Lobby for whatever cause they're paid to lobby for, and
Provide jobs for people who were put out of work by the most recent election and are waiting for the next election to get another appointment
I don't think that's entirely untrue, but it's also extremely cynical. Most people are not born corrupt, and many go into these think tanks with the idea of promoting good solutions to difficult problems. Not everyone is evil.
The marketing hype is itself changing the definition of AI. Under the newer definition it means a computer doing something that appears to be intelligent. Under this definition, AI is all around us.
The only way the people at this think tank could retain even an iota of credibility is to disband the think tank and start afresh, or to come clean and admit they advance the causes of their corporate donors. They've done neither and really shot themselves in the foot.
Of course the government's job is to hold down inflation. If they just started printing money for everything, inflation would sky-rocket which would screw up the economy in a ton of different ways.
If Musk really wants to "save the planet", drop the self-driving crap already. It makes the car more expensive so less people can afford one, meaning they keep their old polluting car or even buy a brand new polluting car.
I disagree, self-driving cars have an even better ability to "save the planet" than electric cars. But I would say "Electric cars cool, self-driving cars cooler, but currently unrealistic." That said, unrealistic is not in Elon's lexicon.
licensed engineers may be need for autodrive software or something like it.
The FAA does code audits on autopilot software.
It's not exactly a code audit, it's more like the FAA certifies code to a certain level of robustness. For commercial airline software to get certified, they generally have to prove that every line of code has been covered by tests, and every branch has been taken and not taken. There are even higher levels of certification (usually for the OS), where the code must be symbolically expressed, and mathematically proved to be correct. Not an inexpensive undertaking.
If the complexity of the tax code keeps increasing then yes, AGI will mark the extinction of Americans, at least, due to how long it will take to actually compute that number.
The tax code is large and opaque to most, but it has a bit of organizational beauty to it. Most people don't understand it because they never studied it. But if you can write software, you can understand tax law.
It won't matter because AGI will mark the extinction of humans.
I'm pretty bearish on AGI. To get it in our lifetimes, it'll require continued exponential increases in processing power, i.e., it requires Moore's law to continue. However, many signs currently indicate that Moore's law is dead. It's entirely possible that our civilization may be hitting a technological plateau and that real AGI is not a few or dozens of years away, but hundreds or thousands.
What if there are two people on different parts of the road in front of the car, and swerving to avoid one will mean hitting the other? The car needs to be able to diagnose which of the two people has a terminal disease, in order to select to hit that one.
What if the two people are healthy, but the car can quickly identify which of the two has a higher net worth, so it can hit the poorer one. No moral problems there at all.
I know it's a currently an absurd result, but eventually, the computer will have to decide, or decide to ignore their net worth and use other factors, or to just flip a coin and hit one randomly. Every decision comes with it's own set of moral issues.
I don't think the problem is wasting talent, the problem is wasting goodwill. If Tesla continues to act recklessly, pushing products that are not quite ready for market, and people get hurt, they may delay the development of self-driving cars altogether. I want to see them as much as anybody, but if they keep making dubious claims about the technology, people will lose interest, excitement will ebb, and funding and development will slow.
That the fountain of BS that is Elon Musk allegedly put personal profit ahead of people's lives?
... TL;DR: A complete wanker.
Maybe a wanker, and maybe risking people's lives, but don't think he's doing it for profit. He's doing it to advance the state of the art. Still not a valid excuse, but better than profit.
Agreed that Neural Nets are not "rule based", but I do think they need far higher level of intelligence than anything we've seen to date. The car is going to need to identify traffic police and follow instructions, they need to interpret human instructions. If they get on the loud-speaker and say "pull-over" vs. "pull-over at the next exit", they'll need to understand that. Not saying it's impossible, just many years off.
Better yet don't call it autopilot. Even if you try to explain it, there are plenty of fools who won't get it. Call it "drive assist" and people might be a little less foolish. Some assholes will still misuse it, but you can't stop someone hellbent on stupidity.
Agreed, this was a marketing fiasco of Tesla's making. The technology is good, but they marketed it as something it wasn't, and at least one guy died.
Nope, this is just one more example of Mr. Musk trying to spin up for support to a technology just flat out won't work. Ironically, you might be able to make something like this work... but it would probably require an entire infrastructure of hot swappable batteries 'refueling stations' where you can stop and swap out batteries for fresh ones.
