I worked a year as tester in autonomous or assisted vehicles.
If the kids are of a certain age, same age you let them fly alone or use train, I would of course let them alone in a self driving car.
I know dozens of people who will buy a self driving car the moment it is out.
Not everyone has your mental problems. The likelihood that a self driving car gets into an accident a human could avoid is basically zero. And with modern protection systems minor accidents are no problem anyway.
Erm... would have if you'd just paid for college. Not sure if you meant college or university.
But... hu hom... it is clear to you that his tax does not change in any way regardless if he has no kid on university, or two, or three... or ten... or well, I guess you grasp it now.
It is most certainly not cheaper to pay for one or two kids "university fees"... and the whole discussion makes no sense anyway. You would have to completely restructure the way how our system works to come to a "if you'd just paid for college." situation.
Here only the "elite" pay for school education because they think their kids deserve a "better school".
What I SEE is an additional charge added to my bill at checkout And the rest of the world sees it as a "obscure line at the bottom of the recipe" where it says: 19% VAT == $3.99.
In most of the world the prices on the goods you buy in a market include all taxes. And if there are several taxes, they re mentioned in the "recipe" so in case you need them for your own tax declaration you can use it.
For 90% of the planets population your argument makes no sense at all. No one sees an "additional charge", we see a "break down" of components of the bill.
... instead of returning your federal government back to a limited, constitutionally defined role.
How would that fix the problem that you pay taxes and gain nothing in return as health care or other social care is involved?
If you restrict your "government" more... you have bottom line less. But again, you live in america. The country where nothing works as in the rest of the world... hehe, just kidding. You could say the same about China but the complaints would be very different.
You posted two different pictures (in two different posts).
One with an animal that looked like a "mouse" but was coloured different, I lack the english names for it, and one with a cigar where the tip of it with the ashes looked a bit similar to the animal.
What your point with that is, is beyond me.
If you wanted to make a point you should have both links in a single post and pointed out what you mean.
I still don't get it. The tip of a cigar might look like an animal but the cigar might be invisible?
The "program" or the "computer" did not make 8 people dead.
The people who designed it, perhaps did. Or the programmers who did not grasp the design and made mistakes perhaps did. Or the engineers who crafted the whole thing where the accident happened perhaps did.
The only thing "we" - as the/. crowd - grasp from your posts is: you don't now what happened and you are not able to explain it.
If that puts emotional stress on you: get mental/psychological help.
A computer is in no way different than a set of wires or ropes controlling something. If a vault can fail because of a rope or wire failing, it can because of a faulty programmed computer. Wow, who had thought of that...
Again: a neural network is not an AI. A self driving car is not an AI.
We perfectly know how a self driving car is driving.
Your comment is completely pointless.
A self driving car will never cause an accident a human driver could avoid.
You are an idiot. Face it... or leave it.
Because you're going to put it in charge of 2000 pounds of metal and plastic on wheels that can go anywhere it wants to go, that's why. This is idiotic. A self driving car does not want to go anywhere. It just sits in the parking lot as a simple car. (facepalm)
Putting the complexity of driving a car aside, as in using the turning light signals and switching gears and deciding to switch on lights or using the wipers etc. You are grossly underestimating the natural intelligence of animals.
A horse or dog will easily bring you home, regardless how drunk you are and if it does not need to cross a highway at a place where you can not cross it, it will do so very safely, too. Actually they usually know the "way home" and don't have the urge to cross a highway at a place where it is not possible.
Not knowing those details means that it is incredibly hard to define how the trained AI will fail when faced with an unexpected input. and There's the problem: if you have a trained AI A trained artificial neural network, actually any neural network, has nothing to do with AI, neither weak not strong. It is just a neural network.
No one has ANY IDEA HOW THE HUMAN BRAIN ACTUALLY WORKS AND NEITHER DO YOU. And as the religious guy pointed out: it is completely irrelevant to know how it works if you simply craft a simulation behaves exactly the same.
I could pretend not to know how magnetism works, nevertheless an electric engine I build still would work according to the laws of physics. Why would it not? I don't have to know anything about Volt, Amperes, Watts, Ohms to craft a working electric engine... probably it burns up the first time I put to many Volts on it... but that is a complete different matter.
The stuff you fear here won't happen with self driving cars.
Why should it run into a crowed of people, when it sees them far earlier than a human would?
There is no self driving car on the world that ever was involved in an accident.
In my town 3 or 4 are running since over 10 years, daily. Under supervision of course.
