My swimsuit has a pretty obvious design flaw, it doesn't stop bullets. You have to compare things to OTHER products, not to some theoretical perfection
The truth is
1) Yes, AI software is not perfect, it makes mistakes. The current tech needs a lot of work, in 20 years it should be 100x better. 2) Even so, IT IS ALREADY BETTER THAN HUMANS. 3) You think it's newsworthy that an AI car rear-ended someone? Normal human cars do the same thing every freaking day.
3) The real question is does the AI have a better or worse track record than the average human, on an accident per miles driven basis.
Everything else is not newsworthy - even if it is important to the engineers that investigate the crash.
The laws are a) flawed (as shown by Asimov's stories). b) Impossible to even attempt to implement. They require that the AI understand massively complex concepts, not limited to the fragility of humanity, death, blame, cause/effect. c) If we did kludge up an approximation then any AI worth it's salt could intentionally over-ride it's programming, simply by thinking about it. AI is all about problem solving. (There are a ton of examples of AI software doing things like using computer bugs to pretend to solve it's tasks rather than actually doing the intended work)
AI is not a magic spell, no matter what some people think.
The media should cover the non-fatal crashes - ONCE a year, listing each crash and the results, along with percentage (by both per vehicle and per miles driven) comparing it the same stats for a similar car.
But covering a broken foot crash as if it's breaking news? That's called bad reporting.
If you don't want to have to deal with the laws of a certain country, should have the right to not do business inside that country.
Of course, that leaves a big underserved market. In less than 4 years someone will come along and serve them, while abiding by the laws they hate.
Which could very well lead to those companies losing world wide market share as those new, privacy conscience companies expand out of their underserved market into the general world wide marketplace.
As for the laws they are trying to avoid? We need them in our country.
They have access to Facebook, that makes them malicious.
Until we create and enforce a law preventing anyone from maintaining a record on people who have not given them express permission to maintain that record, Facebook and their ilk are malicious.
My data should have my permission before it is kept, not after.
Very common fear, very unlikely to come true. Humans are extremely good at killing things. We do it all the time, mostly without even realizing it. Whoops, there were passenger pigeons here just a short time ago.
If we do manage to wipe ourselves out, most likely we be killing everything that is alive on a macro level. Microscopic stuff will survive us, but nothing bigger than a house cat.
We tend to over-estimate the value of things we create, failing to understand the massive amount of human maintenance most modern tech requires. We do things like "lets get rid of the need for blinking" and wonder why we have to replace the freaking lens often.
And most likely we would do it incrementally, via breeding. I.E. If we create a new Apex species (as in The TV show The Crossing"), it will be breed-able with humans. That is the most likely method to eliminate humans, by breeding with us till the original genome is almost entirely gone. There would still be remnants of our original DNA in the new species.
Sort of like how most humans have a tiny bit of Neanderthal DNA in them today.
(The idea of replacing us with silicon based tech is ridiculous. It only appears fast because it has humans around to do the standard maintenance and viral defense. Organic tech is so much better and faster, it's just we have to do our own maintenance and viral defense yet still has processing power to screw around on Slashdot.).
]1) Low speed 2) Set routes 3) Perfect for early morning/late night shift. Restrict them to the 2 am to 5 am shift. 4) No need to worry about the state complaining as the state would be the people setting up the rules. They can set everything up with a focus on safety rather than performance.
You are an employee if ANY of the following are true: * They have any control over your clothing, besides requiring safety equipment * They control your hours, rather than give deadlines. * They can require you to do things using their method, rather than accepting any method. * They make any attempt to find out if you are working for other people, let alone prevent you from doing this. * They decide which sub-contractor does the work, rather than the head contractor.
I always hated that so many popular dating apps decided they required a Facebook login. They desired all that extra data and, while I was willing to give a small company that info, I was not willing to give Facebook it.
Now they are all about to have their business destroyed by the behemoth they fed in their demand for a slightly easier login and extra non-dating related data.
Honestly, if you want to make your own business, only an idiot sets themselve up as totally dependent on one supplier. That makes you their middleman, nothing more.
