The reason you can't see inside an AI's brain is because there is nothing to see. It's a bunch of matrices with numbers in them.
I dispute your assumption that there is nothing to see. If you've seen the visuals formed from the outputs of the hidden layers of image processing neural nets, you can often see interesting artifacts that could give one insight into "how the computer is seeing" (scare quotes for the broad statement because we're getting pretty far into an analogy when we talk about a computer seeing) an object. We may not have proper visualizations to understand a general neural net yet, but I'm pretty sure we are at the same level with neural nets as we are with the brain (i.e., this part of the net is activated by X class of features while this other part activates for Y class of features). Remember that on a computer, any picture is simply a matrix of numbers - and we seem to do OK with understanding those, once the proper visualization is used.
So you think it should be ignored, huh? What if every time you saw someone they were a man and then suddenly, they became a woman. Don't you think that would engender some comment/questions from a human character? Especially if that character had never seen a regeneration of the Doctor change sexes, as well? Perhaps a few people from UNIT who saw Missy might have a clue, but for the rest of the doctors acquaintances, I'd expect some comment, if not simply a "you're looking good this time".
A lot of dumbasses on this site seem to look for reasons to be pissed off about change. It's a wonder they can keep up with technology with their attitudes.
And when things become more efficient everyone wins.
Tell that to the buggy whip makers when the automobile came along. For almost every change (increases in efficiency among them), there are losers as well as winners.
You did not match their target demographic profile (i.e., partially, people with TV's) and thus were simply statistical noise to be ignored. The fact that they tossed you from the survey is simply an indication that they were doing their job properly.
Why is "M.E. Doc used by 80 percent of Ukrainian companies?"
Probably because it does accounting better for Ukrainian businesses, following changes in Ukrainian financial regulations far more quickly than does its international competitors and probably at a better price point. At least that's what my marketing sense tells me.
Volvo now has every incentive to make quicker progress on hybrid engines and electric motors than their otherwise ICE-involved competitors might. Of course, it may just be their board's latest brain fart as interpreted by their CEO, too. Time will tell. All I know is that it's a gutsy move.
No one doubts Satriani's virtuosity. It's just that virtuosity on one element of a song doesn't necessarily equal audience engagement. Choose your playlist more carefully next time.
You can teach that many if you divide the class into multiple sections with a main lecture and the sections led by junior faculty or teaching assistants. Lower-level classes have been handled this way forever in large universities. Or you just teach it online with multiple instructors covering various subsets of the students. You don't think educational methods scale, too?
Another tech guy afraid of getting numbers. The numbers will show what the numbers will show. What's the matter - stats scare you in school? Or was it girls?
The doctor. All of these systems are marketed and sold with the proviso that these provide only advice for the physician. This is to make sure that liability is clearly allocated. And notice that it's not the software company accepting this liability.
Yeah. Sorta like Slashdot with the intelligence factor decreased by an order of magnitude. Sadly, Facebook does not have the moderation and meta moderation that has made Slashdot a paragon of civility and reason.
Why not have a nonhuman captain and a crew of humans and aliens that has to deal with it?
Why? Because makeup for a large number of nonhuman crew would take too much time out of the shooting schedule. They have a sci-fi show to make, not "Make-up Time for Geeks". Don't be an idiot. It's about the money.
Management gets exactly what it wants in these sorts of activities - another set of pogroms to get rid of malcontents and supposed underperformers of all stripes and a bunch of fun dick-measuring games with the consultants to amuse themselves.
You answered your own question. You can get rid of the manual review. Plus, if you can just point a big-ass data stream at Watson and it can actually ferret out malfeasance, you can also get rid of the folks who program those "other forms of automation".
Instead, you'll be replacing them with a smaller number of people who can choose training sets and interpret Watson's output. You'll also see savings in your programming costs, as you've replaced several fraud detection systems with a single, unified system. So you get a smaller workforce.
You also get a more bifurcated workforce, with a small number of jobs being up-skilled (and more-highly paid), while a larger number of jobs are down-skilled or eliminated altogether. Whether this works when translated to a large portion of the white-collar, service-sector workforce as a whole is left as an exercise to the reader.
The best teams I've been on worked pretty closely with each other, and often identified bad ideas before they got too far.
The best teams I worked on had people having enough private space and time to think about the ideas enough so they figured out why the ideas were bad themselves and didn't bother others with them unless they were good ideas.
The problem with the serialized series is that many arcs simply do not contain enough plot to be sustained over 10-13 shows. Often by the end of the series, one is feeling that the ending is long overdue - and I've often stopped watching these series at show five or six simply because their plot pacing was so glacial.
If Netflix wants to really produce great programs, they also need to drop the standard 10 or 13 program package. Sometimes a story does take a long time to tell. Other times it's just filling out contractual obligations.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason you can't see inside an AI's brain is because there is nothing to see. It's a bunch of matrices with numbers in them.
I dispute your assumption that there is nothing to see. If you've seen the visuals formed from the outputs of the hidden layers of image processing neural nets, you can often see interesting artifacts that could give one insight into "how the computer is seeing" (scare quotes for the broad statement because we're getting pretty far into an analogy when we talk about a computer seeing) an object. We may not have proper visualizations to understand a general neural net yet, but I'm pretty sure we are at the same level with neural nets as we are with the brain (i.e., this part of the net is activated by X class of features while this other part activates for Y class of features). Remember that on a computer, any picture is simply a matrix of numbers - and we seem to do OK with understanding those, once the proper visualization is used.
