skynet could happen, but whether the effects long term are negative, is certainly unknowable. Not every overthrow of a government by a new order, was entirely negative for the citizens.
well IMO there will come a point where we also have to question the concept of "is able to mimic self awareness to the point we can't tell a difference" and "being self aware". Machine learning algorythms are doing pretty darn similar to evolution in general... how do we know we ourselves aren't just mimicing self-awareness.
well also depends what you mean by race. Traditionally known inteligences will naturally hate life that is different from them. There is little reason to expect an AI to hate say black humans over white humans, if it's judgements are coming internally. It would be much more likely to hate humans in general.
he's partially wrong, but not as wrong as you are implying...
I cannot find much on what the pro's said on it. But alpha go was the go program to reach a professional level, which while it didn't "beat all the masters". It did beat 2 masters however, and more or less wasn't defeated in a major match.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
After that they made alphago zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
which rather than starting with the data from human experience as a starting point, it started with no knowledge of modern playstyle, and only learned the game via playing against itself rapidly.
That being said, where this story is completely wrong was that go players described it as like playing against an alien, early on, but then as the program improved in playing against itself, it did become "more like a human than it's predecessors". In short, humans weren't so far off from the perfect direction that they couldn't recognize what the AI was doing like implied... They watched it go from alien playing randomly to master, and then keep improving past that.
For charges so serious, it doesn't make much sense to me. It's a test that in nature seems like it is just made for a quick rough assessment that is fast and easy to do in the field. Great for weeding out who is worth the time to take to the station for a real test.
You are the first person I've heard make any note of the suspicions. If no significant quantity or sources with a huge following are accusing them of something, making a statement to bring it up creates suspicion where there is none.
Say for instance if you were looking up a local Chinese food restaurant, and they added to a front page of their site. "We just want to make clear, we do not use cat meat in our food. Here's a record of our actual meat order supplies to prove it". If you've never heard any accusations on their company, you'd be MORE likely to second guess eating there, because the rumors that you previously hadn't heard were just pointed out to you, and the fact that they were worth responding to, makes them more credible than if some random guy on the street told you it.
It sounds more like apple is requiring their developers to be more up front and clear to the customer about what location information they are collecting who they are sending it to and why, as well as make them explain to apple why the user experience depends on being able to collect location information.
Sounds to me like tinder, uber, pokemon go etc... all at most will need to add a bit more information in a pop-up to let the users know if the companies are doing anything with the information other than the obvious, but will have zero issue justifying why that information is needed
Doesn't really confirm anything though... Maybe the kid was a robber... or maybe a highly public news story that a paranoid guy with a gun was stalking and eventually killing anyone he suspects, encouraged a different person who was actually the robber that he needs to move somewhere else to break into places.
If every time a teacher comes into class in the morning, he finds a penis drawn on the chalk board, one day the teacher exclaims "I think suzie is doing it... Pulls out a tazer, zaps suzie... she's hospitalized for a week and expelled". 2 months later, no penis's have been drawn on the board. Does that confirm that Suzie did it? Or that tazing a random kid is a good idea?
don't worry, google just unvailed their phone call making AI... MS has been experimenting with twitter AIs (if they can just keep them from learning from trolls and becoming nazi's). It won't be long before they become as non human as my companies combination shredder/suggestion box.
100% agree there. Reminds me of when someone tried to claim PTSD from twitter. Sure I'll give that PTSD can absolutely be caused by social situations... but the wonderful thing about twitter is it isn't even real time. You aren't on the spot, if you are just representing yourself, you can just walk away without any real concern, if you are representing a company... you can take a minute to grab a cup of coffee, remind yourself that they are angry about a situation of which you aren't responsible for, rather than angry at you.
I'd have to say it varries a lot per game. But I do give credit to the ones that at least make the paid items the cosmetics. Way too many games make win buttons, or at least have a noticable edge in combat as paid items. While I'd admit i do prefer a buy once model, that tends not to be particularly sustainable for online games (as you are expected to keep the server up after sales are decreasing)
It's a good name, for those who actually have worked on a plane, it's a bad name, for the common folk. People in the aerospace industry understand that you have an autopilot, and not one, but 2 pilots watching everything. The common folk seem to think there's 1 pilot who takes a nap after takeoff.
I'm at least partially missing that. For 80-90% of the population, the only thing that they do that would even half way utilize a 25Mbps connection, is streaming video. IE a service that is mostly taking off because of cable TV no longer satisfying people's wants with regards to the one thing it actually does. For some it's that they are sick of being nickle and dimed on every channel bundle, or the channels themselves just not having the shows they want... or just the ridiculously high price etc... So yeah I fully see it as a "do you want to be able to stream video in a way that free's you from our crappy cable channels? OK no problem, just pay for the crappy cable channels even if you don't want to use them.
