There is no reason to believe self driving cars and pattern recognition will bring about a post-scarcity society. Perhaps strong AI would, without a dystopian result that is, but my original point was that AI doesn't have to reach strong AI levels before it massively disrupts the workforce. It is very likely that machine learning will remove the majority of today's jobs without making resources so plentiful that no one is fighting over them. I'm not saying it is a certainty, but it is a very strong possibility (and the one I find most likely).
post-scarcity MEANS that everybody gets plenty. There no reason to think differently, unless you're talking dystopia [which we have no reason to consider yet].
In the year 1800 if you described a society where 2% of the population could feed the other 98%, they would likely consider that a post-scarcity society. But yet here we are and we still have poor people. Post-scarcity without a highly functioning wealth redistribution system is not likely to be the Utopian world you imagine. It certainly could be, but I think it is naive to think it is a certainty.
Personally, I think they are being silly. Real human-level AI is still a ways off, and corporate AI is focused on solving practical problems rather than creating Skynet.
From a human perspective, the most likely dangers from AI are systems which can solve enough difficult problems to put the majority of today's workers out of work in a very short time frame. A combination of self driving vehicles, speech recognition and image identification at human levels of accuracy, expert systems, and more agile robotics could realistically put most humans out of work. New jobs may be created, but likely not as fast as they are destroyed.
The real moral issues are what to do with the unemployable for decades or perhaps even forever. The social change which would be required to handle a 60% U3 unemployment rate is likely to be messy.
And have you considered that Google tailors your search results based on your search history? Those results YOU get aren't what *I* get.
I did, which is why I googled with an incognito window and with my cell phone I got a week ago before I posted. They had the same results as my original search. While it does worry me that the quality of articles in Slashdot is declining, I am glad the editors at least respect their audience enough to expect us to do a quick Google search every once in a while. Not everyone has the resourcefulness of a petulant 3rd grader.
This is a tech site, not a financial news site. How hard would it be to explain what M&A stands for? Money and ass? Marissa and airplanes? Monkeys and aardvarks?
Expecting readers of a tech site to find that the definition of M&A is the first two results of a Google search seems a bit outlandish to me too. I mean, some of us might have heard of search engines before but certainly not most of us!
And yet it must be answered before the question of what to do about it.
The reason it's important to me is that I reject the notion that because a lot of people (i.e. most of Western society) think a certain way makes it correct and furthermore that the sheer weight of numbers is a valid basis for morality: peer pressure is just bullying.
The reality is this has been answered by society. Virtually no one here is arguing that women don't deserve equal opportunity except you. There are certainly some other outliers like yourself, but you are certainly the vast minority. The people complaining about SJWs are complaining that women do have equal treatment, not that they don't deserve it. This is a belief many people share, so it is a worthwhile argument to have. Your belief that we should even question the merit of equal opportunity is such a fringe belief it is not worthy of discussion unless that was the point of this article. It is an extreme tangent.
I simply disagree that women experience the greatest magnitude of prejudice.
Now this an argument worth having. If you are claiming women do not face the greatest magnitude of prejudice of any identifiable group, I would agree with you. African Americans, for instance, have far more problems with discrimination than women. But it is unreasonable for society to only deal with the most egregious problems and ignore all other problems until the worst one is solved. Societies can and should put efforts towards fixing many problems at once.
If you are arguing that men have it harder than women in the STEM fields that is a very hard position to take. It would take an enormous burden of evidence to convince anyone. Even those against SJWs are not claiming women have it easier, just that they are already equal (or close enough).
If you are arguing that other aspects of society are hard on men (such as divorce courts and dangerous professions like logging), then those are separate issues which are irrelevant to this one. If those are real problems, they should also be dealt with. Keeping women out of STEM fields as some kind of revenge for women getting more spousal support than men is quite childish.
This is begging the question. Why is it a moral imperative?
