Broadly speaking, that's true in the U.S. But of course, reddit is not a U.S.-only site. And certainly there are some guns that are illegal in the U.S. And of course, legal guns can be acquired or transferred illegally. And given the complexity of gun laws across various jurisdictions, validating the legality of sales or transfers could be rather cumbersome.
The purchases on gundeals were all above board NFA licensed businesses that required NFA transfers that included background checks
I don't know if that is true or not. And it seems doubtful that you can verify it with a high degree of certainty. But even if it is true that a small, well moderated area of reddit met that standard, does that mean that there have been (and will be) no questionable or illegal transfers on the entire site? Obviously, it is foolishness to try to make that claim. So, should reddit have one set of rules for some areas of the site, and different rules for other parts that may be less vetted and/or less self-regulated? And how often should the company that owns the site re-evaluate to make sure that the rules of a subreddit are adequate to ensure all appropriate laws are being followed across any and all jurisdictions, and that the users are following those rules, and that the moderators are enforcing them? Seems like a fairly excessive amount of work to ensure that commercial transactions (of which the site gets nothing at all -- no commissions or transaction fees or percentages of any type since they're not per se a commerce site) follow the law. Especially when you consider that such transactions might engender liability, or even just bad press, if a gun purchased there is used to harm someone.
Also note that guns are not singled out. Alcohol and tobacco are also legal for adults in most places, and transactions for those (and several other things that are more highly restricted or generally illegal) are also banned from the site. While content that is illegal has been officially banned by their policy (no doubt as long as they've had a policy), more clarity is probably long overdue regarding site activity that is potentially illegal or legally restricted/questionable, or facilitates related activity that of that type.
why would you actively try to bring in likely criminal and low life tenets to live with your employees?
"Below market rates" for rent in that part of CA does not imply affordability to "low life tenets[sic]", or anyone in the bottom three quintiles of household income in the U.S.
I wouldn't say that. At least not in the near term. Currently, the programming or "AI" we are talking about can't distinguish between a living thing and an inanimate object. We've even seen cases where they have difficulty distinguishing between a large white object and empty space (or perhaps a close vs. distant object). If it sees something in its path, it will stop. If something enters its path in less than its current stopping distance, it should brake and attempt to steer away from the object if there is a clear path. If there is no clear path, it should just attempt to stop.
So, what about in the future when the machine is smart enough to distinguish between a person, a dog, a trash can, churches, lead, a duck, whatever? It might not be an issue at that point. With that much intelligence in the machine, it should have much better predictive ability and much greater ability to process larger amounts of incoming sensor data. Meaning it can have more and/or better sensors that can see farther outside the vehicle's path and process the data more accurately to estimate whether something outside its path is likely to move into the path, which could necessitate decreasing speed in case it has to stop, or changing lanes if it seems likely (perhaps even slightly) that a vehicle/pedestrian/whatever will move into the SDC's current lane.
Once 25-40% of people can't work, and have no prospect of a job in the long term even if they retrain, then it's time to look at UBI
So basically, wait until the horses are out, then start thinking about closing the barn door? Trying to play catch-up after things get bad doesn't seem smart.
Right now, anyone can get a job... anyone can make a living wage
U6 (which includes long-term unemployed, discouraged, workers who are part time solely for economic reasons, etc...) says otherwise. 8.2% of people can't find adequate, sustainable employment. That could obviously grow significantly if a few market segments engage widespread adoption of automation over the next several years. Waiting ten years to start thinking about dealing with those issues -- which we know are coming -- is just dumb. Thinking about it, planning, and evaluating, starting in the next few years so that we're positioned to start implementing it within a few years after that (if necessary) is the smart approach.
I don't deny that one day UBI might be feasible, and even necessary but it's just too soon
What's too soon? 3-5 years from now, when this guy would be able to start working on it? What will unemployment look like then? And how long would it take to implement something like UBI? Years, most likely, from when it gets introduced. Will 6-8 years from now still be too soon? That probably depends on how fast you believe automation and AI/machine learning/other job-impacting tech will advance. If it's quite slow, maybe that time frame is too quick. I guess we've got a couple of years to see what happens before anyone needs to think about voting for a UBI (presidential) platform.
a T&C statement is not necessarily binding in all jurisdictions.