It's just a machine and you have no idea why it's making the decisions it's making. About what are you talking? Self driving cars as we have them right now are *programmed*, we exactly know why they do what. Or are you talking about "self learning" self driving cars? In the foreseeable future those wont exist.
The article BTW is about AI... self driving cars may have some software components that fall under very very weak AI definitions, but they are not AI and not even weak AI.
Engineers just accept (take it on faith if you will) that there are things out there which work even if they don't understand why or how. This is an extremely silly statement. How do you come to such an idea? Did you ever met an engineer?
As for who's right, I'll just point out that classical mechanics and quantum physics still disagree on (among other things) the mass of an electron They actually don't. Why would they?
and we still don't know for sure if the Laws of Thermodynamics are actual laws or if they can be violated. Well, you are half true. But the funny thing is: they are only called "laws of..." in english. Most other languages I can read or understand, notable German call them "axioms". On the other hand, while they are definitely not laws like the laws of gravity or the "laws of leverage" it is undisputed that they "are good enough" to be considered on the same level as other laws of physics.
The problem of you americans however is to understand when to apply which set of physical laws...
Slashdot Mirror
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=medical+u...
If Elon Musk was a "regular capitalist", he would invest where he would expect to make the most money.
As he is only doing projects, founding companies, that help mankind, of course he is a philanthrop. And you are just silly..
We already have human clinical trials for stuff like this since years.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=brain+imp... about 600k hits ...
There are plenty of other good writers, e.g.:
I'm bad with names, so I would need to check my bookshelf to find more.
I worked a year as tester in autonomous or assisted vehicles.
If the kids are of a certain age, same age you let them fly alone or use train, I would of course let them alone in a self driving car.
I know dozens of people who will buy a self driving car the moment it is out.
Not everyone has your mental problems. The likelihood that a self driving car gets into an accident a human could avoid is basically zero. And with modern protection systems minor accidents are no problem anyway.
I said in Europe. Or did I not?
I think for all practical purpose sales tax and VAT is the same, except in your scenario :D
Dark Energy and Dark Matter are just _names_
They are not connected in any way. It is not that one of them can be transformed into the other ... at least not as we know right now.
Erm ... would have if you'd just paid for college.
Not sure if you meant college or university.
But ... hu hom ... it is clear to you that his tax does not change in any way regardless if he has no kid on university, or two, or three ... or ten ... or well, I guess you grasp it now.
It is most certainly not cheaper to pay for one or two kids "university fees" ... and the whole discussion makes no sense anyway. You would have to completely restructure the way how our system works to come to a "if you'd just paid for college." situation.
Here only the "elite" pay for school education because they think their kids deserve a "better school".
What I SEE is an additional charge added to my bill at checkout
And the rest of the world sees it as a "obscure line at the bottom of the recipe" where it says: 19% VAT == $3.99.
In most of the world the prices on the goods you buy in a market include all taxes. And if there are several taxes, they re mentioned in the "recipe" so in case you need them for your own tax declaration you can use it.
For 90% of the planets population your argument makes no sense at all. No one sees an "additional charge", we see a "break down" of components of the bill.
... instead of returning your federal government back to a limited, constitutionally defined role.
How would that fix the problem that you pay taxes and gain nothing in return as health care or other social care is involved?
If you restrict your "government" more ... you have bottom line less. But again, you live in america. The country where nothing works as in the rest of the world ... hehe, just kidding. You could say the same about China but the complaints would be very different.
Well,
they compare taxes
Obviously:
* healthcare, or the lack thereof
* pensions
* unemployment insurance
* other social insurances
etc. p.p.
are not included.
Wow what a surprise.
You consider "health care" a tax? ...
You might see now what your problem is ... or not.
Maybe, but I don't think there's an airtight seal between the car and the tube ... actually ... you think? I mean ... you suddenly are thinking?
You
Wow ...
You posted two different pictures (in two different posts).
One with an animal that looked like a "mouse" but was coloured different, I lack the english names for it, and one with a cigar where the tip of it with the ashes looked a bit similar to the animal.
What your point with that is, is beyond me.
If you wanted to make a point you should have both links in a single post and pointed out what you mean.
I still don't get it. The tip of a cigar might look like an animal but the cigar might be invisible?
Perhaps you should read what you link. ... hm ... comprehend it.
And
I see it supporting my point of correcting you. But well, you might see otherwise :D
If you actually wanted to make a point, I'm eager to see a sentence or two or a few to make one. Your link makes no point.
The "program" or the "computer" did not make 8 people dead.