This type of reductive argument is too complex to discuss in a Slashdot post. If you disagree that concepts such as personal freedom or equal opportunity are not moral imperatives then there is little to be gained from this discussion. Equal opportunity is a very new addition to the moral code of even western societies, just as the assertion that slavery is immoral is fairly new. You may have a different moral code than our society at large, but if you cannot admit the current moral code of most of western society includes equal opportunity for all then as I said there is little which can be gained from this discussion.
At risk of moving the goal posts I've realized that there is a third aspect of this whole thing which is important when forming my opinion on the matter: 3. Even if women are discriminated against please show that men are not discriminated against. It seems to me that everyone has to deal with bullshit and it's not necessarily injustice nor is it worthwhile to upend our whole society in an attempt to rectify-- rather like burning down a house to kill fleas.
Everyone faces negative discrimination. But different groups can face different magnitudes of prejudice. It is the disproportionate magnitude of these prejudices and the magnitude in which they affect peoples' lives that is at issue. Is it your contention that the magnitude of discrimination should not be a factor in determining which social inequalities to combat?
I never claimed I couldn't find such research, I just wanted to have something concrete in hand. For extra credit let's see if we can find some research that critiques the sources you gave.
Not all discrimination is bad? Then before we go any further: 1. Explain why it's morally wrong and detrimental to society for women to be discriminated against. 2. If it's wrong then give concrete examples with supporting evidence to show how women are currently being discriminated against-- no need to be exhaustive, three examples will do.
1. I'm assuming you mean discriminated against based on societal prejudices. If you mean discrimination such as giving them different bathrooms or private areas to pump breast milk then I find nothing morally wrong about that. a. Providing equal opportunity is a moral imperative for most people in the western world, especially the United States. b. Society is improved when every member has equal opportunity to fulfill their full potential. When someone does not fulfill their full potential because of lack of opportunity, gender roles, socio-economic factors, etc. society loses the extra benefit this person could have provided to society. (people are not forced to meet their full potential based on a moral desire for personal freedom)
Could you be so kind to actually mention that evidence that shows that "this is an overwhelmingly wrong argument", unless it's just the fact that there are more than X% of people of gender A in particular field.
While you probably won't take the time to read any of these and/or will claim all research you disagree with is biased, here you go. Most of the research where double blind tests are easily done includes using identical resumes other than the gender of the applicant. It is pretty hard to see how people still claim these biases do not exist, but here we are.
There are plenty of "social tribes" composed primarily by white people (for example, skin heads) that are known to be "problematic", and if you look like one of them be assured that you will not pass a job interview.
No one is claiming you cannot throw away your opportunities with poor choices.
Simple logic: sexism is wrong... No tortured logic required
The problem isn't tortured logic, it is simplistic understanding of what makes discrimination and sexism bad. When people complain about reverse sexism, racism, etc. they are usually making the mistake that all discrimination is bad. This is because colloquially we add the same connotations to the words discriminate and prejudice. Prejudices lead to poor discriminating behavior. But discriminating behavior can be very beneficial when it allows people to more efficiently make choices and create change.
It is valid to make an argument that women have just as much opportunity as men and do not need these programs. I believe the evidence shows this is an overwhelmingly wrong argument, but not intellectually dishonest. Claiming something is wrong just because it includes discriminating behavior is not a valid argument by itself, as it is quite intellectually dishonest. Unless prejudice against men is found (aka, they aren't being included because they are deemed inferior) then claiming discrimination here is very misleading.
Nonsense. The Dr. Who and James Bond franchises, for two long-running examples, have succeeded despite having multiple different actors play the same character.
Mind, I'm convinced that 007 is really a Time Lord....
There is a difference between succeeding in the face of adversity and not having adversity in the first place. Just because franchises have found a way to work around the problem of changing actors does not mean changing actors is some beneficial thing. It is far more common for movie scripts to simply be scrapped because they couldn't get the actors together than it is for movies to successfully change their main cast.
There would still be the possibility for reboots or other creative mechanisms to change actors frequently (like Dr. Who). This technology would be used the other 80% of instances ([/MadeUpStatistic]) where neither of those options is as desirable as simply having the same actor.