Of course the real key problem is in infrastructure and anti-trust. IE in over half of the country, access to the service that is the obvious eventual downfall of cable TV... is mostly also held by the people who's primary income IS cable tv.
well you just moved something to measure, but we still can't define it. Guy living in a cardboard box under the highway, collecting money from a cardboard sign could still be considered fully functioning to some. As could the mcdonnalds employees.
if I recall their business model is just plain stupid... take $10 a month from users... pay a $10 movie ticket for them up to 30 times a month out of pocket. In the hopes that the movie theatres are happy with the increased business and possibly set up an arrangement that isn't them losing 30x what they make. To me it's a pretty silly business model.
Well yes but I think the point is that they shouldn't blindly prosecute the users, for using a service that doesn't check how it is being used first. Just as if you buy alcohol from a store that doesn't check ID. That store should absolutely be in deep crap, but they won't go trying to chase down the customers.
I suppose in the process of investigation, they could say go through the records of where the for hire DDOS's went. Compare that to reported hacking crimes, and where there is overlap, prosecute the person who paid for the hit.
Country of origion is irrelevant. Fake badge and uniform, and if need be fake warrant are easily obtainable by the Chinese government. The question then comes how much does the entity care about the risk of you learning they were in your room. The I'm with the police schtick works pretty well, but yes obviously you have a fairly high risk of them learning you were in the room.
IMO it's all pretty moot, because 99% of hotels locks can be defeated by a long coat hanger (or a fairly inexpensive tool designed for that). I've never seen a hotel without the pull down style of handle on the inside, and a nice huge inch or so of clearance between the bottom of the door and the floor. All you need to do is slide under that, pull the handle down, and you are in.
The big thing is the corporate media, will never use a positive or benign word to describe something that multimillion dollar companies hate. So a word for modifying something you own when it comes to ipad's, consoles etc... will always be reffered to as whatever word has a negative connotation.
The same reason that putting ads in your local paper is priced out of the range that people would ever use it for anything they weren't really concerned about. The paper is happy to charge you $50+ to put in a half a paragraph blurb. Facebook is made so that anyone with an e-mail address can publish photo's of every meal they eat without batting an eye.
I hate facebook, I don't use them... but I at least understand what people who use it, want to use it for, but this is a crazy silly comparison. Newspapers have the luxury of more or less having 1 staff member, per every 50 ads easilly. In order for facebook to do that, they'd need to hire a few hundred million people, or require actual verification of true identity to prevent multiple accounts, and restrict people to something like 1 post a year, and the fact is criminals won't really be bothered by this, there's millions of better ways they could be sending their stolen data around.
Not to mention, we would be putting a stupid double standard there... we hate facebook because they are mining the fuck out of everything we put and gathering too much information. Now we're going to say they need to be spending MORE time looking at our posts?
I can't agree with the premise here... I hate facebook beyond anything, but we're still looking at the rough premise of "people are stupid and put things online that they shouldn't". We can't really solve that problem by forbidding people from posting anything. Destroy the internet is the only option that accomplishes that, which I'm not so in favor of
You seem depressed...
depressed people seem to be more likely to buy, rope + ladder combinations. Razor blades, and sleeping pills.
You seem angry...
check out Joes gunshop
You seem insecure.
Check out this new SUV
Piracy numbers are still a means to judge what content people watch. If people are pirating mindless drivel, it still encourages companies to make more mindless drivel in the hopes that they will eventually shut down those particular pirate networks (or people will start using the services that do pay them more often). You want to vote against crap you hate... don't watch it, don't distribute it, and pay for what you wish to see more of.
I'd say first of all, the general public doesn't really give a shit about data collection, because they don't understand what data collection is capable of. People ignored facebooks nonsense for a decade more or less, until it became a major news story of how one group used that data. People still don't understand the possibility that similar levels of mass population manipulation could be happening every day.
If you ask me based on what I've seen of the companies.
Microsoft is scary because they with regards to big data, seem to be the most happy to comply with the US government. Usually being the first and most excited to sign their names onto every pro surveylance bills etc... While google and facebook seem to generally seem to be in favor of making the government work, get warrents etc... to look at the data, MS seems almost to want the government to design a backdoor and collect whatever it wants whenever it wants of their data.
Facebook is scary because they seem to be the least careful with their data, If someone is willing to pay for it, they are happy to unload it, and they seem to be somewhat sloppy with protecting the information, hence the Campbridge Analytica thing.
Google, seems far more of a "horde whatever it might need". They have an epic boatload of information, possibly more than most of the others put together, they however intend to use that information for their own purposes, They will guard it as best they can... but of course their own intentions are a bit harder to read.