When Tesla says that you must be fully attentive, with hands on the wheel at all times and not rely on autopilot to drive for you, those are not terms and conditions. They're operating instructions. If I put a metal dish in my microwave, and it is damaged as a result, I'm out of luck. The microwave may have still operated (for a time) when I put something in it that the instructions say it isn't meant to handle, but that does not mean the use was appropriate or reasonable. Similar concept here. Intentionally using a device/machine contrary to explicit operating instructions, then suing when something bad happens typically does not go very well for the plaintiff.
Keep in mind that this is probably on the order of a 0.1 version. Will it still be as limited in 6-12 months? Like I said, it seems like it's more of a proof of concept, and very likely a data collection project at this point than an actual attempt at cost control.
He can't really delay the latter because he's doing something else, or people will eat overcooked burgers, and won't come back.
From my reading, the robot takes the patty off the grill when it is cooked to order, so while the system is pretty limited, it is not quite as trivial as you indicated. Though if it can't put it anywhere and get the next one when it is ready, it almost amounts to the same thing.
My expectation is that after some field testing, they add some upgrades so it can do more things. But I guess we'll see.
You don't need to replace a human worker 100%, though. If this machine handles 60-80% of the grill worker's tasks/time, you can combine that worker's job with another one that is at less than 100% utilization, and you've potentially replaced one worker for multiple shifts per day. And I'm not sure what the GP was thinking, but I'm pretty sure you're not going to give the thing Sundays off when you're implementing it as a labor-reducing tool.
As it is, though, this seems to be mainly a combination proof-of-concept and publicity stunt. Perhaps also a bit of demonstration (to workers, shareholders, both?) that management is willing and able to replace tasks/labor hours with automation. And of course data gathering, both to see how such a unit performs in a working kitchen vs a lab and to bulk up the amount of data the machine learning piece is using, which may lead to additional functionality.
If someone is hell bent on killing a bunch of people, blocking their access to an AR-15 isn't really going to stop them.
It might not. Or it might. This thesis depends on the notion that killing people is the goal and the method is irrelevant. I don't think we can assume that for all or even most mass shootings. If the individual in question believes a gun is the instrument they want to use to go on a rampage, limiting availability of some types of guns may well lead to the individual trying to acquire one by illegal means, which makes it more likely that the person will fail to get a gun and/or get caught trying to illegally obtain one.
On the other hand, in a case where your assumption holds, and the perpetrator simply wants to kill a group of people, renting a truck and plowing it into a crowd might work. But there are challenges to this type of approach. You need a crowd of people in an open place where you can drive a truck. A school parking lot after school might be such a place, but to be effective, the truck probably needs to gain a fair amount of speed. A school parking lot after school also tends to be crowded with cars, so it's not a particularly good place to get up to any notable speed. And to an extent, a truck requires the element of surprise since it is much easier to evade than a bullet that travels 25-50 times as fast. In other words, there are many variables and circumstances that tend to make a truck a less effective (and perhaps entirely ineffective) weapon than an AR-15. It could still make for a horrible attack, but the circumstances where that could be the case are much narrower.
I don't think so. At least, I've never seen a bus schedule where the times where "whenever you need to be picked up" and the routes are "anywhere you happen to be" to "wherever it is you want to go" with no stops in between.
I believe in this case, the "ride sharing" refers to two or more separate Uber riders/customers sharing the trip. Hence, actual ride sharing by users from Uber, the "ride hailing" service provider. I think they've had the "pool" option for a while now, where multiple riders pay 60-70% of a single rider fare to share the Uber with a stranger when there are getting picked up and dropped off in fairly close proximity. Presumably, Uber found that a lot of the additional cost/lag of taking multiple customers at a time from one area to another area could be cut out by having a single pickup and single drop-off location rather than multiple ones somewhat close to each other for each customer.
