I think you summarized this better than I could have. If I had Musk money, I'd like to think I'd be doing stuff like this, but honestly, I'm not sure I would. I bet I'd be pretty happy on my tropical island, and I wouldn't be trying to change the world.
I doubt it was intentionally cut. SpaceX celebrates their failures. Have you seen their "How not to land a rocket" compilation on their youtube channel?
More than likely it went boom and took out the antennas if it failed. More stress on this rocket than any other, went way faster than the rest, and slowed down a lot more. I wouldn't be too surprised if it didn't withstand all of that.
Very much so. I wish I could have been there, but just watching it on TV was awe inspiring. I'm now really curious what the battery/solar setup on the payload is. Obviously Musk does both, and with dragon has the space experience. I'm wondering if we're going to get video from Spaceman in his Tesla for just a little while, or if he's got it set up to broadcast for the next decade.
I called in "sick" and was trying not to spill my beer.:)
I'm currently watching live video of the earth reflected off of Musk's personal Tesla Roadster. (SpaceX channel on youtube.)
That's going to get pushed into a heliocentric orbit in 5 hrs, which will bring it close to Mars' orbit.
This is pretty much the most mind-blowing thing that I've seen in a very, very long time. It's the goofball version of the first moon landing, since it involves a dummy in a car with the radio playing and "Don't Panic" displayed on the dashboard. But that doesn't really detract from what was done here. Still no confirmation of the center booster, but they landed at least 2 out of the three, and sent a payload into an orbit that could easily be a Mars supply run. And all far, far cheaper than NASA or anyone else could do it.
On the first try.
I can't imagine what the next decade is going to bring us.
This is just another cut out of 1,000, leading to the Death of Privacy.
If you think that. you missed the funeral.
We were fine with losing our privacy from paying cash for goods when we realized the immense convenience of streaming. But then we realized that if we connected our phones to the internet, we could stream anywhere we went. Then we realized that if we connected our cars to the internet, we could to it there too. Then we realized that if we were connected to the internet, we might as well be able to look things up and buy things. Then we realized that we didn't always have a keyboard on hand, but if we attached a microphone and paired it with voice recognition, we could just ask Amazon or Google questions. But that required an always-on microphone in our house, and at that point we shrugged and said, "The utter loss of privacy is worth the convenience."
Now we've normalized kids asking Google and Amazon unfiltered kid questions.
So we now have a generation that is growing up accustomed to sharing whatever is on their mind with their friendly corporate overlord. It was bad enough that we had a generation or so going to Google when they were in middle school and typing in "boobies of 12 yr old girls". But that was before Google's data collection was so incredibly vast. Can you imagine a company having a deep record of your interests and private thoughts from when you learned to talk until your dying breath?
Our generation is pretty much the last one that's going to resist. All future ones will grow up talking to the nice corporate voice that answers their questions and tells them that everything is ok. Their parents have already opted to strip all privacy from their kids, and their kids will grow up in a world curated for them.
We watched privacy die. When a generation grows up not knowing what it is, there is no way we'll ever get it back.
Why do you think AI will be inflexible? In general, it seems to be the opposite. It seems to be able to flex beyond what humans would immediately grasp, and start linking things that we didn't expect to be linked.
We've already got AI self-organizing drone swarms, which are inherently flexible and prone to issues. I'm not sure what you think AI is, but from what I see, it definitely looks more flexible than the human mind generally is.
AI really isn't ready to do almost anything that involves negotiations with other people.
Come on, HAL-9000 showed that it was definitely possible! But jokes aside, a) I think it's not that far off, and b) what makes you think we're going to continue to value that as much as we have in the past?
I'm really not kidding. Newer generations are worse with dealing with people, and much more inclined to interact with technology. If they don't value human interactions, it won't be long before those are deemed unnecessary for most everyone. Personally, when I'm in irate customer two things will happen. 1) If it was something that the company purposely chose to do, fuck 'em. I'm out if there's any reasonable competition. 2) If it seems like it could have been an accident, I let them know. Nice to talk to a human at that point, but an automated reply and the problem being fixed is enough for me. If it gets bad enough that I'm out, kissing my ass will only make me madder.
