An 'alien invasion' at least would get us to stop all the stupid, pointless fighting amongst ourselves, and with any luck, help stop humans fucking each other over. Give us a common enemy!
The real concern about the half-assed, so-called 'AI' they keep trotting out is that people will buy into all the marketing and media hype about them, actually believe they're better than they really are, and trust them too much, leading to disaster. Remember, kids: 'deep learning algorithms' and 'neural networks' are not capable of consciousness, self-awareness, or what we considering 'thinking'. They're just computer programs, they're more-or-less okay at what they're written to do, but they're not people and never will be. That will have to wait until we actually understand our own brains better.
I don't see anything about those being 'self aware', 'sentient', capable of 'thinking', or anything similar, it's just another flavor of the same things they keep trotting out.
I'm just going to keep saying it until it's no longer true: We don't know how our own brains are capable of truly 'thinking' therefore we can't build machines that can do that. All these 'learning algorithms', no matter what you call them, aren't going to suddenly become capable of this; that's 'magical thinking'.
My best guess is we need another hundred years of research to really understand how our own human brain is capable of consciousness and true cognition, and a big part of the problem is we don't have sufficient instrumentality to observe a living brain in operation at the level we'd need to, to really begin to understand it. Complicating matters is that it has to be a living, fully-functional human being's brain; it's not like it's a machine we can dismantle, analyze, then reassemble and see it work again; dead is dead.
Meanwhile I'll just have to hope for everyone else's sake that too much trust isn't put into these half-baked machines they keep hypeing as 'AI', because then some real disasters may happen, and if they do then like with nuclear power, people will get so scared off of them that the entire idea may get such a stigma attached to it that no one will touch it with a ten-foot pole.
What people don't know about me is that I wish we really could develop actual, full-on general 'AI', conscious, thinking, aware, and so on, comparable (or better) than a human brain. They would make great partners for humanity, and maybe even somehow save us from ourselves. But the approach they're using right now is insufficient.
Meanwhile fanbois like you who have no idea what's what with this technology unironically think that if you throw enough hardware at it, it'll magically become sentient and self-aware. Of course we all know the real reason you think this is because you can't get a human girlfriend, and you want your RealDoll to 'come to life' instead of being just a dead plastic toy.
The real fear of what they're calling 'AI' these days is that people will believe all the marketing and media hype, and trust it too much, inviting disaster. Much like with so-called 'self driving cars'.
Which, again, is more or less what I've been saying all along, through all the so-called 'self driving car' nonsense. Your dog or cat has more cognitive and reasoning ability than anything they keep trotting out and calling 'AI'. Seriously, when your 'self driving car' has to come to a complete stop and literally 'phone home' so a remote human operator can guide it through whatever it is that's not on it's list of things it's been 'taught', then how good is it, really? What really makes me laugh is the fanboys who honestly think that if you throw enough hardware at these, they'll magically become sentient, self-aware, and develop a personality; it's like they read The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and actually believed it's real.
deep learning, now the dominant technique in artificial intelligence, will not lead to an AI that abstractly reasons and generalizes about the world. By itself, it is unlikely to automate ordinary human activities.
Exactly, precisely this. They can't 'think', and never will. The approach being used is completely wrong, or at least incomplete, because we don't even have a clue how we are capable of 'thinking'.
but there's nothing you can do with my TV that concerns me
So you're saying you have a Smart TV, and you don't care if it's got a camera and microphone and is literally allowing undisclosed 3rd parties to watch and listen to you and everything that goes on in your house? Even when it's ostensibly turned off? Are you an exhibitionist, or do you just not understand what's going on here? Do you not understand that by 'not caring' you're helping create a precedent that spying on people in their homes is okay? Does that really not bother you at all? What if it's your kids that are being spied on? Are you okay with that? What if it's a hacker who is leveraging your TV's ability to spy on you, and he's masturbating to your kids? You still okay with all this? Don't even say "Oh, that'll never happen" because stranger things have happened. Seriously, I think some of you really aren't thinking these things through -- then you call people like me 'paranoid'.
1. Don't buy a so-called 'smart TV' in the first place. They're still out there.
2. If you must buy a 'smart TV', only connect it to the Internet long enough to get through their shitty 'agreement', then disconnect it.
2a. If it insists on being connected: block it's IP address on your router.
3. Alternately: Call the manufacturer help line. Tell them you have no Internet at home. There has to be a way to 'activate' the TV without the internet.
Everyone: There are some cases where the 'herd' has made decisions for everyone and it makes it almost impossible to take back your privacy and protect your data, but in many cases it's just a matter of whether you're willing to not be lazy about it and find a way around things. Just don't listen to people that claim it's 'impossible' and that you should just 'give up and accept it', they're either fools, cowards, or both.
