We seem to be moving inexorably towards devices that are just solid bricks that you toss in the trash when they stop working, and away from things that are serviceable. If we had Federation-style replicators that can recycle them as energy and make you a new one, great, but we don't, it's wasteful, and it's stupid.
At some point AI might become self-aware enough to create even better AI.
Not with the current excuse for AI there won't be. It doesn't 'think', has zero capacity to do that (because we don't even understand how *we* do that), is not self-aware (again, because we don't even understand how that happens in human brains) therefore you can't write code or build a machine that does that. You're engaging in 'magical thinking' if you're thinking just adding more and more hardware will make it just suddenly happen all on it's own.
Much like the compression algorithm behind DivX survived even after the business model of DivX fell flat on it's face, blockchain technology, apparently showing many legitimate, legal uses will survive the fall of so-called 'cryptocurrency', which only really seems to have been useful for criminal activities.
When you say 'evading capital controls' you're basically saying 'use it as a means of laundering money' and/or 'use it for criminal activities', which is what I've said about so-called 'cryptocurrency' since the beginning. As anonymous as cash without having to ever physically transfer it.
Back when my non-work-hours hobby was sitting there all night long writing software for one project or another of mine, everything I did was in C, and I managed to not melt the computer into a heap of slag on the desk in the process. Guess I lucked out. xD
By your logic we shouldn't be able to have anything as complex and large as Windows or Linux (or even larger works than those) without them leaving a heap of molten slag where the computer they were run on was sitting. Are you a programmer? Jaded and cynical more than a little? I can understand, but take as step back and give some people more credit than you're giving them, maybe?
If I already knew how to use C properly, already know better than to use uninitiallized pointers, not return heap space when I'm done with it, etc etc etc then why would I even need it?
Apropos of nothing: yours is the lowest user ID I've ever had comment on one of my comments before; hail, Centurion!:-)
I remember the first time I ever heard that some actual high-end commercial application software was written in BASIC; I think I almost fell on the floor laughing, thinking it was some sort of crude joke. Then imagine my face when I found out it wasn't a joke.:-/
So-called 'AI' has been so over-hyped by development companies and their marketers (because they need to show ROI or get their heads chopped off), the news media doesn't have a clue how anything actually works and they're amplifying the hype, then entertainment media (TV, movies, even books) present these fantasy images of 'AI' technology that doesn't exist (and might never exist), and shockingly enough, people believe what they see hear and read. The long-term result of this, left unchecked, will be people actually believing that these 'algorithms' masquerading as Artificial Intelligence are capable of far more than they actually are, resulting in financial disasters, property damage, and loss of human life. Meanwhile the programmers that create these half-assed machines can't even tell you what's going on 'under the hood' when the thing's running, and can't really explain why it does what it does when it screws up. I for one will be glad when the current crop of so-called 'AI' they keep trotting out is shit-canned.
C/C++ is not an 'amateur night' programming language, it's not 'child proofed', it doesn't hold your hand like you're a child, you can write entire operating systems in it, and as such it's supposed to have access to anything and everything, and that just so happens to include mucking up the OS of the machine you happen to be testing your code on. 'Sanitizing' it, 'child proofing' it would take away that power and make it useless. At that point you may as well just be writing things in BASIC or some other interpreted language that doesn't allow you access to anything terribly powerful or important. I've never heard anyone refer to C/C++ (or languages of similar power) as 'dangerous' before. I think it more likely that programmers have become lazy, or just aren't educated enough to be responsible with a powerful programming language, and as a result we end up seeing code that's sloppy, ill-behaved, and 'dangerous' because of it. Just like people complaining about how bad drivers are (and that we should ban humans from driving and make them use automation instead, which is stupid), someone wants to take the power away, when the real, rational solution is better education/training/testing. Have schools become lazy in how prospective programmers are educated and how their knowledge is tested? Then lets fix that problem rather than making decent programmers (and drivers) live in a world where the ability to really be behind the wheel and in control of the machine is taken away from them, because some people can't cut it.
You're the second person to comment who sees this, and you're completely correct. The current excuse for 'AI' lacks any actual cognitive capability -- because we can't write software to emulate something a biological brain can do, but that we don't understand how it does it. Too many people, I believe, see TV shows and movies with totally fictional 'AI' in it, and they think it's the same thing. Not even close.
A handful of Baltimoreans are willing to try anything to stop their police force from killing them, and one technologist is only too happy to help.
So a small group of people wants to decide this for everyone else? Also how much you want to bet they're white and perhaps also upper-middle-class or higher? Also what if the Balitmore P.D. is overwhelmingly racist and will conveniently not pay any attention to, or just coindicentally not have any recordings of areas where police brutality allegedly is occurring? TFA also says there's ground-level surveillance cameras all over the place already, both owned by the city and by private parties/businesses. Really sounds to me like 'more surveillance' isn't the answer.