As for AI driving, I just want to see it pass the bottom 1/3 of drivers. Because if it can do that, our roads become safer. And that's a pretty low bar, given what I see on the roads. Good drivers will keep an eye on it and make sure it's not worse than them, and bad drivers will continue to masturbate while checking tinder and eating a bowl of soup.
What I'm basically saying is, we've hired a lot of people to do really simple, relatively "brain dead" jobs, just because "somebody's gotta do 'em".
And what I'm saying is that once AI can do a passable job at these things, and it's probably pretty damn close, it will be cheaper than most of these people, and just as effective. I really don't think the draw of human interaction is as much as you think it is. I think a large amount of people are going to vote speed and accuracy over the human touch as soon as they can.
Imagine a frequent traveler, who stays at the Hilton wherever she goes on business. Imagine the Hilton has AI check-in. That AI can learn what she likes, and can learn to adjust based on what happened on the way there. Delayed? Bad weather? Missing luggage? It can adapt for that. She does cardio on Tuesday and always eats more after? Change the Tuesday breakfast default. And every Hilton she goes to, the AI knows her, knows this, and provides that level of service. And now imagine that it does that for all of the millions of customers every year.
To me, that's scary as fuck and creepy as hell, but for a lot of people, that's going to feel like the level of service and personalization that they expect from a luxury hotel. And if some people don't want to interact with the AI? It will know that, and direct them to the handful of humans still around for that purpose. But I don't expect them to be the default, rather the exception.
So, you've got that entirely wrong. Do you want to go do some reading and try again? Or are you cool with just keeping that incorrect factoid in your head?
That would be a lot easier if there wasn't a contrived political release of a cherry picked memo designed to produce ammo to fire the very people doing that investigation.
Are you so impatient that you'd rather this bit of political shenanigans than the investigation run its due course? And exactly why do you think a year is an unreasonable amount of time to unravel a giant web of influence peddling, money laundering, and political favor trading? From my point of view, I think it's fine to take the time to do it right, rather than just release partial information which might hinder the investigation to satisfy the anger so well stoked by Fox News and the neocon twitter rampage.
Or to put it another way, there are a whole lot of people in the DoJ and FBI who will investigate corruption and foreign influence peddling no matter who is in office.
We don't have evidence that that's not what they are doing. We do have at least some cherry-picked pieces of evidence that support that it was done sloppily and that the FISA court didn't give a shit about how sloppy it was. But we already had pretty good evidence of that anyway, with their what....99% rubber stamp rate for requests?
If you're reading an abuse of power from this memo, congratulations, that's what cherry picking one page of stuff out of a what, 40, 400 page document was designed to do.
They should give you a pin with "I got manipulated today!" on it for you to wear.
Well, other than it being actually funded first by Republicans, then dropped like a hot potato once it was clear Trump was winning the nomination, I think we can all agree that it was paid opposition research.
What I'm unclear with is how you determine that such a status means none of it is true.
In general, if you're doing opposition research, you want some grains of truth in there, because if it's all smoke, generally people can see through it.
You seem to think that this whole thing is partisan which means you buy into the propaganda
Because it is. If you don't see it as partisan, that's a reflection on you.
I don't disagree about the concern for the surveillance state erected post 9-11. But releasing a 1 page summary of a 400 page report cherry picked to be a political weapon doesn't in any way address the problem. If you can't see that, I don't know how to explain it to you.
If you want to address the problem, there are legal ways to do it. Reform the FISA courts. Stop renewing all the legislation that allows for the spying on Americans. Strip funding for the three letter agencies and tell them that they're to run lean and stop wasting resources on citizens.
Personally, nobody supporting that shit gets my vote. I do wish that more people felt likewise.
Those are all ways to fix the problem. This is a hamfisted way to try and undermine an investigation for political reasons. I'm not sure how you can see it otherwise.
FFS, even Paul Ryan is requesting that the Democrat's rebuttal memo be released!
