I'm not bored. I'm pointing out that intelligence requires awareness and motivation that is not programmed by an external source. What we're talking about is not intelligence. We're not going to crack that nut until we stop looking at machine learning as the same as intelligence. What we have in this article is advancement within the field of machine learning, not advancement in artificial intelligence.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that. Republicans are a horrible party and it's a competition between them and the Democrats as to who will destroy the country first... But communists?
Maybe I'm just not getting what you're saying. Who are the communists in this equation, and how are they advocating for the state to seize the means of production?
The whole Russia link is a joke.
Other than all of the evidence that points in that direction, I guess.
Why the hell would Putin want anything to do with Trump?
Because it's handy to have a slow-witted and amoral person over whom he has compromat in a position of high power in his largest rival nation.
Why would Putin want US citizens to be heavily armed? Why would Putin want lower corporate US taxes?
I don't know who's saying he does in either case. I don't think he particularly cares either way on either issue, though if he (or any of the Russian Plutocrats who back him) has any holdings in US corporations, I'm sure he'll love getting a tax break, particularly if that tax break hurts the US economically.
But in the end, it's all about having the tool in place.
There's a reason that more kickers are white, and it has little to do with genetics. It has to do with expensive camps and personal coaches, and the connections and opportunities that they afford.
What has become of our country when the party of fiscal responsibility passes tax cuts that add trillions to the debt, when the party of local control passes laws that restrict the ability of localities to control things, when the party of conservation sells off thousands of acres of public lands, when the party of equality works to preserve laws that institutionalize inequality, when the party of free markets does everything in its power to tilt markets towards their benefactors?
Interesting that you absolve the GOP of any need to work across the aisle themselves, and put more weight on the nine months of unassailable congressional majorities the Democrats had than on the six years of majorities that the GOP had after that. They could have put through a law enshrining some form of Net Neutrality at any point in time. With all the time they spent voting to repeal the ACA and not giving nominees hearings or votes, I'm sure that they could have found a way to get something like that passed if it were something they cared about.
You're right that it's not a bipartisan fuck up. But you're a credulous simp if you actually think the GOP congress was going to work with Obama on a single thing. One party and one party alone is responsible for the death of Net Neutrality, and that's the one that's in power now. Anyone claiming otherwise demonstrates either a serious lack of knowledge about the subject, or a willful attempt to obfuscate.
When Obama decreed Net Neutrality he of course fucked it up. Instead of getting new laws passed, he simply had the FCC implement rules treating them like Common Carriers.
Instead of getting new laws passed? How exactly was he supposed to do that with a congress that stated in no uncertain terms - and backed it up with their actions - that they would not work with him on anything? Stop pretending that this is a bipartisan fuck up. It's not. One party, and one party alone, has been pushing for the end of Net Neutrality, and now that that party has full control of congress and the white house, guess what we got? Hint: it's not new laws to preserve Net Neutrality.
No, the government (in the form of a Republican Congress decades ago) made a deliberate decision not to let the government regulate the Internet.
That lasted until the Obama administration finally found a way around the laws (after losing several court cases) by reclassifying Internet access under Title II so they could start regulating it.
You're conflating regulating the internet (ie, the content and services on the internet) with regulating internet service providers (ie, the effective monopolies that give access to the internet).
Now we're just talking about repealing that and returning it closer to the "wild west" you remember so fondly.
No, we're not. We're giving the ISPs the ability to regulate content. That is exactly the opposite of the "wild west" approach.
Somehow we never had any irresolvable issues in the decades before the FCC had Title II authority to regulate the Internet, but after only a couple of years of validity (and use mostly to investigate charges of free Facebook access for people) repealing it is suddenly all going to doom the Internet forever.
You don't think that the consolidation that's occurred since then has changed the landscape at all? You don't think the reports that we're seeing about the type of plan seen in TFA have any weight behind them?
The idea that cats are unable to learn is completely false. If you're starting with that as the basis of your argument, your argument is not going to be valid. They just don't respond to praise the same way that dogs do, primarily because they haven't been domesticated for nearly as long, and they haven't been systematically bred to respond to praise the way dogs have. But that just means they learn differently, not that they can't learn.