Yeah, it's merely staying on task. If they put a more-difficult-to-open handle on the door, and the robot continued working until it successfully opened it, I suppose that would be "teaching it to fight back against the door."
We don't have flying cars. We aren't close to having flying cars.
Actually, the Airbus effort is a small, car-like VTOL vehicle intended for short flights of perhaps 50 miles or less. A single passenger prototype has already flown a test flight. It might be 10 years or a bit more before it is commercially available (I've seen 2022 quoted, but that seems more hopeful that practical), but based on the comments here, that's much sooner than many people believe. Others are also in the testing phases with similar style vehicles.
Price. A small helicopter capable of carrying a couple passengers around can run $100/hr-$300/hr
Probably too soon to tell with any real accuracy what the operating costs will be for something like the Airbus Vahana, but I believe they are projecting an operating cost of a little over $1 per km. So, perhaps 25% more than an Uber ride of a similar distance.
Safety
Definitely something that must be addressed, though it does not seem to me to be an insurmountable problem. Obviously, the maintenance schedules and safety checks will be more like the current ones for planes than what is typical for cars, even though we may call them "flying cars". There are already safety regulations for aircraft of various sizes for operating over populated areas. This may not be exactly the same, but it's not entirely dissimilar either.
Noise pollution
No doubt another valid concern, but all of the small, autonomous vehicles (from Boeing, Airbus, AirSpaceX, others) being touted as the future "air taxis" are electric, and some are VTOL planes rather than helicopters, both of which should help alleviate the noise issues.
Again, probably a lot closer than most people think.
It may not be as far off, or as outlandish an idea, as some seem to think. Both Boeing and Airbus are working on fully autonomous flight systems. And as I understand it, autopilot (the real kind, in planes, not the Tesla variety) can already handle all but the most challenging conditions, for which autonomous flights would presumably be grounded. Some carriers even have rules in place now limiting when crew can take manual control.
All they have to do is up their prices by 50% or so, and they're in the black. That kind of price increase wouldn't drive their sales down or anything, right?
Intelligence has the basic qualifier of being more than average.
Obviously it does not. We've discussed things with lower intelligence already. You may be getting confused due to the similarity of the noun intelligence -- which particularly when we are speaking of "mouse intelligence" or other animal intelligence, but also the wide range of human intelligence simply means mental or intellectual capacity as an attribute, which can obviously be low or high or average -- with the adjective intelligent, typically meaning: having or indicating a high or satisfactory degree of intelligence and mental capacity. Intelligence, intelligent. Different words with different meanings.
I'm sure I don't need to tell you that simulating mouse intelligence is not the same as simulating the activity in a mouse's brain. But that's neither here nor there. What I asked about was why you believe that AI has to be super human intelligence to be considered AI.
you'll find that it's nearly impossible to automate most jobs to such a degree that low skill labor becomes unnecessary
You don't have to completely eliminate low skill labor. If you can replace 30-40% of what a worker does and you have a staff of 10, that's three or four jobs down, approximately. Some things of that type can be (and are being) done today. Think order takers at fast food or quick serve restaurants -- and to see that 100% implemented, look at Wawa's to-order food service. It's all done at self-serve kiosks. And it is probably only a matter of time before someone decides to cut wait staff in a table-service restaurant in favor of the type of table-top kiosks that have been showing up for several years. That's been low priority for those places because the direct cost of wait staff is low, but eventually someone will decide that the savings in the many non-wage costs associated with employees are good enough to go all in. Not to say that those things should happen, necessarily. But they can and will.
While automation has gotten and will continue to get cheaper, it's unlikely to reach such a low price point that it pushes people out of the work force entirely within the lifetime of anyone reading this. To do that you would have to have near human level intelligence AI that you can sell for less money per unit than a human costs.
Not even close. You just have to replace enough low-level labor that supply exceeds demand by a decent margin. Then the least skilled, least valuable laborers will be effectively blocked out of the labor market by virtue of the fact that fewer jobs are available and an ample supply of better candidates are in line ahead of them for any jobs that might open up.