But in addition, I bet that they had additional evidence on Page that they didn't really want to write up in their FISA application. The ties with Russia are apparently so deep on the Friends of Trump side that I'm sure they probably had a few arrows pointed at him from other sources. For all we know, it might have stemmed from intelligence sharing between the NSA and FBI, where the NSA wasn't able to give them the full details, or at least not down to the level of the people investigating people like Page.
Potential political corruption and abuse if the boss says, "Find something on this guy, anything."? Quite possibly. But also possibly, "We have a smoking gun that we can't reveal, lets find another way to get this guy." And that might be totally legitimate due to a spying operation that it would reveal, or a source that it would compromise that could be used to nab even bigger fish.
This isn't exactly normal police work when you're dealing at this level.
If that were true, why would the FBI use the Steele Dossier as justification for the initial FISA application and why would the FBI not tell the FISA courts about the political component of that dossier?
For probably the most stupid human reason of all: It was easy, and they knew that the FISA court would rubber stamp their request regardless.
I mean, if I needed to get something authorized in my building and I could just grab some dodgy report, chop off the bits that would raise eyebrows, and hand it in to get rubber stamped, why would I bother going through the effort of doing a decent job?
We've known that the FISA courts were a travesty for a long time. To my mind, this looks like just as much of an indictment of that process as it does the FBI's conduct. The FISA courts were supposed to be a check on the FBI's use of secret warrants, but as documented here, look how well that worked.
I'd love to see how common this is. While this event is obviously being unearthed for political purposes, I can't imagine that this isn't how a lot of the FISA rulings went over the last 40 years. Instead of focusing on the FBI, the real focus should be on the FISA courts, because they should have a level of rigor that nobody at the FBI would even think about trying to go to them with evidence like this.
I'm much more torn than you seem to be. I would definitely miss some because they are fun, interesting people, and others for more aesthetic reasons. A solid 50% or so I could definitely do without.
But I've worked from home for short periods, and I can honestly say that I do get somewhat stir-crazy. I need some intellectual human interaction on a pretty regular basis. I'd love to work from home one day a week. I honestly don't know that I'd like more than that.
Just because technology ALLOWS you to do a thing doesn't mean you WILL.
Well, you won't until either a) you've got the funds to do it, b) you're tight on money and need to cut costs, or c) your competitor does it, and you go out of business because they undercut you so much.
I think Amazon's warehouses are a great example of 'c'. They are increasingly automating them, staffing them with robots, and hiring a smaller percentage of humans. Nobody trying to compete with Amazon is going to hire more humans to work in their warehouses. It's not competitive anymore. For this reason, I think that it won't be long before a lot of the jobs that we haven't automated although we could are either automated to save costs, or are gone because a competitor did it first.
The answer, I think, is that people still prefer interacting with other people, especially in cases where they think the other person will make the transaction more pleasant than the machine will.
Man, so many problems with this one statement. The cutie at the bank is far more pleasant to deal with than the ATM in the lobby, but I often go to the ATM. Why? Because it's far faster than she is. At the store, unless I have a giant cart of stuff that won't fit in the small self-checkout thing, I use the self-checkout. Why? Because it does a faster and better job than the humans running the checkout lines.
The minimum wage employees running the checkout line don't know what anything outside of about 6 vegetables are. They pick up some cilantro and ask, "is this parsley?" I am smart enough to understand that looking at the number on the label and typing it in is the fastest way to check that item, but they need to poke at a picture of it.
AI can probably already differentiate between the two based on a picture. We aren't too far from just putting things on a conveyor and having the AI auto check all of it, bag it, and roll it out to your car.
You've picked a lot of the low-hanging fruit in your attempt to call FUD, but even your examples, in my experience, are only hanging on by a thread. A lot of the program manager positions in my last two jobs were held by one person, with minimal support staff. They used to be teams, but technology automated most of the team away. There are almost no secretaries or personal assistants, because we don't look up addresses to mail letters, file paper in cabinets, manually schedule meetings, etc. FFS, we almost don't even brew coffee anymore, instead just popping in a Kurieg pod.