An actor who I 'recognize' is an actor who has failed at their job. The job of an actor is to take on a role, and part of that process is immersing themselves in the role. If I see a 'star' actor and not the character being portrayed, the aesthetic distance has been broken and the actor has failed.
But if you are interested in creating a sequel or some other derivative work involving a character, you do want to be able to recognize that character.
None of them are exactly brain surgeons, are they. Except for the one who IS a brain surgeon, of course.
Hopefully this presidential season will show more people how successful you can be with a lot of hard work, regardless of how dim witted you may be. Also more people can stop assuming every successful business man, doctor, lawyer, etc. is automatically capable of rational thought just because of their success.
Perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the human condition is that we are all trapped in overwhelming ignorance. I don't disagree that Trump is clueless. But I don't see that any of the mainstream politicians and commentators are significantly better.
On one end you have Ben Carson and Donald Trump whose claims are 85% / 76% mostly false or worse respectively, and on the other you have Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton who come it at 28% mostly false or worse. Not to say all GOP are that bad, with Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio coming in at 32% and 40% respectively.
Guys like Trump prey on people who hold the false belief that all politicians lie equally. Everyone lies, but there is a big difference between people who may stretch the truth and people who will flat out say anything.
They're not "trapped". They can leave any time they want to.
They just can't switch jobs in the United States.
That is effectively the same thing, or at least as it pertains to peoples' complaint about the H1B program. Everyone understands these workers have it better in the US and this is why they are easily exploited. To stop employers from being able to exploit them, they would need to be allowed to easily find new jobs in the US.
By "trapped" the GP means more trapped than a native worker. The goal would be to make an H1B worker have the same flexibility as a native worker for as long as their H1B lasts. This way they could demand competitive wages like everyone else.
They didn't mention what kind of terms are given. The lease could give unlimited rights to use, modify, and distribute the code. Gigster would still retain the ability to re-use code even if they gave these terms to the client. It doesn't have to work like leasing a car where there are monthly payments and a limited term length.
Many contractors do not get paid benefits. They simply add around 30% to their rate to factor in those benefits.
The real question is what kind of rates can developers, designers, and project managers make with Gigster. If they are in the $75-$150 range for developers they could provide a very useful service for both highly-skilled contractors and companies wanting a quality product. If they are offering more like $50 or less then its just another company trying to exploit low wage labor to produce cookie-cutter products on the cheap.
But you can get that income without Airbnb. All it's done is be one of a few companies to provide a central location to advertise the services on phones. The short term rental market has existed for ages. Yes, it may be handy for those who never look up from the phone but it's certainly not very innovative.
Yeah, and all Google did was provide a central location where you could find content on the Internet. Web site directories and even tools like phone books had existed for ages. Certainly not very innovative either.
Providing a market place for people to easily engage in trade is still massively useful. I wouldn't call Airbnb a revolutionary company, but they certainly provide a very useful service. I have rented out apartments there on two occasions and it was great to have a reasonably prices place with a large fridge, oven, and washing machine as opposed to a hotel room.
I think many have abandoned the term AI. There's too much history and it's misleading. Machine learning is more often used, but the phrase I think is most appropriate is statistical learning.
AI is still the most appropriate term when you are referring to the entire field as a whole. There are subsets of artificial intelligence that do not use machine learning or statistical models. At its core, artificial intelligence is artificially creating systems which exhibit intelligent behavior. Identifying faces in images or transcribing text from speech certainly qualify. Even simple Bayesian networks in video games that allow computer controlled characters to interact with human players qualify. Some artificial intelligence is very simple, and some are very complex.
I see no reason to stop using a very appropriate term just because many people confuse AI with Strong AI.
neural networks and machine learning are not 'artificial intelligence'. anyone who confuse these with AI are just parroting hype. refer to them by their proper names. and leave vaguely defined 'artificial intelligence (AI)' out of any serious article until there is actual intelligence artificially created.
Stop confusing AI with strong AI. Any system that artificially creates results that humans would perceive as intelligent qualifies as Artificial Intelligence. Your definition of AI is not the industry standard so why would any serious article adhere to it?
even thou medicare pays more then private insurance.
