"Open your wallet", he says, LOL. That won't work either. Everyone is going to LIE TO YOUR FACE about their so-called 'privacy policy', and even if they don't? Someone upstream of them will be doing the spying anyway. The best you can do is use Tor, cross your fingers that some criminals aren't compromising your exit node to either steal your identity or infect your computer with something, and make the hard choice between not being able to use all those websites that don't work because you're on Tor, or accessing them 'in the clear' and knowing that your very personally identifiable traffic is being logged by your ISP. Then if that wasn't bad enough, most people are still using Windows, so never mind ISPs spying on you, your own computer is already spying on you.
The only way we'll have any real privacy on the Internet ever will be when there is a combination of strict privacy laws with stiff penalties for violating them, and 100% encryption on all traffic, including DNS lookups. Don't hold your breath waiting for it, there's too much money on the table, every Internet-related company with skin in the game would fight tooth and nail to prevent it from ever happening. As-is if you want any modicum of privacy you may as well start formulating an exit strategy for the Internet, and learn to get along without it in the long run, in this game the only way to win is to not play.
No, it can't, and the simple reason why is: If it falls out of the sky, killing people on the ground, and it could have even POSSIBLY been avoided if there was a human pilot in the cockpit, then the automated system is not anywhere NEAR good enough to be trusted alone. A so-called 'autonomous car' running into a crowd of people is bad enough; now imagine a fully-loaded, fully-FUELLED cargo jet crashing into the ground in a residential area. Are you horrified? You should be.
Much like the automotive industry, most passengers don't realize that there are quite a few autonomous systems already in place on today's aircraft -- including those that land the plane.
Yes, but: They're not perfect, and that's why you need skilled, experienced pilots in the cockpit, ready to take over when something goes wrong. Do any of you think, for instance, that any autopilot system on any aircraft could have done what Chesley Sullenberger did? Or would it just fall apart, and maybe everyone on that plane (and many on the ground) would have died that day? That's why we need human pilots -- and human drivers. Until we have human-level or better 'AI', not the half-assed 'machine learning' crap we have now, we NEED human beings to oversee them, because human lives are always at stake and our machines alone just plain can't cut it. Remember: Your dog has greater reasoning capability than any so-called 'machine intelligence' we have right now.
If it wasn't for the massive power vacuum that would be left behind, I'd say send an assassin in to kill Assad. I think even Adolph Hitler would have been taken aback by what that monster is capable of. But the power vacuum left behind would actually be worse in the long run. There needs to be a smooth transition of power, with Assad locked up the rest of his unnatural life, and a real functional government, that isn't slaughtering it's own citizens, in place.
Meanwhile there's zero risk when I use my own formula for passwords that the likelihood of anyone cracking is small, and since it's a formula and not random characters they're easy for me to remember -- or if it's one I don't use more than a couple times a year, write it down on a nice piece of low-tech paper and hide it somewhere. Frankly I feel I have more to worry about from data breaches from whatever website or company than I do anyone guessing my passwords or raiding my house to look for scraps of paper.
When ISPs are literally snooping on everything you do because they can then all the encryption in the world means NOTHING. We need an Internet where the ISPs keep their little brown noses to themselves and out of everyones business; their role in a publicly-accessible Internet should be to provide connectivity to the public, not act as an 'advertising platform' in the interests of companies. Now, if ISPs want to provide broadband services for FREE to everyone then I can see where they'd have a right to snoop and insert ads and all the shit they do right now. But I'm PAYING for it? And they're DATAMINING me and selling that to other companies, so they can try to sell me shit I don't even WANT? Screw them.
Why can't they use an email address or some other method? I don't want a Twitter account and I don't want Twitter to know anything about me. Thanks so much, NASA.
'People' don't listen to scientists, they listen to the media and to movies and television, and I think you know that.
Still not changing my opinion, still not changing my attitude towards this subject, and still not changing my chosen course of action; I will continue to correct people as I see fit to do so.