I agree he often promotes lofty and possibly unreasonable goals. But he's trying. He's moving the needle. I give Elon all my support.
When republican governments invest in LCD Panel factories, republicans cheer and democrats boo. When democrats invest in Solar power companies, democrats cheer and republicans boo. Neither side is terribly principled here.
Even if Moore's law was fully alive, an extra order of magnitude improvement over general purpose processors is still worth it.
If Moore's law was alive, then general purpose chips would get better faster than you could develop your own custom chip. The fact that they're creating their own chips is a sign that Moore's law is dead.
The only reason why software makers such as MS and Google are starting to develop their old chips is due to the death of Moore's law. Intel and the like are unable to provide sufficient performance enhancements, so these software makers have to make custom chips for their specific purpose. These chips may provide close to an order of magnitude of performance, but they can't be improved upon unless the underlying material technology improves. Sadly, this does not bode well for the future of tech.
The reason this problem exists is because of shoddy tech journalists, who will gladly promote ridiculously wild claims as truths without a scintilla of investigation. When the true fraudsters are so much attention, it forces the more legitimate players who operate on the outskirts of the AI world to start putting their toes in the water.
Sounds like a fantastic hobby. I prefer my programming and videogame hobbies, and like to keep transit simplified to three or less methods to worry about. I suppose this is part of why I don't live in NYC.
That's totally fair, to each their own. I prefer exploring the nooks and crannies of this massive city and seeing cultures I would never be able to find anywhere else. I tend to keep programming to work hours.
But hey, maybe they know something the rest of us dont-- like how absurd it is to expect the congress cronies to actually give teeth to the laws on the books.
Even under the best of circumstances, bringing an antitrust suit against FB and Google will take 5-10 years. See, for example Microsoft in the 1990-2000s and Google in Europe in the early 2010s to Present. This option will likely move a lot faster.
Slashdot Mirror
The purpose of think tanks is twofold:
Lobby for whatever cause they're paid to lobby for, and
Provide jobs for people who were put out of work by the most recent election and are waiting for the next election to get another appointment
I don't think that's entirely untrue, but it's also extremely cynical. Most people are not born corrupt, and many go into these think tanks with the idea of promoting good solutions to difficult problems. Not everyone is evil.
The marketing hype is itself changing the definition of AI. Under the newer definition it means a computer doing something that appears to be intelligent. Under this definition, AI is all around us.
The only way the people at this think tank could retain even an iota of credibility is to disband the think tank and start afresh, or to come clean and admit they advance the causes of their corporate donors. They've done neither and really shot themselves in the foot.
Of course the government's job is to hold down inflation. If they just started printing money for everything, inflation would sky-rocket which would screw up the economy in a ton of different ways.
Actually, they marketed it as what it was, and that was confusing for people, and at least one guy died ....
If a company markets something that confuses people, it's the company's fault.
The article you cite says people don't want autonomous cars because they don't trust them. As the technology improves, trust will also improve.
Electric cars cool, self-driving cars bad.
If Musk really wants to "save the planet", drop the self-driving crap already. It makes the car more expensive so less people can afford one, meaning they keep their old polluting car or even buy a brand new polluting car.
I disagree, self-driving cars have an even better ability to "save the planet" than electric cars. But I would say "Electric cars cool, self-driving cars cooler, but currently unrealistic." That said, unrealistic is not in Elon's lexicon.
licensed engineers may be need for autodrive software or something like it. The FAA does code audits on autopilot software.
It's not exactly a code audit, it's more like the FAA certifies code to a certain level of robustness. For commercial airline software to get certified, they generally have to prove that every line of code has been covered by tests, and every branch has been taken and not taken. There are even higher levels of certification (usually for the OS), where the code must be symbolically expressed, and mathematically proved to be correct. Not an inexpensive undertaking.
If the complexity of the tax code keeps increasing then yes, AGI will mark the extinction of Americans, at least, due to how long it will take to actually compute that number.
The tax code is large and opaque to most, but it has a bit of organizational beauty to it. Most people don't understand it because they never studied it. But if you can write software, you can understand tax law.
It won't matter because AGI will mark the extinction of humans.
I'm pretty bearish on AGI. To get it in our lifetimes, it'll require continued exponential increases in processing power, i.e., it requires Moore's law to continue. However, many signs currently indicate that Moore's law is dead. It's entirely possible that our civilization may be hitting a technological plateau and that real AGI is not a few or dozens of years away, but hundreds or thousands.