Slashdot Mirror
skynet could happen, but whether the effects long term are negative, is certainly unknowable. Not every overthrow of a government by a new order, was entirely negative for the citizens.
well IMO there will come a point where we also have to question the concept of "is able to mimic self awareness to the point we can't tell a difference" and "being self aware". Machine learning algorythms are doing pretty darn similar to evolution in general... how do we know we ourselves aren't just mimicing self-awareness.
well also depends what you mean by race. Traditionally known inteligences will naturally hate life that is different from them. There is little reason to expect an AI to hate say black humans over white humans, if it's judgements are coming internally. It would be much more likely to hate humans in general.
he's partially wrong, but not as wrong as you are implying... I cannot find much on what the pro's said on it. But alpha go was the go program to reach a professional level, which while it didn't "beat all the masters". It did beat 2 masters however, and more or less wasn't defeated in a major match. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... After that they made alphago zero. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which rather than starting with the data from human experience as a starting point, it started with no knowledge of modern playstyle, and only learned the game via playing against itself rapidly. That being said, where this story is completely wrong was that go players described it as like playing against an alien, early on, but then as the program improved in playing against itself, it did become "more like a human than it's predecessors". In short, humans weren't so far off from the perfect direction that they couldn't recognize what the AI was doing like implied... They watched it go from alien playing randomly to master, and then keep improving past that.
For charges so serious, it doesn't make much sense to me. It's a test that in nature seems like it is just made for a quick rough assessment that is fast and easy to do in the field. Great for weeding out who is worth the time to take to the station for a real test.
You are the first person I've heard make any note of the suspicions. If no significant quantity or sources with a huge following are accusing them of something, making a statement to bring it up creates suspicion where there is none. Say for instance if you were looking up a local Chinese food restaurant, and they added to a front page of their site. "We just want to make clear, we do not use cat meat in our food. Here's a record of our actual meat order supplies to prove it". If you've never heard any accusations on their company, you'd be MORE likely to second guess eating there, because the rumors that you previously hadn't heard were just pointed out to you, and the fact that they were worth responding to, makes them more credible than if some random guy on the street told you it.
It sounds more like apple is requiring their developers to be more up front and clear to the customer about what location information they are collecting who they are sending it to and why, as well as make them explain to apple why the user experience depends on being able to collect location information. Sounds to me like tinder, uber, pokemon go etc... all at most will need to add a bit more information in a pop-up to let the users know if the companies are doing anything with the information other than the obvious, but will have zero issue justifying why that information is needed
Doesn't really confirm anything though... Maybe the kid was a robber... or maybe a highly public news story that a paranoid guy with a gun was stalking and eventually killing anyone he suspects, encouraged a different person who was actually the robber that he needs to move somewhere else to break into places. If every time a teacher comes into class in the morning, he finds a penis drawn on the chalk board, one day the teacher exclaims "I think suzie is doing it... Pulls out a tazer, zaps suzie... she's hospitalized for a week and expelled". 2 months later, no penis's have been drawn on the board. Does that confirm that Suzie did it? Or that tazing a random kid is a good idea?
don't worry, google just unvailed their phone call making AI... MS has been experimenting with twitter AIs (if they can just keep them from learning from trolls and becoming nazi's). It won't be long before they become as non human as my companies combination shredder/suggestion box.
100% agree there. Reminds me of when someone tried to claim PTSD from twitter. Sure I'll give that PTSD can absolutely be caused by social situations... but the wonderful thing about twitter is it isn't even real time. You aren't on the spot, if you are just representing yourself, you can just walk away without any real concern, if you are representing a company... you can take a minute to grab a cup of coffee, remind yourself that they are angry about a situation of which you aren't responsible for, rather than angry at you.
I'd have to say it varries a lot per game. But I do give credit to the ones that at least make the paid items the cosmetics. Way too many games make win buttons, or at least have a noticable edge in combat as paid items. While I'd admit i do prefer a buy once model, that tends not to be particularly sustainable for online games (as you are expected to keep the server up after sales are decreasing)
It's a good name, for those who actually have worked on a plane, it's a bad name, for the common folk. People in the aerospace industry understand that you have an autopilot, and not one, but 2 pilots watching everything. The common folk seem to think there's 1 pilot who takes a nap after takeoff.
I'm at least partially missing that. For 80-90% of the population, the only thing that they do that would even half way utilize a 25Mbps connection, is streaming video. IE a service that is mostly taking off because of cable TV no longer satisfying people's wants with regards to the one thing it actually does. For some it's that they are sick of being nickle and dimed on every channel bundle, or the channels themselves just not having the shows they want... or just the ridiculously high price etc... So yeah I fully see it as a "do you want to be able to stream video in a way that free's you from our crappy cable channels? OK no problem, just pay for the crappy cable channels even if you don't want to use them. Of course the real key problem is in infrastructure and anti-trust. IE in over half of the country, access to the service that is the obvious eventual downfall of cable TV... is mostly also held by the people who's primary income IS cable tv.
well you just moved something to measure, but we still can't define it. Guy living in a cardboard box under the highway, collecting money from a cardboard sign could still be considered fully functioning to some. As could the mcdonnalds employees.
if I recall their business model is just plain stupid... take $10 a month from users... pay a $10 movie ticket for them up to 30 times a month out of pocket. In the hopes that the movie theatres are happy with the increased business and possibly set up an arrangement that isn't them losing 30x what they make. To me it's a pretty silly business model.