Knowing how to operate a large motor vehicle is a pretty specific skillset when you think about it. It's crazy to claim that's ALL you could ever really do to be productive in a society.
That's not what anyone is claiming, as far as I know. What they're claiming is that if AI can figure out how to drive a car, what else can these people do that AI can't figure out how to do better, faster, and cheaper? Unlike you, I don't think it's going to just be specific industries that get hard. I do think it will be all industries. I just think that it's going to be a few at a time, because the deployment of AI will be unique to each industry, and you won't necessarily be able to port it between a lot of them.
You can't argue with the machine if it dispensed the wrong item after you paid.
That's a nice feature! It will make us a ton of money!
...so-called 'AI' will not live up to the hype and there might well be disaster because of it.
...
I am not inclined to take your word for anything; you're not using your real name any more than I am, here. Anything you post here is just your opinion, not credible or authoritative.
I'm sure you see the irony here, right?
Regardless, I don't understand what evidence you have for AI being hype. I think a lot of us here on/. have replaced people's job with a shell script or an equivalent. A lot of us are well aware that robotics can often do things better, faster, and cheaper than humans. The big limitation with machine learning and AI is that it can't teach itself. You can't just turn a program on, point it to a task, and say, "figure it out". This stuff requires humans to help. They need to provide training sets, guidance, input, etc. Humans? You just point the smart ones to a task and say "figure it out", and they do. We've been doing that since before we were humans.
Except that all changed recently. The latest Go incarnation started with the rules, played against itself for 3 months, and is now better at Go than any human alive, including some who have spent a decade or more practicing.
This is the most publicized attempt at AI and self learning, but it's not the only one. This is happening all around the world in different contexts, and not just as software. Researchers have watched AI learn how to walk, and have watched swarms of drones learn to self-organize. Some required more human help than others, but the sheer fact is that AI can teach itself how to do things already, and it's only going to get better at it.
When industry took over a significant percentage of physical labor jobs, we turned to more mental tasks. When AI takes over a lot of the mental tasks, what do we turn to?
Magic? That hasn't worked so far.
Creativity? I'm not so naive to think that AI could figure out what people want faster and better than humans could at a point in the not-so-distant future. It's just Go with a different set of rules.
Where AI should be scary is the ability to a) learn faster than humans, b) copy that learning into other "bodies" for a generic term, and c) pool the learning between "bodies". That sets it far, far apart from humans, who's idea of doing this involves going to school and writing papers in a process that takes decades.
I don't disagree about there being disasters because of it. I'm certain that there will be. The question is if there will be more than if the humans were in charge. I'm not so sure of that. And even if there are, if it's still cheaper than having humans doing the job, welcome to the AI apocalypse.
Quicker than the machine learning that taught itself to beat the best Go masters in the world in just a couple of months by reading the rules and playing a million matches against itself?
Because ultimately, that's the problem. The second problem is that that new skill can then be cloned a million times, and the improvements those million AI make instantly added to the knowledge base of all the rest.
You understand that sex toys generally don't get any pleasure out of doing their job, right? And since I want to sleep tonight, I'm not going to try to mentally explore how a robot would design its sexuality in such a way that it could use humans to give it pleasure.
Regarding number 10, we're already relying more and more on technology to govern. From analyzing gerrymandering, modeling evacuations, flooding, traffic patterns in existing and new construction, etc., we're definitely flying down the road to AI. It's bits and pieces at this point, but once more of those are being relied upon, it's not going to be long before we're turning to decision-making AI on a regular basis. While I bet humans will resist this, after just a couple of bad decisions where the AI picked better, it will be clear that we need to let the AI choose.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you summarized this better than I could have. If I had Musk money, I'd like to think I'd be doing stuff like this, but honestly, I'm not sure I would. I bet I'd be pretty happy on my tropical island, and I wouldn't be trying to change the world.
Kudos to him.
I doubt it was intentionally cut. SpaceX celebrates their failures. Have you seen their "How not to land a rocket" compilation on their youtube channel?