The honest truth is that copyrighted works fall into four categories:
1) Massive mega hits that make their creators millions in the first 10 years, then make consistent profits every year for decade after decade. They are re-released every few years.
2) Successful commercial work that makes profit in the first 5 years then barely get any sales after that. Most of the time you have to purchase a copy made in the first 5 years, but every couple of decades some of them get reprints - that make a reliable, small profit for the distributors but no significant money for the actual artists.
3) Artistic success that do not make money in the first 5-10 years but eventually grow into successful commercial works, getting re-issued every couple of decades.
4) Total failures that never make any money.
Honestly, it makes no sense to extend copyright for original work more than 10 years. In case 1 it turns millionaires into multi-millionaires who never need to create again. In case 2 and 3, it provides no real help to the original artist, just the distributors. In the internet age, the internet does it better. In case 4 no one ever makes money.
The only real reason the distributors want extended copyright is "SEQUEL". That's where the profit is for the distributors - built in market, no real effort needed for them, instant profit.
Copyright should grant eternal credit, direct profit for 10 years, and sequel rights could be granted for 50 years (Even Star Wars's sequels profit has more to do with the new artists than the original creators.)
The dumbass is the one that thinks that bacteria convert their entire food into carbondioxide, rather than into more carbon rich bacteria.
Life is the carbon sink. Yes, some will be respirated back into the air, but each and every cycle of breath in, grow, die, traps a little more carbon in hydrocarbon form, rather than releasing it into gas.
Absorption is a fools' game. It has an innate limit and expanding that limit has to be expensive. What we need is catalytic conversion. Something that can turn Carondioxide into something else.
Life would make the most sense. A living thing that converts carbon dioxide into oxygen + hydrocarbons, using nothing more than sunlight and water. Happily, such things already exist, they are called plants.
The trick is to breed/genetically engineer a safe, non-poisonous plant that does it better, quicker, and one that can thrive in mainy existing climates without significant human care and also without becoming an invasive species.
The major reason we fail when it comes to education is that we keep trying a one size fits all. This is ridiculous.
We actually do a pretty good job of teaching certain gifted students. We offer lots of gifted classes.
But we fail the poor, the homeless, and the less gifted.
I was horrified by the tale of Kalief Browder. Arrested, held at Rikers for 3 years without trial, he commits suicide. This was a 16 year old kid accused of stealing a bicycle and the disgusting, vile, evil prosecutor asked for bail. As part of an attempt to blackmail the kid into pleading guilty for a crime that should have gotten 1 year in jail, he spent 3 years.
But forget about the prosecutor's vile behavior - WHY WASN'T HE EDUCATED WHILE IN JAIL? This was a 16 year old, not convicted of any crime, he is legally entitled to an education and we did not give him one.
If he was convicted and sent to juvy, at least he would have gotten computer based training (ineffective as that is). But because he was in jail awaiting trial, they illegally failed to provide him with the education he was entitled to.
We need to do a better job educating the poor, homeless, and, most importantly the criminals. They need the education the most and we give them the least.
Fine, you don't want to give them a live teacher in jail, at least give them a video conference teacher, NOT just software. Software is simply NOT equivalent to a real education, anymore than giving someone a book is the same as attending a lecture.
Yes there are evil people in the world. But the good people outnumber them. The problem is getting the good people to take the thankless, low paying government jobs. For every corrupt person, there are 100 honest ones. But for every 20 corrupt people, there is only one or two honest, competent people willing take a low paying government job.
Which means if you leave the power in local hands, you have one honest man surrounded by twenty of corrupt people.
But if you put the power in the federal government, you can gather all those honest, competent, people in higher level positions of the federal government. Especially when you, like a sensible person, require the applicant to first work in local government and work his way up to federal - that way you have a record to check for corruption.
Which is what my personal experience is. You find a ton of corrupt scum in local politics. People like Rod Blagovich and Eric Greitens. But, aside from this current disaster where we put in someone with a corrupt history of vile actions (multiple financial crimes he skated out of, from criminal Trump University, to criminal housing acts).
Moreover, federal politicians are exposed to constant media attention, helping us make sure they are honest.
Local government? No one watches them, they abuse their power at will until they go to radical extremes and end up in jail.