I have never heard anyone say medicare pays more than private insurance, not even proponents of medicare. They may claim Medicare is more efficient, but from everything I have read or heard what you said above is simply false. Medicare seems to pay about 80% of what private insurance pays.
Well, you might be right about the management. The problem is that if management is this grossly incompetent, you still have to fix management, not piss of the people doing actual work. The only justification for what she did would be that she wanted to obscure that she cannot fix the problem. Which makes the problem worse.
To put this into more IT terms, Marissa Mayer inherited a gigantic rotting code base built upon decades of poor architectural choices. When put into that situation, you don't do a massive rewrite immediately. You find ways to treat sections of the code base as a black box so new code can interface with it but be kept in separate modules. Once you have divided the old code base into modules as best you can, you start identifying its core functionality so you can determine what rewrites make the most impact.
I agree that ideally Marissa Mayer could have completely overhauled management, just like a new software architect could ideally rewrite the entire old code base. But neither are really feasible.
I wouldn't be surprised if experienced managers view new management who overhaul an entire company structure similarly as experienced developers view new developers who want to rewrite everything from scratch.
Can you imagine any situation where Yahoo would come back, no matter who was running it? With the full support of the behemoth Microsoft, Bing is a very minor second compared to Google.
I can absolutely imagine a situation where Yahoo became a profitable tech giant. But that most likely would require Yahoo management to focus on becoming profitable instead of just becoming bigger. They have been acting like a startup who only cares about gaining market share at any cost, instead of a responsible established company looking out for their shareholder's interests.
Slashdot Mirror
AI will ENABLE post-scarcity.
There is no reason to believe self driving cars and pattern recognition will bring about a post-scarcity society. Perhaps strong AI would, without a dystopian result that is, but my original point was that AI doesn't have to reach strong AI levels before it massively disrupts the workforce. It is very likely that machine learning will remove the majority of today's jobs without making resources so plentiful that no one is fighting over them. I'm not saying it is a certainty, but it is a very strong possibility (and the one I find most likely).
post-scarcity MEANS that everybody gets plenty. There no reason to think differently, unless you're talking dystopia [which we have no reason to consider yet].
In the year 1800 if you described a society where 2% of the population could feed the other 98%, they would likely consider that a post-scarcity society. But yet here we are and we still have poor people. Post-scarcity without a highly functioning wealth redistribution system is not likely to be the Utopian world you imagine. It certainly could be, but I think it is naive to think it is a certainty.
Personally, I think they are being silly. Real human-level AI is still a ways off, and corporate AI is focused on solving practical problems rather than creating Skynet.
From a human perspective, the most likely dangers from AI are systems which can solve enough difficult problems to put the majority of today's workers out of work in a very short time frame. A combination of self driving vehicles, speech recognition and image identification at human levels of accuracy, expert systems, and more agile robotics could realistically put most humans out of work. New jobs may be created, but likely not as fast as they are destroyed.
The real moral issues are what to do with the unemployable for decades or perhaps even forever. The social change which would be required to handle a 60% U3 unemployment rate is likely to be messy.
And have you considered that Google tailors your search results based on your search history? Those results YOU get aren't what *I* get.
I did, which is why I googled with an incognito window and with my cell phone I got a week ago before I posted. They had the same results as my original search. While it does worry me that the quality of articles in Slashdot is declining, I am glad the editors at least respect their audience enough to expect us to do a quick Google search every once in a while. Not everyone has the resourcefulness of a petulant 3rd grader.
This is a tech site, not a financial news site. How hard would it be to explain what M&A stands for? Money and ass? Marissa and airplanes? Monkeys and aardvarks?
Expecting readers of a tech site to find that the definition of M&A is the first two results of a Google search seems a bit outlandish to me too. I mean, some of us might have heard of search engines before but certainly not most of us!
Couldn't find out what an M&A is in either the summary or the article.
Or Google I would presume, which is quite depressing since typing M&A into Google explains what it is six times including the first two results.
And yet it must be answered before the question of what to do about it.
