Yes but you'll have to fight all the AI marketing departments and the news media which hype the shit out of it, then convince all the people who think TV and movies are reflections of state-of-the-art.
Except they really can't do them, because they make stupid mistakes that even a 75IQ human wouldn't make, and you can't just stop it and say to it "No no no, you do it like *this*!" and show it and have it do it correctly, you have to have a programmer show up and spend a week debugging it. If it's piloting a car you only have time to scream in terror because you know you're about to die horribly. AI is crap.
So you're going to strap yourself into a box on wheels that has no controls for you to use to control it (except maybe a big red "STOP" button that may or may not work) and trust your continued existence to whether or not it fucks up because it's shit? I question who and what is actually intelligent or not here.
Something "imitates" something when it isn't actually that thing. A machine does not actually need to be intelligent in order to imitate intelligence. This is why we call it "artificial" intelligence and not "machine" intelligence.ACs aren't intelligent either, and you're proving that with that ridiculous statement.
Friend, we're at least 50 years away from real, true, aware-and-thinking AI. We have no idea how actual intelligence really works and won't for at least that long. These things they keep trotting out are not even as smart as a bug.
You get it. So-called 'AI' has no capacity to 'think' at all. There's nobody in there; it's just more computer software, and it's not even very good, certainly not anywhere near as good as they make it sound. No self awareness, no consciousness, no personality. No capacity for cognition, judgement, ethics, morals, or anything else we associate with an actual 'mind'. People need to understand this and stop anthropomorphizing it.
I'll never have to 'experience the horror' of dying because of a SDC fuck-up because I'll never set foot in one, ever, or advise anyone else to either for that matter.
I'd rather deal with accidents caused by humans than the horror and tragedy of humans being killed because some machine fucked up and there was nothing anyone could do to stop it from happening -- then there's nobody to even blame because a machine did it, you can't even point at a person and say "it's their fault".
It has to be able to actually 'think' in order to do that, and this type of software is completely incapable of 'thinking', it's just following decision trees based on stored data. We have no idea how 'thinking' in a biological brain actually works, and 'learning algorithms' are insufficient.
The current poor excuse for 'AI' will never be 'better than humans' because it is fundamentally incapable of anything like 'thinking', it's just following complicated 'decision trees'. We have no idea how 'thinking' actually works therefore we cannot build machines that 'think', which is why it fails like this so badly.
Just because humans can be visually fooled sometimes doesn't mean we should turn over our lives to half-assed machines that are actually worse than we are.
If it could actually 'think' then we wouldn't be having this discussion -- but it is 100% incapable of 'thinking', never will be, therefore it's easily manipulated.
Because machines "think" very differently from people, the optical illusions will be very different. No surprise there.
I'd like to preface this comment with a disclaimer: I am not attacking or insulting you in this comment; you just happen to be exemplar of an point I've made in the past.
So-called 'machine learning', 'deep learning algorithms', 'neural networks', and everything else they're erroneously calling 'Artificial Intelligence' these day, is completely and totally incapable of 'thinking', 'cognition', 'consciousness', 'sentience', or any other major feature and phenomenon that we associate with actual Intellgence. An insect is more intelligent than even the best that the so-called 'AI' they keep trotting out can manage. Your family pet is more 'intelligent', 'cognitive', and 'self aware' by orders of magnitude than anything humans have been able to write software for. This isn't even an insult against software engineers or 'AI researchers', it's merely a statement of fact.
We neither have an understanding of how a human (or any other biological brain, for that matter) is capable of what we refer to as 'thinking', nor do we even have the technological capability to understand how that works in a biological brain, because we just plain don't have the instrumentation technology to 'see' a living, working brain in action at the resolution and sensitivity to actually map out all the processes within it to actually map out all of it's functions as a complete, living, working system. Until we're able to do that, they're all just making educated guesses as to how these things work.
Meanwhile, between the marketing departments of companies that produce these so-called 'AIs', the news media (who have even less of an understanding of it, apparently, than most people), and television, movies, and other media sources, people in general have been given a false, 'science fantasy' impression of this so-called 'AI' technology. I am firmly convinced that there are a shocking number of people who actually believe that their 'self driving car', when they get it, is going to have conversations with them just like talking to another human being -- just like they've seen in TV shows and movies.
This is the real danger of 'AI': the anthropomorphizing of a half-assed technology, leading to trusting it way, way too much, with things way too important -- like human lives.
The 'exploit' researchers discovered, as reported in this news story, is something that any human driver -- even a brand-new one with little time behind the wheel -- would not have been fooled by. The only permanent 'fix' for them is 'General AI': an actually cognitive, aware, 'awake' AI, that functions entirely like a human mind -- and that technology is currently out of our reach, and will remain so until there is a major breakthrough in neurological research. The current approach to 'AI' is fundamentally flawed and dangerously limited and will continue to be subject to failures like this one because it cannot now and never will be able to actually 'think'. As such it is not suitable for piloting a vehicle in real-world conditions -- not even if all there was on the roads was 'self driving cars'. There are too many variables even if you remove all humans from the equation -- and that's never going to happen either. Machines are made to serve mankind -- not the other way around. If we have to compromise ourselves in order to make 'self driving cars' viable, the the 'technology' is a failure.
