Backwards compatibility was never really A Thing IMO
... (cough)
PS1 to PS2, because the PS2 basically used a full PS1 CPU for interface stuff. The original fat PS3 could play PS1 and PS2 games, but it was removed in the slim models.
Right. So definitely was a thing. A wonderful thing, for that matter.
Exactly right. The golden age of gaming ended when games moved from real media to interminable downloads before one could even start gaming. They sucked all the fun right out of that balloon. It doesn't help that the new consoles are rarely designed with any serious degree of backward compatibility at this point. They love to make you have to start buying all over again. And enough people keep doing that to encourage this awful behavior.
The average consumer has no idea what's going on. They think they have a "3d TV" that uses "AI" connected to the "wireless internet" with their "modem."
o There are no 3D consumer televisions. Only single POV stereovision. o There is no AI. Because there is no "I." Yet. o There is no wireless Internet. It's 99.9999999999999999999% wires, and a good deal of the rest is optical. o Hardly just a modem.
And the above? That's the stuff they are close to getting right.
Proposing desalinization in California the definition of being brain dead: no matter how many nuclear plants you build, it would create vastly more expensive water than the market is willing to buy.
Pretty sure the trees aren't going to pay up anyway.
If California wants to make sure it has enough water, then it needs to be proactive about it. They can move on multiple fronts; They can ban idiot crops like almonds (it takes about a gallon of water to grow a single almond), that take ridiculous amounts of water to produce and have little food value, they can desalinate, they can reduce consumption, they can recycle instead of dump, etc. They're doing some of this. Obviously they need to do more.
The market here should be the state; this is something that will affect the entire economy. Spread the cost via taxes. It's the sane thing to do.
set up a whole separate wifi network for them, would make it easier to monitor.
That's the actual answer. Get them their own SLOW connection, their own firewall/router, and let them talk to anyone they want. Keep them the hell away from your in-house goodness. And FFS, secure your actual wifi network. Also, put the channels at opposite ends of the band (or in different bands, better yet.)
You could have said exactly the same thing about the current Faster-Than-Light travel revolution and it would have been just as relevant.
No. At this point in time, the physics we know are quite firmly standing in the way of FTL travel. There's nothing at all inherently undoable about replicating brain function that we have identified thus far.
'Deep learning' isn't going to get us there. We'll need something new.
It's either a step on the staircase, or identification of a wrong path. Either way, it makes the goal more well defined and closer. That's how science and technology work.
As for where deep learning is going to get us, hard to say until that's happened. As it's really very new and still showing up in new applications every day, I decline to make any assumptions either way.
I should also point out that I have stated, repeatedly and emphatically, that deep learning is not AI. Because there's no "I." So far.
Ultimately, this will also free up a significant section of humanity who are "explorers", those who will risk all to go to mars and colonise it, because the idea of working, solving problems, living according to their ability will appeal to them.
Careful now, or you'll have the "They're All Space Nutterz!" person in here, spittle flying from their lips, eyes spinning in their sockets, hands a-wave. And man, that's just cruel.:)
o Baseball enters the field. You can throw it back. o Softball enters the field. You can throw it back.
But here's what's actually on the program:
o Baseball enters the field. You can throw it back. o Huge earth mover enters the field. The field is being plowed under. Your only option is to get out of the way.
IOW: "One of these things is not even slightly like the other."
That's like saying "to pitch a baseball, we have to understand physiology and be able to solve multiple simultaneous equations" or "to light a fire, we have to understand oxidation" or "to build a house we have to understand physics." No, we don't. We just need something that works.
We already don't understand the details of what multilevel neural nets are doing. We just know -- empirically -- that they can do cool things. We can build them. We can train them. They then do cool things.
It's quite plausible that conscious, true-Scotsman AI will arrive in just this fashion. Lard knows there are a lot of things being thrown at that wall to see if they'll stick. Of course, it could arrive due to a brand new understanding... but if it does, it'll be of precisely the same nature: not here on Monday, completely here on Tuesday. You just can't predict when and where, and so you can't say what will or will not happen in the near term.
Bottom line, formal understanding is lovely, but it isn't a prerequisite.
The current AI 'revolution' isn't going to give us computers with mental capabilities that match most humans.
The thing about the "current X revolution" is that "tomorrow's Y revolution" renders all reasoning made about X irrelevant, and sometimes outright silly. Everything you said is exactly that type of reasoning.