If it's not better than a Human with an IQ of no less than 135 at literally everything it's not AI.
Why? We recognize and can measure intelligence in animals, so there is a wide range of non-human, natural intelligence that has been identified. Why would artificial intelligence have to start above all that?
And we will see more and more things humans do replaced by AI/machine learning/automation. Especially tasks with well-defined rule sets. Low skill labor is still going to be at risk of being automated away, especially as sensors and robotics continue to improve as well.
If AI can drive a car, which we seem to be getting close to, the demand for car repair is likely to be significantly diminished, since car ownership will eventually stop making economic sense for most. The trend is already moving in this direction. Fewer young people of the age to become licensed drivers are choosing to do so.
2. Fix my home's AC.
That will probably be true for quite some time for many home repairs. However, smart home systems integrated into appliances and things like HVAC may be able to assist in diagnosing problems and make repair efforts more efficient. Or catch potential problems earlier, so that minor maintenance or small repairs can be done before reaching the level of full system failure.
3. Trim my trees.
The knowledge of how much and where to trim may exceed the capabilities of AI for a while yet, but you might start seeing robots that can do the dirty work, so to speak, under the supervision of a human who marks where the cuts should be made.
4. Talk to me about my investments.
So-called robo-advisors are already a growing trend. It's probably only a matter of time before they are consistently better than their human counterparts.
5. Diagnose my illness (without a doctor as the interface)
Actually, this is probably one of the first areas of medicine where AI will have a big impact. Developing individualized treatment plans are where you're more likely to work with a doctor. But we're quickly moving toward letting AI take much of the load in diagnosis.
6. Teach my kids.
Teaching AIs are already happening at the college level. And there are lots of reasons that AI teachers will add a lot of value at all levels. I think there are strong reasons to keep human teachers as well rather than going 100% (or nearly so) automated, but some educators seem to think it will happen, and sooner rather than later.
7. Police my neighborhood.
Perhaps not. But having law enforcement that has no biases, never gets tired or frustrated, etc... will be a big step forward. AI will very likely play a role in solving crimes, and perhaps in adjudicating them, or at least deciding whether they should be pursued in the criminal justice system or not.
8. Put out a house fire.
Not sure about this. Seems like an automated system could be better than humans at identifying the hottest spots, and focus fire suppression on them with greater precision. Or maybe AI controlled, integrated fire suppression systems will interdict small fires much more quickly before they become big enough to call for fire department deployment.
9. Rescue someone.
Depends on the context. Seems like an AI could do better at a human at scanning an area (e.g. pool or shoreline) and identifying people in distress. Actual rescue might be effected by a human lifeguard, though.
10. Get elected and participate in government.
I really don't know if that would be a good or bad thing.
In the near term, AIs may not entirely do any of the above, but they will likely play a role in doing many of them better and more efficiently. That may mean a few jobs are obviated in those areas by automation, or a significant proportion. And while some of the above comments pertaining to advanced smart home systems, etc.. may be a bit future-y, we will probably see things along those lines in the coming decades.
Assuming we can figure out how to keep everyone fed, housed and cared for, which is still a very big question, probably people will do what they enjoy doing. Do people really need jobs, if all their needs are already being met? It seems we have a number of populations that who get along well enough without going to a job every day -- retirees, the idle rich, stay at home spouses (with or without kids), kids done with HS or college who are not quite ready to go out into the world (some of these can last a surprisingly long time).... and there are some people who work just enough to get by to whatever standard of living they are willing to accept, and go from part time job to part time job, or do casual labor, gigs or short term contracts.
What does work provide that you can't get through other activities? And more interestingly, what other activities become much more practical when you don't have to squeeze them in around the 45-80 hours one might spend on work/commute/work-related activities?
Best guess, he got 5.57 and something (bad TV picture, angle of the photo, something on the screen, etc...) accidentally or deliberately made it look enough like 5.51 to get by.
