Some day you will understand that some laws are written such that the actual definition is at the whim of those in power.
Except that it's not. It's a concrete definition that leaves little room for ambiguity, however, those with reading comprehension may not be able to fully grasp that...
... because consumer AI is *ALREADY* ubiquitous and all around us.
From the face detection in your phone, to the fuzzy logic controllers in washing machines, to the ant colony algorithms being used to route network traffic, to finding directions with google maps, to Netflix and Amazon's recommendation algorithms, to OCR for cheques and mail, to NEST thermostats, to robot vacuum cleaners and lawn mowers, to expert systems in medical diagnosis... (I could keep going)
AI in consumer products is literally *already* ALL around us.
Saying that consumer AI "has no future" is like looking around at the world today and saying "personal cars have no future" - it's completely idiotic because to anyone with half an ounce of perception that future is ALREADY here.
It's like looking at a forest and claiming there are no trees
...may have a deep aversion to the tenet of being "judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Yeah, I just find it funny when well intentioned folk say things like: "I don't see color" or "I am blind to skin color" - meaning that they will treat you like an individual instead of like a racial stereotype - and then they get remorselessly attacked for "erasing identity".
These days it's wrong *NOT* to treat someone like a stereotype; you MUST treat people differently based on their racial identity if you DON'T want to be a racist.
Oh, please. I've written "pattern recognition and reasoning operations" for my entire career. Using that as a definition is too vague to be of any use.
And yet it encompasses like 95% of GOFAI...
Go figure; or perhaps you'd like to argue the point with Peter Norvig?
At the point where you make an actionable threat against another person or group of people, your speech stops being "speech" and becomes "assault."... - assaultive language is not what most people are calling 'hate speech' these days...
I don't know about most people, but I'm going by how the federal government defines it.
... and the idea of censoring people online has less to do with actionable threats and more to do with unpopular ideologies.
Don't know whatever that is^, but it's not "hate speech" obv...
What kind of an idiot believes that regexes are AI?
Uh, anyone who actually knows what they're talking about?
Regexs are finite-state machines, and finite-state machines are AI.
Regexs came out of the study of computational theory, formal systems, language structure and automata theory, in the early days of AI.
They are pretty directly related to the work of Turing himself, and in many ways can be regarded as the first successful application of AI. Regexs are one of our attempts to understand the structure of language from a computational perspective.
If that's not AI according to you, it's only because you disingenuously insist on the equivocation that only "generalized human level AI" is AI.
That's because all of the learning/reasoning software that we proudly call AI is not AI at all.
Yes it is.
It's just a series of pattern recognition and reasoning operations...
.
Uhm... but that would make those systems AI and you just said they weren't, so now you're pulling a "Trump" and contradicting yourself within a single statement.
...true AI...
Ah! I see the confusion! You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
By "true" AI, I guess you mean "general AI" of human intelligence? Actual AI encompasses a LOT more than that.
In other words, hate speech filters are not likely to start working any time soon.
General, human level AI doesn't exist yet, but that's only a small subset of the field. AI is actually pretty ubiquitous. There' very likely a fuzz logic controller in your dishwasher and washing machine to control water levels.
Because since Python started overtaking Perl, my cats are sad because they can't write fully compliant programs just by random walking across the keyboard anymore.
At least *someone* is thinking of our feline sysadmins...
Everything else just turns into a clusterfuck over time.
Exactly, try looking at ANY fully functional Julia code (not the trivial examples from docs & tutorials) - it's ALREADY a giant clusterfuck, it's unreadable gobbledygook on any kind of usable scale that isn't a trivial demo.
I'd agree, these are symptoms of psychological dependence.
But no, addiction does not necessarily require physical withdrawal symptoms according to the most current definitions that are used in psychology.
Your misunderstanding of the terms involved only serves to prove my point, let me clarify for you:
Changing the names doesn't alter the underlying concepts. What used to be called "addiction" is now called "substance use disorder" and what used to be called "psychological dependence" are now called "addictive disorders"/"behavioural addiction".
Just because the new label for an old concept (psych. dependence) includes the same symbol "addiction", as the old label for another old concept (physical addiction") DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE THE SAME THING.
Like I could change the name of "orange juice" to "yellow milk" and change the name of "milk" to "cow juice"; but that DOESN'T make orange juice the same thing as milk.
Slashdot Mirror
Do I need a dishwasher with a screen that I can talk to?
Nope, but I'm willing to bet it has an embedded fuzzy logic controller in it to control water levels.
Some day you will understand that some laws are written such that the actual definition is at the whim of those in power.
Except that it's not. It's a concrete definition that leaves little room for ambiguity, however, those with reading comprehension may not be able to fully grasp that...
... because consumer AI is *ALREADY* ubiquitous and all around us.
From the face detection in your phone, to the fuzzy logic controllers in washing machines, to the ant colony algorithms being used to route network traffic, to finding directions with google maps, to Netflix and Amazon's recommendation algorithms, to OCR for cheques and mail, to NEST thermostats, to robot vacuum cleaners and lawn mowers, to expert systems in medical diagnosis... (I could keep going)
AI in consumer products is literally *already* ALL around us.
Saying that consumer AI "has no future" is like looking around at the world today and saying "personal cars have no future" - it's completely idiotic because to anyone with half an ounce of perception that future is ALREADY here.
It's like looking at a forest and claiming there are no trees
...may have a deep aversion to the tenet of being "judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Yeah, I just find it funny when well intentioned folk say things like: "I don't see color" or "I am blind to skin color" - meaning that they will treat you like an individual instead of like a racial stereotype - and then they get remorselessly attacked for "erasing identity".