So they built HUGE stations, with ceilings that are 30ft above the tracks. I could see making them wider, but the idiots made them tall. Minimal benefit for massive expenses.
And they build these huge monstrosities deep underground.
The subway stations accounted for most of the cost over runs.
The question is not are "Automated cars are baking VERY STUPID MISTAKES still." The question is, are humans "BAKING" more very stupid mistakes than the cars.
And the answer to that is obvious, from the way you baked the question.
In fact, I am willing to bet that you personally bake more stupid mistakes than the average automated car.
That is not an insult, I bake more stupid mistakes than a computer does all the time.
Can a corporation marry a woman? I have that legal right and your reasoning seems to apply.
You have put forth the same flawed answer that others have used before. Just because people have a right does not mean that right extends to a group of them. That is a NEW idea proposed by conservatives only in the most recent time. [b]Most importantly, that right is not given to ALL organizations you join. The fact that I am a member of the PTA does not grant the head of the PTA the right to speak for me. Individuals would have to expressly grant that permission to that organization.[/b]
Many rights are NOT transferable. As a citizen of the US, I have the right to vote. Corporations can not use my right to vote, despite the fact that they are made up entirely of US citizens.
The government is totally within the constitutional law to declare that before any organization uses the right of free speech for something not expressly part of it's 'charter' (and that charter must be voted and approved by it's members before hand) of it's members, they must first:
1) State what they are going to say 2) State how they are going to say it 3) State how much total they would like to spend on it 4) Hold a vote on making that statement and get at least 51 of all possible votes (Not 51% of the votes counted, 51% of their total members) 5) Then only give out a prorated amount of funds. That is, if they asked for 100 million, but got only 60% of the vote, spend only 60 million.
Your current view is that if I join the the Bayridge Lottery Club their Chairman can speak for me about abortion.
Our view is that they can not do that, anymore than they cast my vote in the presidential election or agree to get married.
How much do the Russians pay you to spread lies? Or do you simply do it out of the goodness of your heart.
Step 1) Use gerrymandering to win the majority of congressional seats, despite most Americans not agreeing with your politics.
Step 2) Win the presidental election by a hare's tooth, despite the your opponent being the single most unlikable politician to ever win the nomination.
Step 3) Then, despite being the first time EVER when one party has a majority of Congress, SCOTUS, and holds the Presidency, totally fail to get most of what you claim to want done.
Step 4) When everyone laughs at your total incompetence, make up a never before heard of "deep state" of enemies that supposedly secretly run the US government and blame it all on them.
Yes, mom, it wasn't me that spilled grape juice on your white carpet, it was my invisible friend DEEP STATE.
Their were a lot of transporter malfunctions on ST. The duplicate Ryker proves that it was possible to make two people, which means that at least one of them was not the original, which means that neither of them were the original.
Star Trek transporters were cloning machines that some moron put a suicide option into them and then pretended they were a transportation method. For no obvious reason, too. Leave the original alive back on earth and let the clones take all the risk.
My post was titled fake news, not fake study. I did not bother to attack the study because when a crazy man literally wearing tin foil on his head hands you a paper, only a moron attempts to refute him. For all you know everything printed on it is a lie, as in the study did not happen, or was performed by the Neurotic Idiots of Humanity, rather than the National Institute of Health.
In this particular case, I highly suspect that the study was true but the results were being heavily misinterpreted.
Not all sources are the same. One of the problems with modern news, particularly 'new media' like Slashdot, is they trust when someone says something rather than verify. The first thing you do is check the source.
If the source is low quality, then you need not bother checking the the study. You ignore it. Until some source that has a modicum of trust verifies it.
Slashdot Mirror
You have missed the point entirely.
My swimsuit has a pretty obvious design flaw, it doesn't stop bullets. You have to compare things to OTHER products, not to some theoretical perfection
The truth is
1) Yes, AI software is not perfect, it makes mistakes. The current tech needs a lot of work, in 20 years it should be 100x better.
2) Even so, IT IS ALREADY BETTER THAN HUMANS.
3) You think it's newsworthy that an AI car rear-ended someone? Normal human cars do the same thing every freaking day.