I completely and totally disagree with you and contend that your viewpoint will just further confuse the average person into believing that what they see in movies and television is real.
Here's a radical idea: If it's a "deep learning neural net", then how about we call it.. a "deep learning neural net"?
The average person hears 'AI', and what do they think? Something out of a movie or TV show, that you can have a conversation with like you would a person -- but it's a machine. You start talking about "Well, it's a CLASSIFICATION of AI, but it's a deep learning famalamdingdong cranafrantz such-and-such" and as you can see from how I wrote that you can see where their eyes start to glaze over; all they heard clearly was "AI" -- and they think that's something out of I, Robot with Will Smith.
Meanwhile, according to my sources, we're nowhere NEAR that leve of sophistication. Your dog has a greater and broader cognitive capability than most inappropriately termed 'AI' does. We have no idea yet how our brains actually work, except for little tiny bits and pieces that we VERY POORLY mimick with computer code -- and when it's running not even the guys who designed it know what's really going on inside it.
Therefore: I will continue to reserve the term "Artificial Intelligence" for when we manage to crack how our our conscious, self-aware brains work, and can build machines that perform comparably.
I understand perfectly well how all that works. Doesn't mean I trust them at all or see why anyone with at least two working brain cells would trust them.
Furthermore I can't comprehend why anyone would think such a service is safe to use in the first place. Typical 'Cloud' service: Get you used to it, then rip the rug right out from under you. Also, as previously stated: Why would anyone think something like this is safe or a good idea in the first place? Let a bunch of faceless strangers on the Internet keep all your passwords for you?
I'm not falling for that media-driven meme and I'm not changing anything I've said or how I think about it. None of what we have should be called 'AI', it's a misnomer that's been highly misleading to the vast majority of people, and I won't contribute to that.
If we got rid of all man-made vehicles and went back to riding horses, people would complain about horse manure.
If the whole world went back to just walking everywhere, someone would complain about 'worn out discarded shoe pollution', I'm sure.
Then of course there are the extremists who believe that the best thing the human race can do for the planet is die and let it all 'go back to nature' -- but of course you don't see them committing suicide, by way of providing the proper example, do you?
No matter what you do someone is going to complain. Humans are NEVER happy, or at least not for long. We ALWAYS find something to complain about.
The fact of the matter is that we're sooner or later are going to run out of things to use for fuel for internal combustion engines, or at least it'll get so expensive as to not be practical anymore. Furthermore the exhaust from them isn't terribly healthy to start with. They've had a great run, it's brought us far, but we're going to have to move away from them. Our technology has advanced to the point where fully electric vehicles are an excellent replacement for them, and they'll just get better. Even the high-performance types can't complain, you can easily build electric vehicles that are just as powerful (more so in some ways) than ICE powered vehicles. Much easier to maintain overall (fewer moving parts). Bonus points: centralized power generation for recharging them. However, unless there is some dramatic breakthrough in physics that gives us antigravity devices, we'll need tires on the ground, and they're going to wear, and mechanical brakes to bring EVs to a final stop. Small price to pay for all the benefits of EVs. Also, who knows? Materials science just keeps getting better, too. More durable tires and brake linings, that don't shed anything considered as 'polluting'? Look at all the things we have now that 50 years ago were thought to be impossible. This 'Top UK Advisor' needs to stop being a complainer.
First of all: There's not currently such a thing as real 'AI'; it's all 'machine learning' which is not the same thing.
Secondly: these 'chatbots' are obviously machine learning. Where do you think they learned that wanting to leave China for the United States, and where do you think they picked up an apparent attitude of dislike for the Communist Chinese government, hmm? Think it could be from.. their own citizens? Of COURSE they took them offline. Can't have inconvenient things like the truth being told, now can you?
There's a metric assload of money (8.79 BILLION) in Roundup sales. Outlawing it would probably bankrupt them, or at least it would be massively damaging to their company. Keep in mind that people have been killed over mere millions of dollars; why should Monsanto not allow millions of people worldwide get cancer (or other chronic health problems) over their product?