Grammar fail. In the phrase "Democratic Senator", "Senator" is a noun and "Democratic" is an adjective describing that noun. In the phrase "be they Democrats or Republicans", "Democrats" and "Republicans" are nouns, not adjectives. This can more easily be seen if you use the analogous phrase "whether they are Democrats or Republicans", in which case "They" is the subject (inherently a noun) and "Democrats or Republicans" is the object (also inherently a noun).
Because they haven't had a majority since 2010, and for the six months they did have a filibuster proof majority (because the GOP refused to work with them on ANYTHING), they had other bigger matters on their plate.
Fair enough, but it's just as stupid to say that a species is smarter because they DO chase a ball. Following ones interests when they conflict with social pressures is also an important characteristic in the smartest creatures on the planet.
Good samaritan laws in all 50 states protect individuals who provide care - within their ability and certification - to an unresponsive person. So, no, it's not assault to provide care without consent.
What you're talking about is certainly an issue, particularly with conglomerates and private-equity-owned companies, but it's a separate issue from the basic economics of companies that produce goods and services for the general market. If companies can't meet demand with their current workforce (whether that involves their current workforce working harder and longer or not), they can either choose to hire, or they can choose to cede market share. Any rational company that is a going concern will choose to hire.
Combat soldiers frequently tattoo all of their medical information on their torsos. Granted, that's a military context, but those tattoos are very much treated as authentic health documents. While not a direct apples-to-apples comparison, it does provide some context and support for the notion that a tattooed DNR order should be treated as legitimate.
Not the whole economy, but enough to be a major disruption. And keep in mind, this is only over a time frame of 12 years. The quality of automation will only improve after that, and the cost will only go down. In other words, that 375 million is just the canary in the coal mine.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not bored. I'm pointing out that intelligence requires awareness and motivation that is not programmed by an external source. What we're talking about is not intelligence. We're not going to crack that nut until we stop looking at machine learning as the same as intelligence. What we have in this article is advancement within the field of machine learning, not advancement in artificial intelligence.
Wake me when it can decide, on its own without human directive, that it wants to play chess in the first place.
Be honest: as a Canadian, you like to apologize whenever possible. And likely sometimes when you shouldn't.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that. Republicans are a horrible party and it's a competition between them and the Democrats as to who will destroy the country first... But communists?
Maybe I'm just not getting what you're saying. Who are the communists in this equation, and how are they advocating for the state to seize the means of production?
The whole Russia link is a joke.
Other than all of the evidence that points in that direction, I guess.
Why the hell would Putin want anything to do with Trump?
Because it's handy to have a slow-witted and amoral person over whom he has compromat in a position of high power in his largest rival nation.
Why would Putin want US citizens to be heavily armed? Why would Putin want lower corporate US taxes?
I don't know who's saying he does in either case. I don't think he particularly cares either way on either issue, though if he (or any of the Russian Plutocrats who back him) has any holdings in US corporations, I'm sure he'll love getting a tax break, particularly if that tax break hurts the US economically.
But in the end, it's all about having the tool in place.
There's a reason that more kickers are white, and it has little to do with genetics. It has to do with expensive camps and personal coaches, and the connections and opportunities that they afford.
Seems like the friend zone is a pretty good place to be with anyone you're not fucking or trying to fuck.
The ways in which it was not factually accurate are the ways in which it makes white people look better, not worse.
The fact that you put BBC into the same category as Vice, HuffPo, DM, and DC is telling.
What has become of our country when the party of fiscal responsibility passes tax cuts that add trillions to the debt, when the party of local control passes laws that restrict the ability of localities to control things, when the party of conservation sells off thousands of acres of public lands, when the party of equality works to preserve laws that institutionalize inequality, when the party of free markets does everything in its power to tilt markets towards their benefactors?
Interesting that you absolve the GOP of any need to work across the aisle themselves, and put more weight on the nine months of unassailable congressional majorities the Democrats had than on the six years of majorities that the GOP had after that. They could have put through a law enshrining some form of Net Neutrality at any point in time. With all the time they spent voting to repeal the ACA and not giving nominees hearings or votes, I'm sure that they could have found a way to get something like that passed if it were something they cared about.
You're right that it's not a bipartisan fuck up. But you're a credulous simp if you actually think the GOP congress was going to work with Obama on a single thing. One party and one party alone is responsible for the death of Net Neutrality, and that's the one that's in power now. Anyone claiming otherwise demonstrates either a serious lack of knowledge about the subject, or a willful attempt to obfuscate.