The reason it's important to me is that I reject the notion that because a lot of people (i.e. most of Western society) think a certain way makes it correct and furthermore that the sheer weight of numbers is a valid basis for morality: peer pressure is just bullying.
The reality is this has been answered by society. Virtually no one here is arguing that women don't deserve equal opportunity except you. There are certainly some other outliers like yourself, but you are certainly the vast minority. The people complaining about SJWs are complaining that women do have equal treatment, not that they don't deserve it. This is a belief many people share, so it is a worthwhile argument to have. Your belief that we should even question the merit of equal opportunity is such a fringe belief it is not worthy of discussion unless that was the point of this article. It is an extreme tangent.
I simply disagree that women experience the greatest magnitude of prejudice.
Now this an argument worth having. If you are claiming women do not face the greatest magnitude of prejudice of any identifiable group, I would agree with you. African Americans, for instance, have far more problems with discrimination than women. But it is unreasonable for society to only deal with the most egregious problems and ignore all other problems until the worst one is solved. Societies can and should put efforts towards fixing many problems at once.
If you are arguing that men have it harder than women in the STEM fields that is a very hard position to take. It would take an enormous burden of evidence to convince anyone. Even those against SJWs are not claiming women have it easier, just that they are already equal (or close enough).
If you are arguing that other aspects of society are hard on men (such as divorce courts and dangerous professions like logging), then those are separate issues which are irrelevant to this one. If those are real problems, they should also be dealt with. Keeping women out of STEM fields as some kind of revenge for women getting more spousal support than men is quite childish.
This is begging the question. Why is it a moral imperative?
This type of reductive argument is too complex to discuss in a Slashdot post. If you disagree that concepts such as personal freedom or equal opportunity are not moral imperatives then there is little to be gained from this discussion. Equal opportunity is a very new addition to the moral code of even western societies, just as the assertion that slavery is immoral is fairly new. You may have a different moral code than our society at large, but if you cannot admit the current moral code of most of western society includes equal opportunity for all then as I said there is little which can be gained from this discussion.
At risk of moving the goal posts I've realized that there is a third aspect of this whole thing which is important when forming my opinion on the matter:
3. Even if women are discriminated against please show that men are not discriminated against. It seems to me that everyone has to deal with bullshit and it's not necessarily injustice nor is it worthwhile to upend our whole society in an attempt to rectify-- rather like burning down a house to kill fleas.
Everyone faces negative discrimination. But different groups can face different magnitudes of prejudice. It is the disproportionate magnitude of these prejudices and the magnitude in which they affect peoples' lives that is at issue. Is it your contention that the magnitude of discrimination should not be a factor in determining which social inequalities to combat?
I never claimed I couldn't find such research, I just wanted to have something concrete in hand. For extra credit let's see if we can find some research that critiques the sources you gave.
I'll let you take care of that one.
Not all discrimination is bad? Then before we go any further:
1. Explain why it's morally wrong and detrimental to society for women to be discriminated against.
2. If it's wrong then give concrete examples with supporting evidence to show how women are currently being discriminated against-- no need to be exhaustive, three examples will do.
1. I'm assuming you mean discriminated against based on societal prejudices. If you mean discrimination such as giving them different bathrooms or private areas to pump breast milk then I find nothing morally wrong about that.
a. Providing equal opportunity is a moral imperative for most people in the western world, especially the United States.
b. Society is improved when every member has equal opportunity to fulfill their full potential. When someone does not fulfill their full potential because of lack of opportunity, gender roles, socio-economic factors, etc. society loses the extra benefit this person could have provided to society.
(people are not forced to meet their full potential based on a moral desire for personal freedom)
2.
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students
How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science
Gender Bias Against Women of Color in Science
Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee?
It is far more reasonable to just ignore the research showing these biases than to claim you cannot find the research. It doesn't take much digging.
Could you be so kind to actually mention that evidence that shows that "this is an overwhelmingly wrong argument", unless it's just the fact that there are more than X% of people of gender A in particular field.
