now? 60 months! And some people go out to 72 and even 92months! All to keep the payments affordable. In the meantime, the finance companies are raking it in at the expense of us.
I was with you up to this point. There's almost never a good reason to finance a car (plus most exceptions involve having enough money banked that you could buy it outright if necessary), and a decent new car should still run you under 20k. If you can't save up enough for that in a few years, then learn some basic maintenance skills and buy a used one. A lot of cars depreciate several thousand dollars after just a year or two.
It's all a matter of optimizing your financial decisions. If you want to drive around in a $90k BMW X5 because it makes you feel important, you'll either have to be rich or make sacrifices elsewhere. If you don't want to make sacrifices elsewhere and aren't rich, then I'd highly recommend a few year old used Hundai Elantra, Ford Focus, or Mazda 3. If you want sporty, a super nice used miata can be had for under 10k (one with paint damage and the like can be had for 4k)