More than likely it went boom and took out the antennas if it failed. More stress on this rocket than any other, went way faster than the rest, and slowed down a lot more. I wouldn't be too surprised if it didn't withstand all of that.
Very much so. I wish I could have been there, but just watching it on TV was awe inspiring. I'm now really curious what the battery/solar setup on the payload is. Obviously Musk does both, and with dragon has the space experience. I'm wondering if we're going to get video from Spaceman in his Tesla for just a little while, or if he's got it set up to broadcast for the next decade.
Knowing Musk, it's the latter.
Unless the GP or a friend works in SpaceX, they're just guessing. No confirmation on any of the official channels yet.
Although given the last what....half dozen? Dozen landings on the drone ship, probably landed OK.
I called in "sick" and was trying not to spill my beer. :)
I'm currently watching live video of the earth reflected off of Musk's personal Tesla Roadster. (SpaceX channel on youtube.)
That's going to get pushed into a heliocentric orbit in 5 hrs, which will bring it close to Mars' orbit.
This is pretty much the most mind-blowing thing that I've seen in a very, very long time. It's the goofball version of the first moon landing, since it involves a dummy in a car with the radio playing and "Don't Panic" displayed on the dashboard. But that doesn't really detract from what was done here. Still no confirmation of the center booster, but they landed at least 2 out of the three, and sent a payload into an orbit that could easily be a Mars supply run. And all far, far cheaper than NASA or anyone else could do it.
On the first try.
I can't imagine what the next decade is going to bring us.
So, moonshine and meth?
Shhhhh... He's being internet tough. It's how he rights the wrongs he perceives in the world.
This is just another cut out of 1,000, leading to the Death of Privacy.
If you think that. you missed the funeral.
We were fine with losing our privacy from paying cash for goods when we realized the immense convenience of streaming. But then we realized that if we connected our phones to the internet, we could stream anywhere we went. Then we realized that if we connected our cars to the internet, we could to it there too. Then we realized that if we were connected to the internet, we might as well be able to look things up and buy things. Then we realized that we didn't always have a keyboard on hand, but if we attached a microphone and paired it with voice recognition, we could just ask Amazon or Google questions. But that required an always-on microphone in our house, and at that point we shrugged and said, "The utter loss of privacy is worth the convenience."
Now we've normalized kids asking Google and Amazon unfiltered kid questions.
So we now have a generation that is growing up accustomed to sharing whatever is on their mind with their friendly corporate overlord. It was bad enough that we had a generation or so going to Google when they were in middle school and typing in "boobies of 12 yr old girls". But that was before Google's data collection was so incredibly vast. Can you imagine a company having a deep record of your interests and private thoughts from when you learned to talk until your dying breath?
Our generation is pretty much the last one that's going to resist. All future ones will grow up talking to the nice corporate voice that answers their questions and tells them that everything is ok. Their parents have already opted to strip all privacy from their kids, and their kids will grow up in a world curated for them.
We watched privacy die. When a generation grows up not knowing what it is, there is no way we'll ever get it back.
Why do you think AI will be inflexible? In general, it seems to be the opposite. It seems to be able to flex beyond what humans would immediately grasp, and start linking things that we didn't expect to be linked.
We've already got AI self-organizing drone swarms, which are inherently flexible and prone to issues. I'm not sure what you think AI is, but from what I see, it definitely looks more flexible than the human mind generally is.
AI really isn't ready to do almost anything that involves negotiations with other people.
Come on, HAL-9000 showed that it was definitely possible! But jokes aside, a) I think it's not that far off, and b) what makes you think we're going to continue to value that as much as we have in the past?
I'm really not kidding. Newer generations are worse with dealing with people, and much more inclined to interact with technology. If they don't value human interactions, it won't be long before those are deemed unnecessary for most everyone. Personally, when I'm in irate customer two things will happen. 1) If it was something that the company purposely chose to do, fuck 'em. I'm out if there's any reasonable competition. 2) If it seems like it could have been an accident, I let them know. Nice to talk to a human at that point, but an automated reply and the problem being fixed is enough for me. If it gets bad enough that I'm out, kissing my ass will only make me madder.