Speaking as a cat and Roomba owner, one who really, really likes cats, I can tell you with absolute authority that cat puke on the floor is exactly as "fashionable" as dirty baby diapers are, and for precisely the same reason: the effort is worth the overall result. When automation removes the requirement for either / both, you're not going to find any significant number of sane people regretting the change.
Roombas are a perfect example of 'not quite there's
Sure they are. They're also the perfect example of "more there than most other things."
As soon as anyone starts thinking "the way it is" is definitive of "the way it will be", they've fallen victim to a major cognitive error. Technological progress is non-linear, and there's not even a hint of it slowing down. Quite the opposite.
Cleaning up cat puke is just another item on my very long list of have-tos that will go away as soon as it can go away.
No, it doesn't depend. Most people are not creative in any way or form and you don't need creativity in routine situations. Most of what we consider a job today also does not require creativity.
Exactly this, and even that's only applicable if AI stalls where it is, which is a ridiculously unlikely assumption to make.
Sure, creative, knowledgeable and smart people will find jobs in post-automation world.
They'll find undertakings that suit them (as will everyone else.) They won't find jobs. No one will be paying anyone for anything; because "pay" will be an obsolete model. There's no reason to have a medium of exchange that discriminates between one person doing something completely optional, and another doing something completely optional.
It used to be service, but we killed that culture in the Western world
There's only one class of service (or "service") humans can provide that automation is unable to eventually cover, and that is interaction with other humans. Bartending, maid/butler, sex, sports, appreciation -- these kinds of things. Having said that, if people want those most of the things those interactions accomplish done well, then they will still turn to automation, with at least the initial exception of sex for procreative purposes (but that's not to say that couldn't succumb as well.)
I don't doubt for a moment that at least for a while, it will be a mark of some kind of status to have a human servant. But in a society where no one has to work, I also don't doubt for a moment that finding mentally healthy humans who want to serve in such fashions will be quite difficult.
very few have a cleaner, cook, live-in nanny, butler and so on.
[glances at Roomba cruising around in the hall] Actually, service is coming back. It is automated service though, and in its ultimate form, won't involve condemning people to working. The opposite: it will free them.
What I do with my mind that is enjoyable for me, I already do for free (because I can... when others can, I am certain they will as well.)
OTOH, what I do that I have to: I clean the catbox, mow the lawn, shop for food, wash the windows, dust, wash the dishes, cook, make the bed, wash the clothes, bedding, curtains, towels and so on, empty the Roomba, take out the trash, keep the house painted and otherwise maintained, gutters clear, deck stained and so on for a huge long list of "has to be done simply to maintain the status quo."
There isn't even one thing in that list that I want to do, and as each one falls to automation, I will be smiling ear-to-ear.
Non-conscious, sophisticated automation will free us. Conscious AI (which is to say, actual, true Scotsman AI) will almost certainly not, in and of itself; although I have little doubt that conscious AI will help us out quite a bit with non-conscious automation design.
Just as those of us who could afford them almost entirely stopped sweeping when vacuum cleaners became a thing; and those of us who have circumstances where Roombas can work and have put one into play have stopped vacuuming... we'll stop emptying the Roomba when it can empty itself. That goes for everything we don't actually want to do. the writing's on the wall. All we have to do is read it.
The problem isn't the non-working society I describe above. The problem -- and it will be a huge problem -- will be the transition from the working society we have now to a non-working society. UBI is the key to getting that accomplished with the least blood on the floor. Probably literally.
Anyone who argues that jobs will remain a dependable social construct in the face of our present technological path is in error. Barring serious disaster - comet, climate, war, major vulcanism, significant solar misbehavior, etc. - there's just no way we aren't headed for a jobless society.
Thanks for catching up!! To the rest of us.. Years ago..
No. There is a huge proportion of US society that is hoodwinked by these fake nostrums. The bloody veterinarian here in town sells that crap FFS. They're the only vet within 50 miles, too. There a store here, a "healthfood store" that sells all manner of that shite.
It's everywhere. I'm glad you're smart enough to know better, and yes, a lot of others are too, but that still leaves a huge proportion of the population. The government is very late to this party, and huge harm has been done because of that, but join the party they should -- it's important.
Yeah, I'm okay with including the onion. Probably should require a huge red banner (can't do red on slashdot, it's 1972 here) that says SATIRE
It's just as funny with the banner as it is without, while not actually likely to cause near as much harm, especially if people knew to look for the HUGE RED BANNER.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. So definitely was a thing. A wonderful thing, for that matter.