Instead of this pointless arms race of resolution that no one actually supports, how about nice, high-quality, reliable 1080p HDTVs at a price point of $100US or less? I think that'd drive more sales than some astronomically priced piece of useless technology.
Self-driving car advocates cherrypick their accident data and hype it to the point where it sounds like being on a public road is like being teleported into some post-apocalyptic Mad Max-esque dystopia where people are literally trying to kill you every single day. Not true, and most problems with bad drivers can (and should!) be solved with reforms of driver education, training, and testing, to produce competent drivers, and to identify people who just plain can't master the skill-set and prevent them from obtaining a license in the first place. Taking away yet one more personal freedom by forcing people to trust untrustworthy machines they cannot manually control when (not if, but WHEN) it fucks up, and furthermore, machines that for which it will be trivial to remotely hijack, would be so far as I'm concerned a violation of basic human rights and should NEVER be allowed. These so-called 'self driving cars' will never be as fully competent as a properly educated and trained human driver, period, until we solve the riddle of human cognition and can build machines that actually think -- a quality which NONE of the current so-called 'AI' posesses, and cannot posess, no matter how much you 'train' them. Without that these machines will never be equal, let alone superior to, a human being, ever.
No one will put up with so-called 'self driving cars' if they make trips longer and more irritating than driving yourself, because it drives like a sight-impaired 100-year-old all the time, especially if it has to pull over to the side and 'phone home' to have some HUMAN walk it through something it's half-assed excuse for AI can't understand (because it's not real AI, it's some half-assed 'deep learning algorithm' software that can't actually THINK).
Buy your own storage devices, keep your own data, put backups in a safe deposit box if you feel the need, but do not use 'The Cloud' to store anything. Reject 'non-ownership' philosophies; stop 'renting' everything and own things instead.
I have nothing but doubts about them because the so-called 'AI' they keep trotting out everywhere lately has no actual cognitive capability and therefore isn't capable of understanding the implications of what it's doing. This is a human world purpose-built for human brains and you NEED the equivalent of that to operate a motor vehicle within it.
Okay, maybe we round up people like you and put you in the ground as part of a carbon sequestration program. Since, you know, you can't be bothered to give a shit about anyone but yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they're not inseparable, but you on the other hand are dumb.
Apparently you can't read? Go back and read my comment again, every single word, before you make a dumb statement like that, okay? Sheesh.
We seem to be moving inexorably towards devices that are just solid bricks that you toss in the trash when they stop working, and away from things that are serviceable. If we had Federation-style replicators that can recycle them as energy and make you a new one, great, but we don't, it's wasteful, and it's stupid.
At some point AI might become self-aware enough to create even better AI.
Not with the current excuse for AI there won't be. It doesn't 'think', has zero capacity to do that (because we don't even understand how *we* do that), is not self-aware (again, because we don't even understand how that happens in human brains) therefore you can't write code or build a machine that does that. You're engaging in 'magical thinking' if you're thinking just adding more and more hardware will make it just suddenly happen all on it's own.
Much like the compression algorithm behind DivX survived even after the business model of DivX fell flat on it's face, blockchain technology, apparently showing many legitimate, legal uses will survive the fall of so-called 'cryptocurrency', which only really seems to have been useful for criminal activities.
When you say 'evading capital controls' you're basically saying 'use it as a means of laundering money' and/or 'use it for criminal activities', which is what I've said about so-called 'cryptocurrency' since the beginning. As anonymous as cash without having to ever physically transfer it.
Gee I wonder what this 'Rust' everyone keeps mentioning was written in? xD
Actually just remembered: I've got FIRST edition of that, still, not SECOND edition. My bad.
Sure I haven't, buddy. Never mind that this book was where I taught myself C, back in the early 90's.
You got room in your mouth for the other foot? Help yourself.
Back when my non-work-hours hobby was sitting there all night long writing software for one project or another of mine, everything I did was in C, and I managed to not melt the computer into a heap of slag on the desk in the process. Guess I lucked out. xD
By your logic we shouldn't be able to have anything as complex and large as Windows or Linux (or even larger works than those) without them leaving a heap of molten slag where the computer they were run on was sitting. Are you a programmer? Jaded and cynical more than a little? I can understand, but take as step back and give some people more credit than you're giving them, maybe?
If I already knew how to use C properly, already know better than to use uninitiallized pointers, not return heap space when I'm done with it, etc etc etc then why would I even need it?
Apropos of nothing: yours is the lowest user ID I've ever had comment on one of my comments before; hail, Centurion! :-)
:-/
I remember the first time I ever heard that some actual high-end commercial application software was written in BASIC; I think I almost fell on the floor laughing, thinking it was some sort of crude joke. Then imagine my face when I found out it wasn't a joke.