Slashdot Mirror
Guns are not illegal
Broadly speaking, that's true in the U.S. But of course, reddit is not a U.S.-only site. And certainly there are some guns that are illegal in the U.S. And of course, legal guns can be acquired or transferred illegally. And given the complexity of gun laws across various jurisdictions, validating the legality of sales or transfers could be rather cumbersome.
The purchases on gundeals were all above board NFA licensed businesses that required NFA transfers that included background checks
I don't know if that is true or not. And it seems doubtful that you can verify it with a high degree of certainty. But even if it is true that a small, well moderated area of reddit met that standard, does that mean that there have been (and will be) no questionable or illegal transfers on the entire site? Obviously, it is foolishness to try to make that claim. So, should reddit have one set of rules for some areas of the site, and different rules for other parts that may be less vetted and/or less self-regulated? And how often should the company that owns the site re-evaluate to make sure that the rules of a subreddit are adequate to ensure all appropriate laws are being followed across any and all jurisdictions, and that the users are following those rules, and that the moderators are enforcing them? Seems like a fairly excessive amount of work to ensure that commercial transactions (of which the site gets nothing at all -- no commissions or transaction fees or percentages of any type since they're not per se a commerce site) follow the law. Especially when you consider that such transactions might engender liability, or even just bad press, if a gun purchased there is used to harm someone.
Also note that guns are not singled out. Alcohol and tobacco are also legal for adults in most places, and transactions for those (and several other things that are more highly restricted or generally illegal) are also banned from the site. While content that is illegal has been officially banned by their policy (no doubt as long as they've had a policy), more clarity is probably long overdue regarding site activity that is potentially illegal or legally restricted/questionable, or facilitates related activity that of that type.
why would you actively try to bring in likely criminal and low life tenets to live with your employees?
"Below market rates" for rent in that part of CA does not imply affordability to "low life tenets[sic]", or anyone in the bottom three quintiles of household income in the U.S.
Those are valid ethical questions
I wouldn't say that. At least not in the near term. Currently, the programming or "AI" we are talking about can't distinguish between a living thing and an inanimate object. We've even seen cases where they have difficulty distinguishing between a large white object and empty space (or perhaps a close vs. distant object). If it sees something in its path, it will stop. If something enters its path in less than its current stopping distance, it should brake and attempt to steer away from the object if there is a clear path. If there is no clear path, it should just attempt to stop.
So, what about in the future when the machine is smart enough to distinguish between a person, a dog, a trash can, churches, lead, a duck, whatever? It might not be an issue at that point. With that much intelligence in the machine, it should have much better predictive ability and much greater ability to process larger amounts of incoming sensor data. Meaning it can have more and/or better sensors that can see farther outside the vehicle's path and process the data more accurately to estimate whether something outside its path is likely to move into the path, which could necessitate decreasing speed in case it has to stop, or changing lanes if it seems likely (perhaps even slightly) that a vehicle/pedestrian/whatever will move into the SDC's current lane.
Once 25-40% of people can't work, and have no prospect of a job in the long term even if they retrain, then it's time to look at UBI
So basically, wait until the horses are out, then start thinking about closing the barn door? Trying to play catch-up after things get bad doesn't seem smart.
Right now, anyone can get a job... anyone can make a living wage
U6 (which includes long-term unemployed, discouraged, workers who are part time solely for economic reasons, etc...) says otherwise. 8.2% of people can't find adequate, sustainable employment. That could obviously grow significantly if a few market segments engage widespread adoption of automation over the next several years. Waiting ten years to start thinking about dealing with those issues -- which we know are coming -- is just dumb. Thinking about it, planning, and evaluating, starting in the next few years so that we're positioned to start implementing it within a few years after that (if necessary) is the smart approach.
I don't deny that one day UBI might be feasible, and even necessary but it's just too soon
What's too soon? 3-5 years from now, when this guy would be able to start working on it? What will unemployment look like then? And how long would it take to implement something like UBI? Years, most likely, from when it gets introduced. Will 6-8 years from now still be too soon? That probably depends on how fast you believe automation and AI/machine learning/other job-impacting tech will advance. If it's quite slow, maybe that time frame is too quick. I guess we've got a couple of years to see what happens before anyone needs to think about voting for a UBI (presidential) platform.
a T&C statement is not necessarily binding in all jurisdictions.
