When (not if) a driverless car breaks a traffic law, who gets the ticket? Seems like a permit is required at a minimum to track responsible parties. Florida is a fool's paradise where technology is concerned.
This message was relayed to be by an inmate at a Texas jail facility:
"I'm writing this from the Dallas PD lockup. I was out in the Ft. Worth area doing security research of residential door knobs, testing which doors might be open and thus exposing housing to breaches. Some guy named Justin Shafer confronted me when I apparently accessed the knobs on his house. He called the cops and now I'm charged with attempted burglary! I explained that my intentions were purely honorable; after all, I'm not a thief! Yes, it's true, I copied some of his mail off the desk in the den, but that was just so I could prove the vulnerability to the gan... er, security community. Anyway, the arraignment didn't go so well, even after I explained that the judge should be thanking me. So I've got a contempt citation too. All I can say is, thank goodness for identity theft!
The truth is we have no knowledge how intelligence or consciousness works. These so-called experts are spouting nonsense. I can as legitimately claim humans will marry dolphins in 2050.
Really? Does Mario Run pull grown-up adults into a spiraling vortex of time-wasting oblivion, destroying productivity and damaging personal relationships?
K. S. Kyosuke, We don't know how humans solve problems, so how can we know anything about the fidelity of so-called AI? For example, how does a human look at a chess board and evaluate positions to determine the next move? Nobody knows. Computers do an exhaustive search of available moves to a certain depth, which humans are incapable of, so that disproves your claim straight off.
Incidentally, Dagger2, claiming that challenging the truth of a scientific theory is part of some kind of conspiratorial "effect" (as in "AI effect") is backwards. Science is not a consensus enterprise. It only takes a single unanswerable challenge to unwind centuries of a mistaken theory. The burden of proof is on the researcher, not the challenger. Moreover, the challenger has no obligation to provide a better theory.
Sorry Pamela. Every time WIlbur and Orville right made a test flight that didn't sustain self-powered flight, the world was totally justified in saying "Nope, sorry, that's not flying". And to say AI is "getting closer" is totally bogus. We have no idea that AI research is even going in the right direction, let alone getting closer to synthetic thinking. At least Wilbur and Orville were actually making progress.
...doesn't imbue it with AI. This is all more of the same Artificial Intelligence hype that the AI industry has been fabricating since it discovered hype equal funding dollars a decade ago. Helping a coder write test coverage is not AI. It's automation. I challenge anyone to show a real example of AI in software development today. And no fair calling neural networks AI. They are just a mal-named ordinary computer data structure. AI research has simply gone from not working to not working with money.
Way more than social media, buggy MS software and wimpy tech support have cost me weeks of sleep and degraded all areas of my life. Let's see THAT study.
But we have no data on miles driven with self-driving cars interacting with each other, which is the real end-game environment of self-driving cars. There likely are huge new failure domains, such a deadly embraces wth real death, race conditions on rainy roads, etc.
So there is no easy statistical answer based on miles driven.
Nothing. We know nothing about how self-driving cars interact with each other. And even less about how millions of self-driving cars interact with each other. And even less than that about a mix of millions of self-driving and human-driving cars.
We know nothing. So predictions about long term safety balance are meaningless. Wait until we know something; until then do nothing.
If we keep calling simple parlor tricks "artificial intelligence", what will we call actual intelligence should we someday artificially create one? AI is so dumbed down now that the term is meaningless.
The CBC argues in essence that web browsers are illegal, since anyone bookmark any link in their browser. It's just Canada though. The world won't notice their absence from the web:)
You're misremembering. It's been proved to a certainty that Apple did not have third-party native apps on the iOS roadmap. Apple's own board reported lobbying for the capability but being repeatedly shut down by Jobs, who incorrectly thought web apps were all users would ever need.
Cult of Mac is one of many industry pubs documenteing this history.
Slashdot Mirror
When (not if) a driverless car breaks a traffic law, who gets the ticket? Seems like a permit is required at a minimum to track responsible parties. Florida is a fool's paradise where technology is concerned.