I didn't realize that those companies had the power to prevent their customers from accessing any part of the internet without paying more.
When Obama decreed Net Neutrality he of course fucked it up. Instead of getting new laws passed, he simply had the FCC implement rules treating them like Common Carriers.
Instead of getting new laws passed? How exactly was he supposed to do that with a congress that stated in no uncertain terms - and backed it up with their actions - that they would not work with him on anything? Stop pretending that this is a bipartisan fuck up. It's not. One party, and one party alone, has been pushing for the end of Net Neutrality, and now that that party has full control of congress and the white house, guess what we got? Hint: it's not new laws to preserve Net Neutrality.
No, the government (in the form of a Republican Congress decades ago) made a deliberate decision not to let the government regulate the Internet.
That lasted until the Obama administration finally found a way around the laws (after losing several court cases) by reclassifying Internet access under Title II so they could start regulating it.
You're conflating regulating the internet (ie, the content and services on the internet) with regulating internet service providers (ie, the effective monopolies that give access to the internet).
Now we're just talking about repealing that and returning it closer to the "wild west" you remember so fondly.
No, we're not. We're giving the ISPs the ability to regulate content. That is exactly the opposite of the "wild west" approach.
Somehow we never had any irresolvable issues in the decades before the FCC had Title II authority to regulate the Internet, but after only a couple of years of validity (and use mostly to investigate charges of free Facebook access for people) repealing it is suddenly all going to doom the Internet forever.
You don't think that the consolidation that's occurred since then has changed the landscape at all? You don't think the reports that we're seeing about the type of plan seen in TFA have any weight behind them?
You are mistaking their inability to learn and solve as an unwillingness to learn and solve.
But we all phrase things poorly from time to time.
The idea that cats are unable to learn is completely false. If you're starting with that as the basis of your argument, your argument is not going to be valid. They just don't respond to praise the same way that dogs do, primarily because they haven't been domesticated for nearly as long, and they haven't been systematically bred to respond to praise the way dogs have. But that just means they learn differently, not that they can't learn.
Fair enough, but it's just as stupid to say that a species is smarter because they DO chase a ball.
But I didn't say that.
No, you didn't, but the OP did.
Following ones interests when they conflict with social pressures is also an important characteristic in the smartest creatures on the planet.
Irrelevant; that is nto what cats do.
It's exactly what cats do.
Grammar fail. In the phrase "Democratic Senator", "Senator" is a noun and "Democratic" is an adjective describing that noun. In the phrase "be they Democrats or Republicans", "Democrats" and "Republicans" are nouns, not adjectives. This can more easily be seen if you use the analogous phrase "whether they are Democrats or Republicans", in which case "They" is the subject (inherently a noun) and "Democrats or Republicans" is the object (also inherently a noun).
Because they haven't had a majority since 2010, and for the six months they did have a filibuster proof majority (because the GOP refused to work with them on ANYTHING), they had other bigger matters on their plate.
Fair enough, but it's just as stupid to say that a species is smarter because they DO chase a ball. Following ones interests when they conflict with social pressures is also an important characteristic in the smartest creatures on the planet.
Good samaritan laws in all 50 states protect individuals who provide care - within their ability and certification - to an unresponsive person. So, no, it's not assault to provide care without consent.
What you're talking about is certainly an issue, particularly with conglomerates and private-equity-owned companies, but it's a separate issue from the basic economics of companies that produce goods and services for the general market. If companies can't meet demand with their current workforce (whether that involves their current workforce working harder and longer or not), they can either choose to hire, or they can choose to cede market share. Any rational company that is a going concern will choose to hire.
Wouldn't that be a stupid way to die.
No more so than any other in which a person chooses how they want to go out.
Combat soldiers frequently tattoo all of their medical information on their torsos. Granted, that's a military context, but those tattoos are very much treated as authentic health documents. While not a direct apples-to-apples comparison, it does provide some context and support for the notion that a tattooed DNR order should be treated as legitimate.
Not the whole economy, but enough to be a major disruption. And keep in mind, this is only over a time frame of 12 years. The quality of automation will only improve after that, and the cost will only go down. In other words, that 375 million is just the canary in the coal mine.