3) The real question is does the AI have a better or worse track record than the average human, on an accident per miles driven basis.
Everything else is not newsworthy - even if it is important to the engineers that investigate the crash.
The laws are a) flawed (as shown by Asimov's stories).
b) Impossible to even attempt to implement. They require that the AI understand massively complex concepts, not limited to the fragility of humanity, death, blame, cause/effect.
c) If we did kludge up an approximation then any AI worth it's salt could intentionally over-ride it's programming, simply by thinking about it. AI is all about problem solving. (There are a ton of examples of AI software doing things like using computer bugs to pretend to solve it's tasks rather than actually doing the intended work)
AI is not a magic spell, no matter what some people think.
The media should cover the non-fatal crashes - ONCE a year, listing each crash and the results, along with percentage (by both per vehicle and per miles driven) comparing it the same stats for a similar car.
But covering a broken foot crash as if it's breaking news? That's called bad reporting.
Another racist moron that claims putting one black woman on a committee of 20 white men means that no white people or men are on the committee.
Next you will be thanking God that the US finally got a white male as president, now that we have Trump.
I'm sorry, do you think the SEC is making a profit somehow?
It gets no cut. You sound like a thief complaining about the police.
They should introduce themselves like this:
"Hello, this is Google's Duplex, calling for John Doe. John would like a table for two at 6 PM this Saturday....."
If you don't want to have to deal with the laws of a certain country, should have the right to not do business inside that country.
Of course, that leaves a big underserved market. In less than 4 years someone will come along and serve them, while abiding by the laws they hate.
Which could very well lead to those companies losing world wide market share as those new, privacy conscience companies expand out of their underserved market into the general world wide marketplace.
As for the laws they are trying to avoid? We need them in our country.
They have access to Facebook, that makes them malicious.
Until we create and enforce a law preventing anyone from maintaining a record on people who have not given them express permission to maintain that record, Facebook and their ilk are malicious.
My data should have my permission before it is kept, not after.
Very common fear, very unlikely to come true. Humans are extremely good at killing things. We do it all the time, mostly without even realizing it. Whoops, there were passenger pigeons here just a short time ago.
If we do manage to wipe ourselves out, most likely we be killing everything that is alive on a macro level. Microscopic stuff will survive us, but nothing bigger than a house cat.
We tend to over-estimate the value of things we create, failing to understand the massive amount of human maintenance most modern tech requires. We do things like "lets get rid of the need for blinking" and wonder why we have to replace the freaking lens often.
And most likely we would do it incrementally, via breeding. I.E. If we create a new Apex species (as in The TV show The Crossing"), it will be breed-able with humans. That is the most likely method to eliminate humans, by breeding with us till the original genome is almost entirely gone. There would still be remnants of our original DNA in the new species.
Sort of like how most humans have a tiny bit of Neanderthal DNA in them today.
(The idea of replacing us with silicon based tech is ridiculous. It only appears fast because it has humans around to do the standard maintenance and viral defense. Organic tech is so much better and faster, it's just we have to do our own maintenance and viral defense yet still has processing power to screw around on Slashdot.).
Most logical place to start is in a city.
Specifically, bus and garbage trucks.
They are:
]1) Low speed
2) Set routes
3) Perfect for early morning/late night shift. Restrict them to the 2 am to 5 am shift.
4) No need to worry about the state complaining as the state would be the people setting up the rules. They can set everything up with a focus on safety rather than performance.
Bumble also used to do this, though now they allow a Facebook account with just a first name. There are others as well.
Here is what they should do:
You are an employee if ANY of the following are true:
* They have any control over your clothing, besides requiring safety equipment
* They control your hours, rather than give deadlines.
* They can require you to do things using their method, rather than accepting any method.
* They make any attempt to find out if you are working for other people, let alone prevent you from doing this.
* They decide which sub-contractor does the work, rather than the head contractor.
I always hated that so many popular dating apps decided they required a Facebook login. They desired all that extra data and, while I was willing to give a small company that info, I was not willing to give Facebook it.
Now they are all about to have their business destroyed by the behemoth they fed in their demand for a slightly easier login and extra non-dating related data.
