That is because AI is at the same place that electronics was a century ago: a lot of interesting ideas, but little or no results. Machines may be able to learn to communicate as children do - but not in my lifetime or yours.
If it hit its brakes as soon as it can (i.e. much faster than a human) and doesn't break any laws, there will be no legal ramifications since that is always the right thing to do
A team of engineers has to sit down and write code, or at the very least models for machine learning, that will allow a self-driving car to make a reasonable decision in any conceivable scenario.
Horseshit.
There is only one choice: Can the machine safely go around the obstacle (whether a child, and adult, a dog or a traffice cone) without breaking any traffic laws? If yes, do so. If no, hit the brakes and hope for the best.
Banksy and Blek leRat aren't famous because they're technically skilled artists, they're famous because of their message and how they choose to spread it. Banksy is more famous because he does a better job of spreading that message.
In other words marketing, which has nothing to do with what constitutes "art" and what doesn't. If it did every lounge lizard on Madison Avenue would be considered a great artist.
Sure, my Tandy 2000 from 30 (or so) years back should be repairable. But that would require that the maker continue making parts for 30 or so years.
No it doesn't. Right-to-repair means exactly that: products where there are no legal barriers to people repairing their own stuff. In the case of a Tandy 2000, the "supply chain" consists of hundreds of old Tandy's whose parts can be easily scavenged.
Agreed. And I want to gag when I read these breathless press releases from movie companies that go on about how "likelike" these SynthaStars are. When I saw the images of Leia and Tarkin in Rogue One, I burst out laughing at how pathetically unrealistic they appeared. I've seen more realistic looking figures in Madam Tussaud's.
All of these can be attributed to ordinary physical processes that are well understood.
And even if you see "God" in these accidents, they have no more to do with Jesus than they do with Mohammed, Krishna, Hercules or any other mythical hero.
I can see one important use for these things, namely for emergency responders.
If a tall building is on fire, I can see firefighters bringing one to the scene on a flatdeck
and using it to to rescue people from windows. A chopper could never get close enough.
Well at least the human drivers will have at some point passed an independantly verified driver's licence test.
No robocar has, and until one has passed a standard driver's test in every state and province, day or night and in all weather conditions,
I would never bet my life on one.
When you have many tens of billions to burn (like Alphabet, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft), a few hundred million for a pie-in-the-sky research project is chicken feed, especially if the patents involved may turn out to be valuable in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not planning to go shoot up bunch of kids going to camp, are you?
That is because AI is at the same place that electronics was a century ago: a lot of interesting ideas, but little or no results.
Machines may be able to learn to communicate as children do - but not in my lifetime or yours.
I suppose it could be useful for extreme high-security situations such as for access to military installations.
They are talking about energy storage for intermittent sources such as wind and solar.
If it hit its brakes as soon as it can (i.e. much faster than a human) and doesn't break any laws,
there will be no legal ramifications since that is always the right thing to do
A team of engineers has to sit down and write code, or at the very least models for machine learning, that will allow a self-driving car to make a reasonable decision in any conceivable scenario.
Horseshit.
There is only one choice:
Can the machine safely go around the obstacle (whether a child, and adult, a dog or a traffice cone) without breaking any traffic laws?
If yes, do so.
If no, hit the brakes and hope for the best.
Don't forget
4. Profit!
how does it's maiden voyage start in Dubai
What was the last time anybody saw an iceberg near Dubai?
Banksy and Blek leRat aren't famous because they're technically skilled artists, they're famous because of their message and how they choose to spread it. Banksy is more famous because he does a better job of spreading that message.
In other words marketing, which has nothing to do with what constitutes "art" and what doesn't.
If it did every lounge lizard on Madison Avenue would be considered a great artist.
That is, we have become our own caricature of 1984.
The point being made is that while philosophically it is great that something is repairable, it seems unjustified.
To you, maybe. Other people with other priorities see things differently.
Sure, my Tandy 2000 from 30 (or so) years back should be repairable. But that would require that the maker continue making parts for 30 or so years.
No it doesn't.
Right-to-repair means exactly that: products where there are no legal barriers to people repairing their own stuff.
In the case of a Tandy 2000, the "supply chain" consists of hundreds of old Tandy's whose parts can be easily scavenged.
One of the worst aspects of "Solo" was the actor's thin reedy voice v.s. Ford's deep super-masculine voice.
Agreed.
And I want to gag when I read these breathless press releases from movie companies that go on about how "likelike" these SynthaStars are. When I saw the images of Leia and Tarkin in Rogue One, I burst out laughing at how pathetically unrealistic they appeared. I've seen more realistic looking figures in Madam Tussaud's.
All of these can be attributed to ordinary physical processes that are well understood. And even if you see "God" in these accidents, they have no more to do with Jesus than they do with Mohammed, Krishna, Hercules or any other mythical hero.
The 42nd one.
And if you have no opinon on the matter, you are an agnostic, at least as the word is commonly used.
Too bas there is no such thing.
I can see one important use for these things, namely for emergency responders.
If a tall building is on fire, I can see firefighters bringing one to the scene on a flatdeck
and using it to to rescue people from windows. A chopper could never get close enough.
based SparkCognition to develop artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies
This must be real: they know all the latest buzzwords!
Well at least the human drivers will have at some point passed an independantly verified driver's licence test.
No robocar has, and until one has passed a standard driver's test in every state and province, day or night and in all weather conditions, I would never bet my life on one.
That's because not that many people are willing to work for $3 an hour, except for illegal immigrants whom Trump has forced out.
When you have many tens of billions to burn (like Alphabet, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft), a few hundred million for a pie-in-the-sky research project is chicken feed, especially if the patents involved may turn out to be valuable in the future.
What is settled is that you are an ignorant shitbrain.
This article is full of shit.
Yes, but it made for awesome click-bait. /.
Evidence: it made it all the way to