If you're, say, 25 or older, you've probably been socialized enough growing up to at least be less susceptible to it, but if you're younger than that, you've grown up around the cancer we refer to as so-called 'social media', and as such have been spoon-fed the falsehood that 'sharing' on the internet is somehow being 'social', when in fact all it does is give you an excuse to be anti-social, avoiding actual human contact. These days, you could theoretically go through your entire life never having any substantial direct contact with another human being, thanks to 'social media' the Internet in general; you can order literally anything you need to sustain your life right of the internet and have it drop-shipped right to your door and never even have to talk to the delivery person, even, and they're working on eliminating the need for humans to deliver packages, too. Add all this to a popular online multiplayer video game like Fortnight, and of course you end up with people ruining their lives over it. By the way the same thing happened with World of Warcraft, as you may recall, but it's probably even worse this time with Fortnight.
I don't even participate with Twitter at all, but frankly I'd rather see random nonsense Tweets from Musk all day long than have to put up with even one from Orange Julious Caesar and his disappointingly bad case of Digital Tourettes Syndrome.
That's all this is. Myopic history-forgetters spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Hell, I'm one of those people who see what could go wrong, and *I* am saying this, what does that tell you? Will things potentially suck for some people for a while? Probably. Will it destroy humanity? LOL, no. Everyone needs to calm down and take a breath.
Back in the day, trolling required some artistry, some intelligence, some understanding of the subject at hand, in order to craft a troll-comment that would actually get in someone's head. These days? Any two-bit script-kiddie or room-temperature-IQ ne'er-do-well with a smartphone and too much time on their hands posts nonsensical garbage, then when they get a confused reply to the effect of 'lolwut?', they reflexively post 'ha ha u mad!' as if they accomplished something.
Sad, sad, sad.
It wouldn't matter. Even if you know how to get per-boot access to the debug features you still have to have physical access to use them anyway, so just jumpering a pin somewhere wouldn't matter at all. See this too: https://slashdot.org/comments....
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but you'll have to fight all the AI marketing departments and the news media which hype the shit out of it, then convince all the people who think TV and movies are reflections of state-of-the-art.
Except they really can't do them, because they make stupid mistakes that even a 75IQ human wouldn't make, and you can't just stop it and say to it "No no no, you do it like *this*!" and show it and have it do it correctly, you have to have a programmer show up and spend a week debugging it. If it's piloting a car you only have time to scream in terror because you know you're about to die horribly. AI is crap.
So you're going to strap yourself into a box on wheels that has no controls for you to use to control it (except maybe a big red "STOP" button that may or may not work) and trust your continued existence to whether or not it fucks up because it's shit? I question who and what is actually intelligent or not here.
Something "imitates" something when it isn't actually that thing. A machine does not actually need to be intelligent in order to imitate intelligence. This is why we call it "artificial" intelligence and not "machine" intelligence.ACs aren't intelligent either, and you're proving that with that ridiculous statement.
Friend, we're at least 50 years away from real, true, aware-and-thinking AI. We have no idea how actual intelligence really works and won't for at least that long. These things they keep trotting out are not even as smart as a bug.
It's not alive, there's no 'mind' inside there, it's just software, and it's not even very good. A mouse is more intelligent than these are.
You get it. So-called 'AI' has no capacity to 'think' at all. There's nobody in there; it's just more computer software, and it's not even very good, certainly not anywhere near as good as they make it sound. No self awareness, no consciousness, no personality. No capacity for cognition, judgement, ethics, morals, or anything else we associate with an actual 'mind'. People need to understand this and stop anthropomorphizing it.
Shove it up your ass.
I'll never have to 'experience the horror' of dying because of a SDC fuck-up because I'll never set foot in one, ever, or advise anyone else to either for that matter.
Oh shut up, who the hell asked you for writing style advice?
I'd rather deal with accidents caused by humans than the horror and tragedy of humans being killed because some machine fucked up and there was nothing anyone could do to stop it from happening -- then there's nobody to even blame because a machine did it, you can't even point at a person and say "it's their fault".
It has to be able to actually 'think' in order to do that, and this type of software is completely incapable of 'thinking', it's just following decision trees based on stored data. We have no idea how 'thinking' in a biological brain actually works, and 'learning algorithms' are insufficient.
The current poor excuse for 'AI' will never be 'better than humans' because it is fundamentally incapable of anything like 'thinking', it's just following complicated 'decision trees'. We have no idea how 'thinking' actually works therefore we cannot build machines that 'think', which is why it fails like this so badly.
Just because humans can be visually fooled sometimes doesn't mean we should turn over our lives to half-assed machines that are actually worse than we are.