The people who designed it, perhaps did. Or the programmers who did not grasp the design and made mistakes perhaps did. Or the engineers who crafted the whole thing where the accident happened perhaps did.
The only thing "we" - as the /. crowd - grasp from your posts is: you don't now what happened and you are not able to explain it.
If that puts emotional stress on you: get mental/psychological help.
A computer is in no way different than a set of wires or ropes controlling something. If a vault can fail because of a rope or wire failing, it can because of a faulty programmed computer. Wow, who had thought of that ...
Again: a neural network is not an AI.
A self driving car is not an AI.
We perfectly know how a self driving car is driving.
Your comment is completely pointless.
A self driving car will never cause an accident a human driver could avoid.
You are an idiot. Face it ... or leave it.
Because you're going to put it in charge of 2000 pounds of metal and plastic on wheels that can go anywhere it wants to go, that's why.
This is idiotic. A self driving car does not want to go anywhere. It just sits in the parking lot as a simple car. (facepalm)
Putting the complexity of driving a car aside, as in using the turning light signals and switching gears and deciding to switch on lights or using the wipers etc.
You are grossly underestimating the natural intelligence of animals.
A horse or dog will easily bring you home, regardless how drunk you are and if it does not need to cross a highway at a place where you can not cross it, it will do so very safely, too. Actually they usually know the "way home" and don't have the urge to cross a highway at a place where it is not possible.
Not knowing those details means that it is incredibly hard to define how the trained AI will fail when faced with an unexpected input. and There's the problem: if you have a trained AI
A trained artificial neural network, actually any neural network, has nothing to do with AI, neither weak not strong. It is just a neural network.
A neural network with 3 input and 3 hidden and 2 output neurons, obviously is simple to "debug".
But what this network is doing:
0.9 0.3
0.5
0.7 0.2
0.8
0.8 0.7
You never will know, regardless how much you debug.
For most AI problems you can download free libraries.
Especially if they are centered around artificial neural networks.
Skip the math and use the code, read the examples and the docs.
And: linear algebra is 100 times more simple than differential equations ...
Of course we can.
You simply have no clue.
No one has ANY IDEA HOW THE HUMAN BRAIN ACTUALLY WORKS AND NEITHER DO YOU.
And as the religious guy pointed out: it is completely irrelevant to know how it works if you simply craft a simulation behaves exactly the same.
I could pretend not to know how magnetism works, nevertheless an electric engine I build still would work according to the laws of physics. Why would it not? I don't have to know anything about Volt, Amperes, Watts, Ohms to craft a working electric engine ... probably it burns up the first time I put to many Volts on it ... but that is a complete different matter.
The stuff you fear here won't happen with self driving cars.
Why should it run into a crowed of people, when it sees them far earlier than a human would?
There is no self driving car on the world that ever was involved in an accident.
In my town 3 or 4 are running since over 10 years, daily. Under supervision of course.
It's just a machine and you have no idea why it's making the decisions it's making.
About what are you talking? Self driving cars as we have them right now are *programmed*, we exactly know why they do what. Or are you talking about "self learning" self driving cars? In the foreseeable future those wont exist.
The article BTW is about AI ... self driving cars may have some software components that fall under very very weak AI definitions, but they are not AI and not even weak AI.
Engineers just accept (take it on faith if you will) that there are things out there which work even if they don't understand why or how.
This is an extremely silly statement. How do you come to such an idea? Did you ever met an engineer?
As for who's right, I'll just point out that classical mechanics and quantum physics still disagree on (among other things) the mass of an electron
They actually don't. Why would they?
and we still don't know for sure if the Laws of Thermodynamics are actual laws or if they can be violated. ..." in english. Most other languages I can read or understand, notable German call them "axioms". On the other hand, while they are definitely not laws like the laws of gravity or the "laws of leverage" it is undisputed that they "are good enough" to be considered on the same level as other laws of physics.
Well, you are half true. But the funny thing is: they are only called "laws of
The problem of you americans however is to understand when to apply which set of physical laws ...
There are plenty of weak AI systems that are smarter in that particular niche corner the AI is build for.
The system you talk about was just a computer program, had nothing to do with AI.
Complaing about it makes you just look silly.
Sorry, you are mistaken.
This is not self driving as the car manufactures, that produce/research self driving cars, define it.
You are e.g. not allowed to put your attention away from the car and the road. So it is not self driving.
If that car makes an accident while you are inside of it: you are the one sued. Not the car. Not the car manufacture.