Carry on.
Yes, that too. Awful stuff.
No, but there are plenty of other reasons. Hence the huge market for sex toys. When the sex toys are better, the market will only get better.
Same goes for men, of course. Perhaps more so.
I expect the entire dynamic to change.
I'll just leave this here.
Exactly right. The golden age of gaming ended when games moved from real media to interminable downloads before one could even start gaming. They sucked all the fun right out of that balloon. It doesn't help that the new consoles are rarely designed with any serious degree of backward compatibility at this point. They love to make you have to start buying all over again. And enough people keep doing that to encourage this awful behavior.
"It's dead, Jim."
Education is wonderful, but we can't fix stupid. Yet.
The average consumer has no idea what's going on. They think they have a "3d TV" that uses "AI" connected to the "wireless internet" with their "modem."
o There are no 3D consumer televisions. Only single POV stereovision.
o There is no AI. Because there is no "I." Yet.
o There is no wireless Internet. It's 99.9999999999999999999% wires, and a good deal of the rest is optical.
o Hardly just a modem.
And the above? That's the stuff they are close to getting right.
Pretty sure the trees aren't going to pay up anyway.
If California wants to make sure it has enough water, then it needs to be proactive about it. They can move on multiple fronts; They can ban idiot crops like almonds (it takes about a gallon of water to grow a single almond), that take ridiculous amounts of water to produce and have little food value, they can desalinate, they can reduce consumption, they can recycle instead of dump, etc. They're doing some of this. Obviously they need to do more.
The market here should be the state; this is something that will affect the entire economy. Spread the cost via taxes. It's the sane thing to do.
That's the actual answer. Get them their own SLOW connection, their own firewall/router, and let them talk to anyone they want. Keep them the hell away from your in-house goodness. And FFS, secure your actual wifi network. Also, put the channels at opposite ends of the band (or in different bands, better yet.)
No. At this point in time, the physics we know are quite firmly standing in the way of FTL travel. There's nothing at all inherently undoable about replicating brain function that we have identified thus far.
It's either a step on the staircase, or identification of a wrong path. Either way, it makes the goal more well defined and closer. That's how science and technology work.
As for where deep learning is going to get us, hard to say until that's happened. As it's really very new and still showing up in new applications every day, I decline to make any assumptions either way.
I should also point out that I have stated, repeatedly and emphatically, that deep learning is not AI. Because there's no "I." So far.
Careful now, or you'll have the "They're All Space Nutterz!" person in here, spittle flying from their lips, eyes spinning in their sockets, hands a-wave. And man, that's just cruel. :)
I agree with everything you said. But to this...
You made a statement based upon "the current AI revolution"
My point was that reasoning from the current AI revolution doesn't account for tomorrow's AI revolution, and is therefore irrlevant.
Well, yes. Because you are being silly. Specifically, this is silly:
That's silly. Very silly. It's just like saying that today's exercise isn't tomorrow's exercise. Tomorrow's exercise will come... tomorrow.
Here's your thinking:
o Baseball enters the field. You can throw it back.
o Softball enters the field. You can throw it back.
But here's what's actually on the program:
o Baseball enters the field. You can throw it back.
o Huge earth mover enters the field. The field is being plowed under. Your only option is to get out of the way.
IOW: "One of these things is not even slightly like the other."
There will be no jobs.
That's like saying "to pitch a baseball, we have to understand physiology and be able to solve multiple simultaneous equations" or "to light a fire, we have to understand oxidation" or "to build a house we have to understand physics." No, we don't. We just need something that works.
We already don't understand the details of what multilevel neural nets are doing. We just know -- empirically -- that they can do cool things. We can build them. We can train them. They then do cool things.
It's quite plausible that conscious, true-Scotsman AI will arrive in just this fashion. Lard knows there are a lot of things being thrown at that wall to see if they'll stick. Of course, it could arrive due to a brand new understanding... but if it does, it'll be of precisely the same nature: not here on Monday, completely here on Tuesday. You just can't predict when and where, and so you can't say what will or will not happen in the near term.
Bottom line, formal understanding is lovely, but it isn't a prerequisite.
The thing about the "current X revolution" is that "tomorrow's Y revolution" renders all reasoning made about X irrelevant, and sometimes outright silly. Everything you said is exactly that type of reasoning.