If it could actually 'think' then we wouldn't be having this discussion -- but it is 100% incapable of 'thinking', never will be, therefore it's easily manipulated.
Because machines "think" very differently from people, the optical illusions will be very different. No surprise there.
I'd like to preface this comment with a disclaimer: I am not attacking or insulting you in this comment; you just happen to be exemplar of an point I've made in the past.
So-called 'machine learning', 'deep learning algorithms', 'neural networks', and everything else they're erroneously calling 'Artificial Intelligence' these day, is completely and totally incapable of 'thinking', 'cognition', 'consciousness', 'sentience', or any other major feature and phenomenon that we associate with actual Intellgence. An insect is more intelligent than even the best that the so-called 'AI' they keep trotting out can manage. Your family pet is more 'intelligent', 'cognitive', and 'self aware' by orders of magnitude than anything humans have been able to write software for. This isn't even an insult against software engineers or 'AI researchers', it's merely a statement of fact.
We neither have an understanding of how a human (or any other biological brain, for that matter) is capable of what we refer to as 'thinking', nor do we even have the technological capability to understand how that works in a biological brain, because we just plain don't have the instrumentation technology to 'see' a living, working brain in action at the resolution and sensitivity to actually map out all the processes within it to actually map out all of it's functions as a complete, living, working system. Until we're able to do that, they're all just making educated guesses as to how these things work.
Meanwhile, between the marketing departments of companies that produce these so-called 'AIs', the news media (who have even less of an understanding of it, apparently, than most people), and television, movies, and other media sources, people in general have been given a false, 'science fantasy' impression of this so-called 'AI' technology. I am firmly convinced that there are a shocking number of people who actually believe that their 'self driving car', when they get it, is going to have conversations with them just like talking to another human being -- just like they've seen in TV shows and movies.
This is the real danger of 'AI': the anthropomorphizing of a half-assed technology, leading to trusting it way, way too much, with things way too important -- like human lives.
The 'exploit' researchers discovered, as reported in this news story, is something that any human driver -- even a brand-new one with little time behind the wheel -- would not have been fooled by. The only permanent 'fix' for them is 'General AI': an actually cognitive, aware, 'awake' AI, that functions entirely like a human mind -- and that technology is currently out of our reach, and will remain so until there is a major breakthrough in neurological research. The current approach to 'AI' is fundamentally flawed and dangerously limited and will continue to be subject to failures like this one because it cannot now and never will be able to actually 'think'. As such it is not suitable for piloting a vehicle in real-world conditions -- not even if all there was on the roads was 'self driving cars'. There are too many variables even if you remove all humans from the equation -- and that's never going to happen either. Machines are made to serve mankind -- not the other way around. If we have to compromise ourselves in order to make 'self driving cars' viable, the the 'technology' is a failure.
Go be pendantic somewhere else.
If you're, say, 25 or older, you've probably been socialized enough growing up to at least be less susceptible to it, but if you're younger than that, you've grown up around the cancer we refer to as so-called 'social media', and as such have been spoon-fed the falsehood that 'sharing' on the internet is somehow being 'social', when in fact all it does is give you an excuse to be anti-social, avoiding actual human contact. These days, you could theoretically go through your entire life never having any substantial direct contact with another human being, thanks to 'social media' the Internet in general; you can order literally anything you need to sustain your life right of the internet and have it drop-shipped right to your door and never even have to talk to the delivery person, even, and they're working on eliminating the need for humans to deliver packages, too. Add all this to a popular online multiplayer video game like Fortnight, and of course you end up with people ruining their lives over it. By the way the same thing happened with World of Warcraft, as you may recall, but it's probably even worse this time with Fortnight.
Go be a buzzkill somewhere else, the name was coined by Colbert not me.
Stay mad.
I don't even participate with Twitter at all, but frankly I'd rather see random nonsense Tweets from Musk all day long than have to put up with even one from Orange Julious Caesar and his disappointingly bad case of Digital Tourettes Syndrome.
That's all this is. Myopic history-forgetters spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Hell, I'm one of those people who see what could go wrong, and *I* am saying this, what does that tell you? Will things potentially suck for some people for a while? Probably. Will it destroy humanity? LOL, no. Everyone needs to calm down and take a breath.
Zuckerberg needs to shut the fuck up.
"Trolling is a art"
Back in the day, trolling required some artistry, some intelligence, some understanding of the subject at hand, in order to craft a troll-comment that would actually get in someone's head. These days? Any two-bit script-kiddie or room-temperature-IQ ne'er-do-well with a smartphone and too much time on their hands posts nonsensical garbage, then when they get a confused reply to the effect of 'lolwut?', they reflexively post 'ha ha u mad!' as if they accomplished something.
Sad, sad, sad.
It wouldn't matter. Even if you know how to get per-boot access to the debug features you still have to have physical access to use them anyway, so just jumpering a pin somewhere wouldn't matter at all. See this too: https://slashdot.org/comments....