While you probably won't take the time to read any of these and/or will claim all research you disagree with is biased, here you go. Most of the research where double blind tests are easily done includes using identical resumes other than the gender of the applicant. It is pretty hard to see how people still claim these biases do not exist, but here we are.
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students
How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science
Gender Bias Against Women of Color in Science
Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee?
Don't feel too bad when you ignore all of this, because other research also shows men evaluate the research that confirms gender bias within STEM contexts as less meritorious than do women
There are plenty of "social tribes" composed primarily by white people (for example, skin heads) that are known to be "problematic", and if you look like one of them be assured that you will not pass a job interview.
No one is claiming you cannot throw away your opportunities with poor choices.
Simple logic: sexism is wrong ... No tortured logic required
The problem isn't tortured logic, it is simplistic understanding of what makes discrimination and sexism bad. When people complain about reverse sexism, racism, etc. they are usually making the mistake that all discrimination is bad. This is because colloquially we add the same connotations to the words discriminate and prejudice. Prejudices lead to poor discriminating behavior. But discriminating behavior can be very beneficial when it allows people to more efficiently make choices and create change.
It is valid to make an argument that women have just as much opportunity as men and do not need these programs. I believe the evidence shows this is an overwhelmingly wrong argument, but not intellectually dishonest. Claiming something is wrong just because it includes discriminating behavior is not a valid argument by itself, as it is quite intellectually dishonest. Unless prejudice against men is found (aka, they aren't being included because they are deemed inferior) then claiming discrimination here is very misleading.
Nonsense. The Dr. Who and James Bond franchises, for two long-running examples, have succeeded despite having multiple different actors play the same character.
Mind, I'm convinced that 007 is really a Time Lord....
There is a difference between succeeding in the face of adversity and not having adversity in the first place. Just because franchises have found a way to work around the problem of changing actors does not mean changing actors is some beneficial thing. It is far more common for movie scripts to simply be scrapped because they couldn't get the actors together than it is for movies to successfully change their main cast.
There would still be the possibility for reboots or other creative mechanisms to change actors frequently (like Dr. Who). This technology would be used the other 80% of instances ([/MadeUpStatistic]) where neither of those options is as desirable as simply having the same actor.
An actor who I 'recognize' is an actor who has failed at their job. The job of an actor is to take on a role, and part of that process is immersing themselves in the role. If I see a 'star' actor and not the character being portrayed, the aesthetic distance has been broken and the actor has failed.
But if you are interested in creating a sequel or some other derivative work involving a character, you do want to be able to recognize that character.
None of them are exactly brain surgeons, are they. Except for the one who IS a brain surgeon, of course.
Hopefully this presidential season will show more people how successful you can be with a lot of hard work, regardless of how dim witted you may be. Also more people can stop assuming every successful business man, doctor, lawyer, etc. is automatically capable of rational thought just because of their success.
Perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the human condition is that we are all trapped in overwhelming ignorance. I don't disagree that Trump is clueless. But I don't see that any of the mainstream politicians and commentators are significantly better.
If only there was a group who takes the time to measure how full of shit each politician is. Oh wait, there is. Others have even taken time to aggregate the claims of each major 2016 presidential nominee (and some past ones).
On one end you have Ben Carson and Donald Trump whose claims are 85% / 76% mostly false or worse respectively, and on the other you have Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton who come it at 28% mostly false or worse. Not to say all GOP are that bad, with Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio coming in at 32% and 40% respectively.
Guys like Trump prey on people who hold the false belief that all politicians lie equally. Everyone lies, but there is a big difference between people who may stretch the truth and people who will flat out say anything.
They're not "trapped". They can leave any time they want to.
They just can't switch jobs in the United States.
That is effectively the same thing, or at least as it pertains to peoples' complaint about the H1B program. Everyone understands these workers have it better in the US and this is why they are easily exploited. To stop employers from being able to exploit them, they would need to be allowed to easily find new jobs in the US.
By "trapped" the GP means more trapped than a native worker. The goal would be to make an H1B worker have the same flexibility as a native worker for as long as their H1B lasts. This way they could demand competitive wages like everyone else.