So-called 'AI' has been so over-hyped by development companies and their marketers (because they need to show ROI or get their heads chopped off), the news media doesn't have a clue how anything actually works and they're amplifying the hype, then entertainment media (TV, movies, even books) present these fantasy images of 'AI' technology that doesn't exist (and might never exist), and shockingly enough, people believe what they see hear and read. The long-term result of this, left unchecked, will be people actually believing that these 'algorithms' masquerading as Artificial Intelligence are capable of far more than they actually are, resulting in financial disasters, property damage, and loss of human life. Meanwhile the programmers that create these half-assed machines can't even tell you what's going on 'under the hood' when the thing's running, and can't really explain why it does what it does when it screws up. I for one will be glad when the current crop of so-called 'AI' they keep trotting out is shit-canned.
C/C++ is not an 'amateur night' programming language, it's not 'child proofed', it doesn't hold your hand like you're a child, you can write entire operating systems in it, and as such it's supposed to have access to anything and everything, and that just so happens to include mucking up the OS of the machine you happen to be testing your code on. 'Sanitizing' it, 'child proofing' it would take away that power and make it useless. At that point you may as well just be writing things in BASIC or some other interpreted language that doesn't allow you access to anything terribly powerful or important. I've never heard anyone refer to C/C++ (or languages of similar power) as 'dangerous' before. I think it more likely that programmers have become lazy, or just aren't educated enough to be responsible with a powerful programming language, and as a result we end up seeing code that's sloppy, ill-behaved, and 'dangerous' because of it. Just like people complaining about how bad drivers are (and that we should ban humans from driving and make them use automation instead, which is stupid), someone wants to take the power away, when the real, rational solution is better education/training/testing. Have schools become lazy in how prospective programmers are educated and how their knowledge is tested? Then lets fix that problem rather than making decent programmers (and drivers) live in a world where the ability to really be behind the wheel and in control of the machine is taken away from them, because some people can't cut it.
You're the second person to comment who sees this, and you're completely correct. The current excuse for 'AI' lacks any actual cognitive capability -- because we can't write software to emulate something a biological brain can do, but that we don't understand how it does it. Too many people, I believe, see TV shows and movies with totally fictional 'AI' in it, and they think it's the same thing. Not even close.
Hear, hear!
A handful of Baltimoreans are willing to try anything to stop their police force from killing them, and one technologist is only too happy to help.
So a small group of people wants to decide this for everyone else? Also how much you want to bet they're white and perhaps also upper-middle-class or higher? Also what if the Balitmore P.D. is overwhelmingly racist and will conveniently not pay any attention to, or just coindicentally not have any recordings of areas where police brutality allegedly is occurring? TFA also says there's ground-level surveillance cameras all over the place already, both owned by the city and by private parties/businesses. Really sounds to me like 'more surveillance' isn't the answer.
Instead of this pointless arms race of resolution that no one actually supports, how about nice, high-quality, reliable 1080p HDTVs at a price point of $100US or less? I think that'd drive more sales than some astronomically priced piece of useless technology.
Self-driving car advocates cherrypick their accident data and hype it to the point where it sounds like being on a public road is like being teleported into some post-apocalyptic Mad Max-esque dystopia where people are literally trying to kill you every single day. Not true, and most problems with bad drivers can (and should!) be solved with reforms of driver education, training, and testing, to produce competent drivers, and to identify people who just plain can't master the skill-set and prevent them from obtaining a license in the first place. Taking away yet one more personal freedom by forcing people to trust untrustworthy machines they cannot manually control when (not if, but WHEN) it fucks up, and furthermore, machines that for which it will be trivial to remotely hijack, would be so far as I'm concerned a violation of basic human rights and should NEVER be allowed. These so-called 'self driving cars' will never be as fully competent as a properly educated and trained human driver, period, until we solve the riddle of human cognition and can build machines that actually think -- a quality which NONE of the current so-called 'AI' posesses, and cannot posess, no matter how much you 'train' them. Without that these machines will never be equal, let alone superior to, a human being, ever.
No one will put up with so-called 'self driving cars' if they make trips longer and more irritating than driving yourself, because it drives like a sight-impaired 100-year-old all the time, especially if it has to pull over to the side and 'phone home' to have some HUMAN walk it through something it's half-assed excuse for AI can't understand (because it's not real AI, it's some half-assed 'deep learning algorithm' software that can't actually THINK).
Buy your own storage devices, keep your own data, put backups in a safe deposit box if you feel the need, but do not use 'The Cloud' to store anything. Reject 'non-ownership' philosophies; stop 'renting' everything and own things instead.
I have nothing but doubts about them because the so-called 'AI' they keep trotting out everywhere lately has no actual cognitive capability and therefore isn't capable of understanding the implications of what it's doing. This is a human world purpose-built for human brains and you NEED the equivalent of that to operate a motor vehicle within it.
Okay, maybe we round up people like you and put you in the ground as part of a carbon sequestration program. Since, you know, you can't be bothered to give a shit about anyone but yourself.
No, you have to stop using them as soon as possible . Stop shitting up the planet.