So I'm thinking that within a non-sentient/pre-sentient brain, this 'counting' process works, neurologically-speaking, like an op-amp integrator circuit, with a comparator-tree watching the output? The voltage accumulation reaches certain threshold values, trips the associated comparator? Then of course there's someting analogous to the 'reset' switch on the capacitor in the feedback loop?
I think, perhaps cynically, that this has little to nothing to do with any 'Terms of Service', anyones' rights, or anything like that, I think this has to do with PornHub not wanting to get the living daylights sued out of them by celebrities (and perhaps media companies they work for) whose faces have been pasted onto someone making a porn video.
What about genetic drift? How many generations of these can there be, before genetic drift causes a fatal defect? Also, are all of them, in every part of the world, still clones? Or are there more than one archetype?
Fun fact: there's a reason there are three lights (or more) on traffic signals: in case someone is color-blind, they can still discern the state of the signal by which light is on.;-)
So far as I know this is the first of it's type, and as such it's more of a proof-of-concept than it is anything else. If there's sufficient interest, and it doesn't exhibit any serious drawbacks in actual use, then it'll be developed more -- and there's no reason it couldn't be, with higher resolution and full color. Just takes money.
Icons arranged on the edge of the display. Since it's eye-tracking, it can tell if you, say, look twice ("double click") on an icon for page-up or page-down.
If the wavelength is not in the visible spectrum (especially ultraviolet) or the effective power, as it hits your retina (any section of it), is too high, then damage could occur. Doesn't matter if it's reflected light from the scene around you, or if it's literally projected an inch away from your eye.
I stand corrected; I've thought for a long time now that social media had become cancerous spontaneously, now I see it's cancerous by design. Time for some Digital Chemo.
Oh, they're doing their 'job', just not the one everyone thinks they're doing. The 'job' in this case is to prop up shitty incompetent companies like Equifax, so they continue to make money unabated, and fuck the average person, they don't matter. So long as the rich get richer, they say 'mission accomplished'.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone please mod this AC up.
An 'alien invasion' at least would get us to stop all the stupid, pointless fighting amongst ourselves, and with any luck, help stop humans fucking each other over. Give us a common enemy!
The real concern about the half-assed, so-called 'AI' they keep trotting out is that people will buy into all the marketing and media hype about them, actually believe they're better than they really are, and trust them too much, leading to disaster. Remember, kids: 'deep learning algorithms' and 'neural networks' are not capable of consciousness, self-awareness, or what we considering 'thinking'. They're just computer programs, they're more-or-less okay at what they're written to do, but they're not people and never will be. That will have to wait until we actually understand our own brains better.
I don't see anything about those being 'self aware', 'sentient', capable of 'thinking', or anything similar, it's just another flavor of the same things they keep trotting out.
I'm just going to keep saying it until it's no longer true: We don't know how our own brains are capable of truly 'thinking' therefore we can't build machines that can do that. All these 'learning algorithms', no matter what you call them, aren't going to suddenly become capable of this; that's 'magical thinking'.
My best guess is we need another hundred years of research to really understand how our own human brain is capable of consciousness and true cognition, and a big part of the problem is we don't have sufficient instrumentality to observe a living brain in operation at the level we'd need to, to really begin to understand it. Complicating matters is that it has to be a living, fully-functional human being's brain; it's not like it's a machine we can dismantle, analyze, then reassemble and see it work again; dead is dead.
Meanwhile I'll just have to hope for everyone else's sake that too much trust isn't put into these half-baked machines they keep hypeing as 'AI', because then some real disasters may happen, and if they do then like with nuclear power, people will get so scared off of them that the entire idea may get such a stigma attached to it that no one will touch it with a ten-foot pole.
What people don't know about me is that I wish we really could develop actual, full-on general 'AI', conscious, thinking, aware, and so on, comparable (or better) than a human brain. They would make great partners for humanity, and maybe even somehow save us from ourselves. But the approach they're using right now is insufficient.
Meanwhile fanbois like you who have no idea what's what with this technology unironically think that if you throw enough hardware at it, it'll magically become sentient and self-aware. Of course we all know the real reason you think this is because you can't get a human girlfriend, and you want your RealDoll to 'come to life' instead of being just a dead plastic toy.
The real fear of what they're calling 'AI' these days is that people will believe all the marketing and media hype, and trust it too much, inviting disaster. Much like with so-called 'self driving cars'.