This message was relayed to be by an inmate at a Texas jail facility: "I'm writing this from the Dallas PD lockup. I was out in the Ft. Worth area doing security research of residential door knobs, testing which doors might be open and thus exposing housing to breaches. Some guy named Justin Shafer confronted me when I apparently accessed the knobs on his house. He called the cops and now I'm charged with attempted burglary! I explained that my intentions were purely honorable; after all, I'm not a thief! Yes, it's true, I copied some of his mail off the desk in the den, but that was just so I could prove the vulnerability to the gan... er, security community. Anyway, the arraignment didn't go so well, even after I explained that the judge should be thanking me. So I've got a contempt citation too. All I can say is, thank goodness for identity theft!
OK, they aren't TOTALLY illiterate but they can't define "homeless", so, mostly.
The truth is we have no knowledge how intelligence or consciousness works. These so-called experts are spouting nonsense. I can as legitimately claim humans will marry dolphins in 2050.
The I in AI is for idiot.
"Apple's iPhone and iPad were the most popular mobile devices gifted during the holidays this year."
They could have been purchased for the end-of-year tax write off.
Really? Does Mario Run pull grown-up adults into a spiraling vortex of time-wasting oblivion, destroying productivity and damaging personal relationships?
I though so.
It's just a game. Run along now.
Maybe this will put an end to the gameification of adult life.
K. S. Kyosuke, We don't know how humans solve problems, so how can we know anything about the fidelity of so-called AI? For example, how does a human look at a chess board and evaluate positions to determine the next move? Nobody knows. Computers do an exhaustive search of available moves to a certain depth, which humans are incapable of, so that disproves your claim straight off.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Incidentally, Dagger2, claiming that challenging the truth of a scientific theory is part of some kind of conspiratorial "effect" (as in "AI effect") is backwards. Science is not a consensus enterprise. It only takes a single unanswerable challenge to unwind centuries of a mistaken theory. The burden of proof is on the researcher, not the challenger. Moreover, the challenger has no obligation to provide a better theory.
This is called "The Science Effect."
Sorry Pamela. Every time WIlbur and Orville right made a test flight that didn't sustain self-powered flight, the world was totally justified in saying "Nope, sorry, that's not flying". And to say AI is "getting closer" is totally bogus. We have no idea that AI research is even going in the right direction, let alone getting closer to synthetic thinking. At least Wilbur and Orville were actually making progress.
Yes indeed. Automatically. As in "automation", not as in AI.
What if homeopathy worked? The fact is that neither Homeopathy nor sentient AI have a shred of basis in reality or known science.
And none of these jobs was replaced by AI. They were replaced by ordinary automation of the same kind as Da Vinciâ(TM)s Knight.
...doesn't imbue it with AI. This is all more of the same Artificial Intelligence hype that the AI industry has been fabricating since it discovered hype equal funding dollars a decade ago. Helping a coder write test coverage is not AI. It's automation. I challenge anyone to show a real example of AI in software development today. And no fair calling neural networks AI. They are just a mal-named ordinary computer data structure. AI research has simply gone from not working to not working with money.
Way more than social media, buggy MS software and wimpy tech support have cost me weeks of sleep and degraded all areas of my life. Let's see THAT study.
So there is no easy statistical answer based on miles driven.
Nothing. We know nothing about how self-driving cars interact with each other. And even less about how millions of self-driving cars interact with each other. And even less than that about a mix of millions of self-driving and human-driving cars. We know nothing. So predictions about long term safety balance are meaningless. Wait until we know something; until then do nothing.
Touché :)
If we keep calling simple parlor tricks "artificial intelligence", what will we call actual intelligence should we someday artificially create one? AI is so dumbed down now that the term is meaningless.
The CBC argues in essence that web browsers are illegal, since anyone bookmark any link in their browser. It's just Canada though. The world won't notice their absence from the web :)
The French. Who can understand their bureaucratic lunacy? Just eat a snail and move on.
No, a negative profit is a "not profit". Just like a negative bank balance is "not money". And this story is "not sense."
Well, it does. Slashdot will repeat most any rediculousky indefensible numbers.
Cult of Mac is one of many industry pubs documenteing this history.