This 'study' sounds an awful lot like Vegan trolling.Tell people "Feeding your pets is destroying the planet because you're feeding them filthy murder-meat! You should feed your pets only a PLANT-BASED Vegan diet!" then sit back and watch the completely outraged comments about peoples beloved pets dying of malnutrition.
As a few others have pointed out: They're not raising and slaughtering cattle specifically to make dog and cat food. They're using the leftovers that aren't appetizing to humans but that is still perfectly edible and nutritious for animals.
What's really going on here is a recurring theme: someone wants to attract attention so maybe they get some research grant money.
It's smartphones plus the Internet plus so-called 'social media'. All of these things, jointly, were supposed to usher in a new 'age of information', and 'bring people together' and 'connect people'. Instead what we've got is MIS-information, DIS-information, fantasies disconnected from reality, and outright lies; 'social media' gives people more reasons to stay apart than it 'brings them together', plus we now have to differentiate between 'actual' Friends, and 'internet' friends (whom you will never meet, and can't even be sure if they're REAL). Smartphones plus the internet has done more to enslave people to the device (and all the above) and make them obsess over it than it does to 'connect' them in meaningful ways; it more often than not is more like an 'electronic leash' than it is anything else, and what's worse is that it's used as a 'data collection device' (read as: surveillance device) by organizations that usually don't have the average citizens best interests at heart (read as: sell you shit you otherwise wouldn't want and probably don't need, 'profile' you, and otherwise stick noses where they don't belong). That's just the 'normal' stuff. Then there's the downright negative ways that all the above technology is used to hurt people (bullying, extremism, etc). I'm not sure if it's 'ruined' a generation, but I don't think it's helped them so much either.
Slashdot Mirror
So, then: Idiocracy? :-( I just hope I don't live to see it happen.
"Open your wallet", he says, LOL. That won't work either. Everyone is going to LIE TO YOUR FACE about their so-called 'privacy policy', and even if they don't? Someone upstream of them will be doing the spying anyway. The best you can do is use Tor, cross your fingers that some criminals aren't compromising your exit node to either steal your identity or infect your computer with something, and make the hard choice between not being able to use all those websites that don't work because you're on Tor, or accessing them 'in the clear' and knowing that your very personally identifiable traffic is being logged by your ISP. Then if that wasn't bad enough, most people are still using Windows, so never mind ISPs spying on you, your own computer is already spying on you.
The only way we'll have any real privacy on the Internet ever will be when there is a combination of strict privacy laws with stiff penalties for violating them, and 100% encryption on all traffic, including DNS lookups. Don't hold your breath waiting for it, there's too much money on the table, every Internet-related company with skin in the game would fight tooth and nail to prevent it from ever happening. As-is if you want any modicum of privacy you may as well start formulating an exit strategy for the Internet, and learn to get along without it in the long run, in this game the only way to win is to not play.
No, it can't, and the simple reason why is: If it falls out of the sky, killing people on the ground, and it could have even POSSIBLY been avoided if there was a human pilot in the cockpit, then the automated system is not anywhere NEAR good enough to be trusted alone. A so-called 'autonomous car' running into a crowd of people is bad enough; now imagine a fully-loaded, fully-FUELLED cargo jet crashing into the ground in a residential area. Are you horrified? You should be.
Much like the automotive industry, most passengers don't realize that there are quite a few autonomous systems already in place on today's aircraft -- including those that land the plane.
Yes, but: They're not perfect, and that's why you need skilled, experienced pilots in the cockpit, ready to take over when something goes wrong. Do any of you think, for instance, that any autopilot system on any aircraft could have done what Chesley Sullenberger did? Or would it just fall apart, and maybe everyone on that plane (and many on the ground) would have died that day? That's why we need human pilots -- and human drivers. Until we have human-level or better 'AI', not the half-assed 'machine learning' crap we have now, we NEED human beings to oversee them, because human lives are always at stake and our machines alone just plain can't cut it. Remember: Your dog has greater reasoning capability than any so-called 'machine intelligence' we have right now.