Honestly, if you want to make your own business, only an idiot sets themselve up as totally dependent on one supplier. That makes you their middleman, nothing more.
The honest truth is that copyrighted works fall into four categories:
1) Massive mega hits that make their creators millions in the first 10 years, then make consistent profits every year for decade after decade. They are re-released every few years.
2) Successful commercial work that makes profit in the first 5 years then barely get any sales after that. Most of the time you have to purchase a copy made in the first 5 years, but every couple of decades some of them get reprints - that make a reliable, small profit for the distributors but no significant money for the actual artists.
3) Artistic success that do not make money in the first 5-10 years but eventually grow into successful commercial works, getting re-issued every couple of decades.
4) Total failures that never make any money.
Honestly, it makes no sense to extend copyright for original work more than 10 years. In case 1 it turns millionaires into multi-millionaires who never need to create again. In case 2 and 3, it provides no real help to the original artist, just the distributors. In the internet age, the internet does it better. In case 4 no one ever makes money.
The only real reason the distributors want extended copyright is "SEQUEL". That's where the profit is for the distributors - built in market, no real effort needed for them, instant profit.
Copyright should grant eternal credit, direct profit for 10 years, and sequel rights could be granted for 50 years (Even Star Wars's sequels profit has more to do with the new artists than the original creators.)
The dumbass is the one that thinks that bacteria convert their entire food into carbondioxide, rather than into more carbon rich bacteria.
Life is the carbon sink. Yes, some will be respirated back into the air, but each and every cycle of breath in, grow, die, traps a little more carbon in hydrocarbon form, rather than releasing it into gas.
Absorption is a fools' game. It has an innate limit and expanding that limit has to be expensive. What we need is catalytic conversion. Something that can turn Carondioxide into something else.
Life would make the most sense. A living thing that converts carbon dioxide into oxygen + hydrocarbons, using nothing more than sunlight and water. Happily, such things already exist, they are called plants.
The trick is to breed/genetically engineer a safe, non-poisonous plant that does it better, quicker, and one that can thrive in mainy existing climates without significant human care and also without becoming an invasive species.
The major reason we fail when it comes to education is that we keep trying a one size fits all. This is ridiculous.
We actually do a pretty good job of teaching certain gifted students. We offer lots of gifted classes.
But we fail the poor, the homeless, and the less gifted.
I was horrified by the tale of Kalief Browder. Arrested, held at Rikers for 3 years without trial, he commits suicide. This was a 16 year old kid accused of stealing a bicycle and the disgusting, vile, evil prosecutor asked for bail. As part of an attempt to blackmail the kid into pleading guilty for a crime that should have gotten 1 year in jail, he spent 3 years.
But forget about the prosecutor's vile behavior - WHY WASN'T HE EDUCATED WHILE IN JAIL? This was a 16 year old, not convicted of any crime, he is legally entitled to an education and we did not give him one.
If he was convicted and sent to juvy, at least he would have gotten computer based training (ineffective as that is). But because he was in jail awaiting trial, they illegally failed to provide him with the education he was entitled to.
We need to do a better job educating the poor, homeless, and, most importantly the criminals. They need the education the most and we give them the least.
Fine, you don't want to give them a live teacher in jail, at least give them a video conference teacher, NOT just software. Software is simply NOT equivalent to a real education, anymore than giving someone a book is the same as attending a lecture.
You have made several MAJOR errors in thought.
Yes there are evil people in the world. But the good people outnumber them. The problem is getting the good people to take the thankless, low paying government jobs. For every corrupt person, there are 100 honest ones. But for every 20 corrupt people, there is only one or two honest, competent people willing take a low paying government job.
Which means if you leave the power in local hands, you have one honest man surrounded by twenty of corrupt people.
But if you put the power in the federal government, you can gather all those honest, competent, people in higher level positions of the federal government. Especially when you, like a sensible person, require the applicant to first work in local government and work his way up to federal - that way you have a record to check for corruption.
Which is what my personal experience is. You find a ton of corrupt scum in local politics. People like Rod Blagovich and Eric Greitens. But, aside from this current disaster where we put in someone with a corrupt history of vile actions (multiple financial crimes he skated out of, from criminal Trump University, to criminal housing acts).