As for AI driving, I just want to see it pass the bottom 1/3 of drivers. Because if it can do that, our roads become safer. And that's a pretty low bar, given what I see on the roads. Good drivers will keep an eye on it and make sure it's not worse than them, and bad drivers will continue to masturbate while checking tinder and eating a bowl of soup.
What I'm basically saying is, we've hired a lot of people to do really simple, relatively "brain dead" jobs, just because "somebody's gotta do 'em".
And what I'm saying is that once AI can do a passable job at these things, and it's probably pretty damn close, it will be cheaper than most of these people, and just as effective. I really don't think the draw of human interaction is as much as you think it is. I think a large amount of people are going to vote speed and accuracy over the human touch as soon as they can.
Imagine a frequent traveler, who stays at the Hilton wherever she goes on business. Imagine the Hilton has AI check-in. That AI can learn what she likes, and can learn to adjust based on what happened on the way there. Delayed? Bad weather? Missing luggage? It can adapt for that. She does cardio on Tuesday and always eats more after? Change the Tuesday breakfast default. And every Hilton she goes to, the AI knows her, knows this, and provides that level of service. And now imagine that it does that for all of the millions of customers every year.
To me, that's scary as fuck and creepy as hell, but for a lot of people, that's going to feel like the level of service and personalization that they expect from a luxury hotel. And if some people don't want to interact with the AI? It will know that, and direct them to the handful of humans still around for that purpose. But I don't expect them to be the default, rather the exception.
If you know for sure that you're probably illegally sharing state secrets.
I'm not aware of the FBI even making that statement, but even if they did, there's absolutely no reason for it to be true.
Why would you state this as fact, if you don't know whether or not it's true?
So, you've got that entirely wrong. Do you want to go do some reading and try again? Or are you cool with just keeping that incorrect factoid in your head?
That would be a lot easier if there wasn't a contrived political release of a cherry picked memo designed to produce ammo to fire the very people doing that investigation.
Are you so impatient that you'd rather this bit of political shenanigans than the investigation run its due course? And exactly why do you think a year is an unreasonable amount of time to unravel a giant web of influence peddling, money laundering, and political favor trading? From my point of view, I think it's fine to take the time to do it right, rather than just release partial information which might hinder the investigation to satisfy the anger so well stoked by Fox News and the neocon twitter rampage.
Or to put it another way, there are a whole lot of people in the DoJ and FBI who will investigate corruption and foreign influence peddling no matter who is in office.
We don't have evidence that that's not what they are doing. We do have at least some cherry-picked pieces of evidence that support that it was done sloppily and that the FISA court didn't give a shit about how sloppy it was. But we already had pretty good evidence of that anyway, with their what....99% rubber stamp rate for requests?
If you're reading an abuse of power from this memo, congratulations, that's what cherry picking one page of stuff out of a what, 40, 400 page document was designed to do.
They should give you a pin with "I got manipulated today!" on it for you to wear.
Well, other than it being actually funded first by Republicans, then dropped like a hot potato once it was clear Trump was winning the nomination, I think we can all agree that it was paid opposition research.
What I'm unclear with is how you determine that such a status means none of it is true.
In general, if you're doing opposition research, you want some grains of truth in there, because if it's all smoke, generally people can see through it.
You seem to think that this whole thing is partisan which means you buy into the propaganda
Because it is. If you don't see it as partisan, that's a reflection on you.
I don't disagree about the concern for the surveillance state erected post 9-11. But releasing a 1 page summary of a 400 page report cherry picked to be a political weapon doesn't in any way address the problem. If you can't see that, I don't know how to explain it to you.
If you want to address the problem, there are legal ways to do it. Reform the FISA courts. Stop renewing all the legislation that allows for the spying on Americans. Strip funding for the three letter agencies and tell them that they're to run lean and stop wasting resources on citizens.
Personally, nobody supporting that shit gets my vote. I do wish that more people felt likewise.