Written directions haven't failed me yet.
If it wasn't for the massive power vacuum that would be left behind, I'd say send an assassin in to kill Assad. I think even Adolph Hitler would have been taken aback by what that monster is capable of. But the power vacuum left behind would actually be worse in the long run. There needs to be a smooth transition of power, with Assad locked up the rest of his unnatural life, and a real functional government, that isn't slaughtering it's own citizens, in place.
Meanwhile there's zero risk when I use my own formula for passwords that the likelihood of anyone cracking is small, and since it's a formula and not random characters they're easy for me to remember -- or if it's one I don't use more than a couple times a year, write it down on a nice piece of low-tech paper and hide it somewhere. Frankly I feel I have more to worry about from data breaches from whatever website or company than I do anyone guessing my passwords or raiding my house to look for scraps of paper.
When ISPs are literally snooping on everything you do because they can then all the encryption in the world means NOTHING. We need an Internet where the ISPs keep their little brown noses to themselves and out of everyones business; their role in a publicly-accessible Internet should be to provide connectivity to the public, not act as an 'advertising platform' in the interests of companies. Now, if ISPs want to provide broadband services for FREE to everyone then I can see where they'd have a right to snoop and insert ads and all the shit they do right now. But I'm PAYING for it? And they're DATAMINING me and selling that to other companies, so they can try to sell me shit I don't even WANT? Screw them.
Before anyone says it: I also do not want to use ANY 'social media' of any kind and that's all they're offering. Again: Thanks so much, NASA.
Why can't they use an email address or some other method? I don't want a Twitter account and I don't want Twitter to know anything about me. Thanks so much, NASA.
'People' don't listen to scientists, they listen to the media and to movies and television, and I think you know that.
Still not changing my opinion, still not changing my attitude towards this subject, and still not changing my chosen course of action; I will continue to correct people as I see fit to do so.
I completely and totally disagree with you and contend that your viewpoint will just further confuse the average person into believing that what they see in movies and television is real.
I see you understand. Excellent. I will continue to try to educate people on the difference. Please consider doing so yourself. ;-)
Here's a radical idea: If it's a "deep learning neural net", then how about we call it.. a "deep learning neural net"?
The average person hears 'AI', and what do they think? Something out of a movie or TV show, that you can have a conversation with like you would a person -- but it's a machine. You start talking about "Well, it's a CLASSIFICATION of AI, but it's a deep learning famalamdingdong cranafrantz such-and-such" and as you can see from how I wrote that you can see where their eyes start to glaze over; all they heard clearly was "AI" -- and they think that's something out of I, Robot with Will Smith.
Meanwhile, according to my sources, we're nowhere NEAR that leve of sophistication. Your dog has a greater and broader cognitive capability than most inappropriately termed 'AI' does. We have no idea yet how our brains actually work, except for little tiny bits and pieces that we VERY POORLY mimick with computer code -- and when it's running not even the guys who designed it know what's really going on inside it.
Therefore: I will continue to reserve the term "Artificial Intelligence" for when we manage to crack how our our conscious, self-aware brains work, and can build machines that perform comparably.
I understand perfectly well how all that works. Doesn't mean I trust them at all or see why anyone with at least two working brain cells would trust them.
I understand all that. But I still would not trust them.
Kharma
Furthermore I can't comprehend why anyone would think such a service is safe to use in the first place. Typical 'Cloud' service: Get you used to it, then rip the rug right out from under you. Also, as previously stated: Why would anyone think something like this is safe or a good idea in the first place? Let a bunch of faceless strangers on the Internet keep all your passwords for you?
I'm not falling for that media-driven meme and I'm not changing anything I've said or how I think about it. None of what we have should be called 'AI', it's a misnomer that's been highly misleading to the vast majority of people, and I won't contribute to that.
