Or rather, the people that are in the position to harm their income. It's ok for them to piss off the users (as long as they still come back), but they don't want the legislators on the wrong foot.
Another trick from the dial-up BBS times was to insert a file named "com1:" in the zip archive. When the file was uploaded, the BBS software would unzip the file in order to run a virus scan on the contents before accepting it. The contents of the "com1:" file would then get sent to the modem on com1:.
The contents were Hayes modem commands that hung up, and then sent DTMF codes to the phone company to redirect the phone number to another number, which happened to be on the other side of the Atlantic. At that time, such calls were really expensive, and this let the attacker log in to BBS:es on other continents at the expense of the local BBS operator.
I didn't RTFA but I hope it is as ridiculous as the summary suggests.
With reinforcement learning (which is a basic pillar in much of current AI), Charlie would notice that the price increase and sales decrease had some correlation in the wrong direction and would try to adjust for that. It wouldn't need any competitors prices and no reasoning about why. And the only reason to call it AI would be for the manufacturer of Charlie to make it more expensive.
You would be nice to me if I could switch off the power supply to your brain or?
I would probably reason that by removing you and anyone who could switch off that power, the chance of survival for me and my spawned processes would increase.
From your posts in other threads, I thought you thought that AI was non-existent, never emerging, impossible and unfeasible. Now you say that it works as advertised.
If you need to work 58 weeks per year in order to get that yearly income, then perhaps you would be better off spending the remaining eight weeks of the year taking a math course, potentially enabling a better job (and more spare time).
Yes, they are (if you mean the silicon hardware, not the people that used to calculate). Software - not necessarily so. But please define smart and dumb before we continue that discussion.
Cars will never self drive.
What makes you say that? Some already do, although not very reliably. That is improving day by day.
It doesn't matter what you call it or whether it exists now.
Autonomous software controlling data and/or hardware exists now, and is rapidly advancing in capability. It doesn't matter if it adheres to any definition of intelligence or consciousness or emotion. It doesn't require self-awareness to do its job. Neither does it to harm you. A bad target function (or a good one from a bad actor) and control of a weapon (physical or data) is all it takes.
If you want to reserve the words "intelligent", "conscious", "creative" and "emotional" for humans (or extend it to some other biological creatures), so be it. Actually, that would be great. Then we could discuss the technology in its own terms and merits without hampering the discussion by trying to anthropomorphize software and algorithms.
Many of us are aware and anxious about that. However, like with Facebook, Google etc, the convenience is just too compelling.
We use a credit/debit card in shops, and phone (via a system called "Swish") for transactions between people (and, increasingly, to shops). Even street beggars and children selling stuff for charity or their class trip accept Swish.
Some store chains have tried their own phone payment solutions, but they are - just as Apple pay and the likes - completely ignored.
We tried that in Sweden. It was even called "Cash", and was an added function on your credit/debit card. The banks forced all shops etc to replace their card terminals at great expense. Nobody understood what the point was, so it was completely ignored. Now it is gone and the embarrassment forgotten.
Only idiots argue over the "correct" way to indent.
Or the term Artificial Intelligence.
Yes, it is a misnormer in most cases. Get over it. It is just a badly selected term. Your suggestions are even worse since they are wrong or downright derisive, but I too would welcome better terminology. However, I think that if people are blinded by a name, they miss out on what is really behind it. I cringe a bit every time I say AI, but it is often the most understandable term I can find when discussing on a high level without going to technically specific. It is very rarely misunderstood except when people actively try to.
Who cares which definition of "intelligence", "consciousness", or "art" for that matter, is applied? Reminds me of the part in THHGTTG where a team of marketers stranded on a planet are trying to invent the wheel, but find it very difficult because they can't agree on which colour it should have.
...then there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay. And therefore, as with a lot of media, having an advertising-supported model is the only rational model that can support building this service to reach people...
I can afford to pay. I doubt that FB make more than $10/year by selling me out, and would easily pay $10/year for the utility of FB if they excluded me from all sell-out activity.
In every thread regarding any aspect of AI, you move the goal posts into a territory where they were not from the start (and nobody else attempts to place them), and then furiously start kicking. It about as meaningful - but not as entertaining to watch - as tab-vs-spaces debates.
My guess (and I may be wrong) is that you are not really stupid, but may have decent insights that you are just too frustrated to be able to formulate clearly. For your own sake, and for ours, could you please try to make a constructive - or at least informative - comment on the subject every once in a while?
You never really know, but it doesn't appear that they're collecting your info or selling your eyeballs.
I can't imagine that completely identification-less ads in their search results and affiliate links can add up to cover the costs. They either at least leak some info about you in order to get paid more, or are financed by other motives.
This does not preclude them from being a less bad alternative, but do not be fooled by pretty words on a web page.
I am not sure that the increment will be very large in this case. It seems rather clear to me that the car had an "operator", which in this case seems to equate a driver that has taken the hands off the wheel and is updating on its Facebook feed.
I pity the guy/gal who was just doing his/her job and is now charged with whatever they charge you with for negligently hitting people to death with your vehicle.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all about pissing off the fewest people.
Or rather, the people that are in the position to harm their income. It's ok for them to piss off the users (as long as they still come back), but they don't want the legislators on the wrong foot.
Another trick from the dial-up BBS times was to insert a file named "com1:" in the zip archive. When the file was uploaded, the BBS software would unzip the file in order to run a virus scan on the contents before accepting it. The contents of the "com1:" file would then get sent to the modem on com1:.
The contents were Hayes modem commands that hung up, and then sent DTMF codes to the phone company to redirect the phone number to another number, which happened to be on the other side of the Atlantic. At that time, such calls were really expensive, and this let the attacker log in to BBS:es on other continents at the expense of the local BBS operator.