So you think it should be ignored, huh? What if every time you saw someone they were a man and then suddenly, they became a woman. Don't you think that would engender some comment/questions from a human character? Especially if that character had never seen a regeneration of the Doctor change sexes, as well? Perhaps a few people from UNIT who saw Missy might have a clue, but for the rest of the doctors acquaintances, I'd expect some comment, if not simply a "you're looking good this time".
A lot of dumbasses on this site seem to look for reasons to be pissed off about change. It's a wonder they can keep up with technology with their attitudes.
And when things become more efficient everyone wins.
Tell that to the buggy whip makers when the automobile came along. For almost every change (increases in efficiency among them), there are losers as well as winners.
Why do you people keep calling him "orange"?
Because it's hard to ignore a really bad spray tan.
And, if so, why? Inertia? Just curious.
You did not match their target demographic profile (i.e., partially, people with TV's) and thus were simply statistical noise to be ignored. The fact that they tossed you from the survey is simply an indication that they were doing their job properly.
Yes. Why, yes, it does. Not by choice, perhaps, but the end result is the same.
Why is "M.E. Doc used by 80 percent of Ukrainian companies?"
Probably because it does accounting better for Ukrainian businesses, following changes in Ukrainian financial regulations far more quickly than does its international competitors and probably at a better price point. At least that's what my marketing sense tells me.
Volvo now has every incentive to make quicker progress on hybrid engines and electric motors than their otherwise ICE-involved competitors might. Of course, it may just be their board's latest brain fart as interpreted by their CEO, too. Time will tell. All I know is that it's a gutsy move.
Amazon's Alexa voice platform has now passed 15,000 skills...
...and only 14500 of them start with "buy: or "purchase" .
They're about three weeks past their shelf life out here in Oregon. Big for a while but now just a passed fad.
So you'd waste a chance to message sending gibberish to her. Great idea, dude, No wonder people don't listen to geeks.
No one doubts Satriani's virtuosity. It's just that virtuosity on one element of a song doesn't necessarily equal audience engagement. Choose your playlist more carefully next time.
You can teach that many if you divide the class into multiple sections with a main lecture and the sections led by junior faculty or teaching assistants. Lower-level classes have been handled this way forever in large universities. Or you just teach it online with multiple instructors covering various subsets of the students. You don't think educational methods scale, too?
Another tech guy afraid of getting numbers. The numbers will show what the numbers will show. What's the matter - stats scare you in school? Or was it girls?
The doctor. All of these systems are marketed and sold with the proviso that these provide only advice for the physician. This is to make sure that liability is clearly allocated. And notice that it's not the software company accepting this liability.
Yeah. Sorta like Slashdot with the intelligence factor decreased by an order of magnitude. Sadly, Facebook does not have the moderation and meta moderation that has made Slashdot a paragon of civility and reason.
Why not have a nonhuman captain and a crew of humans and aliens that has to deal with it?
Why? Because makeup for a large number of nonhuman crew would take too much time out of the shooting schedule. They have a sci-fi show to make, not "Make-up Time for Geeks". Don't be an idiot. It's about the money.
I'll put it in a pile with all my other pan-industry platforms for online registration, e-identity and data services.
Obligatory XKCD link omitted because everybody's seen it. Really. Everyone on the internet. Don't bother.
Management gets exactly what it wants in these sorts of activities - another set of pogroms to get rid of malcontents and supposed underperformers of all stripes and a bunch of fun dick-measuring games with the consultants to amuse themselves.
You answered your own question. You can get rid of the manual review. Plus, if you can just point a big-ass data stream at Watson and it can actually ferret out malfeasance, you can also get rid of the folks who program those "other forms of automation".
Instead, you'll be replacing them with a smaller number of people who can choose training sets and interpret Watson's output. You'll also see savings in your programming costs, as you've replaced several fraud detection systems with a single, unified system. So you get a smaller workforce.
You also get a more bifurcated workforce, with a small number of jobs being up-skilled (and more-highly paid), while a larger number of jobs are down-skilled or eliminated altogether. Whether this works when translated to a large portion of the white-collar, service-sector workforce as a whole is left as an exercise to the reader.
I would take latency, sandy beaches, perfect weather and bikini clad women over snow and death by homicide.
To be fair, Chicago hasn't had that much snow this season.
Of course, "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians"...
The best teams I've been on worked pretty closely with each other, and often identified bad ideas before they got too far.
The best teams I worked on had people having enough private space and time to think about the ideas enough so they figured out why the ideas were bad themselves and didn't bother others with them unless they were good ideas.
The problem with the serialized series is that many arcs simply do not contain enough plot to be sustained over 10-13 shows. Often by the end of the series, one is feeling that the ending is long overdue - and I've often stopped watching these series at show five or six simply because their plot pacing was so glacial.
If Netflix wants to really produce great programs, they also need to drop the standard 10 or 13 program package. Sometimes a story does take a long time to tell. Other times it's just filling out contractual obligations.