Well yes but I think the point is that they shouldn't blindly prosecute the users, for using a service that doesn't check how it is being used first. Just as if you buy alcohol from a store that doesn't check ID. That store should absolutely be in deep crap, but they won't go trying to chase down the customers. I suppose in the process of investigation, they could say go through the records of where the for hire DDOS's went. Compare that to reported hacking crimes, and where there is overlap, prosecute the person who paid for the hit.
The plot twist... while you are out there with your super important stuff back at home... your home is getting pwned by a brick through the window.
Country of origion is irrelevant. Fake badge and uniform, and if need be fake warrant are easily obtainable by the Chinese government. The question then comes how much does the entity care about the risk of you learning they were in your room. The I'm with the police schtick works pretty well, but yes obviously you have a fairly high risk of them learning you were in the room. IMO it's all pretty moot, because 99% of hotels locks can be defeated by a long coat hanger (or a fairly inexpensive tool designed for that). I've never seen a hotel without the pull down style of handle on the inside, and a nice huge inch or so of clearance between the bottom of the door and the floor. All you need to do is slide under that, pull the handle down, and you are in.
The big thing is the corporate media, will never use a positive or benign word to describe something that multimillion dollar companies hate. So a word for modifying something you own when it comes to ipad's, consoles etc... will always be reffered to as whatever word has a negative connotation.
The same reason that putting ads in your local paper is priced out of the range that people would ever use it for anything they weren't really concerned about. The paper is happy to charge you $50+ to put in a half a paragraph blurb. Facebook is made so that anyone with an e-mail address can publish photo's of every meal they eat without batting an eye. I hate facebook, I don't use them... but I at least understand what people who use it, want to use it for, but this is a crazy silly comparison. Newspapers have the luxury of more or less having 1 staff member, per every 50 ads easilly. In order for facebook to do that, they'd need to hire a few hundred million people, or require actual verification of true identity to prevent multiple accounts, and restrict people to something like 1 post a year, and the fact is criminals won't really be bothered by this, there's millions of better ways they could be sending their stolen data around. Not to mention, we would be putting a stupid double standard there... we hate facebook because they are mining the fuck out of everything we put and gathering too much information. Now we're going to say they need to be spending MORE time looking at our posts?
I can't agree with the premise here... I hate facebook beyond anything, but we're still looking at the rough premise of "people are stupid and put things online that they shouldn't". We can't really solve that problem by forbidding people from posting anything. Destroy the internet is the only option that accomplishes that, which I'm not so in favor of
You seem depressed... depressed people seem to be more likely to buy, rope + ladder combinations. Razor blades, and sleeping pills. You seem angry... check out Joes gunshop You seem insecure. Check out this new SUV
Piracy numbers are still a means to judge what content people watch. If people are pirating mindless drivel, it still encourages companies to make more mindless drivel in the hopes that they will eventually shut down those particular pirate networks (or people will start using the services that do pay them more often). You want to vote against crap you hate... don't watch it, don't distribute it, and pay for what you wish to see more of.
I'd say first of all, the general public doesn't really give a shit about data collection, because they don't understand what data collection is capable of. People ignored facebooks nonsense for a decade more or less, until it became a major news story of how one group used that data. People still don't understand the possibility that similar levels of mass population manipulation could be happening every day. If you ask me based on what I've seen of the companies. Microsoft is scary because they with regards to big data, seem to be the most happy to comply with the US government. Usually being the first and most excited to sign their names onto every pro surveylance bills etc... While google and facebook seem to generally seem to be in favor of making the government work, get warrents etc... to look at the data, MS seems almost to want the government to design a backdoor and collect whatever it wants whenever it wants of their data. Facebook is scary because they seem to be the least careful with their data, If someone is willing to pay for it, they are happy to unload it, and they seem to be somewhat sloppy with protecting the information, hence the Campbridge Analytica thing. Google, seems far more of a "horde whatever it might need". They have an epic boatload of information, possibly more than most of the others put together, they however intend to use that information for their own purposes, They will guard it as best they can... but of course their own intentions are a bit harder to read.
While I can agree with you... from what I've heard clamAV isn't anywhere near ready to be a main use AV, We really do need a good player in that field