These days it's wrong *NOT* to treat someone like a stereotype; you MUST treat people differently based on their racial identity if you DON'T want to be a racist.
Oh, please. I've written "pattern recognition and reasoning operations" for my entire career. Using that as a definition is too vague to be of any use.
And yet it encompasses like 95% of GOFAI...
Go figure; or perhaps you'd like to argue the point with Peter Norvig?
But "hate speech" has no meaning as a term.
Other than the legally defined one I'm talking about you mean?
At the point where you make an actionable threat against another person or group of people, your speech stops being "speech" and becomes "assault."... - assaultive language is not what most people are calling 'hate speech' these days...
I don't know about most people, but I'm going by how the federal government defines it.
... and the idea of censoring people online has less to do with actionable threats and more to do with unpopular ideologies.
Don't know whatever that is^, but it's not "hate speech" obv...
Oh so advocating aborting fetuses is hate speech. Got it, thanks!
Nope, fetuses != people
>p>Nice troll though
You're conflating "hate speech" with "incitement".
No I'm not, I'm using the federal government's definition.
What kind of an idiot believes that regexes are AI?
Uh, anyone who actually knows what they're talking about?
Regexs are finite-state machines, and finite-state machines are AI.
Regexs came out of the study of computational theory, formal systems, language structure and automata theory, in the early days of AI.
They are pretty directly related to the work of Turing himself, and in many ways can be regarded as the first successful application of AI. Regexs are one of our attempts to understand the structure of language from a computational perspective.
If that's not AI according to you, it's only because you disingenuously insist on the equivocation that only "generalized human level AI" is AI.
Oh no, someone mentioned skin color. Racist! Racist! Racist.
Wait, I thought these days you are racist if you DON'T mention skin color? People keep saying that "not seeing skin color" is racist, so...
....can YOU give me a concrete definition of hate speech that is more objective than "language that makes me or someone I like very sad"?
Yes, of course. It's not hard unless you're a total moron or being deliberately disingenuous.
It's dead simple: hate speech is any speech that incites or advocates for physical violence against an identifiable group of people.
Like I could say "you're an idiot", and that wouldn't be hate speech, even though it makes you sad.
However, if I said "let's kill all the idiots" it would definitely be hate speech against you.
...there is no such thing as hate speech...
So your saying it's literally IMPOSSIBLE to advocate for physical violence against an identifiable group of people?
Like, if I wanted to, I would be unable to utter the words: "Let's go kill all the republicans"?
...if you say something I disagree with I call it hate speech.
Defines hate speech as 100% subjective...
That is not subjective at all.
...but apparently doesn't actually know what the word means
Whereas the ACTUAL definition of hate speech is anything inciting or advocating for physical violence against and identifiable group of people.
"I don't think we should allow muslims into the country" ==> NOT hate speech
"We should kill all the muslims" ==> hate speech
There's really no confusion unless you're a moron, but I guess that's why you're posting AC...
That's because all of the learning/reasoning software that we proudly call AI is not AI at all.
Yes it is.
It's just a series of pattern recognition and reasoning operations ...
.
Uhm... but that would make those systems AI and you just said they weren't, so now you're pulling a "Trump" and contradicting yourself within a single statement.
Ah! I see the confusion! You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
By "true" AI, I guess you mean "general AI" of human intelligence? Actual AI encompasses a LOT more than that.
In other words, hate speech filters are not likely to start working any time soon.
AI doesn't exist yet.
General, human level AI doesn't exist yet, but that's only a small subset of the field. AI is actually pretty ubiquitous. There' very likely a fuzz logic controller in your dishwasher and washing machine to control water levels.
... they're fucking *brilliant* at CREATING it!
https://www.theverge.com/2016/...
It just looks like MATLAB to me.
"looking like matlab" isn't a pro...
Matlab isn't niche.
No, but it IS ugly!
Not everyone is independently rich enough to take useless degrees just for fun...
Well, the jerk-off mods are out in force today :(
How in the hell is expressing an aesthetic opinion "flamebait"?
Don't mod shit down just because you disagree, moron.
Because since Python started overtaking Perl, my cats are sad because they can't write fully compliant programs just by random walking across the keyboard anymore.
At least *someone* is thinking of our feline sysadmins...
Everything else just turns into a clusterfuck over time.
Exactly, try looking at ANY fully functional Julia code (not the trivial examples from docs & tutorials) - it's ALREADY a giant clusterfuck, it's unreadable gobbledygook on any kind of usable scale that isn't a trivial demo.
...but why did they have to make it look so damn ugly?!?
I mean the syntax looks like the bastard child of Fortran and Perl - yuck!
... every conversation I've ever heard about air pollution was COMPLETELY full of idiots...
I'd agree, these are symptoms of psychological dependence. But no, addiction does not necessarily require physical withdrawal symptoms according to the most current definitions that are used in psychology.
Your misunderstanding of the terms involved only serves to prove my point, let me clarify for you:
"behavioural addiction" == psychological dependence
"addictive disorder" == psychological dependence
"substance use disorder" == addiction
Changing the names doesn't alter the underlying concepts. What used to be called "addiction" is now called "substance use disorder" and what used to be called "psychological dependence" are now called "addictive disorders"/"behavioural addiction".
Just because the new label for an old concept (psych. dependence) includes the same symbol "addiction", as the old label for another old concept (physical addiction") DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE THE SAME THING.
Like I could change the name of "orange juice" to "yellow milk" and change the name of "milk" to "cow juice"; but that DOESN'T make orange juice the same thing as milk.