When Tesla says that you must be fully attentive, with hands on the wheel at all times and not rely on autopilot to drive for you, those are not terms and conditions. They're operating instructions. If I put a metal dish in my microwave, and it is damaged as a result, I'm out of luck. The microwave may have still operated (for a time) when I put something in it that the instructions say it isn't meant to handle, but that does not mean the use was appropriate or reasonable. Similar concept here. Intentionally using a device/machine contrary to explicit operating instructions, then suing when something bad happens typically does not go very well for the plaintiff.
Keep in mind that this is probably on the order of a 0.1 version. Will it still be as limited in 6-12 months? Like I said, it seems like it's more of a proof of concept, and very likely a data collection project at this point than an actual attempt at cost control.
He can't really delay the latter because he's doing something else, or people will eat overcooked burgers, and won't come back.
From my reading, the robot takes the patty off the grill when it is cooked to order, so while the system is pretty limited, it is not quite as trivial as you indicated. Though if it can't put it anywhere and get the next one when it is ready, it almost amounts to the same thing.
My expectation is that after some field testing, they add some upgrades so it can do more things. But I guess we'll see.
You don't need to replace a human worker 100%, though. If this machine handles 60-80% of the grill worker's tasks/time, you can combine that worker's job with another one that is at less than 100% utilization, and you've potentially replaced one worker for multiple shifts per day. And I'm not sure what the GP was thinking, but I'm pretty sure you're not going to give the thing Sundays off when you're implementing it as a labor-reducing tool.
As it is, though, this seems to be mainly a combination proof-of-concept and publicity stunt. Perhaps also a bit of demonstration (to workers, shareholders, both?) that management is willing and able to replace tasks/labor hours with automation. And of course data gathering, both to see how such a unit performs in a working kitchen vs a lab and to bulk up the amount of data the machine learning piece is using, which may lead to additional functionality.
"Sorry Dave. CIMON didn't say."
If someone is hell bent on killing a bunch of people, blocking their access to an AR-15 isn't really going to stop them.
It might not. Or it might. This thesis depends on the notion that killing people is the goal and the method is irrelevant. I don't think we can assume that for all or even most mass shootings. If the individual in question believes a gun is the instrument they want to use to go on a rampage, limiting availability of some types of guns may well lead to the individual trying to acquire one by illegal means, which makes it more likely that the person will fail to get a gun and/or get caught trying to illegally obtain one.
On the other hand, in a case where your assumption holds, and the perpetrator simply wants to kill a group of people, renting a truck and plowing it into a crowd might work. But there are challenges to this type of approach. You need a crowd of people in an open place where you can drive a truck. A school parking lot after school might be such a place, but to be effective, the truck probably needs to gain a fair amount of speed. A school parking lot after school also tends to be crowded with cars, so it's not a particularly good place to get up to any notable speed. And to an extent, a truck requires the element of surprise since it is much easier to evade than a bullet that travels 25-50 times as fast. In other words, there are many variables and circumstances that tend to make a truck a less effective (and perhaps entirely ineffective) weapon than an AR-15. It could still make for a horrible attack, but the circumstances where that could be the case are much narrower.
I don't think so. At least, I've never seen a bus schedule where the times where "whenever you need to be picked up" and the routes are "anywhere you happen to be" to "wherever it is you want to go" with no stops in between.
I believe in this case, the "ride sharing" refers to two or more separate Uber riders/customers sharing the trip. Hence, actual ride sharing by users from Uber, the "ride hailing" service provider. I think they've had the "pool" option for a while now, where multiple riders pay 60-70% of a single rider fare to share the Uber with a stranger when there are getting picked up and dropped off in fairly close proximity. Presumably, Uber found that a lot of the additional cost/lag of taking multiple customers at a time from one area to another area could be cut out by having a single pickup and single drop-off location rather than multiple ones somewhat close to each other for each customer.