What if there are two people on different parts of the road in front of the car, and swerving to avoid one will mean hitting the other? The car needs to be able to diagnose which of the two people has a terminal disease, in order to select to hit that one.
What if the two people are healthy, but the car can quickly identify which of the two has a higher net worth, so it can hit the poorer one. No moral problems there at all.
I know it's a currently an absurd result, but eventually, the computer will have to decide, or decide to ignore their net worth and use other factors, or to just flip a coin and hit one randomly. Every decision comes with it's own set of moral issues.
I don't think the problem is wasting talent, the problem is wasting goodwill. If Tesla continues to act recklessly, pushing products that are not quite ready for market, and people get hurt, they may delay the development of self-driving cars altogether. I want to see them as much as anybody, but if they keep making dubious claims about the technology, people will lose interest, excitement will ebb, and funding and development will slow.
That the fountain of BS that is Elon Musk allegedly put personal profit ahead of people's lives?
Maybe a wanker, and maybe risking people's lives, but don't think he's doing it for profit. He's doing it to advance the state of the art. Still not a valid excuse, but better than profit.
Agreed that Neural Nets are not "rule based", but I do think they need far higher level of intelligence than anything we've seen to date. The car is going to need to identify traffic police and follow instructions, they need to interpret human instructions. If they get on the loud-speaker and say "pull-over" vs. "pull-over at the next exit", they'll need to understand that. Not saying it's impossible, just many years off.
Better yet don't call it autopilot. Even if you try to explain it, there are plenty of fools who won't get it. Call it "drive assist" and people might be a little less foolish. Some assholes will still misuse it, but you can't stop someone hellbent on stupidity.
Agreed, this was a marketing fiasco of Tesla's making. The technology is good, but they marketed it as something it wasn't, and at least one guy died.
Nope, this is just one more example of Mr. Musk trying to spin up for support to a technology just flat out won't work. Ironically, you might be able to make something like this work... but it would probably require an entire infrastructure of hot swappable batteries 'refueling stations' where you can stop and swap out batteries for fresh ones.
I agree he often promotes lofty and possibly unreasonable goals. But he's trying. He's moving the needle. I give Elon all my support.
Lemme guess... we just proved the science and now just need to work out the small technicalities. Brain implants in 3-5 years.
When republican governments invest in LCD Panel factories, republicans cheer and democrats boo. When democrats invest in Solar power companies, democrats cheer and republicans boo. Neither side is terribly principled here.
Even if Moore's law was fully alive, an extra order of magnitude improvement over general purpose processors is still worth it.
If Moore's law was alive, then general purpose chips would get better faster than you could develop your own custom chip. The fact that they're creating their own chips is a sign that Moore's law is dead.
The only reason why software makers such as MS and Google are starting to develop their old chips is due to the death of Moore's law. Intel and the like are unable to provide sufficient performance enhancements, so these software makers have to make custom chips for their specific purpose. These chips may provide close to an order of magnitude of performance, but they can't be improved upon unless the underlying material technology improves. Sadly, this does not bode well for the future of tech.
There are a lot of people who confuse university with a job training program
No top tier tech company accepts many new engineers without these credentials. Like it or not, it is a training program.
The reason this problem exists is because of shoddy tech journalists, who will gladly promote ridiculously wild claims as truths without a scintilla of investigation. When the true fraudsters are so much attention, it forces the more legitimate players who operate on the outskirts of the AI world to start putting their toes in the water.
In the end, that would let you patent the algorithm and copyright the code, not the photos.
You could patent the algorithm and copyright the code, but there's a strong argument you could copyright the photos as well.
Sounds like a fantastic hobby. I prefer my programming and videogame hobbies, and like to keep transit simplified to three or less methods to worry about. I suppose this is part of why I don't live in NYC.
That's totally fair, to each their own. I prefer exploring the nooks and crannies of this massive city and seeing cultures I would never be able to find anywhere else. I tend to keep programming to work hours.
But hey, maybe they know something the rest of us dont-- like how absurd it is to expect the congress cronies to actually give teeth to the laws on the books.
Even under the best of circumstances, bringing an antitrust suit against FB and Google will take 5-10 years. See, for example Microsoft in the 1990-2000s and Google in Europe in the early 2010s to Present. This option will likely move a lot faster.