Those are all ways to fix the problem. This is a hamfisted way to try and undermine an investigation for political reasons. I'm not sure how you can see it otherwise.
FFS, even Paul Ryan is requesting that the Democrat's rebuttal memo be released!
But in addition, I bet that they had additional evidence on Page that they didn't really want to write up in their FISA application. The ties with Russia are apparently so deep on the Friends of Trump side that I'm sure they probably had a few arrows pointed at him from other sources. For all we know, it might have stemmed from intelligence sharing between the NSA and FBI, where the NSA wasn't able to give them the full details, or at least not down to the level of the people investigating people like Page.
Potential political corruption and abuse if the boss says, "Find something on this guy, anything."? Quite possibly. But also possibly, "We have a smoking gun that we can't reveal, lets find another way to get this guy." And that might be totally legitimate due to a spying operation that it would reveal, or a source that it would compromise that could be used to nab even bigger fish.
This isn't exactly normal police work when you're dealing at this level.
If that were true, why would the FBI use the Steele Dossier as justification for the initial FISA application and why would the FBI not tell the FISA courts about the political component of that dossier?
For probably the most stupid human reason of all: It was easy, and they knew that the FISA court would rubber stamp their request regardless.
I mean, if I needed to get something authorized in my building and I could just grab some dodgy report, chop off the bits that would raise eyebrows, and hand it in to get rubber stamped, why would I bother going through the effort of doing a decent job?
We've known that the FISA courts were a travesty for a long time. To my mind, this looks like just as much of an indictment of that process as it does the FBI's conduct. The FISA courts were supposed to be a check on the FBI's use of secret warrants, but as documented here, look how well that worked.
I'd love to see how common this is. While this event is obviously being unearthed for political purposes, I can't imagine that this isn't how a lot of the FISA rulings went over the last 40 years. Instead of focusing on the FBI, the real focus should be on the FISA courts, because they should have a level of rigor that nobody at the FBI would even think about trying to go to them with evidence like this.
Jesus, AC. That was harsh! And on top of that, Backblaze just released their 2017 report, and you didn't even work that in.
FOR SHAME, AC! FOR SHAME.
I'm much more torn than you seem to be. I would definitely miss some because they are fun, interesting people, and others for more aesthetic reasons. A solid 50% or so I could definitely do without.
But I've worked from home for short periods, and I can honestly say that I do get somewhat stir-crazy. I need some intellectual human interaction on a pretty regular basis. I'd love to work from home one day a week. I honestly don't know that I'd like more than that.
Just because technology ALLOWS you to do a thing doesn't mean you WILL.
Well, you won't until either a) you've got the funds to do it, b) you're tight on money and need to cut costs, or c) your competitor does it, and you go out of business because they undercut you so much.
I think Amazon's warehouses are a great example of 'c'. They are increasingly automating them, staffing them with robots, and hiring a smaller percentage of humans. Nobody trying to compete with Amazon is going to hire more humans to work in their warehouses. It's not competitive anymore. For this reason, I think that it won't be long before a lot of the jobs that we haven't automated although we could are either automated to save costs, or are gone because a competitor did it first.
The answer, I think, is that people still prefer interacting with other people, especially in cases where they think the other person will make the transaction more pleasant than the machine will.
Man, so many problems with this one statement. The cutie at the bank is far more pleasant to deal with than the ATM in the lobby, but I often go to the ATM. Why? Because it's far faster than she is. At the store, unless I have a giant cart of stuff that won't fit in the small self-checkout thing, I use the self-checkout. Why? Because it does a faster and better job than the humans running the checkout lines.
The minimum wage employees running the checkout line don't know what anything outside of about 6 vegetables are. They pick up some cilantro and ask, "is this parsley?" I am smart enough to understand that looking at the number on the label and typing it in is the fastest way to check that item, but they need to poke at a picture of it.
AI can probably already differentiate between the two based on a picture. We aren't too far from just putting things on a conveyor and having the AI auto check all of it, bag it, and roll it out to your car.