Yeah, it's merely staying on task. If they put a more-difficult-to-open handle on the door, and the robot continued working until it successfully opened it, I suppose that would be "teaching it to fight back against the door."
We don't have flying cars. We aren't close to having flying cars.
Actually, the Airbus effort is a small, car-like VTOL vehicle intended for short flights of perhaps 50 miles or less. A single passenger prototype has already flown a test flight. It might be 10 years or a bit more before it is commercially available (I've seen 2022 quoted, but that seems more hopeful that practical), but based on the comments here, that's much sooner than many people believe. Others are also in the testing phases with similar style vehicles.
Price. A small helicopter capable of carrying a couple passengers around can run $100/hr-$300/hr
Probably too soon to tell with any real accuracy what the operating costs will be for something like the Airbus Vahana, but I believe they are projecting an operating cost of a little over $1 per km. So, perhaps 25% more than an Uber ride of a similar distance.
Safety
Definitely something that must be addressed, though it does not seem to me to be an insurmountable problem. Obviously, the maintenance schedules and safety checks will be more like the current ones for planes than what is typical for cars, even though we may call them "flying cars". There are already safety regulations for aircraft of various sizes for operating over populated areas. This may not be exactly the same, but it's not entirely dissimilar either.
Noise pollution
No doubt another valid concern, but all of the small, autonomous vehicles (from Boeing, Airbus, AirSpaceX, others) being touted as the future "air taxis" are electric, and some are VTOL planes rather than helicopters, both of which should help alleviate the noise issues.
Again, probably a lot closer than most people think.
It may not be as far off, or as outlandish an idea, as some seem to think. Both Boeing and Airbus are working on fully autonomous flight systems. And as I understand it, autopilot (the real kind, in planes, not the Tesla variety) can already handle all but the most challenging conditions, for which autonomous flights would presumably be grounded. Some carriers even have rules in place now limiting when crew can take manual control.
All they have to do is up their prices by 50% or so, and they're in the black. That kind of price increase wouldn't drive their sales down or anything, right?
Intelligence has the basic qualifier of being more than average.
Obviously it does not. We've discussed things with lower intelligence already. You may be getting confused due to the similarity of the noun intelligence -- which particularly when we are speaking of "mouse intelligence" or other animal intelligence, but also the wide range of human intelligence simply means mental or intellectual capacity as an attribute, which can obviously be low or high or average -- with the adjective intelligent, typically meaning: having or indicating a high or satisfactory degree of intelligence and mental capacity. Intelligence, intelligent. Different words with different meanings.
I'm sure I don't need to tell you that simulating mouse intelligence is not the same as simulating the activity in a mouse's brain. But that's neither here nor there. What I asked about was why you believe that AI has to be super human intelligence to be considered AI.
you'll find that it's nearly impossible to automate most jobs to such a degree that low skill labor becomes unnecessary
You don't have to completely eliminate low skill labor. If you can replace 30-40% of what a worker does and you have a staff of 10, that's three or four jobs down, approximately. Some things of that type can be (and are being) done today. Think order takers at fast food or quick serve restaurants -- and to see that 100% implemented, look at Wawa's to-order food service. It's all done at self-serve kiosks. And it is probably only a matter of time before someone decides to cut wait staff in a table-service restaurant in favor of the type of table-top kiosks that have been showing up for several years. That's been low priority for those places because the direct cost of wait staff is low, but eventually someone will decide that the savings in the many non-wage costs associated with employees are good enough to go all in. Not to say that those things should happen, necessarily. But they can and will.
While automation has gotten and will continue to get cheaper, it's unlikely to reach such a low price point that it pushes people out of the work force entirely within the lifetime of anyone reading this. To do that you would have to have near human level intelligence AI that you can sell for less money per unit than a human costs.
Not even close. You just have to replace enough low-level labor that supply exceeds demand by a decent margin. Then the least skilled, least valuable laborers will be effectively blocked out of the labor market by virtue of the fact that fewer jobs are available and an ample supply of better candidates are in line ahead of them for any jobs that might open up.
