Also, isn't this headline basically just saying, "DARPA wants to do The Thing All Laypeople Think AI Is For"? (See also, every movie about AI every made.)
Exactly, we need to perfect the safety features in a way that requires the driver to be driving/attending fully like normal, then we can consider integrating the safety features into a truly driverless, attentionless car. But this nonsense about making it easier for drivers to not pay attention to the road, yet not have the safety features that allow true inattention, is just, well, nonsense!
it's actually in society's best interest for those "idiots" you speak of to be able to live in a home, weirdly enough. You probably don't agree with this, but listen to people complain when homelessness goes up. "So unpleasant to see!" they say. "We should outlaw them!" they say. Well, there would be a way to prevent your having to see "unpleasant" homeless people, and it starts before they get to that point, like as soon as they lose their income, however they lost it.
Right, a lot of individual tasks are becoming automatable now. People seem to think that as long as one AI can't do everything, we're okay, but an awful lot of things can be done by an "AI" where that's all it does.
Worse, employers trying to save a buck have demonstrated a willingness to use AI that is worse than the humans -- e.g., I work in speech recognition via phone. A lot of my clients have replaced as many humans as possible with speech recognition systems that are far inferior to the humans that were replaced. They may care that the end customers are having a worse experience, but not enough that it outweighs the cost savings. I don't see why this wouldn't be the rule across every automatable task -- it doesn't have to be as good as humans, it just has to be good enough that they really can decrease costs.
QMTA, this is probably because tech companies have taught us that what computers should be good at is moderating videos and spotting word-use and grammar errors in essays. Um....
I think it's amazing that more people think hard skills (i.e., things computers are good at) are essential rather than soft skills (i.e., things computers aren't good at) are necessary for humans.
That would be a good idea, if not for the fact that in America, we have basically all just agreed that average people should be able to make ends meet. Because we are all above average! If you, like me, are above average, you will pull yourself up by your bootstraps to be a millionaire!
This should be totally obvious. If you are just training PhDs to train other PhDs to train other PhDs, you basically just have a pyramid scheme. But actually, there is work to do! Not everyone can train more of themselves, some people just need to settle down and do research! This is an expectation/logic problem. (Or a very smart ploy on the part of institutions to bring down the cost of hiring PhDs...why would PhD holders participate in that? Failure to reason!)
Signed, A dropout of the academic system that is very happy with the $$$$ I have now
1. "Experiment" was the wrong terminology to use, it's nothing but humor. 2. Don't think of it as writing future headlines, think of it more as writing headlines that "could have occurred" in such and such decade. Like, "here's a joke about headlines on Slashdot in the 90s." You couldn't base a whole tv show on it, of course -- "That Slashdot 90s Show", anyone?
I think we can't have that revolution as long as we all have to work desperately to pay our ever-increasing bills. We have to get off the treadmill before we can take a breath and then start to figure out our next steps.
Right; I agree that at least a cell phone is a necessity, now that payphones are gone; and a smartphone could be considered somewhat of a necessity if there's a chance you'll be lost somewhere since you can no longer just go in a gas station and look up addresses/locations in their phone book; but it's certainly not a necessity to have it with you at all times.
And, if you don't have directions to where you're going, you used to be able to stop at a gas station, borrow a phone book, and look up the address and then consult the included map. Try that now and you will get laughed at. So if you don't have a smartphone, you might want to have a road atlas with you, but good luck finding an address if you don't have that.
Well, surely the goal is for them to have their setup and make money, not *actually* to kill the bodegas. So it can get far and we can all still have our bodegas too.
"Most people want to wake up, eat, do something they feel is productive and fun, eat some more and go to sleep comfortably. The vast majority of people will do absolutely nothing to assist with this if it is just handed to them or if they don't feel in control of it." Agree with the first sentence, but not sure about the second sentence. Are you claiming that's what we have now, where we have to have a job and that is the thing we do to feel productive so we don't have the burden of figuring out how to spend our days in a way we feel good about? If so I agree.
Agreed, and I don't want to hear the old claim, "But people who don't work won't have any self-respect and won't know how to spend their time in a satisfying manner." The former is a bug we will correct, the latter is just the thing people say about all those other people they don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, isn't this headline basically just saying, "DARPA wants to do The Thing All Laypeople Think AI Is For"? (See also, every movie about AI every made.)
Pretty bold calling a calendar system written by a British person the "International Fixed Calendar."
Somehow trolls are getting mod points?
Like being gay or being a witch? Hm, I think I hate your standard...