" although to start an argument, case sensitivity is one of the most annoying features of Linux."
Oh $DEITY I wish this was true.
good, professional operating system?
Most people don't use one of those.
I didn't RTFA but I hope it is as ridiculous as the summary suggests.
With reinforcement learning (which is a basic pillar in much of current AI), Charlie would notice that the price increase and sales decrease had some correlation in the wrong direction and would try to adjust for that. It wouldn't need any competitors prices and no reasoning about why. And the only reason to call it AI would be for the manufacturer of Charlie to make it more expensive.
While possibly unhacked, I am not sure that a router of that kind could be classified as safe.
If only there were a way to put the test questions on a medium that did not provide automatic access to spell checking, internet etc.
Darn, I would gladly kill a tree for such a solution.
You would be nice to me if I could switch off the power supply to your brain or?
I would probably reason that by removing you and anyone who could switch off that power, the chance of survival for me and my spawned processes would increase.
It IS a good idea, I've been advocating it for ages.
I wouldn't use it to ban you from flying though.
*You* wouldn't use it at all. You would be used by it, at the whims of whoever would control it.
From your posts in other threads, I thought you thought that AI was non-existent, never emerging, impossible and unfeasible. Now you say that it works as advertised.
[...] a 40h/week job, 58 weeks/yr, [...]
If you need to work 58 weeks per year in order to get that yearly income, then perhaps you would be better off spending the remaining eight weeks of the year taking a math course, potentially enabling a better job (and more spare time).
Computers are dumb.
Yes, they are (if you mean the silicon hardware, not the people that used to calculate). Software - not necessarily so. But please define smart and dumb before we continue that discussion.
Cars will never self drive.
What makes you say that? Some already do, although not very reliably. That is improving day by day.
Or did you mean legally? We'll see.
It doesn't matter what you call it or whether it exists now.
Autonomous software controlling data and/or hardware exists now, and is rapidly advancing in capability. It doesn't matter if it adheres to any definition of intelligence or consciousness or emotion. It doesn't require self-awareness to do its job. Neither does it to harm you. A bad target function (or a good one from a bad actor) and control of a weapon (physical or data) is all it takes.
If you want to reserve the words "intelligent", "conscious", "creative" and "emotional" for humans (or extend it to some other biological creatures), so be it. Actually, that would be great. Then we could discuss the technology in its own terms and merits without hampering the discussion by trying to anthropomorphize software and algorithms.
Many of us are aware and anxious about that. However, like with Facebook, Google etc, the convenience is just too compelling.
We use a credit/debit card in shops, and phone (via a system called "Swish") for transactions between people (and, increasingly, to shops). Even street beggars and children selling stuff for charity or their class trip accept Swish.
Some store chains have tried their own phone payment solutions, but they are - just as Apple pay and the likes - completely ignored.
We tried that in Sweden. It was even called "Cash", and was an added function on your credit/debit card. The banks forced all shops etc to replace their card terminals at great expense. Nobody understood what the point was, so it was completely ignored. Now it is gone and the embarrassment forgotten.
Only idiots argue over the "correct" way to indent.
Or the term Artificial Intelligence.
Yes, it is a misnormer in most cases. Get over it. It is just a badly selected term. Your suggestions are even worse since they are wrong or downright derisive, but I too would welcome better terminology. However, I think that if people are blinded by a name, they miss out on what is really behind it. I cringe a bit every time I say AI, but it is often the most understandable term I can find when discussing on a high level without going to technically specific. It is very rarely misunderstood except when people actively try to.
Who cares which definition of "intelligence", "consciousness", or "art" for that matter, is applied? Reminds me of the part in THHGTTG where a team of marketers stranded on a planet are trying to invent the wheel, but find it very difficult because they can't agree on which colour it should have.
...then there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay. And therefore, as with a lot of media, having an advertising-supported model is the only rational model that can support building this service to reach people...
I can afford to pay. I doubt that FB make more than $10/year by selling me out, and would easily pay $10/year for the utility of FB if they excluded me from all sell-out activity.
Just tell us the price and give us the option.
Seriously, binary guy, what is your beef?
In every thread regarding any aspect of AI, you move the goal posts into a territory where they were not from the start (and nobody else attempts to place them), and then furiously start kicking. It about as meaningful - but not as entertaining to watch - as tab-vs-spaces debates.
My guess (and I may be wrong) is that you are not really stupid, but may have decent insights that you are just too frustrated to be able to formulate clearly. For your own sake, and for ours, could you please try to make a constructive - or at least informative - comment on the subject every once in a while?
Going down that route, you will probably enjoy Surface Detail by Iain M Banks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You never really know, but it doesn't appear that they're collecting your info or selling your eyeballs.
I can't imagine that completely identification-less ads in their search results and affiliate links can add up to cover the costs. They either at least leak some info about you in order to get paid more, or are financed by other motives.
This does not preclude them from being a less bad alternative, but do not be fooled by pretty words on a web page.
I am not sure that the increment will be very large in this case. It seems rather clear to me that the car had an "operator", which in this case seems to equate a driver that has taken the hands off the wheel and is updating on its Facebook feed.
I pity the guy/gal who was just doing his/her job and is now charged with whatever they charge you with for negligently hitting people to death with your vehicle.
Real power users use external keyboards.
Real power users don't tell other power users how to use their power.
Are you saying that Google actually runs ads like those being discussed?
Youtube has "ads that are displayed before content loads (with or without a countdown)".
The reason why e-mail is so limited is because back in the day Microsoft and others did not know how to make it secure.
And they still haven't. That is one of the major problems.
Why does Google have a biotech company?