If it's not better than a Human with an IQ of no less than 135 at literally everything it's not AI.
Why? We recognize and can measure intelligence in animals, so there is a wide range of non-human, natural intelligence that has been identified. Why would artificial intelligence have to start above all that?
And we will see more and more things humans do replaced by AI/machine learning/automation. Especially tasks with well-defined rule sets. Low skill labor is still going to be at risk of being automated away, especially as sensors and robotics continue to improve as well.
1. Change the clutch on my car.
If AI can drive a car, which we seem to be getting close to, the demand for car repair is likely to be significantly diminished, since car ownership will eventually stop making economic sense for most. The trend is already moving in this direction. Fewer young people of the age to become licensed drivers are choosing to do so.
2. Fix my home's AC.
That will probably be true for quite some time for many home repairs. However, smart home systems integrated into appliances and things like HVAC may be able to assist in diagnosing problems and make repair efforts more efficient. Or catch potential problems earlier, so that minor maintenance or small repairs can be done before reaching the level of full system failure.
3. Trim my trees.
The knowledge of how much and where to trim may exceed the capabilities of AI for a while yet, but you might start seeing robots that can do the dirty work, so to speak, under the supervision of a human who marks where the cuts should be made.
4. Talk to me about my investments.
So-called robo-advisors are already a growing trend. It's probably only a matter of time before they are consistently better than their human counterparts.
5. Diagnose my illness (without a doctor as the interface)
Actually, this is probably one of the first areas of medicine where AI will have a big impact. Developing individualized treatment plans are where you're more likely to work with a doctor. But we're quickly moving toward letting AI take much of the load in diagnosis.
6. Teach my kids.
Teaching AIs are already happening at the college level. And there are lots of reasons that AI teachers will add a lot of value at all levels. I think there are strong reasons to keep human teachers as well rather than going 100% (or nearly so) automated, but some educators seem to think it will happen, and sooner rather than later.
7. Police my neighborhood.
Perhaps not. But having law enforcement that has no biases, never gets tired or frustrated, etc... will be a big step forward. AI will very likely play a role in solving crimes, and perhaps in adjudicating them, or at least deciding whether they should be pursued in the criminal justice system or not.
8. Put out a house fire.
Not sure about this. Seems like an automated system could be better than humans at identifying the hottest spots, and focus fire suppression on them with greater precision. Or maybe AI controlled, integrated fire suppression systems will interdict small fires much more quickly before they become big enough to call for fire department deployment.
9. Rescue someone.
Depends on the context. Seems like an AI could do better at a human at scanning an area (e.g. pool or shoreline) and identifying people in distress. Actual rescue might be effected by a human lifeguard, though.
10. Get elected and participate in government.
I really don't know if that would be a good or bad thing.
In the near term, AIs may not entirely do any of the above, but they will likely play a role in doing many of them better and more efficiently. That may mean a few jobs are obviated in those areas by automation, or a significant proportion. And while some of the above comments pertaining to advanced smart home systems, etc.. may be a bit future-y, we will probably see things along those lines in the coming decades.
But what do people do, who have no work?
Assuming we can figure out how to keep everyone fed, housed and cared for, which is still a very big question, probably people will do what they enjoy doing. Do people really need jobs, if all their needs are already being met? It seems we have a number of populations that who get along well enough without going to a job every day -- retirees, the idle rich, stay at home spouses (with or without kids), kids done with HS or college who are not quite ready to go out into the world (some of these can last a surprisingly long time) .... and there are some people who work just enough to get by to whatever standard of living they are willing to accept, and go from part time job to part time job, or do casual labor, gigs or short term contracts.
What does work provide that you can't get through other activities? And more interestingly, what other activities become much more practical when you don't have to squeeze them in around the 45-80 hours one might spend on work/commute/work-related activities?
I'm not discounting the possibility that it was deliberate, which could mean the others just show a pattern of cheating.
Best guess, he got 5.57 and something (bad TV picture, angle of the photo, something on the screen, etc...) accidentally or deliberately made it look enough like 5.51 to get by.