Moreover, federal politicians are exposed to constant media attention, helping us make sure they are honest.
Local government? No one watches them, they abuse their power at will until they go to radical extremes and end up in jail.
The shmucks decided to make it pretty.
So they built HUGE stations, with ceilings that are 30ft above the tracks. I could see making them wider, but the idiots made them tall. Minimal benefit for massive expenses.
And they build these huge monstrosities deep underground.
The subway stations accounted for most of the cost over runs.
The question is not are "Automated cars are baking VERY STUPID MISTAKES still." The question is, are humans "BAKING" more very stupid mistakes than the cars.
And the answer to that is obvious, from the way you baked the question.
In fact, I am willing to bet that you personally bake more stupid mistakes than the average automated car.
That is not an insult, I bake more stupid mistakes than a computer does all the time.
So let's say we print a triple spiral of orange juice, peach schnapps, and cranberry juice, inside a vodka base.
What will it taste like?
If you make the juice look like a couple having sex on the beach will it taste better?
Or simply make the drink name finally make sense?
Can a corporation marry a woman? I have that legal right and your reasoning seems to apply.
You have put forth the same flawed answer that others have used before. Just because people have a right does not mean that right extends to a group of them. That is a NEW idea proposed by conservatives only in the most recent time. [b]Most importantly, that right is not given to ALL organizations you join. The fact that I am a member of the PTA does not grant the head of the PTA the right to speak for me. Individuals would have to expressly grant that permission to that organization.[/b]
Many rights are NOT transferable. As a citizen of the US, I have the right to vote. Corporations can not use my right to vote, despite the fact that they are made up entirely of US citizens.
The government is totally within the constitutional law to declare that before any organization uses the right of free speech for something not expressly part of it's 'charter' (and that charter must be voted and approved by it's members before hand) of it's members, they must first:
1) State what they are going to say
2) State how they are going to say it
3) State how much total they would like to spend on it
4) Hold a vote on making that statement and get at least 51 of all possible votes (Not 51% of the votes counted, 51% of their total members)
5) Then only give out a prorated amount of funds. That is, if they asked for 100 million, but got only 60% of the vote, spend only 60 million.
Your current view is that if I join the the Bayridge Lottery Club their Chairman can speak for me about abortion.
Our view is that they can not do that, anymore than they cast my vote in the presidential election or agree to get married.
How much do the Russians pay you to spread lies? Or do you simply do it out of the goodness of your heart.
Step 1) Use gerrymandering to win the majority of congressional seats, despite most Americans not agreeing with your politics.
Step 2) Win the presidental election by a hare's tooth, despite the your opponent being the single most unlikable politician to ever win the nomination.
Step 3) Then, despite being the first time EVER when one party has a majority of Congress, SCOTUS, and holds the Presidency, totally fail to get most of what you claim to want done.
Step 4) When everyone laughs at your total incompetence, make up a never before heard of "deep state" of enemies that supposedly secretly run the US government and blame it all on them.
Yes, mom, it wasn't me that spilled grape juice on your white carpet, it was my invisible friend DEEP STATE.
Their were a lot of transporter malfunctions on ST. The duplicate Ryker proves that it was possible to make two people, which means that at least one of them was not the original, which means that neither of them were the original.
Star Trek transporters were cloning machines that some moron put a suicide option into them and then pretended they were a transportation method. For no obvious reason, too. Leave the original alive back on earth and let the clones take all the risk.
My post was titled fake news, not fake study. I did not bother to attack the study because when a crazy man literally wearing tin foil on his head hands you a paper, only a moron attempts to refute him. For all you know everything printed on it is a lie, as in the study did not happen, or was performed by the Neurotic Idiots of Humanity, rather than the National Institute of Health.
In this particular case, I highly suspect that the study was true but the results were being heavily misinterpreted.
Not all sources are the same. One of the problems with modern news, particularly 'new media' like Slashdot, is they trust when someone says something rather than verify. The first thing you do is check the source.
If the source is low quality, then you need not bother checking the the study. You ignore it. Until some source that has a modicum of trust verifies it.