Which, again, is more or less what I've been saying all along, through all the so-called 'self driving car' nonsense. Your dog or cat has more cognitive and reasoning ability than anything they keep trotting out and calling 'AI'. Seriously, when your 'self driving car' has to come to a complete stop and literally 'phone home' so a remote human operator can guide it through whatever it is that's not on it's list of things it's been 'taught', then how good is it, really? What really makes me laugh is the fanboys who honestly think that if you throw enough hardware at these, they'll magically become sentient, self-aware, and develop a personality; it's like they read The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and actually believed it's real.
deep learning, now the dominant technique in artificial intelligence, will not lead to an AI that abstractly reasons and generalizes about the world. By itself, it is unlikely to automate ordinary human activities.
Exactly, precisely this. They can't 'think', and never will. The approach being used is completely wrong, or at least incomplete, because we don't even have a clue how we are capable of 'thinking'.
but there's nothing you can do with my TV that concerns me
So you're saying you have a Smart TV, and you don't care if it's got a camera and microphone and is literally allowing undisclosed 3rd parties to watch and listen to you and everything that goes on in your house? Even when it's ostensibly turned off? Are you an exhibitionist, or do you just not understand what's going on here? Do you not understand that by 'not caring' you're helping create a precedent that spying on people in their homes is okay? Does that really not bother you at all? What if it's your kids that are being spied on? Are you okay with that? What if it's a hacker who is leveraging your TV's ability to spy on you, and he's masturbating to your kids? You still okay with all this? Don't even say "Oh, that'll never happen" because stranger things have happened. Seriously, I think some of you really aren't thinking these things through -- then you call people like me 'paranoid'.
Two or three things:
1. Don't buy a so-called 'smart TV' in the first place. They're still out there.
2. If you must buy a 'smart TV', only connect it to the Internet long enough to get through their shitty 'agreement', then disconnect it.
2a. If it insists on being connected: block it's IP address on your router. 3. Alternately: Call the manufacturer help line. Tell them you have no Internet at home. There has to be a way to 'activate' the TV without the internet.
Everyone: There are some cases where the 'herd' has made decisions for everyone and it makes it almost impossible to take back your privacy and protect your data, but in many cases it's just a matter of whether you're willing to not be lazy about it and find a way around things. Just don't listen to people that claim it's 'impossible' and that you should just 'give up and accept it', they're either fools, cowards, or both.
So I'm thinking that within a non-sentient/pre-sentient brain, this 'counting' process works, neurologically-speaking, like an op-amp integrator circuit, with a comparator-tree watching the output? The voltage accumulation reaches certain threshold values, trips the associated comparator? Then of course there's someting analogous to the 'reset' switch on the capacitor in the feedback loop?
I think, perhaps cynically, that this has little to nothing to do with any 'Terms of Service', anyones' rights, or anything like that, I think this has to do with PornHub not wanting to get the living daylights sued out of them by celebrities (and perhaps media companies they work for) whose faces have been pasted onto someone making a porn video.
The only way this could be cooler to hear about is if it was a 60's Corvette convertible; that's what this reminds me of. :-)
What about genetic drift? How many generations of these can there be, before genetic drift causes a fatal defect? Also, are all of them, in every part of the world, still clones? Or are there more than one archetype?
If only all wireless phones had user-replaceable batteries.. nah, that's just crazy talk!
The only question, then: Is Trump intelligent and self-aware enough to pull off such a plan?
LOL, no, he's not!
Fun fact: there's a reason there are three lights (or more) on traffic signals: in case someone is color-blind, they can still discern the state of the signal by which light is on. ;-)
Just on guts, I'd think you could develop something similar to DLP for this.
Oh and the laser power is probably just a few milliwatts at best (if even that much) so it's not like it'd be hazardous to your retinas.
So far as I know this is the first of it's type, and as such it's more of a proof-of-concept than it is anything else. If there's sufficient interest, and it doesn't exhibit any serious drawbacks in actual use, then it'll be developed more -- and there's no reason it couldn't be, with higher resolution and full color. Just takes money.
Icons arranged on the edge of the display. Since it's eye-tracking, it can tell if you, say, look twice ("double click") on an icon for page-up or page-down.
(Damnit, hit 'submit' before I was done!)
If the wavelength is not in the visible spectrum (especially ultraviolet) or the effective power, as it hits your retina (any section of it), is too high, then damage could occur. Doesn't matter if it's reflected light from the scene around you, or if it's literally projected an inch away from your eye.
The only parameters that matter in this equation are:
* Wavelength of light
* Effective power
I stand corrected; I've thought for a long time now that social media had become cancerous spontaneously, now I see it's cancerous by design. Time for some Digital Chemo.
Oh, they're doing their 'job', just not the one everyone thinks they're doing. The 'job' in this case is to prop up shitty incompetent companies like Equifax, so they continue to make money unabated, and fuck the average person, they don't matter. So long as the rich get richer, they say 'mission accomplished'.
"So long as big corporations are making money, who gives a shit about stupid little peon citizens and their stupid little problems?"