If we got rid of all man-made vehicles and went back to riding horses, people would complain about horse manure.
If the whole world went back to just walking everywhere, someone would complain about 'worn out discarded shoe pollution', I'm sure.
Then of course there are the extremists who believe that the best thing the human race can do for the planet is die and let it all 'go back to nature' -- but of course you don't see them committing suicide, by way of providing the proper example, do you?
No matter what you do someone is going to complain. Humans are NEVER happy, or at least not for long. We ALWAYS find something to complain about.
The fact of the matter is that we're sooner or later are going to run out of things to use for fuel for internal combustion engines, or at least it'll get so expensive as to not be practical anymore. Furthermore the exhaust from them isn't terribly healthy to start with. They've had a great run, it's brought us far, but we're going to have to move away from them. Our technology has advanced to the point where fully electric vehicles are an excellent replacement for them, and they'll just get better. Even the high-performance types can't complain, you can easily build electric vehicles that are just as powerful (more so in some ways) than ICE powered vehicles. Much easier to maintain overall (fewer moving parts). Bonus points: centralized power generation for recharging them. However, unless there is some dramatic breakthrough in physics that gives us antigravity devices, we'll need tires on the ground, and they're going to wear, and mechanical brakes to bring EVs to a final stop. Small price to pay for all the benefits of EVs. Also, who knows? Materials science just keeps getting better, too. More durable tires and brake linings, that don't shed anything considered as 'polluting'? Look at all the things we have now that 50 years ago were thought to be impossible. This 'Top UK Advisor' needs to stop being a complainer.
First of all: There's not currently such a thing as real 'AI'; it's all 'machine learning' which is not the same thing.
Secondly: these 'chatbots' are obviously machine learning. Where do you think they learned that wanting to leave China for the United States, and where do you think they picked up an apparent attitude of dislike for the Communist Chinese government, hmm? Think it could be from.. their own citizens? Of COURSE they took them offline. Can't have inconvenient things like the truth being told, now can you?
There's a metric assload of money (8.79 BILLION) in Roundup sales. Outlawing it would probably bankrupt them, or at least it would be massively damaging to their company. Keep in mind that people have been killed over mere millions of dollars; why should Monsanto not allow millions of people worldwide get cancer (or other chronic health problems) over their product?
This 'study' sounds an awful lot like Vegan trolling.Tell people "Feeding your pets is destroying the planet because you're feeding them filthy murder-meat! You should feed your pets only a PLANT-BASED Vegan diet!" then sit back and watch the completely outraged comments about peoples beloved pets dying of malnutrition.
As a few others have pointed out: They're not raising and slaughtering cattle specifically to make dog and cat food. They're using the leftovers that aren't appetizing to humans but that is still perfectly edible and nutritious for animals.
What's really going on here is a recurring theme: someone wants to attract attention so maybe they get some research grant money.
Was he wrong? No.
It's smartphones plus the Internet plus so-called 'social media'. All of these things, jointly, were supposed to usher in a new 'age of information', and 'bring people together' and 'connect people'. Instead what we've got is MIS-information, DIS-information, fantasies disconnected from reality, and outright lies; 'social media' gives people more reasons to stay apart than it 'brings them together', plus we now have to differentiate between 'actual' Friends, and 'internet' friends (whom you will never meet, and can't even be sure if they're REAL). Smartphones plus the internet has done more to enslave people to the device (and all the above) and make them obsess over it than it does to 'connect' them in meaningful ways; it more often than not is more like an 'electronic leash' than it is anything else, and what's worse is that it's used as a 'data collection device' (read as: surveillance device) by organizations that usually don't have the average citizens best interests at heart (read as: sell you shit you otherwise wouldn't want and probably don't need, 'profile' you, and otherwise stick noses where they don't belong). That's just the 'normal' stuff. Then there's the downright negative ways that all the above technology is used to hurt people (bullying, extremism, etc). I'm not sure if it's 'ruined' a generation, but I don't think it's helped them so much either.