Lol, I thought he meant per hour.
I did :-(
"Leasing" the software out?
This is why it wont be successful.
They didn't mention what kind of terms are given. The lease could give unlimited rights to use, modify, and distribute the code. Gigster would still retain the ability to re-use code even if they gave these terms to the client. It doesn't have to work like leasing a car where there are monthly payments and a limited term length.
Many contractors do not get paid benefits. They simply add around 30% to their rate to factor in those benefits.
The real question is what kind of rates can developers, designers, and project managers make with Gigster. If they are in the $75-$150 range for developers they could provide a very useful service for both highly-skilled contractors and companies wanting a quality product. If they are offering more like $50 or less then its just another company trying to exploit low wage labor to produce cookie-cutter products on the cheap.
But you can get that income without Airbnb. All it's done is be one of a few companies to provide a central location to advertise the services on phones. The short term rental market has existed for ages. Yes, it may be handy for those who never look up from the phone but it's certainly not very innovative.
Yeah, and all Google did was provide a central location where you could find content on the Internet. Web site directories and even tools like phone books had existed for ages. Certainly not very innovative either.
Providing a market place for people to easily engage in trade is still massively useful. I wouldn't call Airbnb a revolutionary company, but they certainly provide a very useful service. I have rented out apartments there on two occasions and it was great to have a reasonably prices place with a large fridge, oven, and washing machine as opposed to a hotel room.
I think many have abandoned the term AI. There's too much history and it's misleading. Machine learning is more often used, but the phrase I think is most appropriate is statistical learning.
AI is still the most appropriate term when you are referring to the entire field as a whole. There are subsets of artificial intelligence that do not use machine learning or statistical models. At its core, artificial intelligence is artificially creating systems which exhibit intelligent behavior. Identifying faces in images or transcribing text from speech certainly qualify. Even simple Bayesian networks in video games that allow computer controlled characters to interact with human players qualify. Some artificial intelligence is very simple, and some are very complex.
I see no reason to stop using a very appropriate term just because many people confuse AI with Strong AI.
neural networks and machine learning are not 'artificial intelligence'. anyone who confuse these with AI are just parroting hype. refer to them by their proper names. and leave vaguely defined 'artificial intelligence (AI)' out of any serious article until there is actual intelligence artificially created.
Stop confusing AI with strong AI. Any system that artificially creates results that humans would perceive as intelligent qualifies as Artificial Intelligence. Your definition of AI is not the industry standard so why would any serious article adhere to it?
even thou medicare pays more then private insurance.
I have never heard anyone say medicare pays more than private insurance, not even proponents of medicare. They may claim Medicare is more efficient, but from everything I have read or heard what you said above is simply false. Medicare seems to pay about 80% of what private insurance pays.
Well, you might be right about the management. The problem is that if management is this grossly incompetent, you still have to fix management, not piss of the people doing actual work. The only justification for what she did would be that she wanted to obscure that she cannot fix the problem. Which makes the problem worse.
To put this into more IT terms, Marissa Mayer inherited a gigantic rotting code base built upon decades of poor architectural choices. When put into that situation, you don't do a massive rewrite immediately. You find ways to treat sections of the code base as a black box so new code can interface with it but be kept in separate modules. Once you have divided the old code base into modules as best you can, you start identifying its core functionality so you can determine what rewrites make the most impact.
I agree that ideally Marissa Mayer could have completely overhauled management, just like a new software architect could ideally rewrite the entire old code base. But neither are really feasible.
I wouldn't be surprised if experienced managers view new management who overhaul an entire company structure similarly as experienced developers view new developers who want to rewrite everything from scratch.
Can you imagine any situation where Yahoo would come back, no matter who was running it? With the full support of the behemoth Microsoft, Bing is a very minor second compared to Google.
I can absolutely imagine a situation where Yahoo became a profitable tech giant. But that most likely would require Yahoo management to focus on becoming profitable instead of just becoming bigger. They have been acting like a startup who only cares about gaining market share at any cost, instead of a responsible established company looking out for their shareholder's interests.