Exactly, we need to perfect the safety features in a way that requires the driver to be driving/attending fully like normal, then we can consider integrating the safety features into a truly driverless, attentionless car. But this nonsense about making it easier for drivers to not pay attention to the road, yet not have the safety features that allow true inattention, is just, well, nonsense!
And writing fiction. People love to write fiction, but yet the race is on to automate that as well.
And moderating youtube videos, you forgot to add that one to your list.
it's actually in society's best interest for those "idiots" you speak of to be able to live in a home, weirdly enough. You probably don't agree with this, but listen to people complain when homelessness goes up. "So unpleasant to see!" they say. "We should outlaw them!" they say. Well, there would be a way to prevent your having to see "unpleasant" homeless people, and it starts before they get to that point, like as soon as they lose their income, however they lost it.
Right, a lot of individual tasks are becoming automatable now. People seem to think that as long as one AI can't do everything, we're okay, but an awful lot of things can be done by an "AI" where that's all it does.
Worse, employers trying to save a buck have demonstrated a willingness to use AI that is worse than the humans -- e.g., I work in speech recognition via phone. A lot of my clients have replaced as many humans as possible with speech recognition systems that are far inferior to the humans that were replaced. They may care that the end customers are having a worse experience, but not enough that it outweighs the cost savings. I don't see why this wouldn't be the rule across every automatable task -- it doesn't have to be as good as humans, it just has to be good enough that they really can decrease costs.
QMTA, this is probably because tech companies have taught us that what computers should be good at is moderating videos and spotting word-use and grammar errors in essays. Um....
I think it's amazing that more people think hard skills (i.e., things computers are good at) are essential rather than soft skills (i.e., things computers aren't good at) are necessary for humans.
haha YUP
Well, let's get real, school is so much fun it is hard to leave! :)
qmtcorrect: average people should NOT be able to make ends! That's how below average I am, I don't proof read till after I post!
That would be a good idea, if not for the fact that in America, we have basically all just agreed that average people should be able to make ends meet. Because we are all above average! If you, like me, are above average, you will pull yourself up by your bootstraps to be a millionaire!
This should be totally obvious. If you are just training PhDs to train other PhDs to train other PhDs, you basically just have a pyramid scheme. But actually, there is work to do! Not everyone can train more of themselves, some people just need to settle down and do research! This is an expectation/logic problem. (Or a very smart ploy on the part of institutions to bring down the cost of hiring PhDs...why would PhD holders participate in that? Failure to reason!)
Signed,
A dropout of the academic system that is very happy with the $$$$ I have now
1. "Experiment" was the wrong terminology to use, it's nothing but humor.
2. Don't think of it as writing future headlines, think of it more as writing headlines that "could have occurred" in such and such decade. Like, "here's a joke about headlines on Slashdot in the 90s." You couldn't base a whole tv show on it, of course -- "That Slashdot 90s Show", anyone?
I think we can't have that revolution as long as we all have to work desperately to pay our ever-increasing bills. We have to get off the treadmill before we can take a breath and then start to figure out our next steps.
Right; I agree that at least a cell phone is a necessity, now that payphones are gone; and a smartphone could be considered somewhat of a necessity if there's a chance you'll be lost somewhere since you can no longer just go in a gas station and look up addresses/locations in their phone book; but it's certainly not a necessity to have it with you at all times.
And, if you don't have directions to where you're going, you used to be able to stop at a gas station, borrow a phone book, and look up the address and then consult the included map. Try that now and you will get laughed at. So if you don't have a smartphone, you might want to have a road atlas with you, but good luck finding an address if you don't have that.
Most of the so-called "bodegas", which people call them in common usage, are labeled as "delis" and/or "groceries" in their signage.
Well, surely the goal is for them to have their setup and make money, not *actually* to kill the bodegas. So it can get far and we can all still have our bodegas too.
Okay, yes, agreed there that creativity is not what these algorithms do. And when they try to, they are terrible.
"Most people want to wake up, eat, do something they feel is productive and fun, eat some more and go to sleep comfortably. The vast majority of people will do absolutely nothing to assist with this if it is just handed to them or if they don't feel in control of it." Agree with the first sentence, but not sure about the second sentence. Are you claiming that's what we have now, where we have to have a job and that is the thing we do to feel productive so we don't have the burden of figuring out how to spend our days in a way we feel good about? If so I agree.
Agreed, and I don't want to hear the old claim, "But people who don't work won't have any self-respect and won't know how to spend their time in a satisfying manner." The former is a bug we will correct, the latter is just the thing people say about all those other people they don't know.