You've picked a lot of the low-hanging fruit in your attempt to call FUD, but even your examples, in my experience, are only hanging on by a thread. A lot of the program manager positions in my last two jobs were held by one person, with minimal support staff. They used to be teams, but technology automated most of the team away. There are almost no secretaries or personal assistants, because we don't look up addresses to mail letters, file paper in cabinets, manually schedule meetings, etc. FFS, we almost don't even brew coffee anymore, instead just popping in a Kurieg pod.
Knowing how to operate a large motor vehicle is a pretty specific skillset when you think about it. It's crazy to claim that's ALL you could ever really do to be productive in a society.
That's not what anyone is claiming, as far as I know. What they're claiming is that if AI can figure out how to drive a car, what else can these people do that AI can't figure out how to do better, faster, and cheaper? Unlike you, I don't think it's going to just be specific industries that get hard. I do think it will be all industries. I just think that it's going to be a few at a time, because the deployment of AI will be unique to each industry, and you won't necessarily be able to port it between a lot of them.
You can't argue with the machine if it dispensed the wrong item after you paid.
That's a nice feature! It will make us a ton of money!
...so-called 'AI' will not live up to the hype and there might well be disaster because of it.
...
I am not inclined to take your word for anything; you're not using your real name any more than I am, here. Anything you post here is just your opinion, not credible or authoritative.
I'm sure you see the irony here, right?
Regardless, I don't understand what evidence you have for AI being hype. I think a lot of us here on /. have replaced people's job with a shell script or an equivalent. A lot of us are well aware that robotics can often do things better, faster, and cheaper than humans. The big limitation with machine learning and AI is that it can't teach itself. You can't just turn a program on, point it to a task, and say, "figure it out". This stuff requires humans to help. They need to provide training sets, guidance, input, etc. Humans? You just point the smart ones to a task and say "figure it out", and they do. We've been doing that since before we were humans.
Except that all changed recently. The latest Go incarnation started with the rules, played against itself for 3 months, and is now better at Go than any human alive, including some who have spent a decade or more practicing.
This is the most publicized attempt at AI and self learning, but it's not the only one. This is happening all around the world in different contexts, and not just as software. Researchers have watched AI learn how to walk, and have watched swarms of drones learn to self-organize. Some required more human help than others, but the sheer fact is that AI can teach itself how to do things already, and it's only going to get better at it.
When industry took over a significant percentage of physical labor jobs, we turned to more mental tasks. When AI takes over a lot of the mental tasks, what do we turn to?
Magic? That hasn't worked so far.
Creativity? I'm not so naive to think that AI could figure out what people want faster and better than humans could at a point in the not-so-distant future. It's just Go with a different set of rules.
Where AI should be scary is the ability to a) learn faster than humans, b) copy that learning into other "bodies" for a generic term, and c) pool the learning between "bodies". That sets it far, far apart from humans, who's idea of doing this involves going to school and writing papers in a process that takes decades.
I don't disagree about there being disasters because of it. I'm certain that there will be. The question is if there will be more than if the humans were in charge. I'm not so sure of that. And even if there are, if it's still cheaper than having humans doing the job, welcome to the AI apocalypse.
Quicker than the machine learning that taught itself to beat the best Go masters in the world in just a couple of months by reading the rules and playing a million matches against itself?
Because ultimately, that's the problem. The second problem is that that new skill can then be cloned a million times, and the improvements those million AI make instantly added to the knowledge base of all the rest.
Humans can't compete with that.
You understand that sex toys generally don't get any pleasure out of doing their job, right? And since I want to sleep tonight, I'm not going to try to mentally explore how a robot would design its sexuality in such a way that it could use humans to give it pleasure.
Regarding number 10, we're already relying more and more on technology to govern. From analyzing gerrymandering, modeling evacuations, flooding, traffic patterns in existing and new construction, etc., we're definitely flying down the road to AI. It's bits and pieces at this point, but once more of those are being relied upon, it's not going to be long before we're turning to decision-making AI on a regular basis. While I bet humans will resist this, after just a couple of bad decisions where the AI picked better, it will be clear that we need to let the AI choose.