Speaking as a cat and Roomba owner, one who really, really likes cats, I can tell you with absolute authority that cat puke on the floor is exactly as "fashionable" as dirty baby diapers are, and for precisely the same reason: the effort is worth the overall result. When automation removes the requirement for either / both, you're not going to find any significant number of sane people regretting the change.
Sure they are. They're also the perfect example of "more there than most other things."
As soon as anyone starts thinking "the way it is" is definitive of "the way it will be", they've fallen victim to a major cognitive error. Technological progress is non-linear, and there's not even a hint of it slowing down. Quite the opposite.
Cleaning up cat puke is just another item on my very long list of have-tos that will go away as soon as it can go away.
Exactly this, and even that's only applicable if AI stalls where it is, which is a ridiculously unlikely assumption to make.
They'll find undertakings that suit them (as will everyone else.) They won't find jobs. No one will be paying anyone for anything; because "pay" will be an obsolete model. There's no reason to have a medium of exchange that discriminates between one person doing something completely optional, and another doing something completely optional.
There's only one class of service (or "service") humans can provide that automation is unable to eventually cover, and that is interaction with other humans. Bartending, maid/butler, sex, sports, appreciation -- these kinds of things. Having said that, if people want those most of the things those interactions accomplish done well, then they will still turn to automation, with at least the initial exception of sex for procreative purposes (but that's not to say that couldn't succumb as well.)
I don't doubt for a moment that at least for a while, it will be a mark of some kind of status to have a human servant. But in a society where no one has to work, I also don't doubt for a moment that finding mentally healthy humans who want to serve in such fashions will be quite difficult.
[glances at Roomba cruising around in the hall] Actually, service is coming back. It is automated service though, and in its ultimate form, won't involve condemning people to working. The opposite: it will free them.
What I do with my mind that is enjoyable for me, I already do for free (because I can... when others can, I am certain they will as well.)
OTOH, what I do that I have to: I clean the catbox, mow the lawn, shop for food, wash the windows, dust, wash the dishes, cook, make the bed, wash the clothes, bedding, curtains, towels and so on, empty the Roomba, take out the trash, keep the house painted and otherwise maintained, gutters clear, deck stained and so on for a huge long list of "has to be done simply to maintain the status quo."
There isn't even one thing in that list that I want to do, and as each one falls to automation, I will be smiling ear-to-ear.
Non-conscious, sophisticated automation will free us. Conscious AI (which is to say, actual, true Scotsman AI) will almost certainly not, in and of itself; although I have little doubt that conscious AI will help us out quite a bit with non-conscious automation design.
Just as those of us who could afford them almost entirely stopped sweeping when vacuum cleaners became a thing; and those of us who have circumstances where Roombas can work and have put one into play have stopped vacuuming... we'll stop emptying the Roomba when it can empty itself. That goes for everything we don't actually want to do. the writing's on the wall. All we have to do is read it.
The problem isn't the non-working society I describe above. The problem -- and it will be a huge problem -- will be the transition from the working society we have now to a non-working society. UBI is the key to getting that accomplished with the least blood on the floor. Probably literally.
Anyone who argues that jobs will remain a dependable social construct in the face of our present technological path is in error. Barring serious disaster - comet, climate, war, major vulcanism, significant solar misbehavior, etc. - there's just no way we aren't headed for a jobless society.
Airborne works because they come from the sky without warning, and they bring lots and lots of guns and grenades and things.
Trust me on this. You do not want to go up against Airborne.
No. There is a huge proportion of US society that is hoodwinked by these fake nostrums. The bloody veterinarian here in town sells that crap FFS. They're the only vet within 50 miles, too. There a store here, a "healthfood store" that sells all manner of that shite.
It's everywhere. I'm glad you're smart enough to know better, and yes, a lot of others are too, but that still leaves a huge proportion of the population. The government is very late to this party, and huge harm has been done because of that, but join the party they should -- it's important.
Yeah, I'm okay with including the onion. Probably should require a huge red banner (can't do red on slashdot, it's 1972 here) that says SATIRE
It's just as funny with the banner as it is without, while not actually likely to cause near as much harm, especially if people knew to look for the HUGE RED BANNER.
While it may be permitted by law, it strikes me as irresponsible, and I would even call it greedy.
Misleading people for money seems like something you oughta get smacked in the teeth for.
IMHO.
Windowing Bash is where the real challenge is, though. I'm just the type of person willing to shell out for that. It'll make history, too.
Oh no, there's a possibility. You know, if you're stupid.